This morning's sermon on tithing

[Originalist]

Here are a few points preached today by our pastor...


#1 New Testament believers are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant.

Romans 6:14-15

The tithing in the Old Testament was a requirement to be in covenant with God. The tithing in the old covenant was an example of a civil and
ceremonial law. It was civil because it benefited civil society and it was ceremonial in that it supported the Levites leadership in the temple.

It was not a moral law like, “Do not murder or steal.” It was a law designed to meet the needs of the Israelites.

Christ died to set us free from the civil and ceremonial laws of the OT.

#2 There are no more Levites

Levites were tied to the OT sacrificial system. They do not exist anymore. The temple is no more. In fact, every believer is a priest now in the New Covenant.

#3 We are no longer require to travel to Jerusalem to celebrate religious festivals Therefore the tithe to support those trips is no longer required.

#4 Nowhere in Scripture is there a command for the Christian to tithe

Christians should not create commandments not given in Scripture.

#5 Christians who hold to tithing as a commandment should settle on at least 20% to be most biblical.

[1ofthechosen]

Here are a few points preached today by our pastor...

Well whoever said it want part of the moral law must not be reading the same Bible I read. While I can totally agree how he said it was part of the civil, and ceremonial law and we aren't bound to follow those today it's also part of the moral law too. Not my opinion but scripture says plainly in Leviticus 27:30-32 "all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: it is holy unto the Lord. [31] And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. [32] And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord."

While I'm not going to sit here and Chase the rabbit around the mulberry Bush over what was implied to give and what was not, and who it was to be given to; as we've done so many times before. I will say the text says plainly "it's holy unto the Lord." Anything holy unto Him always was as we see through the story of Cain and Abel, and Abraham and Melchizedek. And always will be because He is immutable. So could you say something that was holy unto the Lord is no longer holy unto Him today, especially outside of any scripture to say so? That makes it part of the moral law because we can see even before the law people were observing it. And everything Abraham tithed to Melchezidek surely didn't just fit into the agricultural category.

[Originalist]

Well whoever said it want part of the moral law must not be reading the same Bible I read. While I can totally agree how he said it was part of the civil, and ceremonial law and we aren't bound to follow those today it's also part of the moral law too. Not my opinion but scripture says plainly in Leviticus 27:30-32 "all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: it is holy unto the Lord. [31] And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. [32] And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord."


WHAT LAND !!! ???????

While I'm not going to sit here and Chase the rabbit around the mulberry Bush over wahat was implied and what was not; as we've done so many times before. I will say the text says plainly "it's holy unto the Lord." Anything holy unto Him always was as we see through the story of Cain and Abel, and Abraham and Melchizedek. And always will be because He is immutable. So could you say something that was holy unto the Lord is no longer holy unto Him today, especially outside of any scripture to say so? That makes it part of the moral law because we can see even before the law people were observing it. And everything Abraham tithed to Melchezidek surely didn't just fit into the agricultural category.

WHEN DID GOD COMMAND ABRAHAM TO TITHE TO ANYBODY ????




The pastor I cited obviously understands the laws of hermeneutics and you do not.

[1ofthechosen]

The pastor I cited obviously understands the laws of hermeneutics and you do not.

We never read about it, but Abraham and Cain and Abel didn't just decide to do so on their own. That's very simple. Like I said I'm not going to chase the rabbit but scripture does interpret scripture and it says twice in two different scriptures "it's Holy unto the Lord."

What kind of church did you attend btw..

[Originalist]

We never read about it, but Abraham and Cain and Abel didn't just decide to do so on their own. That's very simple. Like I said I'm not going to chase the rabbit but scripture does interpret scripture and it says twice in two different scriptures "it's Holy unto the Lord."

What kind of church did you attend btw..

The tithe of "THE LAND" was holy unto the Lord. What land?

[Evang.Benincasa]

The tithe of "THE LAND" was holy unto the Lord. What land?

Florida! :yahoo

[houston]

Florida! :yahoo

bwahahaha

[Originalist]

We never read about it, but Abraham and Cain and Abel didn't just decide to do so on their own. That's very simple. Like I said I'm not going to chase the rabbit but scripture does interpret scripture and it says twice in two different scriptures "it's Holy unto the Lord."

