₦airaland Forum

wordtalk:
Biblical priesthood in its broad sense is not merely about 'where the priest is forever available to INTERCEDE'. While intercession is one of the highlights of the Aaronic and other priesthoods (see Heb. 5:1-2), it is yet not the thrust of the Melchizedekan priesthood. The priesthood of Melchizedek is FAR MUCH MORE than intercession - it is one of TOTAL SALVATION.

Look back - the Aaronic priesthood, for example, was available for intercession where earthly priests could 'have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way' (cf. Heb. 5:2). The converted Jews were already familiar with the nature of 'intercessory priesthood'. But even this much reverred  intercessory priesthood of Aaron COULD NOT BRING SALVATION to anybody, including the priest himself, AARON!

I guess my post came out wrong. Intercession was not i what wanted to highlight. It is the aspect of being ‘forever available’ to perform the priestly function. My apologies.

wordtalk:
Melchizedek in Genesis 14 was not 'interceding' for Abraham, but rather pronounced blessings of salvation and victory (see Gen. 14:19-20a, and compare with Heb. 7:6).

I don't understand. Can you please expatiate?

wordtalk:
I don't know for sure what happened to such 'tenths' or tithes. Anything anyone might conclude on that would most probably be conjecture or hypothesis of one sort or another.

Okay. No need pursuing this further.

wordtalk:
In the OT, it was entirely essential that 'all Israel was reckoned by genealogies' (1 Chron. 9:1). When serious theocratic issues of national import were at stake, officers and participants were also to be determined by the genealogies. But where true Israelites could not establish their genealogies or pedigrees, they were regarded as 'as polluted, put from the priesthood' (see Neh. 7:61-64).

If therefore the writer had intended to demonstrate the durability and power of Melchizedek's priesthood merely on a question of 'no documentation', he would totally have lost his argument. Why? Because his converted Jewish recipients would immediately have interpreted Melchizedek's priesthood as a 'polluted priesthood' on the established basis of Nehemiah 7:64.

I am not sure the issue of pollution applies here. We are looking at two different periods here. Neh. 7:61-64 applies to a period where you have to be from the tribe of Levi to be priest. The Jews don’t joke with it. Priests were not restricted to a certain tribe prior to that era. Melchi was refered to as a priest in the records, nobody was going to dispute that hundreds or even thousand s of years after.

wordtalk:
No. Rather, as a title ('priest of the Most High God' - Gen. 14:20 and Heb. 7:1) used specifically for Melchizedek, the converted Jew would be able immediately to see that this priesthood was received directly from God without intermediaries. 

I still don’t see how title tells me anything other than he was a priest. The Levi priests were also priest of the Most High God. It’s either one is a priest of God or he is a priest of baal, or sango or zeus e.t.c. Even Aaron & his sons were referred to as a priest of God.

2 Chronicles 13:9 (KJV)
9[b]Have ye not cast out the priests of the LORD[/b], the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and have made you priests after the manner of the nations of other lands? so that whosoever cometh to consecrate himself with a young bullock and seven rams, the same may be a priest of them that are no gods.

wordtalk:
Melchizedek is not literally 'eternal' (which you also agree with); but only abides a priest continually on account of having received the priesthood directly from God. I think that's the point the author seeks to make in that verse 3.

You still don’t get it. This is not about priesthood where the priest retains a title of priest forever; we are talking about priesthood where the priest is forever available to intercede. Even Aaron retains the title of priest after death, but he died and was replaced. This priesthood differs from Levitical priesthood in that the levitical priest dies and another one replaces him. Christ priesthood is forever because he lives forever and not because he received the priesthood directly from God. We cannot say the same for Melchi. A fact you are fully aware of.

Hebrews 7:24-25 (KJV)
24[b]But this man, because he continueth ever[/b], hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

wordtalk:
Melchizedek is not literally 'eternal' (which you also agree with); but only abides a priest continually on account of having received the priesthood directly from God.

How do you abide a priest continually if you are not in office? You don’t find this interpretation even in the Hebrews verse.

wordtalk:
Melchizedek is not literally 'eternal' (which you also agree with); but only abides a priest continually on account of having received the priesthood directly from God.

Com'on wordtalk, are you saying you were ‘on ground’ when Melchi received his priesthood? We don’t know how Melchi received his priesthood, that’s the mystery.

wordtalk:
However, I think the question of 'why Melchizedek's priesthood is described as unchangeable' is answered in verse 16 and expounded upon in verses 20-21.

