«Home

Tithes: Who Should Pay?

What is tithe? Who should pay tithe? If you obtain your wealth illegally do you pay tithe on it?

Avatar
Newbie
46 answers

@Pilgrim.1,

Your whole position boils down to a refusal to see the proper context of this;

Once you properly contextualise it and realise Jews under the law were being addressed here, you have nothong left. End game.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

TV01,

I've done so before, and you rejected it! So, rather than keep repeating myself endlessly, I ask that you clearly show us HOW tithing ever was a matter discussed in the Bible as "justification" for anything or anybody.

Read the verse yourself. Paul quoted from the LAW (Deut. 25:4) and argued that the verse he quoted was written "for OUR sakes!!" Not only so, he went on to use that same argument from the LAW to the point that the Lord had "EVEN SO" ordained that Christians have the responsibility to financially support those who preach the Gospel!

Since you're so way off this point and arguing an inconsistent proposition that you've not been able to defend, it's no surprise that you couldn't clearly see what the apsotle was quoting. Let that serve as another example to the point I made earlier that the LAW has divine PRINCIPLES still applicable to Christians today. NO? Then quarrel all you want with Paul's quoting Deut. 25:4 and asserting that it was written "for OUR sakes!".

Assertive denial - as ever! Here is where He preached it:

Matthew 23:23 - "ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: THESE ought ye to have done, and NOT TO LEAVE the OTHER undone."

Did He preach that they do "THESE"? -- YES!! ('THESE ought ye to have done')

Did He preach that they do the "OTHER"? -- YES!! ('not to leave the OTHER undone')

You can deny as much as you want, it won't change the WORD!

I did not "slander" any apostle - do you care to keep your duplicity to yourself? Thank you.

Now, the apostle Paul was clear what he fought against - "circumcision" - and we read it in the NT in white and black (Gal. 5:11 and 6:15). He never preached against tithes anywhere - nor id there a hint anywhere in any verse of the NT that it was preached AGAINST! You're once again making bloviates that you have NO VERSE in Scripture to defend!

TV01, where in Galatians 2:11-21 did Paul "destroy" tithes? Just be honest, please - WHERE did he ever preach against TITHES?

You see how silly you try to parade your off-key arguments? You had argued that tithing was a matter of "bondage", and I asked simply if the Lord Jesus was preaching bondage to them in Matt. 23:23 - and the next thing is to disregard that issue and run to Galatians 2! You're ever so desperately confusing your position, TV01.

From the onset, you've been confusing yourself about "the LAW" - and up until now have consistently demonstrated your feeble mindedness to desperately snatch verses here and there and dress them together for yet a weaker proposition! The NT does not disparage TITHES anywhere. If it does, please show it as clearly, instead of snatching verses that don't negate it and pretending that you see tithes in them!

0
Avatar
Newbie

TV01,

You're such a cheat! I've discussed this BEFORE, and I offered that if you're not satisfied as to what particularly is meant by the term "the LAW" as used in the NT, please open another thread, post your concerns there in detail, discuss your persuasions, and I'll meet you there! Do anything you want to do; but please do NOT be so dishonest as to allege your own duplicity and misconceptions against my posts - because more than anyone here, you TV01 has been the very person arguing that "the LAW" is no longer applicable to NTC! And now you come back pretending to have agreed that "parts of the written code are still adhered to by NTC"! Who infact has just argued that "the requirements of a written law have passed away"; while in the same rejoinder making an opposite claim that "the intent - the righteous requirement - of the law is not redundant"? How dishonest can you get?

NO - The LAW is NOT WHOLESALE done away with - and I quoted Romans 3:31 to that effect: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law"!

I further have outlined the meaning of the term "the LAW" in its VARIOUS contexts in the NT as including:

* the Sinaitic Law (including the 10 commandments - see Rom. 2:15)

* the Pentateuch/Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy - see Rom. 3:21; Luke 24:44)

* the specific commandments God gave in the OT - (see Neh. 9:13-14)

. . . in which case also I offered that its application in the NT furnishes us with the following:

* specific commandments

* prophecies

* exhortations

* divine principles

Now, if we should argue that the "written code" has been done away with, by which you're supposing therefore that what was "written" in the Law has now been nullified, then you'd be saying at the same time that people are free to no longer pay attention to the specific commandments God gave as guiding PRINCIPLES for ALL time in the Law!

TV01, I've been patient enough with your penchant to be accusative, forcefully read your misconceptions into my posts where they do not exist, and end up confusing yourself further. Once again, if you want to discuss the Law, open another thread and there spew all you think you know about the LAW, and I'll give you enough towel to mop up your gurgitations. And if at all you're man enough to take my challenge, please remember also to clearly state if you are persuaded that NO PART of the Law applies to the Christian today!

0
Avatar
Newbie

TV01,

I did not 'falsely' trumpet anything. There are two things you need to bear in mind by your own argument:

(a) if Matt. 23:23 applied to ONLY those under the Law, then Christians have no business thinking about 'judgment, mercy, and faith'! I've said so again and again that the Lord did not void either tithes or the weightier matters of the Law; and no matter how many times you try to force your misinterpretation into that verse, you still haven't been able to show me WHERE and HOW He voided either issues mentioned there.

(b) if indeed no Christian is ever "commanded, told, encouraged or even advised" to tithe, you'd simply have to provide the verse that categorically commands that they should NOT do so. To simply argue that Christians are NOT to tithe and you have no verse for that assertion, is a weak argument that immediately collapses on its face. WHY? Because you're making your untennable assertions the rule, while at the same time being UNABLE to establish that position by God's WORD! The one thing you'd have to do is simply show WHERE indeed Scripture commands Christians to NOT tithe!

Trying to state that my logic is weak does not establish it so - rather, more than anything, it throws our your premise; especially because you've not been able to show WHERE the Lord or the apostles VOIDED the issues mentioned in Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42!

