kwag_myers said:
Could you please tell me what form of currency the Israelites where using when God gave Moses the Law?
The context of my comment concerning currency was within the nation after it had entered the Promised Land, not while they were wandering through the desert. They were not required to tithe until AFTER the appointed place had been established in the land. Currency did indeed develope, as BAR Magazine (Biblical Archaeological Review) and others have recognized for many years.
Okay, I can see where this is going. You really don't want an "...intelligent discussion on all this rather than knee-jerk reactionism and ad hominem (personal attacks) such as accusing those who don't tithe of being greedy. Such a rash, blind judgment serves only to distance the accuser from reality." You seek to convert everyone to your point of view.
Yeah...right. As you can see in my posts, I also provided an address where people can send me their tithes and offering since I'm looking for a following... :roll:
What this has to do with is people recognizing what the Bible says. If you have something of legitimate substance, then by all means, you're free to share it for us all to take into due consideration.
So, if tithing isn't for us today, then none of the blessings associated with tithing are ours to receive. Doesn't that contradict 2 Corinthians 1:20? I mean, if you choose not to receive those blessings, that's up to you. Personally, I'd rather not pass on anything that God has for me.
A mere question doesn't legitemize a doctrinal belief. I can play that game as well: Why do you suppose Paul, who dealt mostly with Gentile believers, was completely silent about any requirement to tithe.
I wasn't the one who made the initial claim that tithing is still a requirement today, so it's only natural, therefore, to question as to where the support for such a requirement is contained in God's word; considering that the tithe was tied directly to the temple (which no longer exists) and the Levites (who are no longer a valid priesthood).
I never said that tithing is wrong, in and of itself. I have, however, questioned the
claims from silence that we are still obligated to tithe today, and that we are to hand that tithe over to organized religion, which is well known for its abuse of that portion of people's giving.
Hebrews 7:6 (NLT) "But Melchizedek, who was not even related to Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham.
The KJV says, "But he whose descent is not counted from them
received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises." I realize some of the other translations say "taken" or "collected" the tithe. Abraham gave a tenth, based upon no compulsion, of the spoils, which was property that never belonged to him in the first place. It was the
act itself the scriptures reference, which doesn't negate the importance of whose property it was that Abraham gave a portion.
The IRS
takes,
collects the tax against our wages, which is nowhere in scripture classified as a form of increase. Even though most people hand it over to the IRS outside of force, it's still a lawful requirement, therefore justifying the terminology of "take" and "collects" in reference to the activities of the IRS. This simply isn't the case with Abraham. He offered a tenth of someone else's property freely and without compulsion. Under the Law, the compulsion was there for the people to pay a tithe, just as we today, in relation to our paying income taxes, are required to hand over our tax money to the IRS.
Now you're playing with semantics. Interesting that the Bible says, "...collected a tenth..." and you say, "Melchizedek collected nothing".
I've already quoted the KJV, which does indeed support what I said above. Also, casting shadows upon the fact that I focus upon key words, what's the alternative? Blind assumption? For crying out loud,
words mean things. We understand each other by way of our use of words that effectively and accurately convey the intricacies of our thoughts.
Also interesting that here you disqualify this principle because there is no "requirement", i.e., law. Then you disqualify the Mosaic Law. As far as the Bible is concerned, you're wrong on this point.
So, what's the alternative? Continue picking and choosing from the Law what happens to suit one's fancy, that benefits a particular dogma and/or agenda? Why stop there. Let's also pick and choose which of the beatitudes are relevant and which aren't. Come now. Let's be reasonable. If you're going to say that the Law of tithing is still binding today, then why not the Law disallowing the wearing of garments woven with more than one kind of fiber? It's just too convenient to pull forth those Laws from which we can drive the greatest benefit. James said in James 2:10, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in
one point, he is
guilty of all." Also see Luke 16:16, "The law and the prophets were
until John:
since that time the
kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. God's moral Law is still relevant today since it transcends all time and peoples. The provisional, ceremonial, and cultural Laws are no longer binding upon us today.
That doesn't give you an excuse to reject God's Word. And if you're in a gathering of believers that you don't trust, you need to find another place to worship.
If you're going to accuse me of rejecting God's word simply because I question the assumption that man-made, organized religion is the legitimate replacement of the temple and the Laws governing the tithe, then at least legitemize your accusation with facts. Additionally, where do you see anything within scripture that's at all similar to our system of schismatic institutions, and their being supported by the primary portion of believer's giving? It's a very common practice among religionists like you to falsely accuse others because you can't cite even one legitimate, biblical reference back it all up.
First, you don't seem to understand the purpose of the Law. Romans 2:18 tells us that we learn from Law. Why are you so quick to discard it?
I didn't discard anything. I have already demonstrated your hypocrisy by pointing out that you are not following the Law yourself. You can't, and neither can any of the rest of us. Besides, the context of the above reference you gave is a question in observation of those who would be called Jews, not a statement to the rest of us to accept the burden of all the Law upon ourselves.
Second, if we are no longer under the obligations of the Law, then why did Jesus emphasize the Love Commandments in Matthew 22:37-39?
To whom was Jesus speaking? Was He not talking to a people who were still under the Law? Yes. He was.
Why did He tell the rich young ruler to give everything he had to the poor?
Are you saying that the Law required rich men to give their wealth to the poor, therefore impoverishing themselves? Where is that located in the Law?
Excuse me, but you appear to be assuming something into that reference that is nowhere supported within those verses or the context. What in those verses supports the assumption that wages were a form of increase as defined within the Laws governing the tithe? There is a difference between the tithe and the temple treasury.
The widow gave two coins (currency), and Jesus commended her for it, because it was all that she had (taking us back to the rich young ruler).
For someone who touts the Law, You sure are ignorant of its intricacies. The tithe was
ONLY a tenth of the
increase of produce and livestock. The temple treasury was not produce or livestock, as you can see in those verses. It was silver, gold, and perhaps even precious gems. Do you even know what that treasury was used for? Have you ever studied that?
Today's apostle is a full-time job, just as it was with Paul. How else can an apostle establish churches if they have to fulfill your law by keeping a job?
I clearly said that there's no problem with an itinerant servant of the Lord receiving his earnings from the people to whom he ministers. I only questioned the false assumption that the Bible shows even one example of local elders, anywhere in the NT, receiving all their living from the people, therefore ceasing to be productive citizens within their respective communities, as is practiced today within organized religion.
You really do need to find a different church.
There's only ONE true Church, and that is the Church that Jesus has built. There is no other true Church. So, what are you suggesting I join? I'm not a member of organized religion, if that's what your talking about. Why would I want to be a part of organized religion? I prefer fellowship and mutual edification to religious exercise.
If the leadership of our church does not meet the requirements of 1 Timothy 3, what hope do we have that Jesus will ever come for His Bride?
The bride exists and will be taken to Heaven independent of the existence of leadership within organized religion. What are you basing your assumption upon that says organized religion is
the earthly expression of Christ's Church? We are all on equal footing, even with Paul, Peter, James, and all the rest, for we are all brethren in Christ Jesus.
I am simply amazed at you all who would reject the blessings and accept the curses associated with the tithe.
I am equally amazed that you think that, on your own authority, you can transplant a promise given to a specific people, at a specific time, under specific circumstances, over to us today. So far you've engaged much emotional argumentation without any legitimate, scriptural support.
BTW