It was all about Christ from verse 11. The writer stopped talking about Melchi from verse 11. It was Christ priesthood that was described as unchangeable, simply because he lives forever. Unchangebility here is derived from being eternal. And i like to state one more time that Melchi is not eternal. Read verse 24-25 again

Hebrews 7:24-25 (KJV)
24[b]But this man, because he continueth ever[/b], hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

wordtalk:
(a) in verse 16, we find the basis on which Melchizedek's priesthood rests: the priesthood itself is based on 'the power of an endless life' and not on 'the law of a carnal commandment';

It appears you see the priesthood as belonging to Melchi. Please go back and read that verse starting from verse 15, you will see that the writer was talking about Christ here.

Hebrews 7:15-16 (KJV)
15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Christ came into office not by law\commandment but by power of a life that cannot be destroyed. In other words, he lives forever. This is where the Jews find similarities between Christ and Melchi. Melchi was a priest and it was not recorded that he died; he was seen as still being in office even when we all know he is not.

Hebrews 7:24-25 (KJV)
15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life

wordtalk:
(b) in verses 20-21, the Melchizedekan priesthood which Christ Himself has taken up is even more strongly affirmed on a the basis of a divine oath in contrast to all other types of priesthoods which were made 'without an oath'.

Christ did not take up Melchi’s priesthood. Secondly, The Hebrew verse is not telling us that the Melchi priesthood is attained on the basis of a divine oath. We don’t know how Melchi became a priest. 

wordtalk:
Put together, what this shows is that the priesthood of Melchizedek was given directly from God without intermediaries, in contrast to the Aaronic priesthood which was mediated through Moses.

I still don’t see how this proves that Melchi received his priesthood directly from God. The Hebrew writer is not saying it was a standard practice, all he has written was about Christ. I don’t even understand this idea of intermediary. It all came from God anyway you want to look at it.

wordtalk:
It depends on who you're including as 'descendants of Abraham'; but if you meant merely Isaac and Jacob, then Gen. 28:22 is just one example.

By descendant I meant Isaac all the way to the Israelites standing before Moses at the time he was reading out the law.

wordtalk:
We know that many people have a serious problem with the question of whether or not Jacob actually gave tithes (or, the 'tenths') to God - but that in itself does not negate the possibility of his actually doing so at some point in his life.

However, the tithes of Abraham's descendants did not have to be only from spoils of war. As in Jacob's example in Gen. 28:22, his tithes were to come from all that God would have given him without reference to warfare.

Thirdly, Scripture does not leave us with specifics or details as to how descedants of Abraham might have given tithes or the tenth to God - whether routinely or at special/specific events in their lives, or whether as burnt offerings or in some other way. The point is that the giving of the tenth was expressed in various ways - either from spoils of war or from one's personal possessions as blessings received from God.

I can see you are not willing to fully commit but let assume they tithed one way or another. I have one last question (hopefully); what happened to tenth the people were rendering just before Moses dished out the new tithing requirement? Did the people continue to render these tenths in their way in addition to complying with the new tithing requirement?

wordtalk:
This gentleman. . . why are you putting me on high jump? Please take a position  so we can know how to play our 'free-kick'.

We’ll get there, if you cooperate. No hard tackles please

wordtalk:
My bearing on this question in particular is that Abraham's tithes had great import on his progeny. So, on the one hand, his descedants indeed tithed; on the other hand, we do not read anywhere in the Bible that they did so in person.

Thanks wordtalk. If you don’t mind, I like to ask; is it possible the descendants of Abraham rendered similar gifts (i.e a tenth of war takings) as well routine tithing of tenths to a priest (that’s if they are able to find one ) or as burnt offering (where there are no priests).

wordtalk:
The question would rather be: what made Melchizedek great? It was not the greatness of his priesthood but rather the greatness of the man himself that the writer urged us to consider: 'consider how great this man was' (Heb. 7:4).

And you've given the answer already: it was his priesthood.

Melchi was considered great because of the ‘nature’ of his priesthood.

wordtalk:
Indeed, as converted Jews who were familiar with Judaism, their interest would immediately be heightened at this consistent usage - because they would recognize that the 'greatness' of Melchizedek rests on the character of a priesthood described as "an unchangeable priesthood" (Heb. 7:24).

That was what gave Melchizedek his 'greatness' above every other consideration - a priesthood that is "unchangeable".

