Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Israelites;1048456 said:Did you say Melchizedek was a Canaanite King & a pagan priest?
Where you get that from?
I thought he was the High Priest over Israel & of the Most High, so how could he be a pagan priest?
Ok, after reviewing the scriptures, my "thought" was wrong, he is a High priest of the Most High, he wasn't over Israel at the time, but the order of Melchizedek is the High Priesthood that Jesus will come under as the High Priest at his 2nd coming:
Psalm 110 (King James Version)
1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (LORD is the Father & my Lord is the son)
2The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
3Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
5The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
6He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
7He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
Zechariah 6:12-13 (King James Version)
12And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
13Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
Hebrews 5:5-13 (King James Version)
5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; 10Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
14:18 And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine….
Hebrews 7:6 says “he whose descent is not counted from them.” Although much speculation exists, the text itself gives no evidence that Melchizedek was anything other than a self-appointed and self-named pagan priest-king similar to hundreds of others found in his era and in his vicinity around 2000 B. C.
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, “The name of this mysterious person means either ‘king of righteousness,’ or ‘my king is righteousness,’ or ‘my king is Zedek.’ Zedek is the Hebrew word for ‘righteousness’ and also the name of a Canaanite deity. Melchizedek was the priest-king of Salem, which is the shortened form of ‘Urusalem,’ ‘city of peace,’ identified with Jerusalem. ‘Shalom’ is the Hebrew word for ‘peace’ and ‘Shalem’ probably was the Canaanite god of peace. This kindly priest-king, recognizing Abram’s nobility and worth, supplied refreshment and sustenance for the weary warrior and his men. These gifts were tokens of friendship and * hospitality.”[3]
The preceding quotation opened my eyes to do extensive research on the ignored Phoenician and Canaanite pantheon. Oddly, this statement comes from a commentary re-published for Southwestern Company (Southern Baptist) by Moody Press in 1968. The chapter on Genesis is written by Kyle M. Yates, Sr., Th. D., Ph. D., Professor of Old Testament, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, which is Southern Baptist. If, as Yates claims, Melchizedek worshiped the Canaanite gods, Zedek and Salem, then, logically, El Elyon must have also been a Canaanite god!
The New Bible Commentary: “There is nothing mysterious about him in spite of the interpretation placed by some on Heb. vii, 3. He was king of some Semitic clan, which still occupied Salem, before the Jebusites captured it. There was never an utter extinction of the knowledge of God in the world, and here, too, God had preserved some knowledge of Himself.”[4]
The Matthew Henry Commentary: “The rabbin, and most of our rabbinical writers, conclude that Melchizedek was Shem the son of Noah, who was king and priest to those who descended from him, according to the patriarchal model. But this is not at all probable…. The most commonly received opinion is that Melchizedek was a Canaanitish prince, that reigned in Salem, and kept up the true religion there; but, if so, why his name should occur here only in all the story of Abram, and why Abram should have altars of his own and not attend the altars of his neighbor Melchizedek who was greater than he, seem unaccountable.”[5]
Although we subconsciously want to associate Melchizedek’s Jerusalem with that of David’s Jerusalem over one thousand years later, this is simply not the case. The Tell Mardikh tablets (c. 2300 B.C.) contain the name “Urusalimum” and hundreds of other places and personal names in the region. The name probably originally meant “founded by the god Shalem,” a goddess (of dawn?) of the Amorites, a consort of Zedek, that is, Jupiter.
When the Jebusites arrived they did not select the best location because the higher place above Kidron was already occupied by a Canaanite *temple which the Jebusites did not want to displace. Archaeologists claim that the Jebusite fort dated back to at least 2000 B.C. which is the time period of Abraham’s tribute to Melchizedek.[6]
Since the name of “Jerusalem” was known prior to the Jebusite occupation, it probably originally referred to the high hill of Melchizedek’s * temple beside the Valley of Zedek. The Jebusites are mentioned as early as Numbers 13:29. They called their city “Jebus” or “Jebusi.” David captured it and named it “The City of David” (Josh. 15:8; 18:16, 28; Judg. 19:10; 2 Sam. 5:8; 1 Chron. 11:4). Evidently the original name of “Jerusalem” regained prominence under David. Again, Shalim was the name of a Canaanite god.