Secondly, you're trying to play games by introducing these ideas of a "written demand" and "code" into those verses, whereas that is simply NOT the point the Lord was making there. If that were the case, then you're arguing without reason that the Lord was asking them to keep the "written demand" and "code" while at the same time contradicting your argument by disavowing that same proposition!

Third, not in one instance did the Lord void anything in those verses. If He voided either the tithes or the weightier matters of the Law, please show me WHERE He did so! Why is it taking you forever to simply show it?

It is not falsehood. What you don't understand and then try to argue against without being able to establish your case should not be reason for your to be so accusative, TV01.

Indeed, I've stated clearly that Tithing did not originate from the Law - No, it did NOT! But even so, what is wrong with discussing both the meaning and principles of TITHES from the Law that incorporated it, TV01? Just what is wrong with discussing Tithes from the Law in order to better understand its principles?

Now, if there's anyone who's into falsehood, let me remind you of yet another inconsistent and contradictory proposition you've made earlier. You're the same person who's argued about tithe thus:

If you're so passionate about denouncing others who argue a point from the Law and fail to see your own untennable and often convoluted propositions, don't start reacting when your own infidelity is pointed out. It might be wise to simply observe a complete silence and pass on where you have no clue what you're arguing.

In other words, you assume that before Christ was born, nobody knew anything about "judgement, mercy, faith and the love of God"?!? Cheap interpolation, TV01.

In the first instance, if Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42 were a matter of "enabling" the righteous requirements, how could the Lord Jesus have reprimanded them for the enablement that they did not have? Don't see you see that you're reading into the text instead of letting it speak to your heart?

Second, His statement in reprimanding them was that 'ye. . have omitted' (Matt. 23:23) or 'ye . . pass over' those matters (judgement, mercy, faith and the love of God). They could not have been "passing over" or "omitting" those issues if God didn't give them already! The question would then be as to how you could ever suppose the Lord gave them those matters without the enabling?

Your point here is quite untennable in every consideration. Are you now arguing that nobody was "enabled" to love God, or have "faith", or even understand and experience "mercy" BEFORE the first advent of Christ?

TV01, are you just trying so hard to force interpolations into the texts simply because you have no viable, cogent or consistent proposition for your arguments?

Which again throws out your argument - because neither Matt. 23:23 nor Luke 11:42 is predicated on "justification" or "sanctification". You're scooting away from the core of the argument and desperately confusing your position again.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi TV01,

Good weekend it was for me; and I trust same with you.

After having gone through your rejoinder, it's unfortunate to observe your inconsistent propositions, untennable assumptions and partial arguments that you have not been able to defend from Scripture. I should not have bothered saying more than two lines to flush your latest comeback; but as usual, I offer a detailed response so that nobody is left confused by your weak summations.

That is not the issue here. You've been demonstrating a rather roundabout and inconsistent position all along, which I do not wish to keep pursuing any further.

Take a look again at your opening statement: "the requirements of a written law have passed away". That being so, it only shows that you're contradicting your own proposition again and again. Compare this with your previous assertions:

1. On the one hand, you argued that it is the "righteous requirement" of the Law that is being established!

A.

. . . and here again:

B.

Your recent argument that the 'requirements' have passed away is NOT the same thing as previously asserting that the very same 'requirements' are 'NOT redundant' or "is being established"!

TV01, when you make an assertion and then come round contradicting that proposition, it comes across to me that you really have no consistent grounds for your arguements! This discussion would have progressed further if it were not for the same inconsistencies in your propositions that I find rather worrying.

It's either you do have a genuinely consistent issue to present; or we'd just have to wonder at all that there's anything tangible to look forward to in the persuasions of those opposing tithes. That is why I appealed that you don't make this point a tedious one.

Again, I've made the point that my position is not fed by tradition - and that is why I've argued my points from the WORD of God rather than appeal to any particular institution or school of thought. It's easy to deflate the arguments built around such "received traditions", but not as easy to do so where the WORD is appealed to in debating every single point. Which is quite amazing - because I haven't seen you able to soundly defend your propositions, even though again and again I've answered every single query you've offered.

Honestly, I really can't over-emphasize this point! You're clearly contradicting your proposition, TV01!! Do you not see that this further confirms the inconsistencies in your persuasions? Here, let me quote you separately in your most recent reposte:

1.

2.

What is the correlation between (1) "passed away" and (2) "still requisite"?!? How could you TERMINATE something and at the same time make it 'STILL requisite'/applicable?

I might as well be tempted to ask that you kindly withdraw from this discussion if these inconsistencies and contradictions are the substnace to your arguments. Please, TV01, you really have no serious proposition to offer!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Pilly, Pilly, Pilly,

Will you weary me?

You are not being coherent in your postulations and not seeming to understand what you yourself are saying.

No girl, the intent is what would at best equate to principles, not the code. Pilly dear, step into true liberty in Christ.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

TV01,

Jus behave - that's the message.

You never addressed it; and that's why I simplified it by repetition. Please do so. Thank you.

That's why I warned that your repeated discourtesies will not be tolerated any further.

They're not "just that" - and I won't ignore your uncivil manners any further.

I never equated the PRINCIPLES to the "code", and you can't allege that I did.

Please deal with the issues.

If that were true, where do we read that the Lord did away with the weightier matters of the LAW? Where do we read that the resurrection did away with "judgment, mercy, and faith"?

What was "done away with" in Matthew 23:23 that you quoted, TV01? Just simply show the verse, and it will suffice.

Simply show HOW and WHERE the Lord's resurrection did away with Matthew 23:23 - that's all I ask.

In other words, that which is not written in ordinances has been written by "grace" in the heart - and therefore we are not asked to keep the weightier matters NOR the OTHER matter mentioned in Matt. 23:23? Please be clear - show it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

TV01,

Thank you again. Deal with the issues.

Was that NOT taught in the OLD TESTAMENT?!?

In the NT, Paul referred precisely to the Law - 1 Cor. 9:9, 10 & 14.

I haven't seen you demonstrate clearly what the Lord asked you to make redundant as you asserted concerning Matt. 23:23.

Thanks. Deal with the issues.

