Tithing, Mandate for the New Testament Church?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Rudy

It seems to me those who teach tithing money from the Moasic Covenant using a curse is anti-christ. If filthy lucre removes a curse then calvary was all for nothing. Really nothing to take lightly.

AMEN!

[UnTraditional]

Originally Posted by Rudy

It seems to me those who teach tithing money from the Moasic Covenant using a curse is anti-christ. If filthy lucre removes a curse then calvary was all for nothing. Really nothing to take lightly.

Well spoken!

[HRea]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

HRea, have you ever seen this thread, and would you be willing to step up to the plate?

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...88&postcount=1

I've already posted my position on tithing here in this forum using biblical examples and principles. Which part of my specific position do you disagree with?

[HRea]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Seems like quite a logical fallacy since many of the disciples were no doubt baptized under the ministry of John the Baptist. I don't think anyone would seriously posit (or even could) that they were not baptized.

Yes, I believe that all the apostles were baptized. Unfortunately many take the stance that "no record = didn't happen" and apply it when it's convenient to prove their point of view. This thread is replete with this argument. Simply because there is no record doesn't prove it didn't happen.

If "no record = didn't happen" proves that something didn't take place, then none of the apostles were baptized; however, we have great confidence that they were even though no record in the Bible exists to prove that they were baptized.

Just so there is no confusion, I consider baptism much more important than tithing.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by HRea

Yes, I believe that all the apostles were baptized. Unfortunately many take the stance that "no record = didn't happen" and apply it when it's convenient to prove their point of view. This thread is replete with this argument. Simply because there is no record doesn't prove it didn't happen.

If "no record = didn't happen" proves that something didn't take place, then none of the apostles were baptized; however, we have great confidence that they were even though no record in the Bible exists to prove that they were baptized.

Just so there is no confusion, I consider baptism much more important than tithing.

But there is record, in that they were disciples of John, and John baptized his isciples. We also know that Jesus offered baptism to those who would become his disciples (using the term generally, not of the 12) though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus (carpenter) or jis disciples (majority fisherman) tithed at any time, despite the fact they were under the Law. Comparing what the new testament says about the apostles and baptism and the apostles and tithing is apples to oranges.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by HRea

I've already posted my position on tithing here in this forum using biblical examples and principles. Which part of my specific position do you disagree with?

This is simply a round about way of saying "no".

I disagree with any belief that in any way turns tithing into anything other than what the Bible teaches it as. All you have done is tweaked your position, basically putting "lipstick on a pig."

Your positing a variation of tithing, one of about a thousand, but any position that makes tithes money and to be given outside of jerusalem is simply unbiblical, regardless of "principles."

[Rudy]

I really don't see a forever command/principle on tithing. 1.The Jacob example shows there would be no room for him to bargain with Our Lord. 2.Conditions under the Mosaic Law proves no forever command/principle to tithe. Example--> What would be tithed if One had only 9 head of cattle? Every 10th one under the rod if I'm correct. What was tithed from those whose craft was not related to livestock or agriculture? With only food items allowed they did not tithe from their craft. These alone using biblical hermeneutics shows/proves a gap in the forever command/principle. This cannot be ignored.

Here is an interesting show of biblical hermeneutics in action. Those who use muzzle not the ox that treadeth out the corn fail to see the connection. What was the ox treading out? Food or money.

We are forbidden to add to or take away from the word of God. To promote a tithing transition from food items to money in the New Covenant using Mosaic Law is extremely flawed. It's just not there.

There is no command to build a building and call it the storehouse to bring a money tithe to. The Body of Christ is the temple of our Lord.

[HRea]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I disagree with any belief that in any way turns tithing into anything other than what the Bible teaches it as. All you have done is tweaked your position, basically putting "lipstick on a pig."

My position on tithing hasn't changed, nor have I "tweaked" it. I think you have me confused with someone else. Re-read my posts and see what you disagree with.

[HRea]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

But there is record, in that they were disciples of John, and John baptized his disciples.

No, the record show that only one (Andrew) could be identified as a disciple of John, not all of them, unless I'm missing the scripture that your using to conclude that they were disciples of John. If you would post the scripture, then I'm willing to concede the point on them being John's disciples and baptized unto repentance. As far as being baptized in Jesus' name, that's another matter entirely.

The point I'm making is this: simply because there is no record doesn't prove something did or did not happen.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by HRea

No, the record show that only one (Andrew) could be identified as a disciple of John, not all of them, unless I'm missing the scripture that your using to conclude that they were disciples of John. If you would post the scripture, then I'm willing to concede the point on them being John's disciples and baptized unto repentance. As far as being baptized in Jesus' name, that's another matter entirely.

The point I'm making is this: simply because there is no record doesn't prove something did or did not happen.

even so , there is an actual command in NT for baptism while not one for tithes.