The point of this discussion is that the place which Melchizedek called “Salem” was his pagan Canaanite residence and was not at that time God’s holy city. Even the term “Zion” was originally a Jebusite name for their fort (2 Sam. 5:7).
“Most High God” Was Also a Common Canaanite Title for Both “El” and “Baal”
14:18…and he was the priest of the most high God.
14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed is Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth;
14:20 and blessed is the most high God, which has delivered your * enemies into your hand.
A seminary textbook on the principles of interpretation reminds us, “A good interpretation should not depend so heavily on inferences that it cannot stand on its own without the help of theoretical construct…. Did our theory about the historical situation control our reading of the text, or did the text itself suggest the theory?”[7] Relevant to this chapter, does the * common conclusion that Melchizedek’s “Most High God” must be Jehovah rest on solid historical proof, or does it rest on the pre-conceived ideas of what interpreters and commentators would like it to mean? It would also be wrong to use Hebrew 7’s “typical” application to change the “historical” meaning of Genesis 14.
It is extremely important for a correct understanding of Genesis 14 to realize that “Most High God,” or “God the Most High,” (Hebrew: “El Elyon”) was a common Canaanite designation for Baal, and even his father, El. Again, neither sentence-structure nor context require this identification to point exclusively to Jehovah, as most commentators conclude. It is unfortunate that “El Elyon” has been “translated,” rather than merely being “transliterated,” and left as “El Elyon.” This error easily confuses the reader and encourages the reader towards a conclusion which is not apparent in the phrase itself. While a casual Canaanite reader would quickly identify the phrase with “El” or “Baal,” a casual contemporary westerner would conclude that the term identifies Jehovah, or Yahweh. A comparative problem has been eliminated by Bible translators who have wisely chosen to retain the name “Baal,” instead of translating it as “Lord.”
Fausset’s Bible Dictionary comments on the name “El Elyon” by saying, “The Phoenicians so named their chief god according to Sanchoniathon in Enseb. Praep. Event., doubtless from primitive revelation.”[8]
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “Like El Elyon, “Baal” (Babylonian “Bel”), the supreme Canaanite god, was also called “Lord,” “master,” and “possessor of heaven and earth.”[9] At least from Melchizedek’s point of view, “Baal” is equally a logical, though usually ignored, meaning of “El Elyon.” To further confuse the names, there are also sources which claim that “Elyon” was the grandfather of “El” and that an eighth century Aramaic treaty stele even describes “El” and “Elyon” as two distinct deities. I encourage anybody who is interested in this study to make a trip to a large library and research the religions of Phoenicia and Canaan. Daniel, the book of Gentile prophecy, refers to God in Aramaic almost exclusively as “the Most High God,” or “Most High” (Dan. 3:26; 4:17, 24, 25, 32, 34; 5:18, 21). Lucifer schemed to sit upon the throne of “the Most High” (Isa. 14:13-14). “The Most High God” is a name that relates to ALL nations, ALL heaven, and ALL earth—not just Israel. (Compare 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 7:17; 18:13; 21:7; 47:2; 83:18; 87:5; 91:1-2, 9; 92:1, 8; 97:9).
“El Elyon” Could Betray Melchizedek as Ignorant of Yahweh
First, Melchizedek did not know God as “Yahweh,” that is, “LORD,” or “Jehovah.” It is important to recognize that Melchizedek called himself the priest of “El Elyon,” “Most High God” in verses 18-20 and did NOT call himself the priest of “Yahweh, the Most High God,” as did Abraham to the king of Sodom in verse 22.