You rather tried to play games with me by dribbling round my simple question as to if you were aware there were DIFFERENT types of giving. Seeing that is precisely what you often do, I shared my persuasions - and you predicatbly attacked them without offering ANYTHING alternatively that was of benefit to you and your folks. If you simply could do me the honour of answering the questions, then you will read further on that concern.

The simple thing to do is for you to demonstrate that TITHERS/GIVERS are NOT blessed above those who DO NOT TITHE/GIVE. Can you do so? Thank you.

Thank you. Deal with the issues.

Please show me where I ever CURSED anyone. Thank you.

In other words, if one does not break the Law of Moses, one is NOT cursed - is that your argument?

Now, let's see how that applies. The LAW of MOSES says:

Thou shalt NOT steal

Thou shalt NOT commit adultery

Thou shalt NOT kill

Now, if you as a Christian break any one of these LAWS, then you are blessed, not so?

TV01, your arguments have not dealt with the issues around Matt. 23:23. You've characteristically switched over and deflected into other issues that only accentuate the fact that you really are not asking for a discussion. I'm going to ask again that you deal with those issues simply, and help progress this discussion.

- - - -

And let me note this: TV01, I offered you a new leaf to enable an enduring and amicable discourse. It appears you cannot hold that offer for long. Go back and count how many times I "thank(ed) you" over your discourtesies and asked that you deal with issues. I will not be so condescending in my subsequent posts. This is the last warning I would have to offer you about that.

Regards.

0
Avatar
Newbie

TV01,

In fulfilling it, it passed away, right?

In other words, because Christ fulfilled "the Law", the commandment to love God has passed away, right?

As Christ fulfilled "the Law", the commandment to NOT commit adultery passed away as well, not so?

Therefore, you can go out and steal, because Christ "fulfilled" the Law, not so?

What is the meaning of "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" (Col. 2:14)? If you don't understand it, does it then mean that ALL of God's commandments are therefore "blotted out"? I'd like for you to explain that to your readers.

Thank you again. Deal with the issues instead.

I didn't disparage the Law - that's the reason why I referenced Rom. 3:31 for you to understand that I wouldn't do that. Besides, you haven't EXPLAINED how the Law was fuffilled - and that is the very thing that I'm yet asking that you do.

Thank you. Deal with the issues.

I could do so - and I've made a request, which I'd yet post again: If you'd like to discuss "the LAW", please oblige me. By which I mean - please open a thread for that purpose and then outline your concerns about the Law and I'd gladly take you on point by point. Fair deal?

I would do so, if the ones I already gave are insufficient to make you understand the point I'm trying to offer you. Just lease oblige my one request - outline your concerns, and then let me meet you there and we'll talk about "the LAW".

Thank you. Deal with the issues.

The context is clear - don't twist it. I offered that its PRINCIPLES are applicable, did I not?

Even under the Law, did people not give WILLINGLY? Did you never read in the OT that the response in their giving was done WILLINGLY even under "the LAW"?

Neither.

My persuasion is that in ALL types of giving, the people responded WILLINGLY. Just because you have a hard time seeing this point does not call for your unnecessary over-reaction. Calm down, go through the texts, present your concerns - and let's DISCUSS them.

What then prompted the saints under the Law to offer freely and willingly? Please come back make your readers see the point in your assertions.

First, this is not the first time I've said that tithes do NOT have to be rigidly 10%! TV01, please do me this favour: if your memory is low, upgrade it!

Second, one you speak of "freewill offering", how does that translate into "sowing"?

Third, simply acknowledge the fact that you first denied the fact of that verse - instead of trying to pretend you've always agreed with it! That attitude is simply dishonest, TV01. Please have the moral fibre to be honest and not play games with me.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I'd prefer if you address me cordially and leave out the now weathered "weaker sex".

0
Avatar
Newbie

That was the whole point, to engender some humour. I don't fight my wars on paper, or with members of the weaker sex. I'm sure Pilly.1 appreciates that. Having said that if anyone is offended, my sincerest apologies.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

Matt 23:23 and Luke 11:42 --

This is what Jesus said at the end of His reprimand:

[list]

[li]THESE ought ye to have done[/li]

[/list]

and

[list]

[li]NOT LEAVE the OTHER undone[/li]

[/list]

0
Avatar
Newbie

I have no enemies and don't intend to make one.

As a person with good sense, I respect people that I discuss with. If they cannot endure being cordial in the way they address others in discussions, I usually make it plain to them that such would not be tolerated from me.

That's just me.

0
Avatar
Newbie

No no that is mis interpretations.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

for paying tithe (of mint and anise and cummin)

but omitted the weightier matters (Like the law, judgment, mercy, Love and faith)

Wish you need to do but fail to do.

You are busy collecting Tithe. Tha is what christ said, Check other versions of Bible

0
Avatar
Newbie

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

That is Christ saying without ambiguity that you should pay it. Whether you are born again or not.

0
Avatar
Newbie

It is only proper to pay your tithe, so the Holy Books say

0
Avatar
Newbie

TV,

I could not help but laugh at your conclusion "nonsnse and ingredents". Are you zebrudaya's son? pilgrim, kuns, tv, you guys need not become enemies because of this. Avoid the temptation of running down people who. Peace. Christ would not wage physical war.

0
Avatar
Newbie

TV01,

Let me quote you: "Fulfillment of the written code is nothing more than flesh glorying."

Please ask yourself what CHRIST came to fulfill!! Was it not that same written code He came to fulfill, which He clearly pronounced as such that no "jot" or "tittle" shall in no wise pass from the Law until all be fulfilled (Matt. 5:18)? Was Christ seeking "flesh glorying" when He came to fulfill the written Law?

You see, we have to be careful when making statements! When the apostles preached, they made it clear that men could not be justified from all things stipulated in the Law of Moses (Acts 13:39). They also recognized that the commandments were ordained unto LIFE, and not unto death (Rom. 7:10).

