Tithing

YahwehLove · Dec 14, 2004

muffler dragon said:
How about you address someone's statements instead of offering advice?

Is that all you have?
I did respond to you, quite directly, as a matter of fact.
go back a few posts. there are a couple addressed to you.

muffler dragon · Dec 14, 2004

YahwehLove said:
All this talk of tithing.

I nearly forgot that was the topic.

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

Interesting request. I would normally wait for someone to do what I have requested first, but since I don't see that happening... I'll go ahead and provide:

YL said:
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.

Now, I'm going to try to be as detailed as possible. There will be a few things you may have to accept, okay?

There are two overt references to the tithe in the "New" Testament:

Matthew 23:23 23"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

Luke 11:42 42"But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

Things done by the Pharisees and scribes: tithe mint, dill, cummin, rue, garden herb. This is in the present tense; therefore, it is evident that the practice of tithing was in existence.

Things not done by the Pharisees and scribes: justice, mercy, faithfulnesss, love of G-d.

Admonition by Y'shua: Perform justice, mercy, faithfulness, love of G-d along with the other practice of tithing.

Your last statement above shows just how far you will go to get what you want out of Scripture. The context shows very clearly that the practice of tithing was implemented. The fault of the scribes and Pharisees is what they "OUGHT" to have been doing also: justice, mercy, faithfulness, and love of G-d.

Andyman_1970 · Dec 14, 2004

YahwehLove said:
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

Again, the audience for Paul's letter to the church at Galatia was Gentiles not Jews, this is intended for Gentiles. For those Gentiles it was worthless to follow Torah, they were not Jews, so why force them to do so.

With all due respect, the Scriptures were written by real people in a real time and a real place (with a real intended audience) - to take the Text and separate it from it's intended context is IMO a misuse of the Text - again I say this with all due respect.

YahwehLove · Dec 14, 2004

muffler dragon said:
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.

Thats all we needed to see.

YahwehLove · Dec 14, 2004

Andyman_1970 said:
Again, the audience for Paul's letter to the church at Galatia was Gentiles not Jews, this is intended for Gentiles. For those Gentiles it was worthless to follow Torah, they were not Jews, so why force them to do so.

With all due respect, the Scriptures were written by real people in a real time and a real place (with a real intended audience) - to take the Text and separate it from it's intended context is IMO a misuse of the Text - again I say this with all due respect.

you convieneintly left out the Galatians passage that says there IS NO JEW OR GREEK but that we are ALL one in Christ.

Paul was dealing with the Jews just as christians are today. THAT was his audience. And we have the same today.
They dont want to listen anymore than they did then.
He was trying to keep the Jews from putting Christianity under the bondage of the law.
(see Acts 15)

But there is no Jew or Greek now in Gods eyes.
Either one is born again and belongs to Jesus Christ, or they are not.
Following the law now is worthless.

muffler dragon · Dec 14, 2004

YahwehLove said:
Thats all we needed to see.

+

muffler dragon · Dec 14, 2004

YahwehLove said:
you convieneintly left out the Galatians passage that says there IS NO JEW OR GREEK but that we are ALL one in Christ.

Paul was dealing with the Jews just as christians are today. THAT was his audience. And we have the same today.
They dont want to listen anymore than they did then.
He was trying to keep the Jews from putting Christianity under the bondage of the law.
(see Acts 15)

But there is no Jew or Greek now in Gods eyes.
Either one is born again and belongs to Jesus Christ, or they are not.
Following the law now is worthless.

+

YahwehLove · Dec 14, 2004

muffler dragon said:
Your last statement above shows just how far you will go to get what you want out of Scripture. The context shows very clearly that the practice of tithing was implemented. The fault of the scribes and Pharisees is what they "OUGHT" to have been doing also: justice, mercy, faithfulness, and love of G-d.

Sorry, my last statement was to show CONTEXT.
Jesus said it in a manner that showed that they SHOULD HAVE tithed along with all the rest.

but its funny that you cannot provide me with a SINGLE passage showing the tithe was continued.
Only that Jesus said they SHOULD HAVE done all those things.

Ill state agian that the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to faith.
but we are no longer under this schoolmaster.
And those who try to be justified by it have voided the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Gal 3:23-29)

YahwehLove · Dec 14, 2004

muffler dragon said:
Who is we?

Are you trying to persuade other people on this thread that you have somehow said something monumental?

Let me make a deal with you, and you let me know if you would like to do it:

I would like to have a formal debate(s) with you regarding what we are discussing. Just me and you.

We can discuss the Mosaic covenant.
We can discuss the tie between the tithe and Temple/Levitical Priesthood.
We can discuss any myriad of things that you and I disagree upon.

We can then let the general populace vote on who gave a more compelling presentation?

I'm calling you out, YahwehLove. It's your choice to accept.

And feel free to let me know publicly in this forum what your answer is.

How about you just stick to the topic at hand in this thread?

YOuve already shown that you reject Hebrews, so your postion is now clear to the masses.

Youve done more for my arguement in the eyes of those watching with your own rejection of Hebrews than I could ever hope to do in any debate with you.