What kind of church did you attend btw..




Exodus 30:25, 31-33 25 And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.

31 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, This shall be an holy anointing oil unto me throughout your generations.

32 Upon man's flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall ye make any other like it, after the composition of it: it is holy, and it shall be holy unto you.

33 Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall even be cut off from his people.

By your awful hermeneutical model, we should still be obeying this command. Actually, this command NEVER was for Gentiles, nor were the tithing commands.

[1ofthechosen]

Exodus 30:25, 31-33 25 And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.



By your awful hermeneutical model, we should still be obeying this command. Actually, this command NEVER was for Gentiles, nor were the tithing commands.

If you show me the prohibition scripture I'll believe you...

And my wife has a bottle of apothecary.. (which I told her to throw it away, because if it's made wrong it comes with a curse!)

But your insults still don't explain about Cain and Abel and Abraham. They were paying tithes (and Cain and Abel didn't live in Israel either they also were Gentiles!) So apparently this has always been Holy unto the Lord because where did it come from? Had to be from God..

And if you could find me one scripture before Leviticus where anyone used the Apothecary we will observe that as proper refutation to what I'm saying here. Otherwise it's moot, and speculation..

And I just thought of something since you are talking about Hermeneutic interpretation, what do we do with the law of first reference when we see it obeserved in the 4th and 15th Chapter of Genesis? That comes way before the commandment of Leviticus. One were Gentile, and one were the father of all Jews who wasn't always one either?

[Originalist]

If you show me the prohibition scripture I'll believe you...

And my wife has a bottle of apothecary.. (which I told her to throw it away, because if it's made wrong it comes with a curse!)

Superstition.

But your insults still don't explain about Cain and Abel and Abraham. They were paying tithes (and Cain and Abel didn't live in Israel either they also were Gentiles!) So apparently this has always been Holy unto the Lord because where did it come from? Had to be from God..

Nowhere does it say that Cain and Abel paid tithes. We have a one time offering mentioned. You are building doctrine on flimsy support. Secondly, God only declared the tithe from the land of Israel to be holy. Thus, you are not even tithing correctly, by your own standard.

And if you could find me one scripture before Leviticus where anyone used the Apothecary we will observe that as proper refutation to what I'm saying here. Otherwise it's moot, and speculation..

Irrelevant. God said the anointing was holy unto him unto all generations. But of course, like the tithe, it was only holy unto all generations of Jews under the Law, which has been abolished.

And I just thought of something since you are talking about Hermeneutic interpretation, what do we do with the law of first reference when we see it obeserved in the 4th and 15th Chapter of Genesis? That comes way before the commandment of Leviticus. One were Gentile, and one were the father of all Jews who wasn't always one either?

Show me the "reference" to God institutionalizing the tithe before the law. Face it, you teach false doctrine. Repent.



Repent of lying to the people of God.

[1ofthechosen]

Repent of lying to the people of God.

1.No superstition here "And as for the perfume which thou shalt make, ye shall not make to yourselves according to the q composition thereof: it shall be unto thee holy for the Lord. [38] Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even be cut off from his people." That's a curse.

2. On the second one totally relevant cuz we can see from scripture that it was before the law and Jew and Gentile both obeserved it. We have only one account that it was observed spelled out plainly, but that is still 1 more then you have against it. There is a first reference, that was before the law by a Gentile. And God never said only of the land of Israel they were in the wilderness when the law was given.

3. We can say that about the apothecary by first reference not the tithe, you have created a straw man out of that one. It is not even comparable due to the circumstances.

4. I'll give you a guess I have as much scripture of God telling them to do it before the law, as you have of Him telling them it was abolished after the law.

And I'm not teaching anything, I'm only showing you the flaws that are in the doctrine you are swearing to be the way, that can't be refuted. There is Hermeneutical holes in the whole argument. You have no biblical refutation on those grounds neither.

