₦airaland Forum

Now, just to show you how untenable some of your own presumptiions are, consider this -

garyarnold:
. . . and even though under the Mosaic law the victor did not own all the war spoils.

Typical - you just arranged your fallacies around the globe, make statements and then show no verse for your assertion about your claims in the Mosaic Law.

Here again is clear text that under the Mosaic Law the spoils belonged to the victors by rights of conquests -

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

. . . Now read verse 14 -

[size=14pt]14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.[/size]

So please show where in the Mosaic law you saw where "the victor did not own all the war spoils" - please oblige us.



What is even more remarkable is that this fact of ownership by rights of conquest is UNIVERSALLY KNOWN in scholarly works. I gave you a few references to check up when we discussed this in other places - I have been waiting forever for you to produce a single scholarly reference to show your denial. How long should I wait, sir?

garyarnold:
Wordtalk makes the assumption that the goods Abram tithed from belonged to him, even though the Word doesn't say it, and even though Abram said he would keep nothing that belonged to someone else, and even though Abram was returning the people and goods to their original owners, and even though under the Mosaic law the victor did not own all the war spoils.  Wordtalk says that Abram wouldn't have given a tithe of the spoils if he didn't own them.  Nothing but assumptions.  God's Word doesn't tell us why Abram gave the tenth.

I did not make assumptions but have indicated that the spoils belonged to Abraham by rights of conquest. If the spoils did not belonged to Abraham, that would have been theft rather than tithes. Funny enough, the inspired Scriptures refer to his gifts as TITHES in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and NT (Heb. 7:6).

When you alleged that I had assumed that the spoils belonged to Abraham by rights of conquest, you could not show me ANY VERSE in Scripture that denied the fact! I showed my point from Deuteronomy 20:14; Numbers 31:53; 1 Samuel 30:20, that the spoils ALWAYS belonged to the victor - yet you could not show any verse anywhere to deny the point.

Here is how I discussed this very issue in an article on my blog, in direct answer to the very same query you have recycled here:

The third implication above seems the most plausible: Abraham gave tithes from what he legitimately claimed from the victory in that war. There are reasons for this inference, and a few of them are considered below.

The meaning of Melchizedek’s Blessings

The fact that the spoils belonged to Abraham is found in the meaning of Melchizedek’s blessing in Gen. 14:20 – “And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” The significance of God delivering their enemies into their hand is found in Deut. 20:10-14, with the implication of the spoils in verses 13-14:

"And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Abraham was not under the law of Moses when he tithed to Melchizedek; yet the fact rings true and has always been that “the victor claims the spoils” – and that is what we find in the blessing of the priest-king in Gen. 14:20. God had delivered Abraham’s enemies into his hand, and from that victory he had a legitimate claim to the spoils as affirmed in Deut. 20:10-14.

It would be needless at this point to further establish Abraham’s claim to the spoils; but the fact is strengthened when we compare with other references on the same subject.

see more:  http://givingtithes.com/did-abraham-tithe-from-his-own/

In another instance where you kept on with this wonder about the fact of Abraham's claim on the spoils, I outlined a few questions for you to consider:

@Gary,

Accusing me of what you cannot prove is beyond a joke.

My question was simple - and I gave you verses after verses plus an external source, using the very basic of all exegetical principles to show my case, and comparing scripture with scripture to establish meaning.

(1) What exegetical principle did you show in your argument? NONE.

(2) Where did you compare scripture with scripture in your arguments? NONE.

(3) [size=14pt]What external source did you use for your argument to show that spoils DID NOT belong to victors by right of conquest? NONE.[/size]

(4) [size=14pt]Which one of your cited dictionaries denied that spoils belonged to victors? NONE.[/size]

(5) [size=14pt]Which verse in Scripture tells you that spoils did not belong to victors? NONE.[/size]

(6) [size=14pt]What have you said about ANY of the verses that show indeed the FACT that spoils ALWAYS belonged to the victors by right of conquest? NOTHING.[/size]

(7) What have you said about Deuteronomy 20:14; Numbers 31:53; 1 Samuel 30:20, etc? NOTHING.

( What have you said about the scholarly work of Hugo Grotius that I cited for you? NOTHING.

After laying these things plainly, you showed absolutely nothing for your counter argument. Then you accuse me of having a closed mind, yes? Lol.

So, when you go about making fallacious allegations on what you cannot show and duck behind the lame excuses you often give, think again on the verses I cited (Deuteronomy 20:14; Numbers 31:53; 1 Samuel 30:20) as examples to show that it was well acknowledged that the spoils of war ALWAYS belonged to the victors by rights of conquest. If you disagree, you're very welcome to show that is not the case from Scripture - is that too hard for you to do?

debosky:
The passage in Corinthians is referring to the principle supporting people primarily working for God being supported by the ministry, not to tithing as a principle. I come to this conclusion based on Numbers' main thrust being the receipt of support, not the specifics of how this support is received. Furthermore, Paul's omission of the specifics of how this support is to be provided buttresses this view.

In 1 Corinthians 9:13, Paul did not make omissions, and the point was indeed in answer to your request for "even ONE example in the NT where the Levitical system of tithing was used to as a principle to encourage giving". If the citation of 1 Corinthians 9:13 does not answer your request, please tell me what system other than the Levitical system Paul was referring to in that verse.