Those special to God knew His name! “Yahweh,” the “LORD,” is the special name through which God first revealed himself in Genesis 2:4 to Adam and Eve. God spoke to Cain as Yahweh in 4:6, to Noah in 5:29; 6:3; 7:1; 8:20 and 9:26; to Nimrod in 10:8-9; to those at the tower of Babel in 11:5; and to Abram in 12:1. The name, “Yahweh,” occurs over 160 times in Genesis alone. Worshipers of all ages, especially those in Abraham’s time, were very particular about knowing the NAME of the god to whom they prayed. Because of this Scriptural fact, it is almost inconceivable that Melchizedek could have been a true priest of the true God and yet not know his special name! Therefore, I believe that Melchizedek’s ignorance about the true name of Yahweh should disqualify him from being one who carried the name from Noah’s time.
Second, Melchizedek might have been identifying himself as a Semitic Canaanite by calling himself priest of “El Elyon,” “Most High God.” As just mentioned, this reference, “Most High God,” was almost universally used by non-Hebrew Semitic people to designate their concept of “Baal,” or even his father “El,” the bull-god and father of the Canaanite pantheon.
“El,” the Hebrew word most often translated as “God” in our Bibles, is a generic reference word and is not necessarily a “name.” “El” can just as easily mean “god” with a little “g,” “the might of nature,” or even “an angel” (Exod. 34:14; Deut. 32:12; Judg. 9:46; Isa. 44:10). “El” (Strong’s 410) and its root words, uwl (Strong’s 193) and ah-yil (Strong’s 352), all basically mean “might” and “strength.” As previously mentioned, any Canaanite would immediately associate “El Elyon” with either “El” or “Baal”—instead of the Hebrew’s Yahweh.[10]
Until Genesis 14, God had identified himself as “Elohim” and “Yahweh.” He subsequently identified himself as “Almighty” in 17:1; 35:11; 43:14; and 48:3. God referred to himself in Genesis as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” By revelation, the non-Hebrew prophet, Balaam, identified Israel’s God as Yahweh, the Almighty, and Most High in Numbers 24:13-16. While referring to all nations, Moses called God “Most High” in Deuteronomy 32:8. The point is that, while he is the true Most High, God did not prefer to be identified by El Elyon in the Pentateuch! Although Genesis 14, Numbers 24, and Deuteronomy 32 are the only three uses of “Most High” in the Pentateuch, this name for God would not appear again for over one thousand years when David uttered it in Second Samuel 22:14—after his capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites in 5:7.
In other words, except for Abraham’s declaration that his Most High was actually “Yahweh, LORD” in Genesis 14:22 and the reference by Moses to the “nations” in Deuteronomy 32:8, this name for God, El Elyon, is of very little importance to the patriarchs like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. When David did begin using El Elyon again, it was usually prefixed by “LORD.” Thus Melchizedek’s use of Most High for his god likely betrayed himself as a Canaanite who did not know God’s most special covenant name, Yahweh.
Third, Scripture does not tell us that Abraham revealed the name of the true Most High God to Melchizedek. The key thought and climax of the narrative is found in verses 21-24, not in verses 18-20 which receive too much attention. Why? Because God’s “champion” at this point in the Old Testament is Abraham, and not Melchizedek! Although Abraham must have certainly spoken to Melchizedek, not one spoken word from Abraham to Melchizedek is recorded in Scripture! Odd indeed if God considered their meeting so important.
In summary, the great revelation that Abraham’s Most High was actually “Yahweh” was not made until he defended his actions towards the king of Sodom in verse 22. This omission of “Yahweh” concerning Melchizedek is important. Those who rush to make Genesis 14 teach tithing miss this point that, as priest of the “Most High” (El Elyon), Melchizedek did not know God as “LORD” (Yahweh, Jehovah), the covenant-God of Abraham and Israel. He was not priest of the “LORD Most High,” and it was only Abraham who identified God as “LORD” Most High. (Note: English Bibles use all capitals for ‘LORD’ when the Hebrew word is ‘Yahweh, Jehovah.’) [11]
its over: 2012!;1051193 said:is this the dumbest gobbledygook, ever?
"Despite what "its over" thinks here, this thread isn't about tithing---------------it's only about how much money we're to give the church, Duhhhh!"