[1ofthechosen]

And you keep talking about hermeneutics I think this was a good thread you may have missed out on. Start there at the 2nd post:




http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52557

Not that they maybe a good rule of thumb, but nowhere in the Bible are they taught as the Gospel. The were created by Theologians and historians overtime who were heaped in Philosophy. Many didn't even believe in God and were pagan. We can use them as a suggestion, but not as a absolute. If Jesus or even the Apostle Paul taught about them or even the principles of them it would be different. But when you do some research on who and where the laws of heremeneutics come from, they came from the same philosophical minds that brought you the Trinity and I don't ascribe to that either.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Repent of lying to the people of God.

Was this that Baptist church that your grandparents were associated with that you are attending? The Baptist pastor preached about tithing being OT law, and that you are all no longer to do it. Or they never tithed in that church? Do they have a community purse? Where everyone gives once a year, and a deacon board. Does the pastor draw a salary? Is the church a 501c3, or a 508 corp sole? I know these are a lot of questions many you might not be able to answer, but with this whole movement of no tithing and the other no giving (not implying that your church is leaning that way. Just wondering

[Tithesmeister]

Well, how bout that!

A tithing thread?

Count me in.

[Originalist]

And you keep talking about hermeneutics I think this was a good thread you may have missed out on. Start there at the 2nd post:




http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52557

Not that they maybe a good rule of thumb, but nowhere in the Bible are they taught as the Gospel. The were created by Theologians and historians overtime who were heaped in Philosophy. Many didn't even believe in God and were pagan. We can use them as a suggestion, but not as a absolute. If Jesus or even the Apostle Paul taught about them or even the principles of them it would be different. But when you do some research on who and where the laws of heremeneutics come from, they came from the same philosophical minds that brought you the Trinity and I don't ascribe to that either.

Hermeneutics are simply the laws of interpretation. There is no hermeneutical law that states something mentioned prior to Leviticus is a universal, eternal command. If it is, then you had better start preaching circumcision as God actually commanded Abraham to perform it. In fact, you should also offer your firstborn as a blood sacrifice.

[Originalist]

Was this that Baptist church that your grandparents were associated with that you are attending? The Baptist pastor preached about tithing being OT law, and that you are all no longer to do it. Or they never tithed in that church? Do they have a community purse? Where everyone gives once a year, and a deacon board. Does the pastor draw a salary? Is the church a 501c3, or a 508 corp sole? I know these are a lot of questions many you might not be able to answer, but with this whole movement of no tithing and the other no giving (not implying that your church is leaning that way. Just wondering

The entire sermon is attached to the OP. It will explain everything. My sojourn there is temporary and of necessity. But I also believe it is ordained of God. I rejoice every time I see that huge banner in the north wall of the sanctuary of Acts 2:38. We'll see what happens.

[Originalist]

1.No superstition here "And as for the perfume which thou shalt make, ye shall not make to yourselves according to the q composition thereof: it shall be unto thee holy for the Lord. [38] Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even be cut off from his people." That's a curse.

He was speaking specifically of an oil made BACK THEN for a specific purpose. If anyone misused THAT oil, they would be cursed. Again, this is simple hermeneutics.

2. On the second one totally relevant cuz we can see from scripture that it was before the law and Jew and Gentile both obeserved it. We have only one account that it was observed spelled out plainly, but that is still 1 more then you have against it. There is a first reference, that was before the law by a Gentile. And God never said only of the land of Israel they were in the wilderness when the law was given.

The fact that something was observed prior to the Law does not mean it was instituted by God. Again, simple hermeneutics.

3. We can say that about the apothecary by first reference not the tithe, you have created a straw man out of that one. It is not even comparable due to the circumstances.

"First reference" is a myth. God himself violated.

4. I'll give you a guess I have as much scripture of God telling them to do it before the law, as you have of Him telling them it was abolished after the law.

And I'm not teaching anything, I'm only showing you the flaws that are in the doctrine you are swearing to be the way, that can't be refuted. There is Hermeneutical holes in the whole argument. You have no biblical refutation on those grounds neither.

The refutation comes by way of the Law of which the tithe was a part being abolished. Furthermore, and as previously stated, this "before the Law" babble is a dumb argument.





You do not know how to rightly divide the word of truth.

[aegsm76]

The NT teaches that we owe all of our allegiance/money/life to Jesus.

You should be grateful if your pastor only teaches that you owe 10%!

Lol!