If you are arguing that this passage is an indication of a principle of tithing, does it also indicate a principle of 'wave offerings' too? Because this was also used to provide for those who served in the temple.

Specifically, the parallel passage in Numbers 18 was about the tithes in the Levitical system - and that is the same thing concerning the Levitical system in Hebrews 7 which mentions tithing rather than other types of resources for support.

True, there were various offerings (such as the heave and wave offerings in Numbers 18:8 & 11); yet, whatever they offered were in principle found in verse 21, where the Levites are in view - "I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation" (KJV).

It is therefore not difficult to see what Paul was pointing to in 1 Corinthians 9:13 in reference to those who served particularly in the Temple and the Altar.

Further, the tithes of Israel bore the character of a heave offering according to Numbers 18:24 - "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit, " etc. It shows that Israel's tithes were offered as a heave offering in this verse. The question rather would be to seek out the basic meaning of a 'heave offering'. Do this and let's compare our notes.

My question as shown above is quite straightforward - what is the principle here? Is it the support of ministers or is it tithing? If tithing is being endorsed as a principle as you suggest, we should also come to the conclusion that 'wave offering' is also a principle being endorsed, so is 'firstfruits', and the giving of the offspring of every womb no?

My answers were also straightforward - and I went further to show you the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law as a principle. I feel that the difficulty here is not one of communication, but of how you read these things. If one reads them simply in black and white, then it is no wonder to find you highlighting each type or name of offerings - which is why I have just pointed out above from Numbers 18:24 that Israel's tithes were viewed as a heave offering rather than separate the one from the other.

Agreed - but do you seek out this particular principle to the neglect of others? Is this seeking of principles completely capricious or otherwise?

How do you mean?

That was a tongue-in-cheek question to establish the methodology of your principle seeking.

Oh, I see. Have you read me over and again make the point of HERMENEUTICS and EXEGESIS? If you're basically about a methodology, I'd like to remind you of what I said earlier: "There is no problem with seeking a Biblical principle - ask a sound theologian what it means in Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis." In short, the methodology I have used is that which theologians are well at home with in their hermeneutics.

So tithing is the 'spirit of the Law'? If that is true, are 'wave offerings' and 'first offspring of the womb' also principles in this same manner?

Please see again the difference between 'the letter of the law' and the 'spirit of the law' in order to find the basic meaning of a Biblical principle. When you do so, you perhaps will go away happy to know that Israel's tithes were viewed as a heave offering rather than a separation between them - see Numbers 18:24.

Do humour me - my style might appear 'slow' but the intent is to really get to clarity about what you deem the passage to be referencing - tithing or everything else in Numbers? If it references principles, which are principles and which are not?

I find discussing with you interesting enough, so no humours there.

The references for all intents and purposes were first in answer to your request that I bring forth "even ONE example in the NT where the Levitical system of tithing was used to as a principle to encourage giving". In so far as that was the initial request, 1 Corinthians 9:13 shows that Paul was pointing to the Levitical system of tithing as a principle to encourage giving - at any rate, that verse points to the Levitical system. if you feel otherwise, please let me know what other "system" he might possibly have been referring to than the Levitical system. Perhaps, from there you might begin to see the gist about the said principle.

debosky:
Circumcision as carried out by Abraham and the Israelites involved cutting of the foreskin to show consecration. That practice has no credit in showing consecration. Does that help you understand?

I never claimed that outward circumcision in the flesh had any credit; I only made a distinction between the "outward" and that of "the heart", while pointing out that it is not a matter of legalism.

The principle referred to in Corinthians refers to treading oxen and not to tithing. Where is the reference to the tithing practice/principle when teaching about giving?

Have you read Numbers 18 and compared with 1 Corinthians 9:13? Is it difficult to see that Paul was referring to the Levitical system when he said in verse 13 - "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?"

So, if you were looking for "even ONE example in the NT where the Levitical system of tithing was used to as a principle to encourage giving", you have it in Paul's epistle in 1 Corinthians 9:13.

There are numerous references to the Law of Moses in the NT, please highlight one relating to the Law of Moses on tithing when it comes to teaching on giving.

Answered just above.

Again, this is more obfuscation - there is NO REFERENCE to tithes in that passage.

Please OPEN YOUR BIBLE and R-E-A-D the references. I have highlighted them and cited the parallel passages - 1 Corinthians 9:13 and Numbers 18. Please let me know if your own copy of the Bible does not reference tithing in Numbers 18!

A reference to the law of Moses is not an endorsement of everything therein.

I never claimed an endorsement of everything - which is why I have often pointed out the huge difference between legalism and principle. Legalists ask for an endorsement of "everything" exactly as written in black-and-white in the Law; that is an entirely different thing from seeking out a "principle".

If that is what you are claiming, could we then say, on the basis of I Corinthians, that the principle of an eye for an eye is acceptable for Christians today?

If you find that in 1 Corinthians, please show and let's discuss.

The problem with your 'principle' argument is that you are tacitly saying the above statement is true - I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

There is no problem with seeking a Biblical principle - ask a sound theologian what it means in Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. The problem with those who cannot find the principle is that they are tending to literalism. Perhaps this quote from Wikipedia may help further in showing the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law -

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis.

