Tithing

[YahwehLove]

That is true; yet, I have not been shown otherwise.

Havent you?
Or havent you just decided to reject the writing that shows you wrong ?
Hebrews cannot be dismissed.
It must be taken in context and the harmony found between it and the rest of scripture.
Its best to just say we dont see the whole picture rather than just toss out scripture we dont understand

I will not be shy. I will openly admit I have pushed the envelope. My reasoning is that I don't like it when people refuse to evaluate context. Whether you agree with me or not is meaningless, I want to discourse with someone who looks at the whole picture.

Interesting.
So you are right, and the mulitude of Christianity has been wrong thru the ages?
It is meaningless that we disagree on this.
I just hope that no one is trying to justify themselves by following the law.
You say that I am the one who refuses to evaluate, yet you are the one who refuses to accept Hebrews.
Odd indeed.

Not even remotely. I presume you are the nominal Christian.

Nominal
I have to admit, thats the first time anyones said that to me.
Usually I get called names like "fundy".
Id be careful tho, that comment might be borderline around here

Then you'll agree that salvation has always been available? Isaiah 45:22.
That the gentile has always had the opportunity to come before G-d? Isaiah 56.

I agree that the old covenant made provision for the non-Jew to come to God.

What you have presented throughout this entire thread seems to speak to the opposite of what you just stated. But then again, that's your perspective.

Please.
No where have I contradicted myself.
If something is amiss, you can rest assured It was merely a typo or something.

I may have not said this clearly enough, so I'll repeat myself: The very object that you are discussing (the New Covenant) is nothing more than a reNewing of the covenant between Israel and G-d as seen in Jeremiah 31 and Hosea. A bill of divorce was issued to Israel by G-d for their idolatry. The Messiah came to remove that bill of divorce and re-establish Israel so that they might fulfill their calling.

Hmmm
Im thinking this:

For I do not desire you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
(Rom 11:25)

Written AFTER Jesus died on the cross.
Sounds to me like the Jew has been blinded for a bit.

Are we reading the same scriptures here?

One further note: I never said that I reject Hebrews. I said that I hold the Tanakh over it. That is a big difference.

So in other words you wont try to harmonize the 2, you will assume that your understanding of the Tanakh is correct and Hebrews is wrong by default, I assume?

 

[YahwehLove]

I never said that I reject Hebrews. Go back and read everything that I have said.

Lastly, I asked you for support for your premise throughout the entire Bible (and especially the Tanakh), and you gave me nothing. I put one stipulation on it and you couldn't produce. That's not my fault.

YOu are asking me to prove something, then trying to deny me the tools with which to do it.
Do you want debate or just for me to agree with you?

I accept that Hebrews is 100% correct.
And that the OT is 100% correct.
My job is to rightly divide the words and understand them as they are written.
Not to toss out that which I cant harmonize immediately.

 

[YahwehLove]

Feel free to disagree, that’s fine, I would ask you do so in a respectable way. Ultimately I don’t think either of us is going to change each other’s minds……….so then it becomes “what’s the point”.

Im being just as respectable as Im being treated.
As I said, lets go back over this thread where I came in and see how each person spoke to the other.

Youre right tho, unless you can show me with the OT AND the NT in agreement that youre point is valid, then you have no chance at all of changing my mind.

 

[muffler dragon]

Havent you?
Or havent you just decided to reject the writing that shows you wrong ?

+

Hebrews cannot be dismissed.

+

It must be taken in context and the harmony found between it and the rest of scripture.
Its best to just say we dont see the whole picture rather than just toss out scripture we dont understand.

+

Interesting.
So you are right, and the mulitude of Christianity has been wrong thru the ages?

+

I just hope that no one is trying to justify themselves by following the law.

Observance of the Law is strictly a matter of obedience; nothing more, nothing less.

You say that I am the one who refuses to evaluate, yet you are the one who refuses to accept Hebrews.
Odd indeed.

