Tithing

[YahwehLove]

You make no sense with that statement.

IF the Temple were still standing, and IF the Levitical priesthood were still in operation within the Temple, and IF they were still not allowed to own property or livestock; THEN how do you suppose that they would live?

Would you like to go back through Scripture and evaluate the purpose of the tithe?

Dismissal of the tithe due to some purported understanding of the Mosaic covenant being obsolete is fallacious.

So your saying if the temple still stood the old covenant would still be intact?

You cant have it both ways.
Either the old passed, or it did not.

If the temple stood today it wouldnt matter.

The purpose of the tithe is irrelevant.
It is part of a system that died with Jesus death on the cross.

How it worked, who it supported, how it was implemented....its all irrelevant now.
Jesus died and ratifed the NEW covenant.
Those things of the old have passed.

Tithe was part of that schoolmaster to bring us to giving with a cheerful heart.

 

[muffler dragon]

+

If the temple stood today it wouldnt matter.

Then, once again, how would the Levites survive? If you can't answer this, the discussion is meaningless (as I am already leaning)

The purpose of the tithe is irrelevant.

You try to speak as on educated on a particular Jewish doctrine and yet you refuse to look at the purpose. Amazing. Nothing like removing context. Your work of eisegesis is ridiculous. One cannot expect to win an argument without looking at the entire picture (context). Without context, you have nothing. And hence, we go on...

+

How it worked, who it supported, how it was implemented....its all irrelevant now.

I believe this is over-with now. Bantering with someone who 1) doesn't have the knowledge behind a belief structure they are trying to dispute AND 2) doesn't have the context presents a meaningless adventure. The problem that lies is the fact that you can't provide support for the basic premises that you purport. If I ask you a question regarding tithe, you come back with something that doesn't discuss the context. If I ask you a question about the Mosaic covenant, you'll come back with something from the B'rit Chadasha that has no support within the Tanakh. What is the point? Regardless of what I present, you'll have to come away with the feeling of "I won." Well, go ahead and feel that way. That's not my goal. My goal when dealing with the tithe is to present the truth as to why it is irrelevant today; not some convoluted premise that has no support except for scant Scriptural discoveries.

+

 

[YahwehLove]

This is what I am telling you.

Jeremiah 31 and Hosea deal with the "New" Covenant. The "New" Covenant is a re"New"ing of the Mosaic covenant with the entire body of Israel: Israel and Judah.

Your understanding of the Mosaic covenant and its viability today are in complete disagreement with mine.

Therefore, I am showing why the tithe is irrelevant today without mention of a particular covenant structure.

obviously.

I imagine youre going to find a lot of resistance to what you teach.

 

[muffler dragon]

+

 

[YahwehLove]

Then, once again, how would the Levites survive? If you can't answer this, the discussion is meaningless (as I am already leaning)

Its not meaningless just becuase you dont accept that the old covenant is obsolete.
Its absurd to say that the old would still be intact just becuase the temple was still standing.
Did Christ die for NOTHING?

You try to speak as on educated on a particular Jewish doctrine and yet you refuse to look at the purpose. Amazing. Nothing like removing context. Your work of eisegesis is ridiculous. One cannot expect to win an argument without looking at the entire picture (context). Without context, you have nothing. And hence, we go on...

My friend, do you have ANY idea what happened on the cross?
As I said, I wouldnt be surprised to find that you get a lot of resistance to your teachings.

I would be very inclined to seeing your support for such a statement from the Tanakh ("Old" Testament) and not just Hebrews.

Im sure youd like for me to have to argue all my points from a text that doesnt clarify anything on the matter.
The NT writings explain the relationship between the convenants.
The old was a schoolmaster to bring us to faith, to Christ.
Once faith has come we are no longer under that schoolmaster, including the tithe.


Why is that that you want to see me argue my side using only the texts of your choosing?
wouldnt that only show part of the picture?

If the temple were destroyed in the old coventant, by your words seemingly that would nullify the tithe. that makes no sense at all.

I believe this is over-with now. Bantering with someone who 1) doesn't have the knowledge behind a belief structure they are trying to dispute AND 2) doesn't have the context presents a meaningless adventure.

and as usual, its time for the insults.
All youve shown is that you have no comprehension what happened on the cross.
No idea about what happened when the old covenant passed.

It wouldnt matter under the old covenant if the temple stood or not.
Leviticus shows that the tithe belonged to God.
If the temple had fallen, the levitical priesthood would STILL be there.

Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the law with its ordinances.
Temple or no, the old covenant is obsolete.
It was a schoolmaster. We are no longer under it.

 

[YahwehLove]

Resistance means nothing to me. It's whether I can support it Scripturally or not.

but its odd that you want to only use those parts of the texts that seem to agree with you.
Why is it that you dont want me to use Hebrews?
Becuase it fills in the rest of the story that you dont agree with, I assume

 

[muffler dragon]

Its not meaningless just becuase you dont accept that the old covenant is obsolete.
Its absurd to say that the old would still be intact just becuase the temple was still standing.