When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter" of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law.

Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

This is why I have tried to show again and again that even though Paul referred to the Law, he was more concerned with the spirit of the Law rather than a literal application without its principle. Take again the case of circumcision, Paul in Romans 2:29 notes that "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter", and we know that Moses in the Law pointed out the same thing in Deut. 30:6.

There is a world of difference between a legalistic interpretation (adhering to the 'letter of the law') and a Biblical principle ('the spirit of the Law'). While the Law was used by the NT apostles to teach Christian doctrines, it does not mean that they were promoting the 'letter of the law'.

Then why are you asking for evidence of where God said 'literally' that he didn't want Tithes of money? Surely you see the contradiction in this position?

I asked only because the one who was making the assertion only managed to tacitly acknowledge there was tithes of money, albeit in the form of a levy. My question was whether in such a case, even that money tithes was rejected.

Now kindly subject your 'tithing principle' to the same test - by providing a reference to the same principle in the NT juxtaposed against the Law of Moses.

Do I repeat again all I have said about 1 Corinthians 9:13-14? Should I take it that you really have never sought to read those references before replying? Maybe I should give you time to check them out and save us the needless repetition.

debosky:
Ok so Abraham's tithe included money - so what? It was a voluntary gift and nothing more.

If you acknowledge this, there's nothing more to say. Thank you.

What many anti-tithers may not have realised is the fact that Biblical tithing could also be voluntary - which is why I have repeatedly made the point that I don't argue tithing by a mandatory idea.

Again, this voluntary act does not denote that we should follow it. The most salient example of this is circumcision - it is not a requirement neither will doing it give you any credit with God.

Let me remind you again: seek for the principle, not the legalistic application of dry 'letters'. Circumcision has its varied applications, although the basic meaning is consecration. Paul explained what circumcision actually is - "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter" (Rom. 2:29) - and Moses in the Law already affirmed the same thing in Deut. 10:16 and 30:6. So, while circumcision in the OT is often outward in the flesh, its inherent principle was a matter of the heart, so that Paul could say in Php. 3:3 - "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh."

It is in light of its real meaning that you cannot maintain that circumcision has no credit - please consider the basic principle and revise your assertions.

Kindly extract such a similar reference to the 'tithing principle' when giving was taught in the NT. Surely given the extensive teachings of Paul (and other apostles) on this subject he would not have ignored such an important principle in his teachings?

No, he did not ignore it - and I have pointed the reader to 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. The question is obvious: if the Law does not provide us with the principle, then what part of Scripture was Paul referring to in verse 13? Earlier in verse 9 and 10, he was clearly referring to the Law of Moses, in principle rather than in legalistic applications.

Can you bring forth even ONE example in the NT where the Levitical system of tithing was used to as a principle to encourage giving?  

Please see 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. If you guys would just calm down, open your Bible and READ these references before reacting, it would make all the difference! I have cited that passage MANY TIMES ALREADY!

One second you claim people are literally reading the 'letter' and now you want letter evidence?

I've been consistent in seeking out and pointing to principles rather than literalism. If you want me to expatiate on this, I would gladly.

One more comment on this 'having to do with God' Jepthah's promise of sacrificing his daughter had to do with God - is that the necessary and sufficient evidence for us to adopt it as a valid practice?

Depends on what you actually mean and in what context - literal or in principle. I have no doubt that Christians are involved in the sacrifice of themselves to God; the problem is that many see that as a literal application, which it is not. So, yes - there is a valid lesson in our sacrifice of our own selves, but not in the literal sense - see Romans 12:1-3 ("present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."

greatnig:
The following verse explains the position of Christ in relation to the
existing Old Covenant Law.

Galatians 4 does not argue against tithing in the Bible, especially because not all occurrences of tithing in the Bible were a matter of the Mosaic Law. Besides, tithing in the Bible (both Abraham's and the Levitical tithes) had nothing to do with redemption or salvation; so trying to use Galatians 4 as a precedence for a negation of tithes does not say anything about the fact that Abraham was not under the Mosaic Law when he gave tithes to Melchizedek.

For the same reason he compelled tithing in Matthew 23:23. The Law of
Moses was still in force during the life of Christ. It would have been
'sin' for Christ at this time to have taught against the Law of Moses!

Do 'the weightier matters of the law' have any place in your Christian life even though the Law of Moses is not still in force for Christians? What part of Scripture was Paul referring to in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 when he taught about support for preachers of the Gospel - was it not the same Law of Moses?

Christians are not called to legalism, that is why the apostles could still use the Law of Moses to draw principles for Christian applications. To live by legalism is to see things in a literal sense rather than seek out the inherent principle. It is by that inherent principle of the Law that many people have found it helpful to give tithes of their resources rather than being tied down with legalistic interpretations of the OT.

This is why it amazes me that after all the arguments from those who oppose tithing, one finds that some anti-tithing theologians are still agreeing with tithing pastors that Christians can give/pay tithes! They may excuse their self-contradictory stance when confronted with the fact, because they know that sound hermeneutics is not about legalism or literalism in Biblical exegesis.

^^
I have. I just wondered if there was something I had possibly missed.