ROFLMwAO indeed...at an idiotic lameAzz who's so mad that I exposed him for aimlessly-contradicting his Pastor, he now wants to pretend that I didn't address his topic?
okay well...just for you, I'll allude to what I laid out yesterday...now that you've had time to reflect on it, you'll hurt even more over how correct I am here;
That lil' bit of money we give, is not hurting us. We wouldn't dare let it! And I say that on behalf of every church-goer, in America. No one is going to tithe an amount, which is beyond their means.
A church feeds you, a church nourishes you, a church guides in your walk with Christ as you seek Righteousness.
Therefore, only a devilish fool sent from Hell, would use that premise (which he is fully aware of re: tithing) just to try and taint what a Pastor seeks, from his congregation.
Again, face facts face reality;
If that pastor is corrupt, then God will take care of that. It is not your job, to do it.
Especially, if you have no proof that yon Pastor wants people to tithe more reliably nor any proof that he twisted the Word to strengthen his point..
And I contacted that religious org, yesterday, as it turns out that you just ran here/concocted some nonsense about the way you interpreted his message.
Shame on you! As I almost feel bad, for the being the one to expose you here.
its over: 2012!;1051447 said:I like the sounds of that. It so so so..reminiscent....of how Satan's demons summed up Paul, as they pursued him around the Eastern Hemisphere.
~Yep, I'm a loser because you...got exposed.
~I'm a dumb azz because you...bring your deceit here, where I UNDRESS it for the world to see.
~I'm a loser, because your...dishonesty can NOT 'win' as long as I am a member here reading it/waiting to expose it.
Therefore I am cool with that, you felonious monk, I am very very lovely with that indeed.
And as long as my statements here are ironclad, then I am cool with your continual losses, of self-control. As your very flagrancy here, is nothing but proof of how The Devil sent you.
Which is why you pretend that I didn't EXACTLY address your harlequinade you created here/attempting to taint a man of God.
So as you keep pretending I didn't address your deceitfully-idiotic rant here re: your Pastor's sermon...I remind you again;
pull your head out of your queef, shut up, sit your monkeyazz down in the congregation, pay your tithe at the frequency your Pastor suggests, then realize that you are blessed to have a foundation a home a nurturing place for your walk with Christ------------which you built! Yep. Which your monies constructed and created, in the name of Jesus Christ.
The Lonious Monk;1041250 said:Yeah that's the word. Thanks.
Also I have to respectfully disagree with you about tithing. The very scripture I posted has Jesus confirming that you should still tithe.
Matthew 23:23,24 - "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Jesus is clearly saying that the justice, mercy, and faithfulness are the most important, but tithing shouldn't be neglected.
kids in america_;1053466 said:Pay attention to the time-context of Matthew 23. Matthew 23:23-24 was an event in time that took place in the context of the 'Old Covenant'. Meaning the Law of Moses was still in force, when Jesus spoke those words to the Scribes and Pharisees. Tithing should have not been neglected because they were all still under the Old Covenant/ law of Moses which required “tithing”. However, the echoes of Matthew 23:23 does not speak to the quote unquote New Testament believers
vboy513;1053809 said:I haven't read EVERY post on here but i have a question.....
@The Lonious Monk,
Are in the post above, are you hinting that the "old covenant" laws should still be kept by professed followers of christ? And if so, which one?
The Lonious Monk;1053573 said:Again, I point out that Jesus said himself he did not come to replace the old laws. So why would you believe that the New Covenant issued in by Jesus would invalidate those laws? Would you say the same about murder and adultery? No, because Jesus specifically called those things out as being wrong. The passage I posted just as clearly shows Jesus stating that you should tithe. If Jesus is stating that these laws were still in effect and should still be heeded while he was alive, why would anyone think that his death would somehow invalidate them? What would be the point of him teaching these things and then invalidating all those teachings when he died. It doesn't make sense especially in lieu of the fact that he knew he was going to die and why he was going to die.
It simply doesn't make sense to believe that the Covenant issued forth by Jesus' sacrifice invalidates all of the old laws when Jesus himself said that was not his purpose. When he was resurrected, he didn't tell his followers that a new covenant was in place and all the teachings he did before under the "old covenant" were obsolet now, so where does this idea come from?
Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you--that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled."
The Lonious Monk;1053895 said:All of them except the ones that don't mesh with what Christ taught. He was pretty clear about this
Matthew 5: 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus says pretty plainly that those Laws will be in effect until the world ends. The New Covenant did not make heaven and earth disappear, so what reason do people have to believe that those Laws no longer apply? Where in the Bible does it specifically say that you no longer need to pay tithes? And does that statement come from someone whose authority is equal to or higher than Jesus'. If you read further into that chapter, Jesus drives home the point by going through several of those laws and explaining exactly how and why they should be followed.
kids in america_;1054109 said:Again Jesus did not say Old ‘Laws’. Jesus however said he came to 'fulfill' “the law and the prophets”. As I’ve said before, “the law and the prophets” is a regular Jewish name for the entire Jewish Scriptures. Look-It-Up. It is, then, Jesus' 'fulfillment' of the Jewish Scriptures which is in view here. Here's an example:
You assume Jesus is referring to the Old ‘Laws’, when you read Matthew 5:17-19. That’s an assumption. Jesus did not mention any Old Laws in these verses. Your reading of Jesus’ statement as having these Old laws specifically in mind is to bring in ideas that were not stated by him.
kids in america_;1054192 said:Matthew 5:19 refer to the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5-7, and not to the Old Laws.
its over: 2012!;1054161 said:Notice the t/s failure here, to acknowledge all of the scriptures which context different aspects of tithing?
Such as Malachi 3: 8-10, in which the whole tithe or all of the tithe was previously ask for amongst selfish humans because back then Hebrew for whole was "kowl" meaning "whole, all or every. Kowl comes from a root word meaning, “to complete,: hence, to make perfect." The "whole tithe" could then refer to Every tithe, since the Old Testament required different kinds of tithes to be given. Now, I dare not ask the t/s if his Pastor asked the congregation for 'the whole tithe or all of the tithe' for that would be truly embarrassing to his common sense and logic while sitting in the congregation.
For now, let us stick to Matthew and the deceit honed in on when t/s tried to equate the Pharisees disregard for faithfulness justice mercy...to tithing the church.
How ridiculous, is that?
What does the needs of the church, to function? Have to do with it's congregation seeking Justice, Mercy, and Faithfulness? They are not dependent variables, as the t/s tainted his Pastor to impress...just because his Pastor was speaking about one half of that scripture only as the other half was irrelevant to his presentation.
Where does Jesus say that one, is more important than the others? Or, one can't exist without the other? If he doesn't say it, then how crazy is it for one to base their argument on that scripture?
I challenge anyone, to show where there is clearly a relation to the importance of tithing, as it's being pitted by t/s, against the EQUAL importance of faithfulness mercy and Justice?
I say none.
Why, because this is no issue...the scripture simply says that they all are important to be reaching for----whereas his Pastor wasn't speaking on all, just one; tithing!
IOW...according to t/s impression he gives, Pastor would've been compliant had he actually said, "since our congregation isn't reaching for Faithfulness, Justice, and Mercy-----then all of sudden, I'm telling you all that tithing means nothing!!...building up your church means nothing!! ...investing in the house that nurtures your walk with God, is meaningless!! ...no matter what amount or what intensity I use, regarding tithing!! ...as long as you aren't putting yourself in a bind, by extending it? ...lol"Again this is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I never at any point said that tithing means nothing. I said that it was not the key part to our lives in Jesus as the Pastor was suggesting. The fact that Jesus says there are more important matters makes that clear. I fully understand why tithing is important and have stated this throughout the topic. You are the only one suggesting that I have said otherwise.
Here's the killer that annihilates t/s argument...2 questions;
~How many racist-haters do you think sit in that congregation with him paying their tithes, are living their lives REFUSING to reach for Faithfulness, Justice, Mercy?
~Isn't there a difference between tithing, and giving to 'an offering' as far as you all know??
...hmmmmm...is there a chance, that someone does not know the difference between the two? Well, according to that correspondence I called here, the pastor CERTAINLY knows the difference!