True, Melchi was considered great because of a priesthood described as ‘unchangeable’. But why was Melchi priesthood described as unchangeable? You will find this in verse 3

Hebrews 7:3 (KJV)
3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

wordtalk:
If it could be shown that Melchizedek's priesthood was only transcient and not 'unchangeable', then even the man himself would bear nothing significant about him and would only have passed on into the sands of history like every other priests.

True talk. But I’ll add that the only reason it cannot be shown that Melchi priesthood ‘was only transcient’ is because there are no documentations. It is not because Melchi lives forever. Was Melchi truly without father and mother? You don’t find that in the bible. Even the Hebrew writer does not have such facts. Unless you are saying Melchi is Christ, and that something you still will not find in the bible.

Hebrews 7:8 (KJV)
8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Hebrews 7:24-25 (KJV)
24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.


Hebrew 7 described the Melchi\Christ priesthood as that of priests with eternal life. Can we really say Melchi continue to live? That would mean Melchi stand as high priest alongside Christ ‘for ever’. That cannot be true, there is only one high priest; Christ.

The Hebrews writer needed to ‘big up’ Melchi to achieve his objective, which was to get his target audience to focus on Christ.

wordtalk:
The Melchizedekan priesthood is not founded on a law of carnal commandment - but after the power of an endless life (Heb. 7:16). It puts this priesthood altogether on a different pedestal in nature from the Aaronic priesthood. It meant simply that Melchizedek is suggested to have received his priesthood direct from God and not through any intermediary such as Moses who inaugurated the Aaronic priesthood.

The life talked about here is that of Christ (not Melchi’s), achieved by his resurrection.

wordtalk:
The 'priest of the Most High God' (Heb. 7:1) - that title gave Melchizedek his greatness.

Are you saying the Levi priests (Aaron & his sons) were never priest of the Most High God?

wordtalk:
I think you get it wrong altogether.

No. I think you got me wrong.

wordtalk:
He was not trying to justify this or that about tithing.

Exactly! it was never about tithing, and that's what i have been saying here. It has nothing to do with one tithing act or law being subsumed into another. Thank you.

wordtalk:
It was not a 'comparison' between priests/priesthoods or between priest versus tithe payer. Rather, the chapter establishes WHY and HOW Christ is the subject of the Christian faith and life.

As the writer's ultimate objective, yes it was not about comparison.

wordtalk:
The author therefore first establishes this foundation by asking them to consider Melchizedek's greatness - a question which is worth our consideration as well.

This is the part i am likely to have issues with if you decide to go further

wordtalk:
But seriously, Hebrews 7:4 cannot be ignored or played down because it holds a pivotal place in that chapter. That verse (ch. 7:4) undergirds so many other verses made in other chapters about Christ being the priest after the order of Melchizedek (ch. 5:6 & 10; ch. 6:20). The question is: what underscored Melchizedek's greatness for such a statement to be made? Surely, it was not 'like for like' as some may put it - it is far momentous than that!

So, what made Melchi a great priest?

wordtalk:
Which one is it: the focus of the Hebrew writer or of that particular chapter 7? In both cases I contend it is the same throughout: "the Son of God as the subject of the christian life and faith."

So, why do I feel that 'priesthood' is not the focus of the Hebrew writer throughout that epistle or even in that chapter 7? BECAUSE the author indeed makes reference to priesthood in almost every chapter of that book! See the following -

- chapter 2 (v. 17)
- chapter 3 (v. 1)
- chapter 4 (v. 14 & 15)
- chapter 5 (v. 1 & 5)
- chapter 6 (v. 20)
- chapter 7 (v. 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 2, 24, 26, 27, 28)
- chapter 8 (v. 1, 3, 4)
- chapter 9 (v. 6, 7, 11, 25)
- chapter 10 (v. 11, 21)
- chapter 13 (v. 11)

Inspite of all these, priesthood was not the focus of the writer of that epistle. Rather, he sets before the believer the priceless Son of God as the subject of the Christian life and faith.

Okay. No wahala. I guess that's another way of looking at it. Please note every comment i make concerning Hebrews is to chapter 7 only.

wordtalk:
Okay, let me put it this way: did tithing originate with Abraham? Which is why I asked earlier: from where did Abraham and Jacob derive their knowledge of tithing - and why in Jacob's own case in particular did he feel that his tithes (or giving of a tenth) was to be prticularly to GOD?

Your argument is only presuming narrow escapes - if it was not mentioned in particular, then it was non-existent. If that were so, apply the same method of interpretation to the Trinity - if it was not mentioned with Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Abraham or even in the Law of Moses, then where did evnagelical christians get the idea of the Trinity to argue for in the New testament that the Protestant Church has embraced with both hands down through the ages?