Enigma:
God certainly said He didn't want tithes in money. In one instance it was absolute; in another instance he imposed a penalty/levy for whoever wanted to give/pay tithes in money.

Did He altogether reject the tithes in money even with the levy imposed? Where?

Enigma:
1. You have not shown that Abram tithed money> you are assuming and presuming.

Abraham's spoils of war would very well have included some form of money; which raises this point in yours:

2. . . . (there is greater evidence that slaves were included in the spoils of war than there is for money)

Is that to say that you readily find slaves in spoils of war than you would find money in them? I hope not, because there is equal evidence that money was included in spoils of war. The fact that spoils of war in Biblical history most often included money could be seen in these two examples among others -

(a) spoils of war included other things like garments and money (such as "shekels of silver and gold" as in Josh. 7:21

(b) spoils of war included animals, jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets and money, such as in Numbers 31:50-54. Even here, the sum of money they offered from the spoils taken is given as "sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels", and we are not told if that was 1% or 10% of the total sum taken in the spoils (we often read anti-tithers argue that God only "required" 1% or less of the spoils in Numbers 31, but only if the reader ignores verses 52-54 could such fallacy be maintained).

There are other examples, but this was just to remind you of the evidence for money in spoils that you might be wondering about.

2. If Abram is who to follow, then people today should also be able to tithe slaves

Depends on what you mean by 'follow' - either in the literal sense of reading the 'letter' or rather to follow his principle. A Biblical principle is not the same thing as a legalistic or literal reading in 'application'. Yes, the principle of the tithe (in terms of its basic definition as a 'tenth') understands that there is more than a literal application of the term in the Bible.

3. If you are using Abram's tithe as the basis for teaching tithing today, there is no basis for saying "God wants tithes" at all let alone to say that "God want Tithes of Money". At best, you can tell people you have an option to tithe ---- to tithe slaves, goods, ewedu, spinach oh and money too. You will not be fighting such tooth and nail with all these obfuscation.

The basis of the principle is this - in proportion to what the Lord has blessed you with (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Sound theologians do not have a problem with 'proportional giving'; it is the legalistic form of any type of giving that is at the root of their contention.

Further, Paul in 1 Cor. 9:13-14 referred to the Levitical system under the Law when he taught on giving in the NT. He was not making a case for literal application of farm produce in Israel; but it is understood that he was pointing out a principle in verse 14 where he said "[On the same principle] the Lord directed that those who publish the good news (the Gospel) should live (get their maintenance) by the Gospel" (Amplified). You can compare Numbers 18 with 1 Corinthians 9:13.

So Does God want tithes? Does God want tithes of money?

God has never once rejected the tithes and other offerings of His people except on one grounds: robbery. I would like to see any verse where God said He specifically does not want tithes or that He does not want tithes of money. That would then lead us to ask whether or not Abraham's tithes had anything to do with God.

Enigma:
Meanwhile, let us see you stand up and show some courage --- answer my questions/queries.

Please stop acting like a legal orator, lol. I already answered your questions and offered to explain my answer if you would like me to do so. Perhaps you're needlessly repeating yourself in those questions, such as this one already addressed -

Where in the Bible was a tithe or tenth of money or salary required or practised?

Above all, God said He didn't want the tithe in money!

He didn't say so - otherwise it would be meaningless to find the involvement of money as exchange for stuff in Deut. 14:25-26.

Enigma:
^^^ OK then: Abram's tithe was voluntary and a one off --- thus a Christian can choose just the once to give a tithe of money. In fact, he can choose not to tithe with monet but to tithe with ewedu, spinach, onions, garden eggs, clothes that he seizes off the backs of his debtors etc etc

Lol, is that "OK then" somewhat your saying you agree with what I implied? I don't know - but it wouldn't matter.

The point I wanted to highlight is that tithes in the Bible were not "ONLY farm produce" but included other stuff, as well as money. The implication is easy, since most of the anti-tithing theologians I've read also use other passages to discuss 'tithes' from spoils of war (whether or not such passages are not about tithes specifically). I don't know if some of these guys are actually joking around from this point, which makes me wonder at garyarnold's 'tithe of trash'.

If we can see this simple point, why do some keep arguing that tithes in the Bible were nothing other than farm produce?

Or when else did Abraham give/pay tithes from his regular income? When else did he give/pay tithes of money or of any other sort?

The important thing is that the Bible referred to Abraham's gifts as TITHES in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and the NT (Heb. 7:6). Some may stretch their denials to say that Abraham did not tithe, etc., etc., in complete rejection of those verses.

Nonetheless, Abraham gave tithes from what he could rightfully claim as his own - otherwise it would be incomprehensible to argue his gifts as his tithes if they did not first belong to him.

So on what basis then is the teaching of the continuing obligation to give or "pay" tithes from salary??

Please read me carefully, as I have to repeat this: "I don't argue tithes on a mandatory commandment or law." It is a principle and not by a legalistic exercise.

Enigma:
Old tricks.  I even answered anyway: spoils of war included slaves. So, did Abram (as he was) give a tithe of slaves?

Fine, and here's my answer:

Spoils of war included money as well. If that is true, what would this have implied in Abraham's tithes?