But here's what was wrong in the experiences of men in the flesh: what was it really that the Law could not do? It clearly could not condemn sin in the flesh - and that was one other reason why God sent His Son (Rom. 8:3). It was on that basis that we could speak of the verse you cited - Rom. 8:4 >> "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Please notice something here: the text you quoted does not suppose at all that Christians walk after "the Law". The two things contrasted are walking after "the flesh" and walking after "the Spirit"! When you carefully study what is presented as the "righteous requirement" of the Law, you would not for an instance mistake it as pointing to a "written code" which is nothing more than "flesh glorying". Be that as it may, do not mix up the 'requirements' for the 'written code' - they are not the same.

Please, be honest - you have done so. The one thing you have NEVER done is to give me a verse for your denunciations - and I don't fancy this constant denials you keep branding about.

My points have been crystal clear from the onset. I never made it a matter of COERCION, MANDATE, COMPULSION, or FORCE! It is because you have tried to champion that default position and tried to forcefully read it into other people's posts, that's why we have stayed on just one point until the discussion went downslope. Several times I pointed out that TITHING was a matter of WILLINGNESS from the heart - never a matter of the MANDATE you forcefully tried to make out of it.

That's not true. Those who give, the Lord clearly stated they will be blessed over those who do not - read it again:

2 Cor. 9:6, 8 & 10

(6) But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully

shall reap also bountifully.

(8 ) And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things,

may abound to every good work

(10) Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown,

and increase the fruits of your righteousness

You cannot keep denying the clear statements in these verses and others that point out that the giver receives blessings that non-givers would not have.

On the other hand, I've not argued to call a curse on anyone who does not give. My persuasion has always been simple and straightforward: if you don't believe in TITHING, I'm not commissioned to fight you simply because I believe in its power and revelation! I've said so and reminded you several times about the same. It is your restlessness over this matter that makes you once and again allege that tithers are "BINDING" people to a 'man-made' religion - which I also challenged, and found you unable to simply answer the questions I offered thereto.

Rubbish, TV01. You alleged that 'cloak for covetouesness' several times against me because you were unable to defend your assertions - and I had to ask that you refrain, seeing that I have never asked you for a farthing! Truth be told: your denunciations was not of any attempt - you made a categorical statement, which up until now you've NOT been able to defend; and trying to dress it up is not helping matters. Please have the humility to acknowledge that you acted wrongly - and desist from such!

If you felt that others believe in tithe out of ignorance, have you been able to answer our questions? Why try making such pronouncements when you have not been able to simply defend your assertions?

I'd beg you to refrain from trying to dress up this blotch - it's of no use.

The Lord was indeed addressing those under the Law - and if that is how you want to force it, then I ask you to show me if His disciples at that time were not under the Law.

I don't think this excuse is helping matters. The simple thing the LORD did there was denounce their hypocrisy and then call for full obedience to "THESE" and the "OTHER". And if you want to void "THESE" along with the Law, then you'd also have to void the "OTHER" as well along with the Law! To retain one and negate the other is to do the very thing the Lord denounce - HYPOCRISY!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Pilgrim.1

Please ponder this a little more. Justice, mercy, and faith are indeed essential. But not attained to by a written code, which was what was demonstrated by law in the OT.

In as much as we say or can use law in NT parlance, it’s the “Law of the Heart”, not a written law of ordinances.

Please see the continuity in this from OT to NT from Law to Grace.

Jeremiah 31:33 - But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Hebrews 8:10 - For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Hebrews 10:16 - "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"

The intent of the law is unchanging the way it is achieved is different.

Grace is beauty for another time perhaps? Suffice to say here is that the word/term “grace” has various meanings and renderings.

The grace of God in Christ Jesus NT style, includes elements of saving, enabling, scourging and teaching . For the most part the OT examples you have referenced merely mean “favour”.

Point taken, but the grace of God is in Him. And as referenced immediately above, I refer not just to grace as favour.

You chase the tail of your own argument if you say “tithe was not an intent of the law”. That is my point exactly, hence it’s redundancy as purely written ordinance.

More tail chewing on your point re the “origins of tithing”. I aalso mentioned this earlier. Tithing as part of a written code is in no way applicable to NTC. If you agree that, why do you try and buttress you position by reference to a written code.

If you endorse it based on pre-law events/practice, please build your case without recourse to a written code.

Stop that “Worship response” gimmick already! And in as much as the Deuteronomy reference is a response, it was codified in law.

No one could honestly claim to see tithing in view here. It has to be read into the text. And forcibly at that.

They were not NTC, they were Jews under the law and bound to keep it. You keep relentlessly overlooking this pivotal fact. He told them to keep the written law and be mindful of it’s intent. Do NTC have to keep a written law?

Yes, yes, yes and yes! Whilst your insight is partly right, it is incomplete in not incorporating the dispensation and era the addresses belonged to. Please stop wilfully ignoring it.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

TITHES REVIEW

The custom of giving tithes reaches back into unknown antiquity.

It is mentioned in Genesis 14, without anything to indicate that it was something newly instituted.

Just as Abraham is there represented as offering tithes of the spoils of the enemy to the royal priest, Melchisedech, so in Genesis 28, Jacob is recorded as giving a tithe of all his possessions to the Lord.

Under the Mosaic Law the payment of tithes was made obligatory.

The Hebrews are commanded to offer to God the tenth part of the produce of the fields, of the fruits of the trees, and the firstborn of oxen and of sheep (Leviticus 27:30; Deuteronomy 14:22).

In Deuteronomy there is a mention not only of an annual tithe, but also of a full tithe to be paid once every three years. While it was to God Himself that the tithes had to be paid, yet we read (Numbers 18:21) that He transfers them to His sacred ministers: "I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel for a possession, for the ministry wherewith they serve me in the tabernacle of the covenant.

However, the payment of tithes was also a civil custom. They were payable to the Hebrew kings and to the rulers of Babylon, and they are mentioned among the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and later the Mohammedans.

In the Christian Church, as those who serve the altar should live by the altar (1 Corinthians 9:13), provision of some kind had necessarily to be made for the sacred ministers.