I never said that the Temple is the deciding force on the efficacy of the Mosaic covenant. I am saying that the tithe was set-up to support the Levites, the widows, the orphans, and the foreigner in the midst. The largest recipient of the tithe were the Levites. Almsgiving will still support the other three groupings. Therefore, if the Levitical priesthood is no longer performing Temple services and they are no longer withheld from owning property or livestock; THEN the tithe is irrelevent.

+

If the temple were destroyed in the old coventant, by your words seemingly that would nullify the tithe. that makes no sense at all.

The Temple wasn't destroyed in the "Old" Covenant. Why do you bring up such weird tangents. Let's follow the logic of the arrow below:

Temple => Levitical Priesthoods perform services => Levitical Priesthoods can't own property or livestock => Tithe instituted for sustenance of Levitical Priesthood.

Therefore, if the Temple is destroyed, there remainder of the logic arrows falls apart. Therefore, the efficacy of the Mosaic Covenant is outside of this picture.

and as usual, its time for the insults.

Where is the insult in my statement. I said that you don't have the knowledge behind the purpose of the tithe, and you don't care about the context. That is a statement that is verifiable by your own words:

How it worked, who it supported, how it was implemented....its all irrelevant now.

+

It wouldnt matter under the old covenant if the temple stood or not.
Leviticus shows that the tithe belonged to God.
If the temple had fallen, the levitical priesthood would STILL be there.

The Levitical priesthood was performing service on the Temple; that was their inheritance. Without the Temple, they will own property and livestock; therefore, the tithe is no longer valid.

+

 

[muffler dragon]

but its odd that you want to only use those parts of the texts that seem to agree with you.
Why is it that you dont want me to use Hebrews?
Becuase it fills in the rest of the story that you dont agree with, I assume

+

 

[Andyman_1970]

Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the law with its ordinances.

Since we are totally off topic (tithe) anyway, I thought I would thow this is in - when Jewish Rabbi (which Jesus was) said something about fulfilling the Torah it has absolutely nothing to do with setting aside the Torah it has to do with correctly interpreting and living out the spirit of the Torah.

 

[muffler dragon]

Since we are totally off topic (tithe) anyway, I thought I would thow this is in - when Jewish Rabbi (which Jesus was) said something about fulfilling the Torah it has absolutely nothing to do with setting aside the Torah it has to do with correctly interpreting and living out the spirit of the Torah.

Always showing up with such truth.

Well said, Andy.

 

[YahwehLove]

For a man who cares nothing about context, I find it interesting that you ridicule me with such a simple request.
If your doctrine/dogma is correct, then you should be able to find ample support throughout the ENTIRE Bible; not just one book.

One Book?!?
Id say theres quite a bit more than ONE book.

Ignores context?!?
Oh. You mean like the CONTEXT in the book of Hebrews, Galatians and Romans? that kind of context?


And you wont find much on the tithe passing away in the writings of the OLD COVENANT, friend, why would you?
The new is foretold even as far back as Deuteronomy, or earlier.
That the old didnt spell out every detail of the new is moot.
Paul said the Jews were blinded at the reading of the old covenant and still are.
Only when one turns to Christ is that veil removed.
There are a LOT of things about the new covenant that arent spelled out in the old testament writings.

are Christians to ignore everything in the new testament that isnt covered in the old ?
That would be preposterous.

I simply requested that you find it in the Tanakh. Considering that the Torah is absolutely precious to the Jews (and they wrote 98% of the Bible) you would think there would be support and prophecy about the very thing you state.

Youre request is no less than ridiculous.
The details of the new covent were laid out IN THE NEW COVENANT writings.
The new was foretold in the old testament tho.
God blinding the Jew and turning to a ''foolish nation'' is right there in your old testament writings.
See Deut. 32 and Jeremiah 31.

These just tell ABOUT the new covenant.
They do not spell out every detail of it.
We look to the teachers (Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc) of that covenant to find out about it.
We dont have to verify every detail of the new against the old.
That is just absurd.

My theology is for the most part seamless. Why is that? Because if there isn't continuity between the Tanakh and B'rit Chadasha; then I rely upon the Scriptures that Y'shua and Sha'ul used: The Tanakh. What's good enough for the Goose (Y'shua and Sha'ul) is good enough for the gander (me).

No offense, but its chock full of wholes.
Why is that?
Because seemingly you want to dismiss Hebrews for the Tanakh that contains very little information on the details of the NEW covenant.

 

[YahwehLove]

Since we are totally off topic (tithe) anyway, I thought I would thow this is in - when Jewish Rabbi (which Jesus was) said something about fulfilling the Torah it has absolutely nothing to do with setting aside the Torah it has to do with correctly interpreting and living out the spirit of the Torah.

I suggest you read Galations to start, friend.
Jesus fulfilled or ''completed" the old covenant and its requirements.
The tithe died with Christ on the cross, NOT with the Temple being torn down.