The idea of 'not-mentioned' does not equate to 'non-exsitent', just as 'first-mention' does not establish 'first occurence'.

It was just a question All i ever wanted from that question was either 'yes' or'no', i would have accepted a 'yes & no' You assume zikkyy is saying the descendant of Abraham were non-tithers, which is wrong. I've not taken a position.

So, reading your post above, can i say you are of the view that the descendants of Abraham tithed?

wordtalk:
Let's not overflog this issue. On both points you're dead. . . wrong, sir. Hebrews and the chpater 7 of Hebrews are not about the priesthood, sir. The whole of Hebrews and chapter 7 in particular is about just one thing as its THRUST: the Son of God as the subject of the christian life and faith. Subtract from that and all else will fly in your face!

Told you earlier, i wasn't going to argue this bit. Am okay just as as long as you don't say it was all about tithe

wordtalk:
As stated again: "the Son of God as the subject of the christian life and faith."  If I read you beggar this question again, I will send the international community to your door. Try me!

Okay sir

wordtalk:
Okay, so you concede that the priesthood was not the focus of Hebrews; only now you have added a qualifier - 'the focus of the Hebrew chapter.'

It has always been about the Hebrew chapter and not the book. I had to add the qualifier when i observed i was being mis-understood.

wordtalk:
However, even that does not agree with your presumption that the writer was focusing on 'the superiority of Christ's (not Mechizedek's) priesthood' - on the contrary, he first establishes the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood as the foundation of Christ's priesthood. There was just no way he could have convinced anyone about the superiority of Christ's priesthood if Melchizedek's was played down in any instance - which is why he urged his readers to consider how great Melchizedek was in verse 4.

The question is what was the ultimate aim or objective of the Hebrews writer? establishing the superiority of Melchi was a means to achieving an objective. Some peeps (not you) around here tend to see Christ and Melchi as equals, we need to make that distinction. Christ was very much the focus.

wordtalk:
No, he was not. Many people rush to that conclusion becauuse they do not have a clue about the power of priesthoods or the basis upon which they are established. If it was merely a matter of 'like for like', why would he use Melchizedek, which many anti-tithers have concluded was a 'pagan priest' contrary to what Scripture teaches?

Would you compare a priests with a musician just to prove that the priest is the greater priest? You still don't get it. My post was to address the focus of the Hebrew writer. I will attempt to explain by making reference to your post (below).   

wordtalk:
Abraham's tithes were not 'incorporated' into the Law; rather, Scripture shows that it was the Levitical tithes that were 'subsumed' into Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek. Read Hebrews 7:9

wordtalk:
If anything at all, Hebrews 7:9 shows that it was rather Levi who paid tithes IN ABRAHAM to Melchizedek.

When the Hebrew 7 writer made reference to tithe, he was not trying to justify which tithing act was superior, rather it was about those that collects the tithe i.e. Levi & Melchi. (edited) If he was attempting to consider which tithing act was greater, he should be talking about the payers as well i.e. the 11 tribes of Israel Vs. Abraham.

edit: the comparison was between two priests and not priest vs tithe payer. That's what i meant by 'like' for 'like'

wordtalk:
That's fine - and I could allow for that inference, even though for me it goes much further back and is a broader subject than its first mention in Genesis 14. We understand Abraham is arguably not the first man to have given tithes in history, just as Melchizedek is arguably not the first man to have been priest in human history even though the first mention of 'priest' in the Bible is in connection with Melchizedek in Genesis 14 as well. The same thing applies in saying that Abraham is arguably not the first prophet in human history even though the first mention of 'prophet' is in connection with Abraham in Genesis 20.

So, when people argue the concept of 'pre-law' this and that, the one thing I ask is that we try to not be so narrow on the subject to assume that the idea of 'first mention' in Scripture necessarily establishes 'first occurence' - it does not.

No problem with how far back in time you want to go, even if to a period before Genesis 1:1 It is not about Abraham being the first to tithe, i chose him cos his tithe was the most most discussed. I can easily choose a period much further back in time, so no wahala.

wordtalk:
What do you mean by 'tithing practice' and 'in place'?

Okay, let me put it this way; were the descendants of Abraham tithing? I mean from Isaac, Jacob, Jacob's 12 kids up to the time Moses stood before the people to deliver the law.

wordtalk:
How do you mean?