[Esaias]

Genesis 14:18-24 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. (19) And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: (20) And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. (21) And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. (22) And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, (23) That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: (24) Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

The tithe story usually begins here with Abraham giving tithes to Melchizedek. This is further elaborated upon by the apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews:

Hebrews 7:4-10 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. (5) 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: (6) But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. (7) And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. (8) And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. (9) And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. (10) For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.


It is clear that Abraham gave tithes (tenths) to Melchizedek, the priest of God. The tithes were apparently taken from the spoils rather than from the goods that were recovered. The spoils would have been the "extras" that Abraham acquired in defeating the kings of the east, above and beyond the goods that were recovered. Those recovered goods were given back to their original owners, leaving the excess (the "spoils") from which a tenth was given to Melchizedek. Since the word tithes is plural, it seems that the spoils were divided into categories, and a tenth from each category was given. Whether the spoils included gold and other non-agricultural products we do not know.

Much ado is made of this story, but I think there is something that people miss. We may ask "Why does Moses include this particular anecdote concerning Abraham in his history of the Patriarchs?" It may be that Moses was intending to demonstrate that tithes were appropriately given to the priest of God, thus lending Patriarchal precedent for the Sinaitic regulations concerning tithing to the Levites and to the priests. But there is something that is brought forward by the apostle in his exposition of the Genesis account that many seem to overlook. Let's look a bit closer:

Hebrews 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. (10) For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.


The apostle is saying that since Levi is descended from Abraham, and Abraham paid tithes, then Levi also (in a sense) paid tithes to Melchizedek. Now, Paul's purpose here of course is to show the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood over that of the Levitical priesthood, and thus to show that Christ is a superior High Priest. But in doing so he reveals an idea, the idea that what a person does, his descendants do as well. It is the idea that there is a continuity between a person and their descendants, or between a person and his or her ancestors. This same concept is on display in Romans ch 5 where Paul speaks of Adam's relationship to mankind, and of Christ's relationship to mankind. "In Adam all die", expressing the idea that Adam's descendants somehow participated in Adam's disobedience. And "in Christ all shall be made alive", because by His act of obedience many are made righteous. In other words, what one does, the others do.

This of course does not mean that a person is "guilty" of some ancestor's sins, because Paul also says "for all have sinned". But this shows that by a person's act of sinning that person identifies with Adam and his sin, and participates in a sense with Adam. And thus, by having faith in Christ, we participate in a sense with Christ's act of obedience and thereby participate in the results of that obedience. This is also seen in Christ's condemnation of the scribes an Pharisees:

Matthew 23:29-32 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, (30) And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. (31) Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. (32) Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

Here, the Lord affirms that by their unbelief, the scribes and Pharisees participate in the unbelief and sin of their ancestors who killed the prophets. The point is, there is a definite connection between a person and their ancestor, ratified by that person's adoption or rejection of the ancestor's character, values, deeds, etc. This is important for understanding where tithing comes from as a "law" for Israel.

(con't in next post)

[Esaias]

(con't)

A lot of folks look at Jacob and his promise to tithe as a sort of template or example for us to follow today. However, I think most people really have no idea what is actually going on in the text. So let's look at it:

Genesis 28:10-22 And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran. (11) And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep. (12) And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. (13) And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; (14) And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. (15) And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. (16) And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. (17) And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. (18) And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. (19) And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first. (20) And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, (21) So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: (22) And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

So what actually happened here? God first promises to Jacob to give him and his descendants the land of Canaan. He also promises to increase his descendants, and to keep him safe on his journeys, and to bring him back to the Promised Land. Most importantly, ask yourself What did God promise to give Jacob? The land of Canaan. And then in response, Jacob vows to give the tenth to God "of all that thou givest me". In other words, Jacob promised to give a tenth back to God of all that God gives him, which as we have seen was the land of Canaan. To make this clearer, Jacob is vowing to give a tenth of the produce of the promised land back to God.

