Your tithes were already paid.

[Sean]

Pliny, you have made tithing....THE INVISIBLE COMMAND.(eternal moral principal)

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sean

If you do not believe me Bro. Perez, then download Russ Kelly's nearly 300 page book on the subject.

You will run out of ammo after about 20 pages.

If you want a summary of how we have tithing in the churches today, start at page 246.


Here it is...

http://www.truthforfree.com/files/PDF/REK-Tithing3.pdf




This book is a "last days" masterpiece.

Thank you for the link. Although it was technically for someone else I assume it would be for anyone since it was posted publically. I hope this is okay.

It was stated that Dr. Kelly destroys the tither’s argument within the first twenty pages. That piqued my interest so I have reviewed those pages plus a handful. Interestingly what I found is the opposite. Though it is interesting reading it does not destroy anyone’s argument nor do I think Dr. Kelly intended for these first few pages to do so.

I do take exceptions to some things that have been said. For example on page 17 the author states:
“14:18 And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine.…
Hebrews 7:6 says “he whose descent is not counted from them.” Although much speculation exists, the text itself gives no evidence that Melchizedek was anything other than a self-appointed and self-named pagan priest-king similar to hundreds of others found in his era and in his vicinity around 2000 B. C.”


This provides insight into the author’s preconceived notion that Melchizedek was a pagan king and priest. The tenor of the statement is indicative of this – anything other than a self-appointed and self-named pagan priest-king similar to hundreds of others found in his era and in his vicinity around 2000 B. C.

The addition of the hundreds of others found in his era and in his vicinity strengthens his conclusion. Regardless, this does not preclude the possibility of Melchizedek being a worshipper of the one true God. This is like saying everyone in your city is a Trinitarian because there are hundreds of Trinitarians in your city. The one does not preclude the other.

Melchizedek may very well have been a worshipper of the Most High God. As will be demonstrated shortly, Jewish tradition believes this Melchizedek was Shem the son of Noah. This is plausible because Shem was alive. The fact that Shem was alive makes it likely there were others that worshipped the one true God as well. Abraham was not that unique.

This brings me to page 19. Dr. Kelly states:
“In addition, if Melchizedek had been a true worshiper of Yahweh, then he, and not Abraham, would have been God’s choice for starting a chosen nation.”

This may be his opinion but that is all. This is pretty presumptuous to me. Why would God have to use Melchizedek? This just does not make any sense at all. God chooses whom He wills and does not ask humanity for opinions. Dr. Kelly is certainly entitled to his opinion but I am not required to believe in it. I believe his assertion to be plainly wrong.

After the flood I cannot fathom Shem forgetting God. Although, the world was full of idolatry it does not mean that everyone, Shem included, backslid. Shem was alive during the time of Abraham. No doubt there were others who followed him in his religion towards the true God. God could have chosen anyone but He chose Abraham. So what? It is presumptuous of man to tell God what He would or would not do and I reject outright Dr. Kelly’s assertion.

This brings me to the Targums, specifically The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel
Here is a quote concerning the passage in question:
“And Malka Zadika, who was Shem bar Noah, the king of Yerushalem, came forth to meet Abram, and brought forth to him bread and wine; and in that time he ministered before Eloha Ilaha. [JERUSALEM. And Malki Zedek, king of Yerushalem, who was Shem, who was the great priest of the Most High.] And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the Lord God Most High, who for the righteous possesseth the heavens and the earth. And blessed be Eloha Ilaha, who hath made thine enemies as a shield which receiveth a blow. And he gave to him one of ten, of all which he brought back.”


This demonstrates the Jewish tradition that Melchizedek was Shem. Maybe he was or maybe he was not. We don’t know. However, it demonstrates that the Jews believed Melchizedek to be a worshipper of Yaweh. The Targums were compiled as early as the time of the Second Temple period. They are very ancient. Thus, the tradition that Melchizedek was a worshipper of Yaweh is very ancient.

Dr. Kelly is certainly entitled to his opinion but then again so am I. Now to a final thought. On page 21 Dr. Kelly states that Melchizedek was ignorant of Yahweh. Furthermore, it was said Melchizedek called himself the priest of the most high. FTR here is the quote:
First, Melchizedek did not know God as “Yahweh,” that is, “LORD,” or “Jehovah.” It is important to recognize that Melchizedek called himself the priest of “El Elyon,” “Most High God” in verses 18-20 and did NOT call himself the priest of “Yahweh, the Most High God,” as did Abraham to the king of Sodom in verse 22.

