Tithe-vs-Paying Your Bills - Page 9

onefaith2 · #81 08-25-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Yes... a deeper issue such as a proper understanding of the word of God.

Not paying a tithe of ones income and not being faithful to give are 2 different issues.

See my post above regarding Abraham's tithe and the Melchisedian priesthood

Truthseeker · #82 08-25-2010, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Agriculture was their money back then. Again its not scriptural to say you have to pay tithe on a gift that you received. That was a serious misinterpretation of the tithing principle IMO.

They had money all the way back to the times of Abraham.

Truthseeker · #83 08-25-2010, 07:38 AM

Is there any place in the bible that teaches because Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils of war that christian should as well? He didn't even tithe of his own goods.

Aquila · #84 08-25-2010, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Agriculture was their money back then. Again its not scriptural to say you have to pay tithe on a gift that you received. That was a serious misinterpretation of the tithing principle IMO.

Wrong... there was money back then. Research it. The tithe was specifically connected to the Land. Even Jews today don't tithe. Why? First, there isn't a priesthood to tithe to. Second, tithing would only apply to those farmers living within the boarders of Israel.

Aquila · #85 08-25-2010, 07:43 AM

Great book on the subject:

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

Truthseeker · #86 08-25-2010, 07:46 AM

Old post from another forum:

Numbers 31:25-30
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, [26] Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: [27] And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: [28] And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: [29] Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord. [30] And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.

Some things to consider here. This is a spoils of war being discussed. Sound familier?

It was divided into two parts, one for those who went to war and one for the congregation.

1 0f 500 for the men of war was given to the priest to offer to the Lord.

1 of 50 from the children of Isreal was given to the levites. This works out with the levites only receiving 1% of the spoil.

What happen to the eternal prinicple that so many teach about tithes? Some teach tithes is throughout all ages/dispensation/covenants.

An eternal prinicple is never broken.

Why wasn't tithes paid of the spoils of war like Abraham did with his?

Different prinicple? What Abraham did wasn't a mandate?

Digging4Truth · #87 08-25-2010, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Old post from another forum:

Numbers 31:25-30
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, [26] Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: [27] And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: [28] And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: [29] Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord. [30] And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.

Some things to consider here. This is a spoils of war being discussed. Sound familier?

It was divided into two parts, one for those who went to war and one for the congregation.

1 0f 500 for the men of war was given to the priest to offer to the Lord.

1 of 50 from the children of Isreal was given to the levites. This works out with the levites only receiving 1% of the spoil.

What happen to the eternal prinicple that so many teach about tithes? Some teach tithes is throughout all ages/dispensation/covenants.

An eternal prinicple is never broken.

Why wasn't tithes paid of the spoils of war like Abraham did with his?

Different prinicple? What Abraham did wasn't a mandate?

Quick point here... it is interesting that you bring this out because the Levites getting 1% of the total is in keeping with the tithing law because God commanded the people to bring 10% of their increase. Then he instructed the Levites that they were to then take 10% of THAT 10% and keep for themselves... which would be 1% of the total.

This is what God was mad about in Malachi 3. The priests were handling the whole of the tithe (which was strictly against God's command. The Levites were to give the priests what was theirs (a tenth of the tenth or 1%) and that was all they were to handle.) and they were, evidently, keeping it all because the Levites got nothing and there was a foreigner living in the storehouse where the tithe was to be kept so there would be food in God's house for the poor & needy.

So... God didn't like that they kept the entire 10% instead of the 1% his law demanded they keep for their own.

Aquila · #88 08-25-2010, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

You should really study Paul's discourse on tithing based on this ONE act...And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

6But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Tithing was also recognition of a priesthood. Abraham recognized (and LEVI in his womb) recognized the priesthood of Melchisedec (Now Jesus Christ) by giving of tithes.

Again it isn't the money, its the faithfulness to the priesthood above you.

We are all “kings and priests” in Christ Jesus. Paul’s point was that we have a superior Priest in Christ Jesus. Also note, this wasn’t written to Gentiles… this is the letter of Hebrews. Written specifically to Hellenistic Jews likely living in Judea. When Hebrews was written the Temple still stood with a Priesthood functioning. Hence Paul’s words, “here men that die receive tithes”; he wasn’t talking about Christian ministers. Most Jewish Christians still attended Temple, paid tithes of their land to the Jewish Priesthood, and observed the Law of Moses. They were Messianic in approach. Paul respected this seeing that they were of Jewish heritage and living in Judea. They were to be lights to the Jewish people, shining the light of Jesus. However, Paul NEVER applied the Mosaic Law to a Gentile. Gentile Christians weren’t bound by circumcision, tithing, or any other custom specific to Israel.

Plain and simple: out of context.

Digging4Truth · #89 08-25-2010, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Agriculture was their money back then. Again its not scriptural to say you have to pay tithe on a gift that you received. That was a serious misinterpretation of the tithing principle IMO.

As is any assumption that agriculture was their money back then. To keep from reposting my 16,700 character response to the age old "It was an agrarian society" statement.

Please see the following links. This is my response to this statement in a previous thread.

Part 1

Part 2

Truthseeker · #90 08-25-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Quick point here... it is interesting that you bring this out because the Levites getting 1% of the total is in keeping with the tithing law because God commanded the people to bring 10% of their increase. Then he instructed the Levites that they were to then take 10% of THAT 10% and keep for themselves... which would be 1% of the total.

This is what God was mad about in Malachi 3. The priests were handling the whole of the tithe (which was strictly against God's command. The Levites were to give the priests what was theirs (a tenth of the tenth or 1%) and that was all they were to handle.) and they were, evidently, keeping it all because the Levites got nothing and there was a foreigner living in the storehouse where the tithe was to be kept so there would be food in God's house for the poor & needy.

So... God didn't like that they kept the entire 10% instead of the 1% his law demanded they keep for their own.

It says one portion of fifty to the levites, that's not 10%. Did not the levites give to the priest?