Your tithes were already paid.

[Nitehawk013]

There is almost too much horrid theology and hermeneutics to begin to address on this thread.

First, I am somewhat let down by you Deacon. You don't appear to be the same guy I read regularly a year or two back when I was a regular as opposed to a lurker. What theological difference does it make whether one attends what you would consider a church or not? That was a sad attempt at painting Rudy and Originalist as backslidden and therefore allowing you to brush off their dissent from tithing. You didn't strike me as the type to play the "you don't even go to church" card. Stick to trying to refute their opinion. It is more respectable.

As to the matter at hand, oh where to begin? First, the amount of eisegesis is unbearable in here. We are supposed to strive to exegete the word, not eisegete. To pull out meaning, not force what we want the word to mean. This is basic intro hermeneutics. You don't read your opinions into the text! You are supposed to draw out the real meaning of the texts. Just because you think it is speaking of something, you cannot just say it is without overwhelming and convincing supporting evidences.

There is NO solid evidence that Cain and Abel had anything to do with tithing. You have to WANT it to be about tithing. They BOTH came at a time (after thinking about how little to give according to you) and gave their offering. OFFERING, not tithe. So apparently Abel took his time and thought about how much to give or not to give as well. The fact that his was accepted was b/c it was a blood sacrifice, not some weak attempt at tithing.

The tree in the garden also had no connection to tithing. The tree belonged to GOD, not man. Tithing had to be on ones INCREASE. Something that belonged to them. Something you earned. The tree was NEVER man's increase. it was NEVER his to claim. It was NEVER earned. It was always God's. So it could not, under even the most weak definition, be considered a tithing symbol.

You also continue to use tithe and firstfruits interchangeably. Perhaps you really don't know, but they are two SEPERATE offerings. Tithes are NOT firstfruits. The first fruits were a small, token of thanks offering. IT had to be small enough to be carried by hand or in a small basket. This is read right out of scripture folks. The tithe was the tenth. it was NOT the FIRST.

Scripture explicitly says that the TENTH to pass under the rod was the tithe, not the first. You did NOT give the first to God, you gave the tenth. If your livestock only gave birth to 9 offspring...you paid no tithe. There was no TENTH to give! I cannot fathom that some of you don't know this. Even worse, I hope that some of you aren't simply ignoring this fact to prop up a pathetic doctrine.

As to needing a scripture that tells us that tithing was rescinded...do you hold the same view of all OT laws? Do you still kick your wife out of the house and church when she is on her period? Hate ot be gross, but she is unclean and should be kicked out according to the law. What verse says specifically that has been rescinded and she may now come to church and stay in the house while menstruating? That she is no longer unclean?

We have an entire book in Hebrews alone that serves the sole purpose of telling us that the entire OT law was obsolete, weak and was fulfilled and replaced with a better convenant. Do you really think that Jesus came and fulfilled the entire old contract, but then looked at the church and said, "well, my new way is better in every facet...except that money thing. I better make sure they still cling to this one part of the law because I can't come up with a better way for the New Testament church"?

As to Paul supporting tithing in Corinthians, you are grasping. He alludes to, not mentions by name, the system of the levites. You forget your context. This is a church of gentiles. Not all jews. There were multitudes of gentiles who were wholly unfamiliar with the levitical tithing system. They were foreign to the law at all. Yet here he has the perfect chance to clearly explain to this gentile church the importance of tithing to the church...but instead makes a vague reference to the levites and how they were supported by the people.

Paul, if tithing were a mandatory heave or hell issue, had a responsibility to tell these gentiles (not Jews who would possibly be familiar with the tithing law) clearly, NO CONFUSION OR DOUBT, that they needed to pay tithe to be saved and yet he never, NOT ONCE even writes the word tithe in a single of his letters to these churches. The fact that Paul never once instructs them on actual tithing should be the nail in the coffin for you pro-tithers.

Paul does argue that one has a right to be supported by the church, yet he never says tithing. In fact the "system" for levitical support was bigger than just people giving 10% and I think you all know that. You simply choose to ignore the entire rest of the system while clinging to the 10% figure. You leave out the fact that those who receive should not own anything themselves then, should do all the work in the temple(church) including cleaning and upkeep as the levites did, should institute and uphold Jubilee and make sure the poor and orphans (who did NOT pay tithes under law) are always financially taken care of, etc. You wish to lay claim to the levitical payscale...then start actually doing all the work the levites did.

Finally, and I am sure I forgot something along the way, so you cannot play the "he doesn't go to church" card and blow off my statements, I am an elder in my church. Only my Pastor himself has more time in the pulpit than I do. I do more teaching in our church than anyone other than Pastor himself. And yes he knows my position on tithing. He also knows that while he and I disagree staunchly, I don't use the pulpit to push my view and cause a division among our church people. I am greatly trusted and in good standing. So my position and attendance is not in doubt.

Refute my theology if you want and can, but don't try to take an easy way out and just attack the person.