They have no shame

[Esaias]

Some more documentation on the fact that prior to the late 1800s 'tithing' was not taught in American churches of any denomination. Beginning in the late 1800s, however, the Presbyterians introduced "tithing" and it quickly caught on with other denominations:

http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id135.html

quote from the article: Conclusion: The idea of tithing did not even emerge as a discussion in American churches before the 1870s. It is a relatively new doctrine.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

1 Corinthians 9:13 what was the share of the altar?

How much did they partake from it?

How that even relevant?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

How that even relevant?

It's relevant because that verse says the New Testament ministry receives an income like the Old Testament ministry did.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

10%
Is God's safety net, for both the tithe payer and the Ministry.

No scripture to back that up.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's relevant because that verse says the New Testament ministry receives an income like the Old Testament ministry did.

It does not say that the New testament ministers are to receive 10% of something, does it? It is simply saying that New Testament ministers are to be taken care of. If you want to insist that we use the same system that was used for the Old Testament ministers, then you won't be receiving money.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

It does not say that the New testament ministers are to receive 10% of something, does it? It is simply saying that New Testament ministers are to be taken care of. If you want to insist that we use the same system that was used for the Old Testament ministers, then you won't be receiving money.

It says however way they received it translates into New Testament. Was ten percent part of that in the old?

And the idea of money versus crops is moot. The principle is the currency of the era obviously must be considered.

[Originalist]

To those who insist that I Corinthians *9 proves that Chrisitans are supposed to pay 10% of their gross income to a church or pastor, I ask that you please carefully read this argument from a fellow minister Russell E. Kelly. Phd. I certainly don't think you can accuse him of researching and writing all of this just because he's trying to get out of giving. If you think he's wrong, please cite specifically the points you do not agree with...

This argument is self-defeating because it proves too much! This
is because Numbers 18 is not an exclusive reference to tithing, but includes ALL forms of Levitical support which tithe-teachers defi nitely do not want to allow!
When they insist that gospel workers are to be paid “in the same way” that Old
Covenant priests were paid in Numbers 18, then they have recklessly opened
the door wide to the real principles found in Numbers 18. In reality it is very
good that they literally follow NONE of those OT principles! See my chapters on
Numbers 18 and Principles for Tithe-Teaching Churches.

It is more wrong than correct to say “It was the tithe that supported God’s
servants in the Old Testament dispensation” because the priests received most of their support from things other than the tithe—things such as freewill offerings, vow offerings and sacrifices (Numbers 18:1-19). Priests only received one tenth of the whole Levitical tithe (Num 18:25-28; Neh 10:37-38). As previously pointed out, modern “Levite” equivalents in Christian churches are not ministers and are often unpaid. It is also wrong to equate New Covenant preachers as the replacement for the Old Covenant priests.

Adopting Old Testament giving principles “in the same manner” would force
the church to also copy every other Levitical and priestly support principle found in the Old Testament. This logic would forbid missionary support and would require churches to abolish the doctrine of the priesthood of believers and put to death those who tried to worship God directly.

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by Originalist

No scripture to back that up.

It's just like the bird in the cage.

The bird may look at the cage at a pressing limit, but when the cat walks by the bird is thankful for the barrier.

It's may not be an exact line in the scripture.

It's a matter of perspective, and a clear understanding of the lines and precepts God has in his word.

God's standards and limits are also barriers against the enemy.

Barriers against those that would require more, and a provision for those that give their lives for the Gospel.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

It's just like the bird in the cage.

The bird may look at the cage at a pressing limit, but when the cat walks by the bird is thankful for the barrier.

It's may not be an exact line in the scripture.

It's a matter of perspective, and a clear understanding of the lines and precepts God has in his word.

God's standards and limits are also barriers against the enemy.

Barriers against those that would require more, and a provision for those that give their lives for the Gospel.

And from this I'm to assume that God requires New testament believers to give 10% of their gross income to a church or pastor? I'm trust trying to make sure I understand you correctly.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It says however way they received it translates into New Testament. Was ten percent part of that in the old?

And the idea of money versus crops is moot. The principle is the currency of the era obviously must be considered.

But not to the point of reading into the text a requirement for the church members to give 10% of their gross income.

And "the same way/manner" taken too literally will actually destroy the tithe argument.

Furthermore, I believe you are misunderstanding how the OT ministry was supported. Please see post #117.