What does the scripture actually say?
(Gen 14:17 KJV) And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.
(Gen 14:18 KJV) And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
(Gen 14:19 KJV) And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
(Gen 14:20 KJV) And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
(Gen 14:21 KJV) And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
(Gen 14:22 KJV) 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,

The scripture is silent on what he said about himself. It is the writer of Genesis that declared him to be the priest of the most high. Therefore, it is Kelly’s opinion alone that he was ignorant of Yahweh. This must based upon his belief that he was a pagan king and priest. He was simply wrong. Melchizedek is not the one that declared himself to be the priest. It is the writer.

This writer was Jewish and the ancient tradition of Judaism is that Melchizedek was in fact a worshipper of Yaweh.

Thus the arguments posited do not destroy a tither’s argument. It only appears that way to the proverbial choir.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sean

Pliny, you have made tithing....THE INVISIBLE COMMAND.(eternal moral principal)

Thank you for your opinion.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Thank you for the link. Although it was technically for someone else I assume it would be for anyone since it was posted publically. I hope this is okay.

It was stated that Dr. Kelly destroys the tither’s argument within the first twenty pages. That piqued my interest so I have reviewed those pages plus a handful. Interestingly what I found is the opposite. Though it is interesting reading it does not destroy anyone’s argument nor do I think Dr. Kelly intended for these first few pages to do so.

I do take exceptions to some things that have been said. For example on page 17 the author states:
“14:18 And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine.…
Hebrews 7:6 says “he whose descent is not counted from them.” Although much speculation exists, the text itself gives no evidence that Melchizedek was anything other than a self-appointed and self-named pagan priest-king similar to hundreds of others found in his era and in his vicinity around 2000 B. C.”


This provides insight into the author’s preconceived notion that Melchizedek was a pagan king and priest. The tenor of the statement is indicative of this – anything other than a self-appointed and self-named pagan priest-king similar to hundreds of others found in his era and in his vicinity around 2000 B. C.

The addition of the hundreds of others found in his era and in his vicinity strengthens his conclusion. Regardless, this does not preclude the possibility of Melchizedek being a worshipper of the one true God. This is like saying everyone in your city is a Trinitarian because there are hundreds of Trinitarians in your city. The one does not preclude the other.

Melchizedek may very well have been a worshipper of the Most High God. As will be demonstrated shortly, Jewish tradition believes this Melchizedek was Shem the son of Noah. This is plausible because Shem was alive. The fact that Shem was alive makes it likely there were others that worshipped the one true God as well. Abraham was not that unique.

This brings me to page 19. Dr. Kelly states:
“In addition, if Melchizedek had been a true worshiper of Yahweh, then he, and not Abraham, would have been God’s choice for starting a chosen nation.”

This may be his opinion but that is all. This is pretty presumptuous to me. Why would God have to use Melchizedek? This just does not make any sense at all. God chooses whom He wills and does not ask humanity for opinions. Dr. Kelly is certainly entitled to his opinion but I am not required to believe in it. I believe his assertion to be plainly wrong.

After the flood I cannot fathom Shem forgetting God. Although, the world was full of idolatry it does not mean that everyone, Shem included, backslid. Shem was alive during the time of Abraham. No doubt there were others who followed him in his religion towards the true God. God could have chosen anyone but He chose Abraham. So what? It is presumptuous of man to tell God what He would or would not do and I reject outright Dr. Kelly’s assertion.

This brings me to the Targums, specifically The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel
Here is a quote concerning the passage in question:
“And Malka Zadika, who was Shem bar Noah, the king of Yerushalem, came forth to meet Abram, and brought forth to him bread and wine; and in that time he ministered before Eloha Ilaha. [JERUSALEM. And Malki Zedek, king of Yerushalem, who was Shem, who was the great priest of the Most High.] And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the Lord God Most High, who for the righteous possesseth the heavens and the earth. And blessed be Eloha Ilaha, who hath made thine enemies as a shield which receiveth a blow. And he gave to him one of ten, of all which he brought back.”


This demonstrates the Jewish tradition that Melchizedek was Shem. Maybe he was or maybe he was not. We don’t know. However, it demonstrates that the Jews believed Melchizedek to be a worshipper of Yaweh. The Targums were compiled as early as the time of the Second Temple period. They are very ancient. Thus, the tradition that Melchizedek was a worshipper of Yaweh is very ancient.

Dr. Kelly is certainly entitled to his opinion but then again so am I. Now to a final thought. On page 21 Dr. Kelly states that Melchizedek was ignorant of Yahweh. Furthermore, it was said Melchizedek called himself the priest of the most high. FTR here is the quote:
First, Melchizedek did not know God as “Yahweh,” that is, “LORD,” or “Jehovah.” It is important to recognize that Melchizedek called himself the priest of “El Elyon,” “Most High God” in verses 18-20 and did NOT call himself the priest of “Yahweh, the Most High God,” as did Abraham to the king of Sodom in verse 22.