Andyman_1970 · Dec 14, 2004

YahwehLove said:
oh please.

I would hope the tone of your posts will reflect your love for your brothers in the faith rather than a condescending attitude. If you're not open to other points of view, then maybe you should reconsider posting on here..........just a suggestion.

YahwehLove said:
Jesus said He came to fulfil the law.
You know it, I know it.

Again, as I posted earlier, Jesus being a Jewish Rabbi had a specific meaning to the phrase "fulfill Torah" - please see my previous post. The only way it could mean anything else would be if He in fact were not a Jewish Rabbi - to which the Biblical evidence suggests otherwise.

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

Again, you assume where I'm coming from without apparently listening to what I am saying. At no point have I asserted to "bash" Paul or his teachings - I would appreciate you do me the respect of presenting my ideas as I have done with you.

Actually Paul being a Jewish Rabbi doesn't say anything that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus, esspecially with respect to Jesus' interpretation of the Torah.

YahwehLove · Dec 14, 2004

muffler dragon said:
Are you a male or female?

Oh, I forgot, you must be neuter according to your use of that particular Scripture.

Remember: context is everything.

And one particular thing that you don't use a lot of.

Isnt it funny how you go on about context, and then cannot see the context of that little passage?

We are all one.
God doesnt prefer one man over another now because of what race he is born into.
There is no separation becuase a man isnt a Hebrew.
We are all ONE. All EQUAL.

Jew, Greek, male or female, it makes no difference in this covenant.
All that matters is if you are covered by the blood of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
And the rules apply EQUALLY to all.

muffler dragon · Dec 14, 2004

Back to the OP.

My premise for writing this post will be to support my position that the tithe is irrelevant today, because of the absence of the Temple and thus the absence of service requirements upon the Levitical priesthood.

Numbers 18
20Then the LORD said to Aaron, "You shall have no inheritance in their land nor own any portion among them; I am your portion and your inheritance among the sons of Israel.

21"To the sons of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service which they perform, the service of the tent of meeting.

22"The sons of Israel shall not come near the tent of meeting again, or they will bear sin and die.

23"Only the Levites shall perform the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity; it shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, and among the sons of Israel they shall have no inheritance.

24"For the tithe of the sons of Israel, which they offer as an offering to the LORD, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance; therefore I have said concerning them, 'They shall have no inheritance among the sons of Israel.'"

As can be seen above, the Levites performed the service of the tent of meeting (which would later become the Temple). The Levites also received the L-rd as their inheritance instead of a portion of land. Therefore, they could neither raise livestock nor receive produce from the field.

Therefore, the following can be deduced:

If the Levites no longer perform Temple service, because the Temple is not there; THEN they are no longer bound to the L-rd as an inheritance. They are free to raise livestock and receive produce from the field. And furthermore, the tithe is no longer needed because of this new ability by the Levites.

muffler dragon · Dec 14, 2004

YahwehLove said:
Isnt it funny how you go on about context, and then cannot see the context of that little passage?

We are all one.
God doesnt prefer one man over another now because of what race he is born into.
There is no separation becuase a man isnt a Hebrew.
We are all ONE. All EQUAL.

Jew, Greek, male or female, it makes no difference in this covenant.
All that matters is if you are covered by the blood of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
And the rules apply EQUALLY to all.

+

muffler dragon · Dec 14, 2004

+

YahwehLove said:
Sorry, my last statement was to show CONTEXT.
Jesus said it in a manner that showed that they SHOULD HAVE tithed along with all the rest.

+ Once again, what were the scribes and Pharisees shown to be lacking in action?

YL said:
Ill state agian that the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to faith.
but we are no longer under this schoolmaster.
And those who try to be justified by it have voided the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

+

muffler dragon · Dec 14, 2004

YahwehLove said:
How about you just stick to the topic at hand in this thread?

+

YL said:
YOuve already shown that you reject Hebrews, so your postion is now clear to the masses.

+

YL said:
Youve done more for my arguement in the eyes of those watching with your own rejection of Hebrews than I could ever hope to do in any debate with you.

+

YahwehLove · Dec 14, 2004

Andyman_1970 said:
I would hope the tone of your posts will reflect your love for your brothers in the faith rather than a condescending attitude. If you're not open to other points of view, then maybe you should reconsider posting on here..........just a suggestion.

So let me guess.
If I wont let you change MY mind, then I should go elsewhere?
How about you?
If youre not open to other points of view, then maybe YOU should reconsider posting on here

Again, as I posted earlier, Jesus being a Jewish Rabbi had a specific meaning to the phrase "fulfill Torah" - please see my previous post. The only way it could mean anything else would be if He in fact were not a Jewish Rabbi - to which the Biblical evidence suggests otherwise.

"Fulfill" ''complete"
He fulfilled the requirement of the law.

Again, you assume where I'm coming from without apparently listening to what I am saying. At no point have I asserted to "bash" Paul or his teachings - I would appreciate you do me the respect of presenting my ideas as I have done with you.