+

Nominal
I have to admit, thats the first time anyones said that to me.
Usually I get called names like "fundy".
Id be careful tho, that comment might be borderline around here

It was neither a derogatory remark or complement. My use of nominal equates to average.

I agree that the old covenant made provision for the non-Jew to come to God.

+

Please.
No where have I contradicted myself.
If something is amiss, you can rest assured It was merely a typo or something.

+

Hmmm
Im thinking this:

Written AFTER Jesus died on the cross.
Sounds to me like the Jew has been blinded for a bit.

Are we reading the same scriptures here?

+

So in other words you wont try to harmonize the 2, you will assume that your understanding of the Tanakh is correct and Hebrews is wrong by default, I assume?

+

 

[muffler dragon]

YOu are asking me to prove something, then trying to deny me the tools with which to do it.

I never realized that asking for you to bring substantiation from the Tanakh would be denying you the tools necessary. If that's the case, then so be it.

Do you want debate or just for me to agree with you?

+

I accept that Hebrews is 100% correct.
And that the OT is 100% correct.
My job is to rightly divide the words and understand them as they are written.
Not to toss out that which I cant harmonize immediately.

Well, then, you just told me that I didn't remove the tools necessary for you to provide what I asked for before.

+

 

[muffler dragon]

Post #146 and we're not back to talking about the OP yet. Go figure.

 

[YahwehLove]

Acts 22
3"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today.

Very nice.
Paul was born a Jew.
And then he proceeds to argue his points, does he not?

Acts 24
14"But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;

Yup. sure thing.
He was a pharisee of pharisees.
that is until Jesus met him on the damascus road.
You forgot to add the part where he changed from killing christians to being on their side.

Philippians 3
5circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Sure enough.
Hes letting EVERYONE know exactly who he was and what he was about before.
Doesnt change what he became tho.

And yet he teaches that if we follow the law that the sacrifice of Christ is void for us.
very strange

 

[muffler dragon]

Btw, Andy, the reason we got off on to this tangent of "New" covenant talk is because YL believes that the tithe has been done away with since it was a part of the Mosaic Law.

My premise is that the tithe is done away with because the people who needed it (the Levites) no longer have stipulations on how they can survive (among a myriad of other reasons). What say you?

 

[Andyman_1970]

My premise is that the tithe is done away with because the people who needed it (the Levites) no longer have stipulations on how they can survive (among a myriad of other reasons). What say you?

I agree with MD's position on this issue.

 

[muffler dragon]

Very nice.
Paul was born a Jew.
And then he proceeds to argue his points, does he not?

+

Yup. sure thing.
He was a pharisee of pharisees.
that is until Jesus met him on the damascus road.
You forgot to add the part where he changed from killing christians to being on their side.

+

Sure enough.
Hes letting EVERYONE know exactly who he was and what he was about before.
Doesnt change what he became tho.

+

And yet he teaches that if we follow the law that the sacrifice of Christ is void for us.
very strange

+

 

[YahwehLove]

Your point is eluding me. I showed you why the Messiah came from prophecy in the B'rit Chadasha, and you're trying to correct me with a passage from Romans. You have an interesting way of connecting dots.

For I do not desire you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
(Rom 11:25)

YOu stated the the new covenant was for israel .
But Paul says that Israel is blinded AFTER Jesus died.
Thats pretty odd to me.

and also, you seem to apply the new covenant to the nation of Israel, when Paul shows otherwise.

But it is not as though the word of God has failed.

For not all those of Israel are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."

That is, those who are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

(Rom 9:6-10)

So it seems that not only does Hebrews stand against what youre teaching, but also Romans as well.
And Im pretty sure we have a little more idea of who wrote Romans.

.

 

[YahwehLove]

I agree with MD's position on this issue.

And I do not.