The one thing I wanted to address is the fallacy often made that Biblical tithes were ONLY farm produce. I asked the second question for the sole reason of not wanting to risk misunderstanding you and supposing the "ONLY farm produce" was your interpretation. If you want me to explain what I mean by my answer, I will also gladly do so.

Enigma:
If you cannot deal with the questions/issues I raised please hands up, man up and admit it. As it is, you have no right or privilege now to expect any more answers from me. I asked you questions, you didn't answer; you asked me a question, I answered. You continue to refuse to deal with my queries, yet you want me to answer your self-defeating question of what was in the spoils of war. OK, included were slaves --- did he "tithe" slaves too?

If you simply would not answer, honourably say so. The question I raised is to help address your concerns in context - if you don't like that, no big deal.

Enigma:
^^^ The demons too believe that Jesus is the son of God ---- so they must be "born again"

Seriously? No further comments, unless you were kidding.

^^ The reason I ask these questions is simple: the default answer often given by those vehemently opposed to tithing is that all mention of tithes in the Bible are ONLY farm produce - nothing other than that.

If that were the case, I wonder what these folks make of "spoils of war" - were they also "farm produce"?

Enigma:
^^^^ Both garyarnold and myself agree with you that "tithe" means "tenth" ---- there is no debate there so please stop doing this obfuscation!

I wasn't obfuscating anything, unless you also agree to confuse between the DEFINITION and an APPLICATION of something.

Enigma:
OK, I will indulge you: Abraham gave a tithe (or tenth) of the spoils of war.

So please deal with the questions/issues I raised.

I will deal with them, if I can ask yet again: what does spoils of war consist of? The same as "crops grown in their gardens?" or "Of furniture produced by a carpenter?"

Enigma:
You keep asking again and again the same questions that had been addressed; this has happened a number of times.

Cornelius was a "God-fearing" person; thus he believed in God. Most crucially, God found this acceptable!

Let's see if you will still ask the same question in a different way.


PS I did not respond to your John 2 point because it was another red herring --- if you are interested in it further please go and study what it could mean to say "Jesus did not entrust himself to them" ---- ask if a pastor "entrusts himself" to all "born agains" in his "church".

John 2 is not difficult to understand in context; and shows a simple case that just because we find the word "believe" in the NT, it does not necessarily indicate "born again". People can "believe" in the power of Jesus' Name to cast out demons and do mighty works - if such "believe" translated to being born again, why would Jesus say He never knew them in Matthew 7:22-23?

Nicodemus believed in God, else how would he have been able to say that to Jesus, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God"? Yet, he was the one who was being preached to by Jesus about being born again.

It's true I've been asking questions around Cornelius; but your explanations seem rather presumptive - there doesn't seem to be a persuasion in them that shows Cornelius having been born again before Peter was sent to him, especially in light of Acts 11:13-14.

Enigma:
Where in the Bible is a "tithe" of money or salary required or practised?

Please tell me: what did Abraham's tithes consist of?

garyarnold:
Everyone on this blog can see the type of person you are.  You are making a fool out of yourself.

I'm not big on accusing people; but perhaps Proverbs 10:18 should help when you slander others?

I have to keep going over the same thing.

Leviticus 27:30-33, Numbers 18:  The First Tithe - a tenth of crops and animals and commanded to take the tithe to the Levites.  This is the ONLY tithe that God CLAIMED to be HIS, and HE GAVE this tithe to the Levites.

Mr, please tell me: since when did the word "tithe" cease from meaning a "tenth"?

You keep evading this question so you can dribble round it to jump at what it consists of; but after all you've done, please try and give me an answer to my question - it's not rocket science.

Deuteronomy 14:22-27:  The Second Tithe aka The Festival Tithe - a tenth of crops, plus add to that the firstborn animals, and take for the yearly feast.  God did NOT give this tithe to anyone.

He did not give this tithe to anyone or "He didn't claim either tithe in Deut to be His"?
So, if He didn't give this tithe in Deuteronomy to anyone, (and yet "He didn't claim either tithe in Deut to be His", WHO received these tithes and to WHOM did they belong?

Did the tithes in Deut have anything to do with God?

Deuteronomy 14:28-29:  The Third Tithe aka The Three-Year Tithe aka The Poor Tithe - a tenth of crops, kept at home, and invite the Levites, widows, orphans, stranger to eat.  God did not give this tithe to anyone, but He did direct who to invite.

This doesn't even begin to make sense. He didn't give this tithe to anyone and yet He invited some people to receive the tithes? This is knock-out!

Look garyarnold, stop wrapping this all in further confusion for yourself. The tithes in Deuteronomy belonged to God on grounds of worship and were received by His people on grounds of fellowship. All this talk about God not claiming the Deut tithes is airy - just tell us who the tithes belonged in simple terms.

The simple word "tithe" means a tenth.  I have never said it didn't.  I have said the Lord's tithe goes beyond just a "tenth" of anything.

If it means more than a tenth, please show us. Is that hard?

Enigma:
^^^ Just one question: when was Cornelius (and his household too for that matter) "born again"?

^^ This was why I claimed ignorance earlier for you to tell me. To me, such a question presupposes another: when did Cornelius (and his household for that matter) become "believers" if this equates to the same thing as having been born again?