Then if we're not going to bash Paul, then I assume we are going to give Him his rightful position.
In Romans, Paul tells about his feelings for his brethren, the Jews.
I dont see any distiction anywhere about the rules being different for them.
Paul had to approach them in a different manner, of course, because of who they were.

For being free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, in order that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, in order that I might win Jews;

to those who are under law, as under law, in order that I might win those who are under law;

to those outside the law, as one outside the law (not being outside the law toward God, but subject to the law toward Christ), in order that I might win those outside the law;

to the weak I became as weak, in order that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
(1Co 9:19-22)

But then, Paul knew who he was.
A man saved by the blood of Christ.

YahwehLove · Dec 14, 2004

muffler dragon said:
All I can do is offer.

If you can't substantiate your ideas in a formal debate, then I definitely don't have anything to worry about in this thread.

YOu dont?!?!

YOu just announced that Hebrews is meaningless compared to the Tanakh.
You reject the words of the New Covenant and the one book that helps the Jew understand just who Jesus was, and then expect to have much weight given to your words on things pertaining to the New Covenant.

Andyman_1970 · Dec 14, 2004

YahwehLove said:
you convieneintly left out the Galatians passage that says there IS NO JEW OR GREEK but that we are ALL one in Christ.

Exactly, Paul here addressing Gentiles (who have been told by Jews that they have to follow the Torah to be a follower of Jesus) that in Jesus those things don't matter. Previous if you were a Gentile according to the Jewish mindset you were excluded from God's plan (so to speak), but now His purpose is made avaiable to all people - Jew of Greek.

This passage in no way indicates that Messianic Jews (not Gentiles mind you) were to stop being Torah observant.

YahwehLove said:
Paul was dealing with the Jews just as christians are today. THAT was his audience. And we have the same today.
They dont want to listen anymore than they did then.

Wow, that's a seemingly hateful remark.

YahwehLove said:
He was trying to keep the Jews from putting Christianity under the bondage of the law.
(see Acts 15)

You seem (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) to assert that Christianity = Gentiles, because that's who Jerusalem council you refer to were dealing with - do we (Jews) make Gentiles follow the Law as a result of their becoming a follower of Jesus - the answer was a resounding no. They were not Jews, so why would they need to do what a Jew does? From the point of view of a Jew (Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul) the Torah (or Law) was not bondage as you put it, but rather God's "love letter" to His people.

YahwehLove said:
But there is no Jew or Greek now in Gods eyes.
Either one is born again and belongs to Jesus Christ, or they are not.
Following the law now is worthless.

With all due respect you're making a bug "leap" here from the passage in Galatians (no Jew or Greek) to the Law is worthless. So again I ask you, where, in Jesus' words did He say the Law is worthless?

muffler dragon · Dec 14, 2004

YahwehLove said:
YOu dont?!?!

+

YL said:
YOu just announced that Hebrews is meaningless compared to the Tanakh.

Point?

This may come as a complete surprise to you, but there are different levels of inspiration (from a Judaic perspective) when it comes to Scripture. The highest level of inspiration is the Torah, then the Tanakh, and for Messianic believers the B'rit Chadasha ("new" Testament) is last. It doesn't mean that the B'rit Chadasha is unimportant or meaningless. It simply means that the Torah is the standard by which everything else is judged and then you move down the line. Each successive portion must stand in agreement with its precedent.

YL said:
You reject the words of the New Covenant

Never said that. Just said that Hebrews doesn't hold a drop of water to the Tanakh.

YL said:
and the one book that helps the Jew understand just who Jesus was,

+

YL said:
and then expect to have much weight given to your words on things pertaining to the New Covenant.

Oh, that's right, because the tithe is a "New Covenant" consideration. Remember now, you're the one who doesn't care about the context surrounding the tithe; not me.

Mary_Magdalene · Dec 14, 2004

I just find is somewhat amusing (in a sick, demented sort of way) that the exact same preachers and leaders at church that say the ole' "we are under grace-we dont have to follow any law" are so quick to preach a million times about their tithe they "feel God wants" us to give them-that it's "in the Bible" so we must do it.

My pastor spoke a few weeks ago about being good stewards of God's money--all the while standing in front of $8,000.00 curtains that were, in part, paid for by my money. While the pregnancy resource center down the street is in need of an ultrasound machine to help prevent the murder of innocent life and doesnt have enough money for one.

Our church actually paid to have BASEBALL cards of our Sunday School teachers made up so they could pass them out. Give me a break.

Is this what God wants with our money? Why did God want us to tithe? To spend an exorberant amount of money that wont lead more people to His Kingdom?

What would the typical Pastor say if everyone at church said they werent giving money anymore-that we were going to bring food in for his family to live on and give his family a house to live in free? How would leadership feel then?

Tithing

Well-Known Member

Ineffable

Trying to walk in His dust...............

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ineffable

Ineffable

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Trying to walk in His dust...............

Well-Known Member

Ineffable

Ineffable

Ineffable

Ineffable

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Trying to walk in His dust...............

Ineffable

AKA..Godschosengirl

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency