They have no shame

[KeptByTheWord]

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.

You said the "principle is the currency of the era must be considered" - what about the passage I quoted earlier when the family who could not make it to the temple, and who took and sold their tithe, and used that money to buy whatsoever their soul desired? Obviously... money/currency was used in that time period.

So, your premise that money was not used during that time period is incorrect, and your point doesn't stand.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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

Yes, they can live of the gospel. But nowhere in the NT is a specific amount designated that must be given to one man pastoring a church, now is there????

[KeptByTheWord]

I see the pro-tithers refuse to acknowledge that the specific 10% monetary mandatory tithe doctrine is not found anywhere in NT scripture. Instead they bounce around with various analogies, and rabbit trails, instead of directly answering the question. Not surprising.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by 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.

Don't confuse us with the facts now, lol...

Very, very interesting article. Everyone participating here in this discussion should read it.

Some quotes from the above mentioned article:
(51) Tithing was attractive as a source of funding to the degree that clergy could convince themselves and others that it was a spiritual law. ...


(52) The primary methods of church finance employed at the beginning of the century were now, in the last quarter, being pushed aside for the methods bearing more fruit and sustained by a rhetoric of righteousness.

(54) In Hogstead’s hands 1 Cor 9:7-14 became Christ’s plan for the support of his ministers. ... The church and its ministers were to receive a tenth part of the proceeds. ... [This use of the law] was characteristic for Calvinists. “It is not surprising, therefore, that Presbyterians were among the first to rediscover the perpetual obligation of the tithe. Nevertheless, in another respect, in the way they exegeted the body of scripture with inconvenient omissions they were like other evangelical interpreters of the Bible in the late nineteenth century. [To objectors Hogstead would say] “the increased privileges and enlarged work of the new dispensation demanded a standard of freewill offerings, supplemental to the fixed law beyond the ordinary measure of the Jewish freewill offerings. The old fixed law of tithes, embracing firstfruits adapted to all times and obligatory under all circumstances, as the minimum standard, was unchanged.” The fixed measure then was a minimum. This idea would prove enormously resilient, offering as it did, a hope of a great increase of church support without having to beg for it except as an obligation to God.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

A much more thorough answer, with which I agree.

The question then becomes, what does Paul mean when he writes about "they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel"?

- Is he meaning every saint in the church who evangelizes a soul?

- Does he mean a stationery pastor who preaches and teaches from a pulpit on a weekly or semi-weekly basis?

- Or does he refer to itinerant evangelists and apostles like himself and Barnabas (1 Corinthians 9:1-6), who have left EVERYTHING behind (the point I keep making!) in order to be slaves to Jesus Christ and God the Father?

A servant of the Gospel who has left EVERYTHING behind has the right to financial remuneration, to cover the costs of those things with which Paul wrote he should be content, which namely, are food and clothing (and an allusion to travel expenses).

And while such servants have the right (not to a tithe of a church's collective income to pay for a house and a car and a boat and a fill in the blank) they could, as Paul, forego that right and work with their own hands to be an example, so the ministry be not coveted.

There are undoubtedly some called of the Lord men doing exactly what I've just described. But many are the men in pulpits who teach and preach several times a month, counsel some more, pray and study, and maybe visit the sick or imprisoned, and they expect a big time salary for it at the end of the day, and they demand the church tithe to make sure they get that salary (not to mention pay for the building and pulpit that allows them to minister to earn that check).

These are things men of God are called to do, with or without any financial help from anyone. Millions of so-called "lay ministers" do just what I wrote above, without seeing a dime from anyone, from any portion of the tithe in their church, and they do it faithfully, because God and their calling demand it of them. Woe to them, right?

And many are the one who threaten to resign and not minister to anyone if the tithes decrease and they become forced to take a secular job.

No way, no how is that what Paul intended for anyone, then or now, to understand, when he wrote 1 Corinthians 9. Paul did secular work as a leather worker, and ministered and evangelized at night, pulling double duty for years, without complaint.

And yet all sorts of full time ministers who do no secular work can't compete (not that they should try/take my meaning in context) with even barely a hint of what Paul and Barnabas, and later, Paul and Silas were able to accomplish, and they worked full time secular jobs to provide for themselves and their team of fellow-laborers in the Gospel!

[Sean]

[QUOTE=FlamingZword;1392850]OK, I shall address a couple of issues, Abraham did not took anything from Sodom and Gomorrah, he returned everything to those people so his tithes were not from the property of those towns, so no he did not pay tithes with the property of the Sodomites.

Abraham paid tithes from the spoils that he took from the defeated enemies and yes those spoils did belong to him for he fought to get them.







So Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedek, right?

Melchisedek was a recipient of tithes, right?

Melchisedek was a type of Christ, right?

You are a recipient of tithes like Melchisedek right?

You stand in the stead of Jesus in typology as a recipient of tithes, right?



Now I know why you tell your congregation when they tithe to you, they are tithing to Jesus....You stand in the stead of JESUS!!!




FZ has become a mediator of giving tithes to Jesus!!!

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

You said the "principle is the currency of the era must be considered" - what about the passage I quoted earlier when the family who could not make it to the temple, and who took and sold their tithe, and used that money to buy whatsoever their soul desired? Obviously... money/currency was used in that time period.

So, your premise that money was not used during that time period is incorrect, and your point doesn't stand.

Yes, the use of money is recorded all the way back to around Abraham's time.

Also, we look for what God says and obey. God makes it clear what he wants from his people.

[Rudy]

[QUOTE=Sean;1392916]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

OK, I shall address a couple of issues, Abraham did not took anything from Sodom and Gomorrah, he returned everything to those people so his tithes were not from the property of those towns, so no he did not pay tithes with the property of the Sodomites.

Abraham paid tithes from the spoils that he took from the defeated enemies and yes those spoils did belong to him for he fought to get them.







So Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedek, right?

Melchisedek was a recipient of tithes, right?

Melchisedek was a type of Christ, right?

You are a recipient of tithes like Melchisedek right?

You stand in the stead of Jesus in typology as a recipient of tithes, right?



Now I know why you tell your congregation when they tithe to you, they are tithing to Jesus....You stand in the stead of JESUS!!!




FZ has become a mediator of giving tithes to Jesus!!!

Yes, a type of Pope. We have one already. Infallible.

[Rudy]

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.

Not so, not everyone tithed and money was used in that era. Everyone was free to give. Not everyone was commanded to tithe. Even those who were obligated to tithe did not have to tithe if there was a short fall.

If I had 9 cattle how many do I tithe?

This mandatory everyone has to tithe regardless of their financial well being is simply false.

[Sean]

Rudy, just give Mike 2 cows, then he can divide it up and send you your change.

Make him do the dirty work...why should you get bloody?...LOL