What I could say is that Cornelius was not considered born again before Peter was sent to tell him words by which he should be saved; otherwise it would make Acts 11:13-14 meaningless, incoherent at best. Cornelius was not waiting to hear words from Peter by which the former was already saved; rather, he (Cornelius) was to hear words from Peter by which the former should be saved.

garyarnold:
wordtalk,

You take what I say out of context just as you do with God's Word.

No, I did not; and your words are definitely not at par with God's Word.

Did I say the tithes in Deut were not God's?  I said God only CLAIMED the tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33 to be His.  He distinguished that tithe from the others.

From which "others" did God distinguish His tithes in Leviticus, when you made the point that "He didn't claim either tithe in Deut to be His"? That kind of talk would only mislead people to think that you're asserting that the tithes in Deuteronomy were not His since "He didn't claim either tithe in Deut to be His" according to you! You shouldn't be making statements that have no bearing on what you intend to say, rather than return to complain altogether.

I have made my points.  You want to use the definition of a word and ignore it's Biblical application.

I hope you can read? I have tried to call attention to BOTH the "definition" and the "application", rather than ignore either one of them. I also noted earlier that: 'While the word "tithe" is simply defined a "tenth", its application is seen in several things in Scripture' - so how do you arrive at this idea that I was ignoring its Biblical application?

That how we get false teachers that teach firstfruits offerings applies to your income.  Firstfruits offerings in the Bible ALWAYS applies to the first of the crops and NEVER on income.  It's taking a definition and ignoring the application.

So, okay - others are false teachers, etc. etc., etc. except you, even though your arguments are so full of errors! I am still waiting for your answer to the simple question I asked earlier: "so, since when did the word "tithe" cease from meaning a "tenth"? If it no longer means "tenth", please tell us what other meaning it has in your theology."

I can play this game too, as I am now.  I can tithe anything I want and you should agree that I can call it tithing.  If you disagree, then it is YOU who is defining what a tithe is.

I have not been playing any games as you have been doing, and you're certainly welcome to give your church all the' trash' in your trash can by your own logic, not mine. Your words are still there for all to read, and not once did I infer the trash in your logic.

Enigma:
On what basis would that be? And do show the examples from the apostles' preaching.

John 9:28 was an example in reference to "disciple"; but since you considered that a red herring, what do you make of people who actually "believe" and yet not considered "saved" in context of John 2:23-25?

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

I'm afraid this is a red herring. Here is the relevant bit from Acts 19
Since they believed what or whom? Put that together with them being "disciples", I don't think it is difficult to figure out what or whom they believed.

You seem to be assuming that because they were "disciples", that translates into their already having been "born again" before Paul asked them to believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 19:4). It was when they heard what Paul was calling them to believe in (that is, Jesus Christ), we then read in verse 5 that they were consequently baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. I fail to see how this would be the case if they were already were born again before those verses.

The Acts 19 passage makes clear that the above interpolation is a glaring error of reading into scripture. Here

No, it was not an interpolation of error - which was why I pointed out that John already mentioned the Holy Spirit as he preached about Jesus Christ (Matt. 3:11) as well the fact that believing Jews were very acquainted with the promise of the Holy Spirit mentioned throughout the Old Testament. It begs reason to assume that the meaning of Acts 19 was about their never heard any mention of the 'Holy Spirit' as if that was the very first time they heard the mention - but if we look this up in context of John 7:39, the meaning is clear.

Now this is a very good point (possibly the best point of the post) and shows the importance of reading scriptures in context and as a whole. Yes, they were told the message by which they were to be "saved". Nonetheless, we Christians say: 'we are saved, we are being saved and we will be saved'. Of course, even as believers now, the message of the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus is the message by which we are saved, being saved and will be saved. Now read just a little further in the same passage in Acts 11

God had a far more important point or message for Peter (and for us) in that episode than just "preaching salvation" ------- a clear and express demonstration that the gospel is equally for the gentiles! You see it in Peter's statement from Acts 11 just quoted above. Even before that, you see it clearly in Peter's statement in Acts 10:34

The question is simple: if Cornelius was to be considered born again ALREADY before Peter was sent, why yet was the apostle sent to go tell him words by which Cornelius and his family should be saved? Peter didn't see his going to Cornelius as a matter of telling him words by which he was already saved, but rather by which he was to be saved.

garyarnold:
wordtalk, I have given you the definition of "The Lord's tithe" many times.  God told us what His tithe consists of.

I asked you to give the definition of "tithes" - that is a different matter from what a tithe consists of - don't confuse between them.

God defined HIS tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33.  Take it or leave it.  Doesn't matter to me.

God did not "define" it the way you are playing with words, take it or leave it rather than confusing between things and arriving at your own illogical logic. In Leviticus 27:30-33, we find the application (that is, what the Levitical tithes consists of) - but the word "tithe" is not different from its definition of a "tenth".

If you want to play with God's Word, that is on you, not me.  The tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33 is the ONLY tithe that God claimed to be His.  He didn't claim either tithe in Deut to be His.  ONLY the one in Leviticus 27:30-33.  THAT is the ONLY ONE that is Holy to the Lord.