See response above.

wordtalk:
If anything at all, Hebrews 7:9 shows that it was rather Levi who paid tithes IN ABRAHAM to Melchizedek.

Again, this tells us the focus of the Hebrew chapter. The writer was comparing 'like' for 'like', 'priesthood' for 'priesthood'. He was comparing the receivers of tithes i.e. Levi & Melchi one tithe receiver paying tithe to the other. it has nothing to do with those that were required to tithe i.e. the other 11 tribes of Israel vs Daddy Abraham.

wordtalk:
I think Hebrews is worth a serious study, especially because we have heard this tired and retired excuse of what many people say is the 'focus of the Hebrew writer'. The epistle to the Hebrews demonstrates many things, including the fact of the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood ('consider how great this man', Heb. 7:4). There is no basis to argue for the superiority of Christ's priesthood if we fail to see the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood in the first place; for Christ is made 'a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec' (Heb. 7:17).

Although NO OTHER New Testament writer discusses the priesthood of Christ, yet the 'focus' of Hebrews is not the priesthoods (Melchizedek's, the Levitical, or Christ's priesthoods). Rather, Hebrews focuses on the Son of God as the subject of the Christian life and faith.

No argument here. Just as long as you don't say tithe was the focus

wordtalk:
Hi Zikkyy

Long time,

Yes ooh you had to do that disappearing act

wordtalk:
Excuse me? How many times do I have to state it in clear terms? My opening remarks in this thread once again highlighted where I stand on this issue because I sensed some readers would be worried sick to ask that same question, so here goes again, outlined and rearranged:

1. 'Bottomline is that a believer should choose what and how they want to give as long as doing so does not border on coercion of some sorts ('coercion' - another name for 'mandatory').'

2. 'So, those Christians who want to express their giving in the form of tithing/tithes (or a 'tenth' or 'ten percent') are absolutely free to do so without arguments to the contrary.'

3. 'For those who do not wish to express their giving in this way or any other way, it is entirely up to them to also do as they may rather than harangue others how not to give.'

In simple terms, the above shows that -

#1. general point and a common ground we can all agree upon;

#2. for those who wish to give through tithing (or a 'tenth' or 'ten percent') , etc.

#3. for ANTI-TITHERS who are far too disturbed on this very simple issue with the multiplied pretences they make and the fallacies they often argue.

I know your stand on tithing, i was referring to the issue of pre-law tithe being part (incorporated) into the mosaic law.

wordtalk:
Wrong.

wordtalk:
Wrong again.

wordtalk:
Wrong again.

Lol Okay if you believe all three are wrong, lets have what you considered right

wordtalk:
There was no 'continuum' between either tithes that was to be a stricture or stenosis 'ALONGSIDE' anything. The former  is not taught in Scripture to have been transfigured into the latter in just the same way that we know that Melchizedek's priesthood was not translated into and practised alongside the Levitical priesthood under the Mosaic covenant.

pre-law tithing for me span the period from Abraham to the time Moses stood before the people to deliver the law. Was there a tithing practice in place up to the time the Israelite received the law? If there was, what happened after the law was given? If there was no none, does that imply that pre-law tithing ended with Abraham (or Jacob)?

wordtalk:
If there was no tithing prior to the Law, from where did Abraham derive the concept (Gen. 14:20)? From where did Jacob derive the concept of tithing (Gen. 28:22)?

Am not saying there was no tithing, that's why i listed the possibilities. If there was, what happen after the law was given, did the Israelite continue to practice these tithing models?

wordtalk:
The denial of tithing prior to the Law is a convenient claptrap often waved by anti-tithers in order to ignore the fact and escape the responsibility of dealing with basic exegetical principles around the two examples above. This is why they try to sweep the Genesis case under the carpet by arguing that 'Abraham's tithes were pagan tithes', because by some magic which they have introduced through the back door, Melchizedek appears as a 'pagan priest' inspite of the fact that the Bible teaches the contrary.