Now, the record of Jacob's journeys and return to the land of Canaan is well known. What is not so well known is the fact there is no record of Jacob ever fulfilling his vow. In fact, there is evidence in Scripture that Jacob never did actually fulfill this vow, at least not upon his return. Remember, Jacob got rather rich working for Laban. He increased greatly in goods and cattle. Yet, there is no record of him offering tithes upon his return. After his run-in with the men of Shechem, he embarks on a pilgrimage back to Bethel (where he had made his vow), and there he sets up an altar and pours a drink offering and an oil offering. But no tithe! (see Genesis 35)

Now, we earlier asked "Why did Moses include the anecdote about Abraham and Melchizedek?" Let us ask the same question about Jacob and his vow of tithing. Remember, Jacob vowed to give a tithe of all that the Lord would give him. And what did the Lord promise to give him? the land of Canaan. So it is obvious why he did not tithe of anything that he got in Syria, while in Laban's employ. Because that cattle and wealth was not the product of the land which God promised to give Jacob. The vow concerned the land (and its produce) which God promised to give Jacob.

So why did Moses include this account? Along with no account whatsoever of Jacob ever paying his tithes and making good on his vow? Let's look at something Moses said about the tithe:


Leviticus 27:30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the LORD.

Leviticus 27:32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.

A lot of people think that God just sort of came up with the idea for a ten percent tax on agricultural products, as a nifty means of supplying the Levites and priests with their sustenance. But closer inspection reveals something else going on. God says the tithe is His, it is holy unto the Lord. Something that is holy to the Lord is holy because it has been dedicated to the Lord. Which is exactly what Jacob vowed.

God promised to give the land of Canaan to Jacob. And Jacob vowed to give back a tenth of that land's produce (crops and herds grown on that land). This means that the tithe or tenth of all agricultural produce (crops and herds) was already sacred, devoted to God, it already belonged to God. why? by a vow concerning those things made by Jacob.

Now, Jacob himself never actually inherited full ownership of the Promised Land. but his descendants did. The promise made to him was fulfilled by his descendants taking possession of the land from the Canaanites several centuries later. Here we see that God counts what Jacob's descendants would do as if Jacob did it (inheriting the land of Canaan). In other words, there is that continuity again, between a man and his descendants. A promise made to Jacob, God fulfills to his kids. And a vow made by Jacob, God requires the fulfillment of it from them.

Now we see why Moses included the story about Jacob's vow. It was in order to show the legal basis for God's claim on the tithe of the produce of the land of Israel. The tithe was required because Jacob, their ancestor had made a vow, and that vow was still binding on his descendants.

And now we understand why Malachi asked "Shall a man rob God of His tithes?" The tithes belonged to God because Jacob vowed them to God.

(con't in next post)

[Esaias]

(con't)

Now, as to the question regarding obligatory tithes from produce sourced outside the land of Israel. It would seem that normally, produce sourced from outside the land of Israel would not be subject to a mandatory tithe requirement, since Jacob never vowed a tenth of the agricultural produce of other lands (which he couldn't have done anyway, really, since they weren't given to him and weren't his to vow). The Sinaitic commandment concerning the tithe was enacted in order to fulfill Jacob's vow. He had vowed ten percent of the produce of the land, therefore it was dedicated to God and thus holy, it belonged to God. So Jacob's descendants, in whom Jacob would be given the land, would be required to fulfill their father's vow. Jacob would fulfill his vow in his children.

Israelites living in foreign lands would of course not be under obligation to pay a tithe on the agricultural produce generated in those lands - just as Jacob seemed to recognise no obligation to tithe anything he had gotten from Laban. Jacob's vow had nothing to do with foreign lands. Israelites living abroad would be living in someone else's land, subject to those foreign laws, vows, etc. Thus, no requirement to tithe that stuff to God.

Again, the obligatory nature of tithes depended upon Jacob's vow concerning the land of Israel. In fact, it may be that if Jacob had never made the vow he made, there would have been no requirement to tithe anything at all, to begin with.

Now, an interesting question arises concerning if and when Israelites obtained foreign lands by conquest (or by some other means). If they acquired a foreign land, and were not merely living in those foreign lands as strangers and pilgrims, but rather as the primary inhabitants or citizens, then it would seem the tithe requirement would kick in. The land would have been given to them by God. Thus, it would be considered to have been given to Jacob, and therefore possibly subject to the tithing vow.

In other words, did the two and a half tribes that settled on the east of Jordan have an obligation to pay tithes?