I say that the old covenant and its requirements passed with Jesus' death on the cross.
The temple falling may have stopped the Jews from collecting their tithe, but that covanent died when the temple veil was torn.

And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were split,
(Mat 27:51)

And the new covenant was ratified with Christs death.

 

[YahwehLove]

Btw, this was written after meeting Y'shua.

Thats right, it was.
Paul was conveying the type of person he was before, nothing more.

Furthermore, what does Sha'ul say about his life up to the day before the Sanhedrin:

Acts 23
Paul before the Council

1Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day."

That was all the way through the persecution.

I dont see how on earth this ties in.
Paul thought he was doing Gods will putting christians to death.
After the Damacus road, Paul ran a good race.
He has nothing to be ashamed of.
In both times of his life he did his best to please God as best he knew how.

Or what you think he became. To me he remained the same.

huh.
He was murdering christians before, holding coats while Stephen was stoned and you think he never changed

Actually, it's only void if you think it will get you anything: i.e. salvation. That's his argument. But that would only be known from a Hebraic perspective.

heres the problem
Lets say i get circumcised. No big deal, right?
Wrong.
If I do it to uphold that part of the law, then I am indebted to the WHOLE law.

If I do that then the words of Paul to the church of Galatia now applies to me.

Let me ask you a blunt question.
Should a man be circumcised to obey the law or not?

 

[muffler dragon]

YOu stated the the new covenant was for israel .
But Paul says that Israel is blinded AFTER Jesus died.
Thats pretty odd to me.

+

and also, you seem to apply the new covenant to the nation of Israel, when Paul shows otherwise.

+

So it seems that not only does Hebrews stand against what youre teaching, but also Romans as well.
And Im pretty sure we have a little more idea of who wrote Romans.

+

 

[muffler dragon]

Thats right, it was.
Paul was conveying the type of person he was before, nothing more.

+

I dont see how on earth this ties in.
Paul thought he was doing Gods will putting christians to death.
After the Damacus road, Paul ran a good race.
He has nothing to be ashamed of.
In both times of his life he did his best to please God as best he knew how.

+

huh.
He was murdering christians before, holding coats while Stephen was stoned and you think he never changed

+

heres the problem
Lets say i get circumcised. No big deal, right?
Wrong.
If I do it to uphold that part of the law, then I am indebted to the WHOLE law.

+

If I do that then the words of Paul to the church of Galatia now applies to me.

Let me ask you a blunt question.
Should a man be circumcised to obey the law or not?

I'm not circumcised and I'm trying to obey the Torah. If I convert to Judaism, then I'll get circumcised.

Regarding Galatians, I will be purchasing a commentary on the book in the coming months. It is from a Hebraic perspective. Maybe then I'll bother addressing Galatian ideas.

Btw, maybe we should get back on topic, or just drop it. You don't agree with the tithe, I don't either. I feel that your reasons are misinformed and will fall in debate with pro-tithers. You probably feel the same about me. I couldn't care less.

Once again, if you're wanting to debate any of the topics we have before us; then I suggest we utilize the formal debate forum. That way rude remarks (by both parties) will be not tolerated, and the many tangents you like to bring up will be separate issues.

Your call.

 

[YahwehLove]

Considering Hosea and Jeremiah back up my premise, I would love for you to show me where the New covenant (in prophecy) is for the gentiles.

Sure thing hoss.

They have moved Me to jealousy with a no-god. They have provoked Me to anger with their vanities. And I will move them to jealousy with a no-people. I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
(Deu 32:21)

evidenced by Pauls own words:

Brothers, truly my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is for it to be saved. For I bear record to them that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes.
(Rom 10:1-4)



But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, have they not heard?
Yes, indeed they have: "Their voice went out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."
But I say, did Israel not know?

First Moses says: "I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, by an unintelligent nation I will anger you."

But Isaiah is very bold and says: "I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me." But to Israel he says: "the whole day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contrary people."
(Rom 10:16-21)

You seem to have rejected that Romans passage that clearly shows that it is NOT the children of the flesh who are Israel, but the children of the promise.