Okay, so He didn't claim the tithes in Deuteronomy to be His - meaning that the tithes spoken of in Deuteronomy were not God's??
When you play with words, the loss is yours. This is how you played this game about tithes and tenth concerning Abraham in Genesis and Hebrews until I had to correct you.

If you want to give a tenth of your income to the church, fine.  If you want to call it a tithe, I can't stop you.  In my opinion you are insulting God by doing so.  That is between you and God.

HOW am I insulting God by choosing to give a tithe or tenth of my resources? Why do you guys just jump to baseless conclusions as if He appointed you to be His personal secretaries??

What about your chief landlord anti-tithing theologian spelt out in capital letters in your "list"  earlier, Russell Kelly? What would you do if I showed you that he also agreed with a teacher who taught and encouraged tithing - would he also be insulting God?

If you don't know what to say, please refrain. You don't have to make unwarranted remarks just to justify your mindset on this issue.

Since it is YOU that wants to stick with the original definition of tithe, meaning a tenth, then I can use the term, as you do, anytime I give a tenth of anything.

Lol. Please garyarnold, please stop being so desperate! are you not the same fellow who said twice over that the tithe is defined as a tenth? Who then made these statements earlier -

garyarnold:
The word "tithe" means a tenth. Correct.

,  so, since when did the word "tithe" cease from meaning a "tenth"? If it no longer means "tenth", please twll us what other meaning it has in your theology. I'm open to consider your "new definition", trust me.

I marvel at your inconsistencies.

garyarnold:
Okay, all non-tithers.  Let's begin tithing by giving a tenth of whatever we choose.  Doesn't have to be our income.  Can be just anything.  And then tell all those who claim to be tithing that you, too, are a tither.

No, tell them you're using your own logic to arrive at this -

garyarnold:
1 - give a tenth (tithe) of the trash from the trash can to the church. Since everything belongs to God, if I give a tenth, I am tithing.

garyarnold:
Using Wordtalk's logic, I can say I am tithing if I:

1 - give a tenth (tithe) of the trash from the trash can to the church.  Since everything belongs to God, if I give a tenth, I am tithing.

2 - give a tenth (tithe) of the change I have in my pocket.  That's a tenth; therefore, it's a tithe; therefore, I am tithing.

3 - take a tenth of anything I have to the church.  That would be tithing.

Therefore, I could honestly say I am a tither.  I could honestly say I tithed to the church.

This much I have to say: you're not using my logic, but yours!

1. - You're free to give trash to the church and claim it belongs to God - that's you, not me.

2 and 3. - ALL sources defining the word "tithe" have always pointed out that its meaning is "TENTH".
I asked you to show any other DEFINITION of that word from any source, and I've waited forever for your answer.

Further, there's a difference between a DEFINITION and an APPLICATION.

While the word "tithe" is simply defined a "tenth", its application is seen in several things in Scripture. For those who have an anti-tithing mindset, it is difficult to see these easy things - which is why Ive asked you garyarnold to show the DEFINITION of that word as distinct from its applications.

We don't want to be legalistic here, so a tithe can be a tenth of ANYTHING.

The word "tithe" means "tenth" - is that not what even YOU have said earlier?

You see, the one thing I find really funny is your inconsistency. You make a statement, and later find problems with what even you have stated simply because you have made up your mind to think in only one manner.

I see.  NOW I see how easy it will be for me to tithe next time I go to church!  Can hardly wait to tell the pastor I am a tither!

You're free to use your own logic and give your "trash" - you'll be wining an award for your own logic, not mine.

Febup:
I'm not surprised buy you comment it is you who is a big fool. Anyway I have just been wasting words that are holy and my precious time with a dog and a pig like you that is using the Good New of the New Testament to steal from the people it is meant to set free from bondage

Whenever you start off a dialogue with a mindset to slander others, keep Proverbs 10:18 close to your chest - it will help you in your self-righteousness.

debosky:
This would work if the weightier matters as you call them were limited to the law, Jesus taught about them many times in other instances, so did the apostles thereafter.

I was particular in addressing the same verse (Matthew 23:23) which has been quoted several times by those wishing away the Law. The point is simple: to completely erase all mention of "the law" only shows how inconsistent such arguments would be. Quite often, the same issues were treated in connection with the Law, as Paul encapsulates it in Romans 13:10 in the case of love.

However, the teaching on tithe is distinctly missing from the apostles' teaching - something often downplayed by 'tithe advocates'.

That sounds like making a case for the "letter" of a teaching rather than the substance. Just because you don't find a particular word used in a NT document or specifically mentioned by Jesus or the apostles does not negate its substance or principle. If that is the case, then you could as well argue that Jesus never taught about GRACE simply because the word "GRACE" is distinctly missing from anything Jesus said directly!

In the same way, just because one does not find the word "tithe" in an epistle from the apostles does not mean they "rejected" it completely or "opposed" it. In very fact, Paul drew from passages of the OT Law on tithing in order to teach on support and sustenance for preachers of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 (compare Numbers 18).

This was why I mentioned principle, since we are not dealing with legalism of applying literal mention of each case scenario.

In actual fact, one could argue that the teaching of Jesus in the oft quoted Matthew passage was directed at a law oriented audience to point out the foolishness of the Pharisees.