[Originalist]

The NT teaches that we owe all of our allegiance/money/life to Jesus.

You should be grateful if your pastor only teaches that you owe 10%!

Lol!


So whether or not he has a biblical mandate to teach 10% is not relevant ?

[Esaias]

I will say the text says plainly "it's holy unto the Lord." Anything holy unto Him always was as we see through the story of Cain and Abel, and Abraham and Melchizedek. And always will be because He is immutable. So could you say something that was holy unto the Lord is no longer holy unto Him today, especially outside of any scripture to say so? That makes it part of the moral law because we can see even before the law people were observing it. And everything Abraham tithed to Melchezidek surely didn't just fit into the agricultural category.

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

[Originalist]

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

The person you are answering has an esoteric approach to biblical interpretation. Context means nothing.

[1ofthechosen]

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

But that's a antitype of the Holy Ghost as we can see from the book of Hebrews Chapter 4. Or like OG said about circumcision that's a type of the covenant cut at baptism, or the Tabernacle plan was a type of what is the plan of salvation in Acts 2:38. So they were and still Holy unto the Lord and still in observance.

So if your saying tithes were a type then where was the anti type given in scripture?

[1ofthechosen]

The person you are answering has an esoteric approach to biblical interpretation. Context means nothing.

I'm only questioning what you are trying to set up as Biblical truth. Showing the holes that are in your argument.

Now Brother Esaias showed more scriptural proof and I can see that; although he never did deal with Cain and Abel who were Gentiles that never lived in the land of Canaan and that's what I'm questioning you about. You only try to use mockery, and slander anytime anyone questions your limited explaination. Then you are calling people liars and telling them to repent of their false doctrine, which I'm not teaching anyone. So truthfully, you need to repent and pray through. Because it's not about any of those things your saying it's you have no answer, but you claim to have all the answers. 1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." That is one thing I can say Brother Esaias does well he is always ready to give an answer to every man that asks for a reason. You just slander and put people down. Your lucky I'm Apostolic and can take it. But if your trying to convert Baptists you need to fix that approach!

[Originalist]

I'm only questioning what you are trying to set up as Biblical truth. Showing the holes that are in your argument.

Now Brother Esaias showed more scriptural proof and I can see that; although he never did deal with Cain and Abel who were Gentiles that never lived in the land of Canaan and that's what I'm questioning you about.

For crying out loud. You first cite the "tithe of THE LAND (of Israel) that was HOLY UNTO THE LORD" and now you try to read the same holiness into the OFFERING (not tithe) of Cain and Abel? Pathetic. And all as an attempt to preserve your idol doctrine that you bow down and worship. Oh yes I am mocking. But I am not slandering. You have plainly spelled out what you believe.



You only try to use mockery, and slander anytime anyone questions your limited explaination. Then you are calling people liars and telling them to repent of their false doctrine, which I'm not teaching anyone. So truthfully, you need to repent and pray through. Because it's not about any of those things your saying it's you have no answer, but you claim to have all the answers. 1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

You don't even quote Peter in context. That verse has nothing to with justifying a tithing doctrine. But hey, at least I didn't wish that you were emasculated like Paul wished on the Judaizers, though you are of the same vein.



That is one thing I can say Brother Esaias does well he is always ready to give an answer to every man that asks for a reason. You just slander and put people down. Your lucky I'm Apostolic and can take it. But if your trying to convert Baptists you need to fix that approach!

Obviously the Baptists are miles ahead of you on rightly dividing scriptures that deal with giving commands for the New Testament church, and that is a shame.




:nod

[1ofthechosen]

:nod

Well misrepresentations through out I never said any of those things you alluded to. But I ain't trippin you need to pray through, but that's going to be hard at a Baptist church... Your the guy God ordained to have a trinitarian Pastor, Hmmm. I guess all that's just semantics we have a lot in common... I will say your understanding does have more in common with them, then with real Apostolic's though. Oh and this has nothing to do with tithes as none of the rest of what I said did either. I was only pointing out holes, in your argument. I give tithes and offerings and I've never out given God. You can drop shade like that was what this was all about but it wasn't. It was you couldn't give an answer to nothing I was saying. Look at the original language of Cain's offerering no it wasn't a offering look again...