Interesting presentation, but once again, lacking context. Anyways...

Again with the context thing.
yet you dont seem to be able to correct my "presentation" with scripture. So far anyway.

Btw, do you know who Y'shua said he came for?

the lost sheep of the House of Israel.
huh. and they had Him put to death.
"He came unto His own and His own received Him not" if Im not mistaken.
anything else?

You very high on yourself, are you not?

Ive found the attacking typographical errors and the person is often a substitute for a valid arguement.
Not that thats the case here.
Something to ponder anyway

 

[muffler dragon]

You seem to have rejected that Romans passage that clearly shows that it is NOT the children of the flesh who are Israel, but the children of the promise.

And you espouse Replacement Theology. excellent.

I'm going to sleep.

 

[YahwehLove]

Last time I checked, "I am" is present tense. Must be different verb usage in your world.

I am a terrible man.
see that?
Now to look at my life, if you take what i just said in context, youd know that I am NOT terrible presently but do consider myself to be terrible overall.
Paul was a humbled man. Im sure even at his death he felt he was lacking.

You're the one who was drawing the distinction between the pre- and post- Damascus road. I've said all along that Sha'ul was always a Torah-observant Jew. You're the one who was trying to say otherwise.

So Im to believe that the man who wrote Galatians and all this other stuff like this;

having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them;
(Eph 2:15)

(ouch)
that this man still followed the letter of the Law?
seems quite thin if you ask me.

He was always a Torah-observant Jew. Still waiting for you to show me otherwise.

I just did.

I'm not circumcised and I'm trying to obey the Torah. If I convert to Judaism, then I'll get circumcised.

Then by the words to the Galatians Christ will be of no use to you.
You will have fallen from grace.

Regarding Galatians, I will be purchasing a commentary on the book in the coming months. It is from a Hebraic perspective. Maybe then I'll bother addressing Galatian ideas.

Id think long and hard about that move if I were you.
Jesus came to fix something that was broken. And you want to put yourself back under it?

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

Btw, maybe we should get back on topic, or just drop it. You don't agree with the tithe, I don't either. I feel that your reasons are misinformed and will fall in debate with pro-tithers. You probably feel the same about me. I couldn't care less.

We should for sure.
your stance on the tithe wouldnt worry me near as much as your ideas of the covenants.

Once again, if you're wanting to debate any of the topics we have before us; then I suggest we utilize the formal debate forum. That way rude remarks (by both parties) will be not tolerated, and the many tangents you like to bring up will be separate issues.

Not a chance.
and those tangents are relevant to our side discussion, even if you do not see the relevance.

 

[YahwehLove]

And you espouse Replacement Theology. excellent.

Not entirely as some seem to do.
There is a lot of prophecy for the Hebrew people.
but that Romans passage is fairly clear.

 

[YahwehLove]

having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them;
(Eph 2:15)

That word ''abolished'' there is quite interesting to this debate, even just discussing the tithe.

G2673
καταργέω
katargeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
1b) to deprive of force, influence, power
2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
2a) to cease, to pass away, be done away
2b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
2c) to terminate all intercourse with one

So Paul says this 'emnity', this 'law of commandements contained in ordinances' has been ''abolished' (severed, ceased, pass away, annul, cause to cease) and my guess ''fulfilled''

The tithe was part of that old system that Paul says is ''abolished''
If the temple were still standing today, Im sure the Jews would be tithing and pretending all was well in lidsville.
But that covenant is ''abolished'' .
Unless of course we're going to toss yet another NT letter to the wind.


"make the TWO into one new man"
Ill bet my lunch for a week that hes refering to 1: the Jew and 2: the gentile.
Making them ONE NEW MAN.
Falls right in perfect harmony with there not being Jew nor Greek.

One new man.
One man with ONE set of rules.