Don't know anything 'bout this, so no comment

wordtalk:
1. Abraham's tithes were not 'incorporated' into the Law; rather, Scripture shows that it was the Levitical tithes that were 'subsumed' into Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek. Read Hebrews 7:9 - 'One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham.' [size=14pt]It was Levi who paid tithes in Abraham, not the other way round.[/size]

I honestly don't think it wise to go this route. The focus of the Hebrew writer was never tithe but the superiority of Christ's (not Mechizedek's) priesthood. If i follow your reasoning here, i can say the Israelites paid tithes in Abraham (to mechi) and by extension Jesus Christ paid tithe in Abraham to Melchi

Hebrews 7:9-10 (KJV)
9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10[b][size=14pt]For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him[/size][/b].

wordtalk:
Sorry, but that is NOT taught anywhere in the Bible. There is NOT A SINGLE VERSE showing that 'pre-law tithing' was nailed to any Temple wall or subsumed into the Mosaic law or Levitical tithes. Fallacies like these emerge out of the air with absolutely no Biblical hermeneutics to underscore them.

i don't understand. What exactly are you saying here? that the Israelite continue to practice the pre-law tithing model alongside the mosaic requirement?

I really like to know where you stand on this issue. The way i see it, there are only three possibilities:

1. The pre-law tithing model (whatever that was) was taken and modified to align with the requirements of the mosaic law (or was done away with)
2. The Isrelites continue to practice a pre-law model alongside the mosaic requirements
3. There was no tithing practice in place prior to the law

So, what sayeth thee

@Nuke, where have you been

Joagbaje:
I hardly read your posts they are empty .

What you read is of no interest to me Jo Its the poison you post am interested in. I dont even know why you are reading this one

Joagbaje:
Stop talking about what you don't know, rather sit and watch ,

Sit and watch you post   you know thats not going to happen and for the record, NL is not a t.v channel

garyarnold:
If you claim the principle of the Levitical tithe was to support "a priesthood," then the principle would be the need to support a priesthood, NOT that it had to be, or should be, a tenth.

What is the principle of our tax system? Is it the percentages, or is it a way to pay for government services?

"Tenth" is an exact, not a principle.

Joagbaje cannot really explain what he meant by principle. He does not have a clue. The aim is to confuse the congregation knowing they are never going to ask for explanation.

goshen360:
I guess you also believe the pre-law was later included in the law. If this is what you believe, I have shown you that the old had been taken away and the new established. If you dont believe the pre-law was included in the old that was taken away, then we can still take about it as related to tithing.

Snowwy believes pre-law tithing continues to operate outside of the mosaic law. This is something i have been trying to get snowwy to understand. Pre-law tithing was either nailed to the temple wall or was subsumed into the mosaic law (levitical tithe). If Melchi had surfaced at the time the mosaic law was in operation, he would not be receiving tithe unless he was from the tribe of Levi.

Enigma:
Many people say they do not believe in the idea of God as "Trinity". However, quite often when some of them make a few posts it seems that they are supporting that which they deny. I suggest that (leaving aside the "intellectual shenanigans" at Nicea) there is really a simple test for a person to know and or determine whether or not s/he believes that God is "Trinity".   

It consists in the answers that one honestly gives to just FOUR questions.

1. Do you believe that God is ONE?

2. Do you believe that The Father is God?

3. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?

4. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God?

If one's answer to any of the above is NO ---- then one does not believe in God as Trinity.

On the other hand if one's answer to each of the four questions is YES, then one is indeed a believer in God as Trinity.   

Bros, this your questions get as e be walahi, na only God himself fit answer this question

dare2think:
What are the 'blessings' that those who tithe get that the non-tithers miss out on??

Can you please name them, maybe you can convince the independent ones to tithe.

And your inability to mention them [b]accurately [/b]renders that statement false.

Joagbaje does not have a clue. It's all marketing gimmick

Snowwy:
After the law with Christ as High Priest, Apostle Paul spoke about the OT and related it to the NT.
If you have a different view of what Apostle Paul meant, then I respect that,

What Apostle Paul did was to compare Christ priesthood with that of the Levites as well as that of Melchi. The aim was to show the superiority of Christ's priesthood. It has nothing to do with "bringing back old school"

Snowwy:
it is just amazing when you come along to undermine tithe saying it has no biblical correlation to current times.

It's not my fault nah if you had rendered your tithe to a Levi priest, then i can say there is some bit of correlation But i did say your tithe (rendering of a tenth of your income) is not illegal. It's all part of giving. I believe God will accept your offer if done with a sincere heart.

Snowwy:
While Jesus was on earth, he was putting in place the dawn of a new order and priesthood. He ordained that those that preach the gospel should live of it

We all agree that those that preach the gospel can live off it. No wahala. That's as far as it goes. It's not a licence to bring back the various type of offerings that taken to the temple or an excuse to build an alter for sacrificing bulls and goats. When you guys refer to this bit in the bible you forget tithe did not end up at the altar, so what type of sacrifice will those that wait at the altar be partaking in?

Snowwy:
On the contrary, why you do not practise tithing today is your own creation, there is no biblical evidence showing that tithe is not to be practiced today or is abolished.

I can tell you one thing, and that is the tithe practiced as a biblical requirement cannot be performed by a christian. You need to visit a Jewish temple to practice it. I can also tell you that all other forms of tithing practice (if any) prior to mosaic law were no longer applicable or were subsumed into the levitical tithing practice. So if you can't participate in the tithing practice operating at the time Christianity took off, what other evidence do you want me to show that anything you do today is your own creation

Snowwy:
This is the most laughable comment you have made,

Finally, you agree i have a good sense of humor

Snowwy:
have you gone through the posts of many against tithe both on the thread and others? You said 'nobody is saying'.

Okay, maybe you have a point here (you can see am not stingy with marks ), so i will rephrase:

'Nobody is saying genuine pastors should not receive support.'

Snowwy:
Those against tithe say that Jesus said we should give to the poor and they will rather give to the poor than give to any MOG/church.

Maybe it's because they see the pastors as crooks.

Snowwy:
If all the evidence shown, based on scripture, is not sufficient evidence on God's opinion of tithe, then let us let it be.

You are yet to provide evidence, but no wahala i'll respect your wish

Snowwy:
Note all the bolded. Why would Paul quote from the OT to a Gentile church especially regarding supporting they of the gospel?
I have asked what is the 'power over you' he talked about and their right to food and drink. The food and drink, ofcourse, at the expense of the flock.
If the Lord ordained this, why would Paul even be talking about it in the first place?

It was because of people 'examining him', men like a lot of people today who are against giving to support those that work full-time in the gospel, that was why he supported himself. Paul preferred to boast in the Lord. It did not make it wrong.

Nobody is saying pastors should not receive support. The question is this; Do tithes apply to Christians? Your personal decision to tithe because Abraham gave a tenth to Melchi is not evidence that tithe is for Christians. What you practice today is your creation (or that of your pastor). But that do not mean it is illegal for you to give a tenth to your church if that's what you want to do.

Snowwy:
It is, therefore, very funny when you say tithing of today was not recommended by Christ or has no biblical correlation. However, that is your (man's)opinion not God's.

So what is God's opinion? and provide evidence ooh.

Snowwy:
@Zikky, even pagan cultures give amongst themselves so you do not have a point in that regard. It is obvious I am talking based on the bible.

Zikkyy have no point Lol was it zikkyy that said justice, faith & mercy is universal? was it zikkyy that said tithe is universal? I can see you now agree that Jesus was not talking about the universal application of tithe, which is what i have been saying. So how can you now say zikkyy does not have  point? Honestly i think i just scored 10 points, so award me my marks abeg Thank God you are not a lecturer

Snowwy:
You affirmed that mercy, faith and justice was not restricted to the Levites and is practiced by Christians, yet you relegate tithe to the Levitical priesthood even when tithing was done by our Father of Faith, Abraham to Melcizedek, the High Priest:

There is no basis for comparing mercy, faith & justice to the levitical tithe. This is what i am trying to convey here. Mercy, faith & justice will still operate even in the absence of the levitical priesthood. A Jew will not tithe if there are no Levi priest to collect the tithe. That's the difference.

I did not relegate tithe to the Levitical priesthood, the question is what was the practice at the time? If Melchi had showed up when the mosaic law was in operation, he would not receive tithe. Jesus could not have been referring to a practice that is no longer applicable when he made the statement. Abraham's tithe to Melchi will not be relevant in this case. It is not an issue of just tithing, it's about tithing based on currently operating rules.

Snowwy:
Hebrews 7:3
3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Hebrews 7:17
17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Jesus told the Pharisees not to neglect tithing (did Christ just say it for the fun of it or was not the tithe used to support the Levites so they can focus on God's work?)and the Priesthood changed to that of Jesus after his death.

Lol what are you saying now? that we should support Jesus so he can focus on God's work?

Snowwy:
Jesus told the Pharisees not to neglect tithing

Correction: Jesus told the pharisees not to neglect tithing as stipulated in the Mosaic law.

amor4ce:
Was Paul telling us that Abraham gave a tithe to the Messiah?

That will be you attempting to elevate Melchi to God status. Pauls statement was clear enough.

Snowwy:
you stated that mercy, faith & justice were not restricted to the Levite priesthood and I affirm yes. Infact those 3 can be found before the law:

Which is important to the Christian? What came before the law or what came after the law?

Snowwy:
This means they are universal laws.