[Esaias]

But that's a antitype of the Holy Ghost as we can see from the book of Hebrews Chapter 4.

Please demonstrate 1) how the Sabbath is a type of the Holy Ghost per Heb. 4; 2) how your rule that "once holy always holy" has an exception clause, and 3) how this exception clause does not apply to the priestly anointing oil. Or, conversely, 4) how the anointing oil is NOT a type of the Holy Ghost.



Or like OG said about circumcision that's a type of the covenant cut at baptism, or the Tabernacle plan was a type of what is the plan of salvation in Acts 2:38. So they were and still Holy unto the Lord and still in observance.

You believe 8th day circumcision of the foreskin of the male sexual organ and the establishment and maintenance of Moses' Tabernacle are "still in observance"? What?



So if your saying tithes were a type then where was the anti type given in scripture?

I never said they were a type of anything.

[Esaias]

Now Brother Esaias showed more scriptural proof and I can see that; although he never did deal with Cain and Abel who were Gentiles that never lived in the land of Canaan and that's what I'm questioning you about.

Neither Cain nor Abel were tithing, but offering an offering, likely the first fruits. So I'm not sure how one transfers to the other?

[1ofthechosen]

Please demonstrate 1) how the Sabbath is a type of the Holy Ghost per Heb. 4; 2) how your rule that "once holy always holy" has an exception clause, and 3) how this exception clause does not apply to the priestly anointing oil. Or, conversely, 4) how the anointing oil is NOT a type of the Holy Ghost.





You believe 8th day circumcision of the foreskin of the male sexual organ and the establishment and maintenance of Moses' Tabernacle are "still in observance"? What?





I never said they were a type of anything.

1 It was a type so it's still in observance you cited the passage so no need to go there. And I would totally agree about what you said in the Apothecary also being a type of the Holy Ghost.

2. Yes circumcision was only for males in the OT. But that was a type of NT baptism that is a covenant for all male and women which is also a antitype of mikeveh. Yes the covenant is still in observance today in baptism, but only fulfilled. Circumcision was only a type of baptism.

I know you didn't say they were a type of anything but the thing you listed was a type. Which we see was fulfilled in Hebrews 4 (I don't have time to do all this right now, but you said exactly where it was so you know.)

[Esaias]

1 It was a type so it's still in observance you cited the passage so no need to go there. And I would totally agree about what you said in the Apothecary also being a type of the Holy Ghost.

2. Yes circumcision was only for males in the OT. But that was a type of NT baptism that is a covenant for all male and women which is also a antitype of mikeveh. Yes the covenant is still in observance today in baptism, but only fulfilled. Circumcision was only a type of baptism.

I know you didn't say they were a type of anything but the thing you listed was a type. Which we see was fulfilledHebrews 4 (I don't have time to do all this right now, but you said exactly where it was so you know.)

So you are saying that circumcision, the Tabernacle, and the oil are still holy but in their New Covenant sense? I can agree with that, at this point, although it might be good for you to clarify exactly what you mean. As for Heb 4, you brought it up so I was asking you to demonstrate how that chapter says the seventh day Sabbath is a type of the Holy Ghost.

BTW, I know it's slightly off topic, but I disagree that circumcision is a type of baptism. I would say it is rather a type of regeneration, and includes repentance, faith, baptism, and the Holy Ghost.

[Originalist]

So you are saying that circumcision, the Tabernacle, and the oil are still holy but in their New Covenant sense? I can agree with that, at this point, although it might be good for you to clarify exactly what you mean. As for Heb 4, you brought it up so I was asking you to demonstrate how that chapter says the seventh day Sabbath is a type of the Holy Ghost.

BTW, I know it's slightly off topic, but I disagree that circumcision is a type of baptism. I would say it is rather a type of regeneration, and includes repentance, faith, baptism, and the Holy Ghost.


Amen.





:thumbsup

[Originalist]

1 It was a type so it's still in observance you cited the passage so no need to go there. And I would totally agree about what you said in the Apothecary also being a type of the Holy Ghost.

2. Yes circumcision was only for males in the OT. But that was a type of NT baptism that is a covenant for all male and women which is also a antitype of mikeveh. Yes the covenant is still in observance today in baptism, but only fulfilled. Circumcision was only a type of baptism.