What does the scripture actually say?
(Gen 14:17 KJV) And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.
(Gen 14:18 KJV) And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
(Gen 14:19 KJV) And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
(Gen 14:20 KJV) And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
(Gen 14:21 KJV) And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
(Gen 14:22 KJV) 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,

The scripture is silent on what he said about himself. It is the writer of Genesis that declared him to be the priest of the most high. Therefore, it is Kelly’s opinion alone that he was ignorant of Yahweh. This must based upon his belief that he was a pagan king and priest. He was simply wrong. Melchizedek is not the one that declared himself to be the priest. It is the writer.

This writer was Jewish and the ancient tradition of Judaism is that Melchizedek was in fact a worshipper of Yaweh.

Thus the arguments posited do not destroy a tither’s argument. It only appears that way to the proverbial choir.

Your rebuttal is noted, but I will let Dr. Kelly address your comments.

Will you continue reading the book?

It should be read in its' entirety to understand the work that was done.

I still would like you to post me the verse that says "tithing is an eternal moral principle".(this is your PILLAR statement to the world)

I sense prejudice in how other things from previous dispensations were adopted into the Law, which you would gladly say in disannulled, but only a Law regarding money is eternal.

I am sure you can see though my eyes that something fishy is going on here.

The verse I request will seal the deal for you.

If the verse exists, it will make tithing eternal.

If the verse does not exist, then tithe teachers have fabricated this doctrine of tithing on a statement of false premise.

Thanks

[deacon blues]

Yall go ahead and disobey God's Word concerning the tithe---as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord---and obey the truth about tithing---and will do it gladly and cheerfully and live with the favor of God upon our lives.

Keep on being self centered and selfish with what belongs to God---you will lose it anyway.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

Wow,

This guy can tell us all about how not to tithe, but can't explain the mighty God in Christ, or the essentiality of salvation through obedience of Acts 2:38.


Russell Earl Kelly (Russ Kelly) is a Baptist.


One of you brought this guy here, that is just wrong..... In a whole bunch of ways.

You are so desperate to win the argument that you would side with an Egyptian?

This just proves you can't debate or teach stubborn.

Hey bro. Jim Jones was oneness!

Read this...https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...SeJMJTYo8bLbBQ

That is not how you win arguments.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Rudy

lol--it's not Russ Kelly.

Rats, if its not, at least we exposed his book to the guys.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Yall go ahead and disobey God's Word concerning the tithe---as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord---and obey the truth about tithing---and will do it gladly and cheerfully and live with the favor of God upon our lives.

Keep on being self centered and selfish with what belongs to God---you will lose it anyway.

Yep, apparently it's okay to claim we disobey God and are selfish but it's not okay to claim that tithing preachers weigh down the gospel and are selfish and misuse scripture to defend their lie?

[jfrog]

Pliny, you claim that tithing is an eternal principle.

I must ask. Can you tell me the positions of the people had that received tithes before the law?

We know of Melchidizik and he was a Priest.
Are there any others?

[good samaritan]

If tithing is a eternal moral law because it predates the law given to Moses, then so does the observance of the Sabbath. The Sabbath being holy was instituted at the 7th day when God rested. We can't pick and choose through the law what stays and what goes. All the law was fulfilled and is still being fulfilled in Jesus. I believe tithing according to the law was fulfilled in Jesus. Tithing is a good financial stewardship plan, but I don't see it as a law that passed on to the NT church.

Money is from a corrupt system of which I feel God finds no pleasure. The reason that God commanded Israel to pay the Holy tithe from the Holy land (IMO) was that money is not a system(Mammon) that God wanted for humanity. We should be good stewards here on this earth with whatever monetary system we have, but must not be caught up in this world systems.Money is not what God is interested in, but he desires the hearts of men.

When Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's, He was not saying pay your taxes and pay your tithes. He was saying give Caesar his portion of that monetary system that the earthly government demands and give to God from the system he demands. The system God operates in is Spiritual and not carnal. Jesus was not interested in a percentage of people's gross profits, but he desired to redeem the lost unto himself.

If you truly belong to God you will generously give of ever facet of your life including this monetary system. If you legalistically teach mandatory tithing a NT law I feel you are going beyond the scripture. I am a tithe and offerings believer and teacher, but I don't see tithes and offerings in the mandatory way that some here are teaching it.