In the beginning this was supplied by the spontaneous offerings of the faithful. In the course of time, however, as the Church expanded and various institutions arose, it became necessary to make laws which would insure the proper and permanent support of the clergy.

The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law, and early writers speak of it as a divine ordinance and an obligation of conscience. The earliest positive legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the canons of the Council of Maçon in 585. In course of time, we find the payment of tithes made obligatory by ecclesiastical enactments in all the countries of christendom.

The Church looked on this payment as "of divine law, since tithes were instituted not by man but by the Lord Himself" (C. 14, X de decim. III, 30). As regards the civil power, the Christian Roman emperors granted the right to churches of retaining a portion of the produce of certain lands, but the earliest instance of the enforcement of the payment of ecclesiastical tithes by civil law is to be found in the capitularies of Charlemagne, at the end of the eighth century.

English law very early recognized the tithe, as in the reigns of Athelstan, Edgar, and Canute before the Norman Conquest. In English statute law proper, however, the first mention of tithes is to be found in the Statute of Westminister of 1285.

Tithes are of three kinds: predial, or that derived from the annual crops; mixed, or what arises from things nourished by the land, as cattle, milk, cheese, wool; and personal or the result of industry or occupation.

Predial tithes were generally called great tithes, and mixed and personal tithes, small tithes. Natural substances having no annual increase are not tithable, nor are wild animals. When property is inherited or donated, it is not subject to the law of tithes, but its natural increase is. There are many exempted from the paying of tithes: spiritual corporations, the owners of uncultivated lands, those who have acquired lawful prescription, or have obtained a legal renunciation, or received a privilege from the pope.

At first, the tithe was payable to the bishop, but later the right passed by common law to parish priests.

Abuses soon crept in.

The right to receive tithes was granted to princes and nobles, even hereditarily, by ecclesiastics in return for protection or eminent services, and this species of impropriation became so intolerable that the Third Council of Lateran (1179) decreed that no alienation of tithes to laymen was permissible without the consent of the pope. In the time of Gregory VIII, a so-called Saladin tithe was instituted, which was payable by all who did not take part personally in the crusade to recover the Holy Land.

At the present time, in most countries where some species of tithes still exist, as in England (for the Established Church), in Austria, and Germany, the payment has been changed into a rent-charge.

In English-speaking countries generally, as far as Catholics are concerned, the clergy receive no tithes. As a consequence, other means have had to be adopted to support the clergy and maintain the ecclesiastical institutions and to substitute other equivalent payments in lieu of tithes.

Soglia (Institut, Canon, II, 12) says "The law of tithes can never be abrogated by prescription or custom, if the ministers of the Church have no suitable and sufficient provision from other sources; because then the natural and divine law, which can neither be abrogated not antiquate, commands that the tithe be paid." In some parts of Canada, the tithe is still recognized by civil law, and the Fourth Council of Quebec (1868) declared that its payment is binding in conscience of the faithful.

Lay Tithes

(1) secular tithes, which subjects on crown-estates were obliged to pay to princes, or tenants, or vassals on leased lands or lands held in fief to their landlords (decimæ origine laicales).

(2) ecclesiastical tithes, which in the course of time became alienated from the Church to lay proprietors (decimæ ex post laicales s. sæcularizatæ). There is question here only of the latter. In the secularizations initiated under the Merovingians the transference of ecclesiastical property and their tithes or of the tithes alone to laymen was effected. In subsequent times church lands with their tithes, or the tithes alone, were bestowed even by bishops and abbots on laymen to secure servants, vassals, protectors against violence and defenders of their civil rights.

Other church property with tithes, or the tithes alone, were forcibly seized by laymen. Finally, the development of churches, once the property of private individuals, into parish churches subject to the bishop gave rise to the landlord appropriating the tithes due to the parish church. The church soon took measures to repress this spoliation, beginning as early as the ninth century at the Synod of Diedenhofen (844; cap. iii, 5) and that of Beauvais (845; cap. iii, 6). Gregory VII revived in a stricter form these old canons at the Autumn Synod of 1078, demanding that the laity should return all tithes to the Church, even though they had been given them by bishops, kings, or other persons, and declared all who refused obedience to be sacrilegi (C. 1, C. XVI, q. 7). Succeeding popes and synods repeated this order, declaring that Church tithes to be iuris divini (C. 14, X, de decim., III, 30); that, as the inalienable source of income of the parish church, they could not be transferred to another church or monastery (C. 30, X, de decim., III,30); that they could not be acquired by a layman through prescription or inheritance, or otherwise alienated.

But it was quite impossible for the Church to recover the tithes possessed for centuries by laymen, to whom in fact they had been in many cases transferred by the Church itself. Laymen gave then, in preference to the monastery instead of the parish church, but this became thenceforth subject to the approval of the bishop (C. 3, X, do privil., III 33). The decision of the Lateran Council (1179), forbidding the alienation of the church tithes possessed by the laity, and demanding their return to the Church (C. 19, X. de decim., III, 30) was interpreted to mean that, those ecclesiastical tithes, which up to the time of this council were in possession of 1aymen, might be retained by them, but no further transference should take place (C. 25, X, de decim., III, 30, c. 2, A in Vito, h.t., III, 13). But even this cou1d not be carried out. There thus existed side by side with church tithes a quantity of lay tithes; the latter were dealt. with by secular courts as being purely secular rights, while ecclesiastical law was applied to ecclesiastical tithes. However, certain, of the obligations imposed by the (once) ecclesiastical tithes continued to bind the proprietor, even though he were a layman. Thus in the case of church buildings the Council of Trent declared that patrons and all "qui fructus aliquos ex dictis ecclesiis provenientes percipiunt" were bound secondarily to defray the cost of repair (Sess. XXI, De ref., c. vii; see FABRICA ECCLESLE). When there is a doubt as to whether the tithes in quetion are ecclesiatical or lay, the reasonable presumption is that they are ecclesiastical.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09095b.htm

0
Avatar
Newbie

Those that cares about tithe should pay.