Again this has nothing to do with the point I was making. Now I tried to respond to you respectfully. It's not that what you are saying is wrong. What you are saying simply has nothing to do with what I was saying. You are fixated on proving that tithes are important. I never once said that they weren't. I've maintained throughout this topic that they are and even argued in favor of paying tithes. So I fail to see how you can come to this conclusion that I'm trying to prove that tithes are wrong or unimportant.
Now if I've said anything disrespectful, it was unintentional. You're free to respond, but come in the same light that I've presented. If you can't do that and you feel that you have to call me a liar or an agent of the devil or any other unfounded thing such as that, don't bother responding to me. Only address what I've said, and if you think I'm wrong, show me directly where I'm wrong with real proof.
GaryArnold;1055429 said:The first time tithe is mentioned in the Bible is Abraham's tithe of pagan spoils of war, and Abraham kept NOTHING for himself. This was NOT an act of worship. The goods that Abraham gave the tenth from didn’t even belong to Abraham:
Genesis 14:21 (NIV) - The king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself.”
Notice in verse 21 the king of Sodom didn’t ask Abraham if he would give back to him the people, but rather said GIVE ME the people and keep the goods for yourself. The way that is worded indicates that the king of Sodom was claiming that the people and the goods belonged to him and those he represented.
Genesis 14:22-24 (NIV) - 22But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath 23that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the thong of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, ‘I made Abram rich.’ 24I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me—to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre. Let them have their share.”
Notice in verses 23 and 24 Abraham also acknowledges that the goods belonged to the king of Sodom and those he represented.
Therefore, it is clear that both the king of Sodom and Abraham acknowledged that the spoils of war did NOT belong to Abraham, yet he gave a tenth of the spoils to King Melchizedek. This would seem that Abraham did something wrong, if not even illegal, but Biblical historians agree that it was custom in Abraham's day to give the king a tenth of the war spoils. Had Abraham not given the tenth, he would have gone against custom.
Conclusion: Abraham did NOT give a tenth of his income, or his wealth. Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils of war that didn’t belong to him. That is NOT an example for Christians to follow today.
The next mention of a tithe is Jacob's VOW to tithe. Jacob set the conditions, not God. Nowhere in The Word does it tell us that Jacob actually tithed. Genesis 28:10-22
Next is The Lord's Tithe. God gave His definition as a tenth of crops and animals which came from God's hand, not man's income. God NEVER commanded anyone to tithe on anything that man made or earned. Leviticus 27:30-33.
The ordinances (instructions, or laws) for The Lord's Tithe are in Numbers 18. God gave strict orders to take His tithe to the Levites. God NEVER changed that command. Anyone who takes God's tithe to anyone other than the Levites is being disobedient to God's Word.
There are others tithes in the Bible such as the Festival Tithe and the Tithe for the Poor. It is The Lord's Tithe that churches pattern their teaching after.
Church leaders ignore God's definition of His tithe, and ignore God's ordinances for His tithe. They change the words to fit their pocketbook. This is nothing but manipulation of God's Word. They are false teachers.
The Bible CLEARLY SHOWS that the tithe ENDED at the cross in the Book of Hebrews. In the first nine verses of Hebrews 7 the words tenth or tithes appears SEVEN TIMES. The ONLY place in the Bible, after Calvary, that tithing appears is in Hebrews 7.
In Hebrews 7:5 we are told that Levi (the Levites) took the tithes under the law. In Hebrews 7:12 we are told that when the priesthood changes, the law will change. Hebrews 7:18 is telling us that Numbers 18 was disannulled. Numbers 18 established the Levitical priesthood, and part of that establishing included tithing. When the Levitical priesthood ended (at Calvary, or at least in the year 70AD when the temple was destroyed), all laws that established that priesthood were canceled. If Numbers 18 wasn't canceled, we would still be under the Levitical priesthood.
Those who argue they didn't have money or income then really need to study the scriptures. They had money and wages, even in Genesis. The farmers had income from barter exchanges, and they had markets to buy and sell as proven in Deuteronomy 14:24-26.
