Christian tithing was started by the Roman Catholic Church

[Live4Him2]

Which has nothing to do with "tithing".

Sigh...

I Corinthians chapter 9

[13] Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the alter are partakers with the alter?
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Those who ministered about holy things while living of the things of the temple, and those who waited at the altar while being partakers of the altar WERE THE LEVITICAL PRIESTS WHO WERE BEING SUSTAINED BY THE TITHES OF THE PEOPLE.

EVEN SO hath THE LORD ORDAINED that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

 

[Dino246]

Sigh...

Indeed.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Hmm I can trace it back to the OT which was ..only guessing came before the Catholic Church

You're talking old covenant.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Will you muzzle the ox while it is threshing?

No. Am I supposed to?

 

[arthurfleminger]

Personall, I believe that an individual should give what they can afford, from the heart. Like the widow who gave her mite. I absolutely don't believe in tthe 10% tithe.

And surprisingly, the Catholic Church does not tithe, it is only some of our brother Protestant denominations that do advocate tithing today.

Many of our Protestant sects, especially Evangelicals, interpret tithing as giving 10% of their income to their home church. Contributions to other charities must be above and beyond what they give their church.

Tithing remains an important doctrine in many Christian denominations, such as the Congregationalist Churches, Methodist Churches and Seventh-day Adventist Church.

What religions pay tithing? - Protestant community (raymundtamayo.com)

 

[ResidentAlien]

Tithing remains an important doctrine in many Christian denominations, such as the Congregationalist Churches, Methodist Churches and Seventh-day Adventist Church.

I mostly agree. I would only add: "Tithing remains an important [false] doctrine in many Christian denominations, such as the Congregationalist Churches, Methodist Churches and Seventh-day Adventist Church."

 

[arthurfleminger]

Personall, I believe that an individual should give what they can afford, from the heart. Like the widow who gave her mite. I absolutely don't believe in tthe 10% tithe.

And surprisingly, the Catholic Church does not tithe, it is only some of our brother Protestant denominations that do advocate tithing today.

Many of our Protestant sects, especially Evangelicals, interpret tithing as giving 10% of their income to their home church. Contributions to other charities must be above and beyond what they give their church.

Tithing remains an important doctrine in many Christian denominations, such as the Congregationalist Churches, Methodist Churches and Seventh-day Adventist Church.

What religions pay tithing? - Protestant community (raymundtamayo.com)

In fact, it is only some of our Protestant denominations who continue to teach the doctrine of the 10% tithe.

 

[JohnDB]

Whether tithing was practiced before Judaism or Christianity is irrelevant. The best place to find what early Christians believed and practiced is the New Testament. There's no record at all there that tithing was practiced. It first shows up in the records of the RCC in the 6th century.

Annanias and Sapphira...

 

[Dino246]

And there's no record that he didn't. The inference is that he did.

The text contains no such "inference"; that's called eisegesis.

Abram/Abraham, Melchizedek, Levi, and Jesus Christ are all inter-related in relation to tithing.

Wrong. The priesthood of Melchizedek is compared (and elevated above) the priesthood of Levi. Christ is of the priesthood of Melchizedek. That's it, that's all. The text simply does not support--at all--the idea that Christians are to pay tithes.

Scripture (not something that I allegedly "made up") declares that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek as well in that he was yet in Abram's/Abraham's loins at that time.

Wrong again. Scripture says, "One might even say that Levi ... paid tithes". It's a rhetorical device employed to demonstrate the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood over that of Levi.

The Levitical priesthood was ultimately replaced by Christ's priesthood, and Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

No disagreement there.

Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus isn't the high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek about whom God swore?

Your reading comprehension is in question here.

(you're in a bunch of error already either way).

Yawn.

For someone who is repeatedly wrong himself, you sure do (mis-) use the word "wrong" a lot.

More yawn. You haven't demonstrated that I am wrong on anything. You have just disagreed.

Discussing this topic (or any, for that matter) will be a lot more productive if you leave out the demeaning comments and personal attacks. Of course, if you can't manage that, then I am happy to treat you as your attitude warrants.

 

[Dino246]

Annanias and Sapphira...

The story of Ananias and Sapphira has absolutely nothing to do with tithing.

 

[Dino246]

Will you muzzle the ox while it is threshing?

Will you erroneously conflate tithing and giving?

Do you see any opponent of tithing oppose financial support of Christian ministers? Not likely.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Annanias and Sapphira...

I don't know what you're trying to say but the account of Ananias and Sapphira has nothing whatsoever to do with tithing.

 

[Oblio]

I believe that giving is laid out in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9.
I once heard a young guy, he was 18 or 19, who had been seriously injured and partially crippled in a car accident, explain to a ministry leader, "I can barely pay my bills and eat!" The response was, "It doesn't matter, you must tithe!" The ministry leader was well-off! SMH!

 

[JohnDB]

I don't know what you're trying to say but the account of Ananias and Sapphira has nothing whatsoever to do with tithing.

Since the Old Covenant Law has been replaced with the New Covenant...it's all "giving" now.

And since that is what Annanias and Sapphira were doing...I think that it's highly relevant to the situation that we as Christians face. I mean vows of giving must be honored or face horrible consequnces.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Since the Old Covenant Law has been replaced with the New Covenant...it's all "giving" now.