0
Avatar
Newbie

TV01,

You may not know this, but you're coming even closer to confirming my points. Yes, you certainly would disagree about that, but like I often say, here's HOW, WHY and WHERE I'm persuaded that's the case:

The 'bigger picture' presented in boths sides is the very thing we have once and again been trying to make you guys come to terms with. We have sounded this again and again, but it seems you keep missing the picture here and mixing it up with the idea that "the LAW" has been made wholesale redundant, and as such, there's nothing in its element that speaks to the Christian today. That is simply not true - and it was for that reason that I actually took time to outline the essential features of what is represented by the term "the LAW" in the NT.

Okay, first I'd like you to please keep that constantly in mind so that we don't make the mistake of doing such anymore. Since you'd have to agree the Lord did not denounce or disparage tithes, please do not assume to do so either.

Look again at that text in Matt. 23:23 - did the Lord hint anywhere about making anyone "righteous" by the LAW? Or did He intend to suggest there that He had His eyes on the 'dispensation of the Spirit led, grace filled life' that even the Jews could not have understood at that point?

If you think that was the case, wouldn't it be unfair for Him to have been speaking to them about things they had no capacity under the old covenant to grasp? Surely, that would muddle thinsg up. WHY? Because Scripture bears testimony that no one (including His disciples) could have fathomed anything about what the Lord came to establish UNTIL He had risen from the dead. See John 20:9 and Luke 24:45 - ('for as yet they knew not the Scripture'. . . 'Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures') and 1 Cor. 2:8.

Besides all this, the Lord there in Matt. 23:23 was not pointing to the elements of His saving work - else that would mean that He would have indeed spoken in apposite terms regarding the "weihtier matters" of the Law - "judgment, mercy, and faith". These three elements cannot be argued away as if the Cross made them redundant, and they are not matters determined ONLY by the Law.

I'm sorry; but I did not "adamantly refuse" to acknowledge the real import of that verse; and indeed, that verse was NOT validating the "redundancy" of tithing. If it was, please demonstrate contextually how that verse makes tithing "redundant".

Now, speaking of the "context" of that verse, you'd see in comparison with other relevant texts that the Lord was not calling for a redundancy of ANY element He spoke about there. Let me offer you two pivotal issues that define the context of what the Lord spoke about there:

(a) the Lord called them "hypocrites"

(b) He called for obedience to both issues:

¤ the weightier matters of the Law - ('THESE ought ye to have done')

¤ Tithes - (and not to leave the OTHERS undone)

Let's examine the first aspect: being a 'HYPOCRITE'.

(a) It was not so much that they were pretending to be what they were not; but that they were giving partial recognition and half-hearted obedience to God's WORD! HOW is this so? Well, the whole tone of His reprimand pointed them out as trying to settle their thoughts on their partial obedience to the WORD ('. . for ye pay tithe. ., and have omitted. .'). TV01, you'd have to agree that making "omissions" while acclaiming that one was obeying the WORD is open hypocrisy - and that's what the Lord pointed out. Compare this with Mal. 2:9 - "according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law."

Secondly, the call to obedience on BOTH sides:

(b) It is clear that the Lord was not making either sides of the issue "redundant" - it is rather men who try to force that idea into the text. If there's anything the Lord denounced in that verse, it was their hypocrisy. However, when He sought to set them straight, He pronounced both aspects and gave His verdict:

"THESE" ought ye to have done, AND not to leave the "OTHER" undone.

In other words - do BOTH aspects! Compare this with the parallel passage in Luke 11:42, the Lord made it clear that they had the uncanny attitude to "pass over" judgment and the love of God.

TV01, the question now would be: was the Lord making 'judgement and the love of God' REDUNDANT? This is the one question one has to settle before insisting He was making the other aspect "redundant". So, if the Lord was NOT making redundant the matters of "judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23) or "judgment and the love of God" (Luke 11:42), why then would anyone want to do so? And if He did not make the first aspect redundant, why would anyone want to make it read as such, when the Lord clearly said: "and not to leave the other undone" ?

You see HOW and WHY you cannot use either Matt. 23:23 or Luke 11:42 as proof texts for commiting TITHES to redundancy. If you make the "OTHER" redundant, then you'd have to make "THESE" redundant as well! The Lord never suggested at all that only one aspect was approved, while the other was negated.

This is why I offered that the interpretation of Matt. 23:23 to make TITHES redundant is simply untennable.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Purist

If you want me to bother to respond to your posts, the first thing you will have to do is to observe basic courtesies and keep out personal comments. In any event, I have no time for "yeahs?" and "and sos?" If you don't understand the import of what I wrote that you responded to with such, especially in the mode and tone used, I have no interest to explain them to you.

If there is an honest seeker or a serious and polite debater, I am ready to explain anything I said in detail.

0
Avatar
Newbie

cgift

I want to give you a few pointers to think about in relation to what you posted.

1. You said "pay" tithes ---- do you notice that Jesus did not say "pay" tithes? Why? Addendum, though question not edited from my original. In that version the passage is in fact rendered as Jesus saying "you pay, "; my apology: However the question I intended was that "pay" in the context did not refer to "money".

2. Rather he said to the Pharisees: "you tithe of mint and anise and cummin , "; what do you understand by mint or anise or cummin? What is their relationship or comparison to money?

3. Do you know that the Pharisees were not disciples of Jesus ==== but rather people who hated Him and were opposed to Him?

4. Do you ever see, hear or read of Jesus telling any of His own disciples or followers to tithe --- let alone to "pay tithes"?

5. Will you be willing to consider that when read in proper context that verse is really saying to the Pharisees: 'you say you observe the law because you tithe of mint, anise and cummin! Yeye/nonsense, is that all there is in the law; are you not supposed to observe the most important aspects of that law and not just tithing of mint, anise and cummin?

6. Do you know that on many occasions Jesus deliberately broke "the law" --- in the process causing apoplexy for the same Pharisees?

7. Do you know that Jesus specifically taught that "the law" was inadequate or imperfect but that some aspects of it was given to the people just because of their own condition?