Which is not the conclusion Jesus reached - which again makes it important to read His conclusion in that verse.

I never argued they were  - the other often quoted examples of Abraham and Isaac were one offs and voluntary in nature, not the regular,  mandatory monthly giving that is interpreted as tithing these days. In essence there is little or no semblance between the current tithing practice and those non-law tithing examples.

Semblance in principle, yes; but not in literalism.

The principle of giving - the principle that all belongs to God, nothing more.

And what is wrong in the way Abraham expressed this in giving a tithe of what he claimed at the time Melchizedek met him?

Whilst not ignored, it definitely does not impose a given percentage - rather, it is left for the giver to 'decide in his/her heart'. This is at polar opposites with those who believe a specific percentage as tithe is mandatory and separate from all other giving, and those who do not do so are 'robbing God'

That would rather not apply to me, since I already made it clear that I don't argue tithes on a mandatory commandment or law. This type of crossed argument between people is often airy, without substance. There's nothing against a Christian giving a tithe or tenth if they so please - but to argue all against tithing is simply erratic reasoning.

Febup:
Why is this principle of yours to do with stealing a tenth of worshipper’s income?

If I have stolen from you, your comments would be justified.
But over and again you only prove you're not close to reason.

We can both disagree on some issues; but to make your point with slander and falsely accusing people only reminds me of this verse for you -- "The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool" (Prov. 10:18).

debosky:
The 'weightier matters of the law' did not refer to tithing.

Never said they did. point was simple: for those who throw out the Law as having absolutely no part in their Christian lives, the question is: would they also throw out what Jesus termed the weightier matters of the Law in that verse? To cast out the Law and yet draw from what is cast away is dubious and inconsistent.

Under the law, the tithe was primarily a tithe of produce. Feel free to tithe your produce and comply with all the other laws as well while you are at it.

Not every case of Biblical tithes were under the Law. One who believes is free to give a tithe of what they choose if they so wish. To strain far too much on the letter of the Law tends only to legalism.

Besides, this commentary was in relation to a legalistic adherence to giving tithes while missing out on the more important aspects.

My point exactly.

The principle that exists is one of giving, not of how much is given - that is what many of you tithe advocates fail to recognise.

The "principle" of what? If you don't know what you doing, how do you find a "principle" for it? Besides, Biblical giving in whatever form does not ignore the question of "how much", which is what anti-tithers often fail to check out.

Febup:
Are we still under the Mosaic Law? And who were the people the mosaic law was meant for?

Have you ever heard of the word "principle"? Although Christians are not under the Law, can you deny that the New Testament apostles used the Law to teach Christian doctrines which Christians cannot reject today? Look again at the weightier matters of the Law in Matthew 23:23 - are they part of your Christian life or not?

How many times have you been to war with your enemies and you've brought back spoils of war to give your pastor as tithes? This was the only type of tithe that the Bible tells us Abram gave so it is pointless for you to bring Abram’s tithe into this. Jesus did not tell us to go to war with our enemies or is that what your Bible tells you?

Did Abraham's tithes have anything to do with God or not? It is indeed pointless to make you see anything in "principle" where you have already made up your mind to read only the 'letter' in a legalistic manner.

You are just trying to run away from the truth.

Nope, I'm only trying to keep away from your untruth and name-calling.

Febup:
I'm referring to the tithes collected in churches today, they are similar to those of the "teachers of the law, Pharisees and hypocrites" which Jesus was referring to, though false pastors have changed it to tithes of income.

Did you read the end of Matthew 23:23? If Jesus was condemning people for receiving tithes, how do you explain the fact that they should continue to receive tithes in the same way as they observe the weightier matters of the Law?

Abram's tithe to Melchizedek was a different kind of tithe so it is better you leave it out.

Sorry, I don't see the author of Hebrews 7 leaving it out, and that's why I discuss it as well. For too long, many anti-tithers have concluded wrong things about Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek that is why they always in a hurry to leave it out, or end up name-calling others out of desperation - which is why I'm not surprised at this part of your quote:

But if you insist on bringing this on then it just goes to show your are very deceitful and satan is very good at doing that.

I hope you remember to say the same things about your anti-tithing theologians when I show you that they also agree with tithing pastors? If you shy away from calling them the same name, perhaps it would be that your theologians have bigger deceit than you see in others you wrongly accuse.

Febup:
Ok here is another example, the tax collector below did not pay tax on his income as tax collector but he went home justified before God rather than the Pharisee who gave a tenth of all he gets.’ Yet I hear tithe payers boosting that God has blessed them more than those who don't give tithe of their income to false pastors.

What really is your point? It seems you're swaying this way and that and not able to hold a consistent view.

I didn't ask for "another example"; rather, I made the point that Matthew 23:23 is not the only verse that shows us the receivers of tithes in the Bible. Since you argued that the tithes in the Bible were "for teachers of the law, Pharisees and hypocrites", I asked you to show me where Melchizedek was any of those things. Do you have any verse for that?

You can't argue that the tithe in the Bible was "for teachers of the law, Pharisees and hypocrites" as if that is the only thing taught throughout the Bible concerning tithes. Just try and make some sense in what you say and mean, so that you won't have to asked to justify things that you cannot affirm.