 

[YahwehLove]

Something else I find quite interesting.
All this talk of tithing.

Muffler Dragon, Id like to have you do the same that you expect of me.

I want you to show me WITH the New Testament writings where tithing is ever practiced or taught.

Please no ''assuming''.
I expect you to do what you require of me and show me scripture.

Jesus said ''you OUGHT TO HAVE DONE these things''.
He didnt say a thing about continuing them in the New Covenant.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I suggest you read Galations to start, friend.

I have many times, do you realize that Paul was addressing Gentiles in that letter and not Jews? Paul is encouraging the Gentiles at that church to be..........Gentiles and not Jews. At no point does Paul ever tell Messianic Jews to stop being Torah Observant.

Jesus fulfilled or ''completed" the old covenant and its requirements.

Chapter and verse from Jesus Himself that says this please.

 

[paeonia]

IMO....and it is just MO:

People have ALWAYS looked for measuring sticks in which to use for the purposes of "legally" measuring whether they are pleasing God or not.

To put a cash dollar amount on giving is the "easy" way out and IMO a very legalistic approach to giving to your fellows and to God.

NO one knows for sure where the money goes that they tithe, leaving it in someone else's hands whether it is used for good or not. There is more deceipt in this world than ever, so you CAN'T know.

I prefer the direct approach. I give what I can of everything -not just $$, but time, energy, my ears, my hands, my home....you name it.

NOW...If I were legalistic I would be looking for ways in which to measure how much of myself I'm giving -a mathmatical calculation perhaps- (which totally defeats the purpose and intention behind the giving) and I could never really measure how much of these above mentioned things (time, energy...) I have given.....so wouldn't that leave me feeling insecure and unsure if I'm pleasing God and doing enough?

Therfore I should just "resort" to giving a 10% cash dollar amount...so I could keep track of what I'm giving....

uh..no THANKS.

That measuring stick is the purpose behind the OT tithe. It is NOT what Jesus came to teach. It's just plain wrong. God can't be bought.

Why don't people get this?

 

[YahwehLove]

I have many times, do you realize that Paul was addressing Gentiles in that letter and not Jews? Paul is encouraging the Gentiles at that church to be..........Gentiles and not Jews. At no point does Paul ever tell Messianic Jews to stop being Torah Observant.

Observing out of desire to do something for God is fine.
Ive no beef with that idea. Its a personal journey for each of us.
But those that are trying to justify themselves by following ANY part of the old covenant are required to keep the WHOLE law.
And Christs death has become meaningless to them.

Chapter and verse from Jesus Himself that says this please.

oh please.
Jesus said He came to fulfil the law.
You know it, I know it.

Now let me guess, this is going to turn into a Paul bashing game, correct?

 

[YahwehLove]

I have many times, do you realize that Paul was addressing Gentiles in that letter and not Jews? Paul is encouraging the Gentiles at that church to be..........Gentiles and not Jews. At no point does Paul ever tell Messianic Jews to stop being Torah Observant.

and yet;

(Gal 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

(Gal 3:29) And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

There is no difference now.
Either a person is Christs, or he is not.


And you are not correct.
Paul is telling them that following the law is worthless. It gives them nothing and actually makes Christs sacrifice of no value to them

Stand fast therefore in the freedom in which Christ has made us free, and do not be loaded down again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
You have become estranged from Christ, you who are justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
(Gal 5:1-4)

People who ''tithe'' because the law required it are required to follow the whole law. Just like if they are circumcised because of the law.

The tithe was part of that Schoolmaster to teach us to give.
The old covenant has passed.

And also:

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
(Gal 5:14)

 

[muffler dragon]

Do you always bring up tangential ideas when you're not getting your "point" across? That practice can be construed a number of different ways.

+

+

That the old didnt spell out every detail of the new is moot.

Concerning the tithe, the Tanakh is rather explicit. There isn't a whole lot of room for eisegesis. Now, however, you're still trying to pull the Tithe = "Old' Covenant mess. That is a stretch, but you won't let it go. Therefore, we continue down the same path.

+

Only when one turns to Christ is that veil removed.

Regarding the Tithe representing the "Old" Covenant? I guess my process was just too simple.

+

No offense, but its chock full of wholes.
Why is that?
Because seemingly you want to dismiss Hebrews for the Tanakh that contains very little information on the details of the NEW covenant.

Btw, my theology isn't simply based on the "tithe". And for your information, I do take offense to statements such as this. I will gladly dismiss Hebrews in favor of the Tanakh. I will gladly dismiss what you have to say in favor of the Tanakh. The Tanakh speaks greatly about the Messiah and it speaks about the renewal of the covenant between G-d and Israel. You just don't see it through your perspective; or you've never looked for it.

 

[muffler dragon]

I suggest you read Galations to start, friend.
Jesus fulfilled or ''completed" the old covenant and its requirements.
The tithe died with Christ on the cross, NOT with the Temple being torn down.

+

 

[YahwehLove]

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross.
(Col 2:13-14)

....