Of all the laws in the OT, Jesus picked these 3, (which you confirmed were not restricted to the Levitical priesthood and apply to us today), and said they should be upheld.

Was Christ saying some Universal laws should be upheld or was he saying the requirement of the Mosaic law be upheld? You forget that these laws also applies to pagan worshippers. We should not be discussing universal laws here. Lets restrict ourselves to what Christ was talking about or refering to.

Snowwy:
He added do not neglect tithing.

He added do not neglect the Levitical tithing. Jesus was not talking about the tithe rendered by Abraham.

Snowwy:
God approved tithing,

I told you in my last post, you can give a tenth of your income to your church. Am sure God will accept any giving ranging from 0.1% to 100% (10% inclusive) if given with a sincere heart. The distinction am making is that your tenth is not a command from God. The percentage to give varies from one to another. The only tenth that was mandatory was the Levitical tithe and it is not applicable to Christians. There is no evidence that tithe was commanded by God prior to the Law. Abrahams tithe was either by choice or customary requirement. Jacob offered to tithe, God did not command.

Snowwy:
God approved tithing, Jesus said it should not be neglected

Jesus said the Levitical tithe should not be neglected. Why is that difficult for you to understand? Jesus was not refering to a universal practice. To go this route is to imply that Jesus supported the babylonians tithe to their Sun god.

Snowwy:
I need no further (edited) proof that tithing is valid

Tithing was valid, but was it a command for Christians? the answer is NO. The practice today varies as well. The tithe paid by Snowwy can only be defined by Snowwy, it has nothing to do with what Christ recommended.

So what am i saying here? Tithe as practiced today is based on how we define it and has no correlation with biblical practices, so stop trying to justify it using events recorded in the bible.

Snowwy:
Neither was tithe restricted to the levitical priesthood.

The tithe in Mathew 23:23 was restricted to levitical priesthood. Jesus was not talking about Abrahams 'tithe' in the Mathew verse. So, you need to find some other bible verse to support your tithing practice. I want you to move away from Mathew 23:23. It does not serve the purpose, i.e. justification for your modern day tithe practice. 

Snowwy:
Neither was tithe restricted to the levitical priesthood.

You can tithe, it's your choice. But at whose command? your pastor's? or yours? God did not command that Christians tithe, it has become an option. So why do you justify it with the un-related biblical comments. 

Snowwy:
Thanks, you just concluded the discussion.

Thank you for thanking me That was my aim, that you move away from this Mathew 23:23 tithe argument. It makes no sense.

Image123:
Cast out the devil in him violently like since them John baptist days? huh?

Violently Will 'blowing' up the devil in him be appropriate?

Snowwy:
Of all the 'obligations that applied to the law' Jesus says mercy, faith and justice should be done WITHOUT neglecting tithe.

I think the reason you continue to stick to Mathew 23:23 is because you refused to understand that the tithing practice being referred to in that particular verse can only be performed by a Jew. The practice was restricted to the levitical priesthood (as beneficiary). To adhere to Christ command, you'll need to find a Levi priest. Mercy, faith & justice does apply to Christians because they were not restricted to the levitical priesthood. The apostles continued to talk about mercy, faith & justice after the death of Christ.

Joagbaje:
Melchizedek was merely a king? . How carnal of you? Melchizedek didn't recieve tithe as a king . He recieved tithes as high priest of that generation. Jesus was ranked with this guy.

I don't think 'rank' is an appropriate word. Jesus was not ranked with Mechi, it was his priesthood that was being compared to that of Melchi. You are the 'carnal' one in this case.

Joagbaje:
Why would God say "ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK ".? What is "order" ? A structure. This tells us it wasn't a one time event.

Another reason why you continue to insult Jesus. Order as used in Hebrews 7 refers to 'type', and not 'structure', and it does not tell us if it is one time event or not.

mabell:
Do you know that Rhapsody is translated in the ijaw version
That means, it will get to the militants in the creeks

. . . where it will end up as a cheap alternative to tissue paper after all, it's free

Joagbaje:
Hope you've learn something now? Please bring your tithe.

from you, there is nothing to learn. Your post was not so clear, but i'll apologise for the false accusation.

Sorry, you are not in a position to reaceive my tithe.

Joagbaje:
Abraham met God in his bid to help strangers. But unknowingly to him. The stranger was God.

are you saying Melchi is God? That God came in physical form just to collect tithe from man? Joagbaje are you that desperate? You had to insult the Almighty to save your source of income!