And since that is what Annanias and Sapphira were doing...I think that it's highly relevant to the situation that we as Christians face. I mean vows of giving must be honored or face horrible consequnces.

Ananias and Sapphira weren't struck down because they failed to follow through on a vow; they were struck down for lying to God.

 

[JeffA]

“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: and blessed be the most high God, which has delivered your enemies into your hand. AND HE GAVE HIM TITHES OF ALL.” (Gen. 14:18-20)

“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, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: AND OF ALL THAT YOU SHALL GIVE ME I WILL SURELY GIVE THE TENTH UNTO YOU.” (Gen. 28:20-22)

Both Abram/Abraham and Jacob paid tithes BEFORE there was ever a Levite, a Jew, or an Israelite upon the face of this earth and LONG BEFORE the Mosaic law was ever given at Mt. Sinai.

Jacob vowed to “give the tenth” (Gen. 28:22) or to give the tithe BEFORE Levi was born (Gen. 29:34), and the Levitical priesthood sprang forth from the tribe of Levi HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER.

Furthermore, Jacob vowed to “give the tenth” (Gen. 28:22) or to give the tithe BEFORE Judah was born (Gen. 29:35), and it is from the name Judah that we derive the word “Jew":

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=Jew

Further still, Jacob vowed to “give the tenth” (Gen. 28:22) or to give the tithe BEFORE God changed his name to Israel (Gen. 32:28) and BEFORE his twelve sons became known as “the twelve tribes of Israel” (Gen. 49:28), so there was no such thing as an Israelite in existence at that time.

Additionally, a simple reading of scripture will clearly show that Abram/Abraham (Gen. 25:7) and Jacob (Gen. 49:33) both died HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE the Mosaic law was ever given (Exod. chapter 19 and beyond), so the tithe PRECEDED the Mosaic law as well.

This is reality, friends, and we’d be wise to embrace the same because the only other embraceable option is DELUSION.

2. Although the Levitical priesthood truly has been replaced by the priesthood of Jesus Christ, the Bible teaches that Christ still receives tithes as our high priest.

We’ve already seen that Abram/Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek who was “the priest of the most high God” (Genesis 14:18) LONG BEFORE there was ever a Levite, a Jew, an Israelite, or the Mosaic law upon the face of this earth. Now, we need to consider that the Melchizedekian priesthood not only PRECEDED the Levitical priesthood, but that God also swore that he would raise up another priest forever after the order of Melchizedek AFTER the Levitical priesthood had come into effect.



(Continued in my next post)

Hallelujah and Amen
All praise be to Melchizedek, King of Salem Peace!

 

[JeffA]

Since the Old Covenant Law has been replaced with the New Covenant...it's all "giving" now.

And since that is what Annanias and Sapphira were doing...I think that it's highly relevant to the situation that we as Christians face. I mean vows of giving must be honored or face horrible consequnces.

It seems that story is more about lying than anything else.

 

[JeffA]

I give what I can. Sometimes directly to my Pastor.
It only blesses me when I do it from my heart.
As a man, I'm sovereign. I have a problem with those who think they have authority over me.

 

[JeffA]

Don't we all get that warm, fuzzy feeling from God when we do something generous?
Not just for the Church.
I don't get that feeling when I am compelled under duress.

 

[Live4Him2]

Sigh (again)...

Here is what you initially said:

If you actually take the time to read your Bible, you will see that there is no record in Scripture that Jacob ever fulfilled his vow in even the smallest thing.

Initially, you mentioned "the Bible" (not a singular "text", which you've since conveniently changed your initial comment to) and "no record in scripture" (not no record in that singular "text", which you've since conveniently changed your initial comment to).

To which I replied:

And there's no record that he didn't. The inference is that he did.

My "there's no record that he didn't" was in direct respond to what you said in relation to "the Bible" (not a singular "text", which you've since conveniently changed your initial comment to) and "no record in scripture" (not a singular "text", which is what you've since conveniently changed your initial comment to).

With this reality before us, when I said "the inference is that he did", I was talking about "the inference" in relation to the whole of "the Bible" (not a singular "text", which you've since conveniently changed your initial comment to) and/or "the inference" in relation to the whole of "scripture" (not a singular "text", which is what you've since conveniently changed your initial comment to).

Got it?

Again, this is what you've now conveniently changed your initial comment in relation to "the Bible" and "in scripture" to:

The text contains no such "inference"; that's called eisegesis.

So, in relation to what I actually said IN CONTEXT in relation to "the Bible" and "in scripture", is there truly an "inference" that Jacob fulfilled his vow?

Well, if you knew what an "inference" actually is, then you wouldn't have wrongly suggested that I was guilty of "eisegesis".

Here's what "infer" means:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/infer

infer

TRANSITIVE VERB

Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

My deduction from evidence and reasoning RATHER THAN FROM EXPLICIT STATEMENTS is based upon such passages in "the Bible" or "in scripture" as this:

"If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." (Numbers 30:2)

"When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee." (Deuteronomy 23:21)

Etc., etc., etc.

Seeing how there's no record in "the Bible" or "in scripture" that Jacob sinned against God by not performing that which he had vowed to do, "the inference" (not "eisegesis") is that he did indeed fulfil that which he had vowed.