I wanted to keep this to just questions but I will make one comment: Matthew 23:23 does not reflect Jesus commanding His believers/followers to tithe, let alone to "pay" tithes; rather it reflects Jesus telling His enemies who were under the law to make sure they were even observing that law properly. Finally, don't just believe me or any other opponent of the modern "tithing"; take your time to read up again in context and study the Bible in more detail on the subject of tithing;

0
Avatar
Newbie

Lol, they don't see it as an instruction to tithe. I was coming to that; but I've decided to hold myself from sharing further at this point, and NOW begin asking my own questions - since they've made it their bírthright to ONLY ask questions and NEVER proffer answers to the queries others present.

However, we are not told to observe the LAW. It was rather "the weightier matters" of the Law that Christ pointed to. I'm waiting to see how they want to disregard what the Lord Jesus said about those matters: "judgment, mercy, and faith".

0
Avatar
Newbie

Has anyon ver considered this scripture very well.

TV, you quoted it in passing.

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Christ said emphatically, this YOU OUGHT TO HAVE DONE WITHOUT LEAVING THE OTHER UNDONE. In other words, pay tithes and also observe the law, mercy, faith etc. This is certainly an instruction to pay tithes. The modalities however would b another issue altogther hch can very well b xpounded.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I've been sharing on this and offered answers to every single question that was posed by those who were antagonistic to the subject. I asked nothing more in return than that such antagonists themselves should oblige answers to my questions. Did they do this, including yourself, TV01?

- - -

If you want a discussion, invite one. If you want to keep demonstrating your duplicity, as well do so. Why you scurried away from the other thread where you were mildly exposed for who you truly are at heart, and then come here pretending to hold a white flag, is not going to interest me one bit - not UNTIL you upgrade your attitude to honest dealings.

I've answered every single question you and your gang offered. What have YOU done with the questions I offered?

0
Avatar
Newbie

We can make claims back and forth. Answer all or even 1 of the 5 questions I posed just recently.

Please do so in one succinct and brief post and lets restart the discussion.

I'll even do it on your terms and allow you to vary terms as we proceed, so certain am I of the utter futility of your position.

Again, I expect you to scurry using one of your tried and trusted methods. Again, please feel free to prove me wrong!

I'm right here Miss.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

Again my comments:

I've been sharing on this and offered answers to every single question that was posed by those who were antagonistic to the subject. I asked nothing more in return than that such antagonists themselves should oblige answers to my questions. Did they do this, including yourself, TV01?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Only the questions have been mostly posed by yourself in teaser form, contrary answers steamrolled, and your trite traditional positions rammed down our throats. This has been married with absurdly contorted interpretations of Greek/Hebrew, selective use of different versions/transalations and a large dose of self deluded scholastic hubris.

Please show a simple end to end outline/exposition of tithing in the NT and allow the forum to ask questions. One simple post should suffice. Some pointers would be as follows;

1. Where the NT instructs or recommends it

2. How, when and in what form it is to be paid

3. Where it is to be paid

4 To whom it is to be paid

5. How it is to be disposed of

Again, a simple outline will do. You asked for a dare, I dare you to do just that. I expect nothing less than a spurious pointer to Abraham slyly supported by lengthy recourse to Moses. Feel free to shame me. Double dare!

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

Again my comments:

I've been sharing on this and offered answers to every single question that was posed by those who were antagonistic to the subject. I asked nothing more in return than that such antagonists themselves should oblige answers to my questions. Did they do this, including yourself, TV01?

0
Avatar
Newbie

No Pilgrim.1, tithing is not taught in the NT. Anywhere. It's mentioned as follows;

1. Once (in 2 gospels) when the Lord is castigating those under the law for blindly following the letter (tithe) and missing the spirit.

2. And In Hebrews to signify the superiority of The Melchizedekal High Priesthood overthe Levitical/Aaronic.

No other mention by the Lord or any Apostles.

Giving and only freewill giving is taught in the NT. Don't try and sneakily bundle tithing in with it.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

Because you do doesn't make it true sweetie.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Jesus never took from his congregation. He never passed around a basket or tray to receive pledges and donations at the end of each sermon.

He never asked for a payment. Nor did he ever tell his disciples to accept money for their assistance as found in

Matthew 10:8-10:

“Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.”

0
Avatar
Newbie

because u dont belive in it doesnt make it false my dear.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The Bible exhorts believers to accurately divide the word. The erronous way tithe is often preached in contemporary times is nothing less than bondage and a snare for many simple believers, and should be at once resisted and deconstructed.

The sum of any NTC tithing position/doctrine is this.

At best it's an individual and voluntary exercise. Not binding or incumbent on anyone.

And certainly not an integral part of NT worship.

Your venal efforts to appropriate redundant OT strictures, re-engineer them as NT worship forms and then use them to snare and fleece the flock of God will be met with fierce resistance.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

Rather than make blank statements or assume 'it has to be there', please show me WHERE God "denounced" TITHING.

SHOW me (and others reading this thread) WHERE God asked YOU to DENOUNCE tithes!

0
Avatar
Newbie

For me to denounce it, it has to be there! The whole point of this thread, to see if it is taught as part of NTC.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I hope so.

If it is true at all that you have not denounced what is in the WORD, what did you mean by this statement:

"Tithing is law-bound, Christ-denying, faith-void, religiously perverse, thrice-redundant, ritualistic codswallop"?!?

I would rather you simply deal with what is in the WORD, and not make such denunciations and claim you never did!

Where did you read the phrase "freewill giving" in the NT? That you strongly disagree with what I have shared at any point does not mean that I've been advancing untruths. I've also asked that anyone who is persuaded otherwise whouls kindly walk me through those texts and show me HOW, WHY and WHERE they see that I was wrong. If they have not done this, I still have made it clear that I was NOT commissioned to fight anyone for their cherished persuasions. All I asked was that we discussed issues and keep the slobbers and denunciations completely out of the ambits of ur dialogue.