I know you didn't say they were a type of anything but the thing you listed was a type. Which we see was fulfilled in Hebrews 4 (I don't have time to do all this right now, but you said exactly where it was so you know.)

The WHOLE law is fulfilled in Christ, even if you cannot find a type and shadow fulfillment for every tiny detail.

[Esaias]

The WHOLE law is fulfilled in Christ, even if you cannot find a type and shadow fulfillment for every tiny detail.

I think we get in the habit of saying this, but often fail to specify what exactly that means and how it affects our obligations toward God.

[Originalist]

Well misrepresentations through out I never said any of those things you alluded to. But I ain't trippin you need to pray through, but that's going to be hard at a Baptist church... Your the guy God ordained to have a trinitarian Pastor, Hmmm.


So you preach to me about my approach and then act like Baptists have the plague. Let me tell you something. I witnessed a powerful move of God yesterday as a sinner came to the altar weeping and calling on God. The song leader did not know what to do and kept leading us "Just as I Am". Finally, she broke and wept herself and said, "Church, we just need to pray right now. The Spirit is moving".

But you see Apostolic Pharisees like you would never grasp why it is important for an Apostolic like me to be there in such a setting, to be a kind of mid-wife (though I am male) to help deliver the Apostolic revival God is trying to birth in that church. You are too good to soil yourself by eating with dogs.


I guess all that's just semantics we have a lot in common... I will say your understanding does have more in common with them, then with real Apostolic's though.

Again, just another one of MANY stupid statements. Completely baseless. Your just mad because your idolatry is being exposed. The apostles did not teach your tithing nonsense. So that meas YOU are not teaching Apostolic doctrine.



Oh and this has nothing to do with tithes as none of the rest of what I said did either. I was only pointing out holes, in your argument.


You have not pointed out even ONE hole I my argument.


I give tithes and offerings and I've never out given God. You can drop shade like that was what this was all about but it wasn't. It was you couldn't give an answer to nothing I was saying. Look at the original language of Cain's offering no it wasn't a offering look again...


By definition, what they both were doing was OFFERING something. DUH !!!!








:throwrock

[aegsm76]

So whether or not he has a biblical mandate to teach 10% is not relevant ?

From my study, I believe there is a biblical principle involved in tithing.
So, I believe it depends on how you teach giving.
I will say, that those USUALLY opposed to tithing sometimes also have issues with other Apostolic teachings (such as separation, holiness and headship).
Now, I know some who do not teach tithing is mandatory, but are pastors of churches who give more than those who teach it.
The interesting thing about tithing is that I know some unbelievers who pay tithes that appear to be blessed for paying their tithe.

[1ofthechosen]

:throwrock

That's why I don't mess with you, you got a bad spirit and need to pray through.im only talking-to you personally because you have stayed personal the whole time.

I'm not mad about anything from the scripture or even the teaching. But you just talking to me crazy does upset me. Let me just tell you I haven't always been saved there was a time in my life I would've split your head wide open for even having a condescending tone. I hope you don't do thatt to the wrong person. I'm not threatening you but it's the truth anyhow.

[Originalist]

That's why I don't mess with you, you got a bad spirit and need to pray through.im only talking-to you personally because you have stayed personal the whole time.

I'm not mad about anything from the scripture or even the teaching. But you just talking to me crazy does upset me. Let me just tell you I haven't always been saved there was a time in my life I would've split your head wide open for even having a condescending tone.


Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Wow. I've never threatened you with violence. What you just said was a shot across the bow. Violence is obviously still in your heart. You would not have lasted long going toe to toe with the Apostles when they openly rebuked you.


I hope you don't do thatt to the wrong person. I'm not threatening you but it's the truth anyhow



.


.

[1ofthechosen]

.

I have no problem with rebuke but personal slander is something different. Your not even talking to me about anything biblical yet attacking me personal.

All I'm saying is if you are trying to minister and help people you better get that right. Cuz oneday you may do that to the wrong individual. This is not the first, second, or third time you have done it to me.

So once again from here on out don't talk to me. Some people are just better off at a distance. Have a good day.