Those who argue Malachi 3:8, robbing God, need to start with verse 7. God is talking about His ordinances in Numbers 18 which we learned were disannulled according to Hebrews 7:18. Also, if you start with Malachi 1, you will see that God is speaking to the priests, not the people. The priests robbed God of the tithe (Nehemiah 13) and the priests robbed God of the offerings (Malachi 1).
The New Testament teaches generous, sacrificial giving, from the heart, according to our means. For some, $1 might be a sacrifice, while for others, even giving 50% of their income might not induce a sacrifice. In the Old Testament, ONLY the farmers tithed, and it was equal percentage (a tenth). The New Testament teaches the principle of equal sacrifice instead of equal percentage. Equal sacrifice is much harder to achieve than giving ten percent.
The Lonious Monk;1055497 said:You're not really arguing against tithing. You're arguing against its definition. I would agree that there is some merit in the bold, but that does not change the fact that tithing is a commandment that was referred to by Jesus himself.
its over: 2012!;1055584 said:See, already you're being dishonest here. You know it's a fact, that I brought civil respectful discourse to you, since my first day on this site...'tis you who got pissed off at me, one day, when I refused to budge from my valid opinion in a different thread weeks ago.
'tis you who then joined in with others who began calling me names, as I pretty much begged you all to cease and desist...or else I was joining in. So please sir, do acknowledge how it is me who has taken the high-road for days, and now you choose to join me in respectful discourse here.
I'll digress at this scripture here, which you quoted in the topic post. To me, it is a clear indication that tithing according to the Church's/Pastor's needs, should not be abandoned just because one wasn't seeking Faithfulness, Justice, and Mercy. And plus, I am going to stick by my claim that your Pastor was totally in order by suggesting to tithe more since the fact that he is not rich nor wealthy nor all on TBN, does show that he grasps how ordinary People simply give what they can afford as he was obviously talking about those who can afford to give more.
There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever, since Jesus certainly did not rebuke the Pharisees for treating tithing with so much importance...he rebuked them for not treating it equal to or above, Faithfulness Justice & Mercy, again in which he clearly does not rebuke tithing ITSELF in any way.
Plus since this is not biblical times, then I am compelled to give credence to your Pastor's reference included church members giving to "an offering" as well...it's not part of tithing and all churches do it, especially the non-wealthy churches...that alone allowed me to do away with any cognitive dissonance you presented on this matter.
GaryArnold;1055613 said:PRO-TITHERS BEWARE
In Numbers 18 God commanded that His tithe be taken to the Levites. The Levites were the servants to the priests. They were the singers, the musicians, the janitors, the carpenters, the workers at the Temple. The Levites were to take a tenth of the tithe to the priests. Is that how your church follows God’s law? Do you take The Lord’s Tithe to the singers, musicians, etc. and let them give a tenth to the pastor?
Numbers 18:27 proves that neither wages nor income could be tithed on for The Lord’s Tithe. Without this interpretation, Numbers 18:27 has no meaning and is only taking up space.I don't see where you get this at all. The tithes from the church was the income for the Levites, and they had to tithe 10% of that as the Lord's tithe, so they were effectively tithing on their wages. 18:27 is a little confusing, but I don't see how you can suddenly say that it means you're not supposed to tithe on your wages when the verse right before it tells the Levites to do exactly that.
The definition of The Lord’s Tithe is NOT ten percent. It is a TENTH. Here is the difference. Since God said to tithe every TENTH animal, if there were only 9 new born animals that year, NOTHING was tithed. They were not instructed to tithe ten percent of the value of the animals.
The tithe was NEVER on man’s increase. God defined His tithe to be a tenth of His increase. That is why it is HOLY!
I don't have anything to say about this really as it's not addressing anything I've spoken about. I will point out that none of this counters the fact that Jesus himself said we should tithe.
1 Timothy 5:8 tells us that if we give first and then don’t have enough left to take care of our family, we are worse than a non-believer.
Come on man, now you're just misrepresenting scripture.