No problem. I've been answering his questions as I find them in Scripture, and saving my own questions until he prompts me to serve them in rapid succession. However, I haven't yet read him soudly rebutt the answers so far - and if that was gall, the Lord will take care of the rest.

You may not want to see what is there; but again and again I've shown clearly that God does not bind, coerce, compel, or force anyone to obey Him in any matter. I also offered that those who would not want to see what is there in the WORD can save themselves any discomfort on the issue and simply do as they so please. They accountable to Him, not to me or anyone else.

And I respect that.

I don't see where I've offered a denominational position on anything I said. If what I offered are clearly flawed, I suppose you could easily have shown precisely HOW, WHY and WHERE so instead of vexing it up as an abomination. May I ask where you get God denouncing TITHES as an abomination, besides the earlier "religious perversion" derision?

Cheers.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I have shared at length, plainly stated my position and been willing to answer any questions posed. And I am more than happy to admit errors or stand corrected in part or in whole on any point in the discussion.

I have not denounced what is in the word, I have denounced the propagation of things not in the word as a means to bind and exploit the unknowing.

I notice your continued co-opting of scriptures that speak solely to freewill giving to mean "tithe & offering" and then building whole treatises around your untruths.

I am confident that Enigma will see through you or see you off in the "Essence of tithing " thread, so I haven't bothered to post, I'm just following, but your gall in misappropriating scripture purely to sustain the unsustainable still amazes me.

So once again. No one can teach tithing by law or according to the law or under law from the OT and make it binding on NT Christians.

It's at best a purely incidental and personal observation.

Anyone can see you have a vested traditional/denominational interest in maintaining the status quo of the totally false "professional/salaried clergy" abomination. So far you have declined to 'fess up. No need. It reeks to high heavens, and would be clear to a blind man in a mudslide.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

@TV01,

If you have anything to share, I expected you could have done that. If you had nothing to offer, and would rather make a career of denoucing what is in the WORD, I only ask you to offer me the ONE VERSE where God has so commissioned you to do so.

I've said this again and again - if you don't believe in tithes, no worries. If you can't offer simple answers to the simple questions I offered you in the other thread, save whatever else is left of your emptiness. If neither suggestions appeal to you, please be my guest and go on trying to prove it is your birthright to denounce it without a mandate to do so.

Whatever else makes you restless will be served according as you invite.

0
Avatar
Newbie

At least on the point, it is evident that NTC do not have to tithe on that basis. Any other basis can be discussed on it's biblical merits

Tithes predate Abraham, the Hebrews and the Israelites, so what? Circumcision also pre-dates the law. Again, so what? If you know of Abraham giving a tithe as a response to a prompt by God - which is relevent for NTC - pray tell.

Nobody is discussing this personally. Only the biblical basis - or lack thereoff - for it. Nobody is castigating those who do it, or disparaging those who teach it. But if one teaches tithing, one should be prepared to be questioned and to defend their position, as with any doctrine.

And presumably calling people haughty and rebellious is not to castigate or disparage?

You that understand, pray share. If it is not clear to us - by your reckoning - please be a vessel for our enlightening. I denouce it on the basis of the law and can find no other basis except at best a personal thing. And although I would personally consider it somewhat immature, would not rail against individual liberty.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

I'm so sorry for those who ALWAYS have to tie TITHES to the Law. That way, it's easier to argue AGAINST tithes because it usually boils down to the idea that since the Law is done away with, then TITHES are done away with as well.

What amazes me, however, is that people often fail to understand that TITHES predated the LAW!! The Law cannot nullify what it did not originate! And that is why people should rather ask God to show them WHAT prompted Abraham to give tithes WITHOUT the slightest hint of any LAW or COMMANDMENTS!

If you don't believe in tithes, no worries. But that should not be reason enough to castigate those who tithe, or disparage pastors and call them thieves and all sorts of despicable names! Those who castigate others are unwittingly displaying a haughty and rebellious spirit against the WORD.

The simple thing to do is seek to understand the core issues about tithing. If at the end of the day it is not clear, then no reason to call others names and all sorts. . or even go as far as denouncing it. I just simply would like to see where in the WORD God asked anyone to denounce tithing the way some of us are prone to do.

0
Avatar
Newbie

this topic has been covered at least twice already. but it's all summed up in this. you do not have to give 10% of your income to the church on a monthly basis.

Hebrews 7

This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace."

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder!

Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, their brothers—even though their brothers are descended from Abraham.

This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater.

In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.

For it is declared:

"You are a priest forever,

in the order of Melchizedek."

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

"The Lord has sworn

and will not change his mind:

'You are a priest forever.' "

Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.

Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people.

He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Hebrews 8: 6-8

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

GIVE WITH A CHEERFUL HEART WHATEVER YOU CAN! NOT 10%

0
Avatar
Newbie

Tithe is giving one tenth of what u have.

the genesis of tithing was Abramham giving tithe unto Melchizedik, priest of the most high God. God by purpose, design the tribe of levi to collect tithe of his brothers. Tithing was on tro-out the old testement until malachi God reprimand Isreal for denying Him of tithe.

Now tithing is the most controversial topic in christiandom. And people that propose tithe in church cannot hold a new testement example of the paying of tithe.

On my part, time will not permit a complete exegesis on tithing. but to be precise, in the new testement the doctrine of giving have taken over tithing based on these points.

1.  when Abramhan gave tithe, there was no temple and Melchizedik manifested as a type of christ.

2.  God instituted tithe for Isrealites at the constitution of the temple/place of gathering then called tabernacle in a gradual unfolding manner.

3.  Christ did  not pay tithe but taught on the weightier things of the law. knowing that the current tabernacle will soon be a past.

4.  the apostle took it further on the doctrine of giving and still base on "a willing heart" as God did He first ask isreal of an offering-Exo 25.

5.  every giving is to God, if u believe that tithe must be,then be convinced and know that your tithing is within the doctrine of giving and is still guided by "a willing heart or that purposed in the heart". thus making it a personal convenant.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.