3Honor widows(C) who are truly widows. 4But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn(D) to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for(E) this is pleasing in the sight of God. 5She(F) who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and(G) continues in supplications and prayers night and day, 6but(H) she who is self-indulgent is(I) dead even while she lives. 7(J) Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. 8But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for(K) members of his household, he has(L) denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
That is the verse in the context of what is being discussed. It is talking about taking care of family members, specifically widows. There is no discussion of tithes at all. So the "if we give first" part of your argument is disingenuous since these verses do not directly address tithing at all. If we are supposed to see that 10% or 1/10 as being God's to begin with, clearly this isn't talking about taking care of family with that. It's talking about taking care of family with the other 90% or 9/10 that actually belong to you.
You are
Tithers – you are SINNING against God when you ignore His command and take His tithe to the church.
Ok, now you're just spinning your wheels because this claime is completely unsupported by anything you've said so far.
Pro-tithers – you must think that God didn’t know the future and therefore didn’t provide for the future in His Word. You must think that God expects YOU to change His definition and commands to fit your needs. I BELIEVE THAT GOD GAVE US HIS WORD TO FOLLOW, NOT TAMPER WITH.
I fail to see how this has any grounds. God's most beloved messenger, Jesus, said the tithe is just, so there is no tampering with his word. This roundabout assumption to prove that tithing is not to be done is closer to tampering. After all, out of Jesus' own mouth, tithing should be done. None of you have provided one scripture that says tithing is no longer necessary. You guys keep jumping around from book to book trying to create a piecemeal argument to support your claims and basically ignore everything that refutes them.
Matthew 5:18 tells you that if you change even one dot or one tittle and teach it to man, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
It's ironic you mention this, since the scriptures I have presented to prove tithing is still required comes from very same book in close vicinity to that passage. I have changed nothing and quoted the scriptures just as they are. It is you and others who have brought scriptures and then added your own suppositions to fit your argument. Now I'm not going to accuse you of trying to twist God's word. Obviously, you're free to have your own interpretation if that's what you sincerely believe. However, you should refrain from throwing scriptures like this around in an accusatory manner.
Pro-tithers – show me one verse where God ever told anyone to tithe on anything that man made or earned (wages or income). Show me one verse where God ever gave the Christian Church permission to receive His tithe. You, my friends, are REBELLING AGAINST GOD by ignoring His Word and doing what you believe is better.
The same verse I gave you addresses that. The pharisees were tithing with spices they had earned due to their work. Jesus confirmed that this was something they should have done. They were tithing to the temple. I don't know what else needs to be said. If you don't want to believe something should be done, you won't ever believe it. Furthermore, you claim that people who are tithing are ignoring God's word, but not one of the scriptures you offered was a commandment from God NOT to tithe. Again, you're making round about arguments and then claiming they are direct when they really aren't. Jesus saying we should tithe is direct. You jumping from Hebrews to Leviticus to Numbers and then speculating and adding assumptions is not direct at all. Occams Razor, when faced with a logical problem, the solution that requires the least amount of external suppostion is likely the best solution. So what do you think is the best solution, doing what Jesus said should be done or doing what you think should be done based on your overly complex analysis of things.
its over: 2012!;1056129 said:okay then sir, well, I'm going to go ahead and once again thank you for deciding to join me in respectful discourse, then...be done with the issue here.
You've made it plainly obvious that, for every one of your premises that I invalidate...you start splitting hairs/claiming that wasn't your stance.
I have clearly taken your entire, overall stance, from the topic post...and spoke unequivocal truth to it, as I undoubtedly validated your Pastor and kept his requests totally within the context of 1)the scriptures relative to him being a Pastor in 2010-America, including 2)not requiring but inviting his congregation to donate to "an offering" along with their usual tithing.
When you combine that, with how you have to truthfully agree and admit that you never once even denied to readers, that yon Pastor was indeed doing a great job of reaching for Faithfulness, Mercy, and Justice, thereby presenting a sermon where he attempts to step Tithe-preaching Game up to the level of other three (3) elements;
let us be honest, ThMonk, and embrace new revelations that unfurled for wisdom, when I responded to you. Don't fight me, pal, I am your brother!
