There is no New Testament command to pay tithes

You've willfully ignored it.

I stand corrected.

Why mention percent at all

we are told to give from the heart, if a person gives 2 % from the heart, are they not just as honored as one who gives 5 or 10?

or should we give 5 percent just to give it even though our heart is not in it, so we can give a percent?

Already addressed.

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 Although the Levitical priesthood truly has been replaced by the priesthood of Jesus Christ, the Bible teaches that Christ still receives tithes as our high priest.[/QUOTE]
Already addressed.

Yes, I agree. Nothing in the passage, nothing in any of Paul's letters, and nothing in any of the other epistles suggests that Christians are to pay tithes. There is instruction given regarding support of those in ministry, and for the needs of the Church, and for the poor. Tithing simply is not mentioned.

Tithing is giving back to God one-tenth of your crops and every tenth animal. It is part of the LAW and Christians are not under the Law. Tithing is NEVER taught to Christians in the Bible.

I'm not going to get into a long explanation of how the Holy Spirit works within us to conform us to godly behaviour in all of life, including giving. I will just say this: someone who is actively following Jesus and seeking to grow in their faith WILL give of their resources to support the ministry, the Church, and the needy, and that is what Christian teachers should be teaching. Telling people that they are under the Law in one place, but not in others, is just confusing. It's unrighteous bondage, and there is no room for that in the Christian faith.

You're being a stubborn donkey.

People,forget the tithe was an income tax, for the jews, and it was not money, they had to give a tenth of everything, no one even of those who teach tithing actually tithes in the pure sense of the command, those who say they do just show they have not studied what a tithe is.

That precludes tithing.

That would mean he's getting paid a pittance. It ignores Paul's words about giving teachers "double honour" which is written in the context of income. I would suggest that it is appropriate to pay the paid leaders at about the average wage of the congregation.

By the way, there is no "equality of wealth" in the NT. Rather, they shared what they had with others so that everybody's needs were met. If I, being a poor Christian, am invited to the home of a rich Christian for dinner, my needs are met, but we don't get up from the table "equally wealthy".

That would be you.

What I've written stands on its own...no matter how much you snuff at it.

Later...

It seems to me that
Paul had a job( Tent maker)
AND the money collected was for
Missions
And widows and orphans
No buildings
No programs
No organizations
No " Salaried" staff

Missions and the widows and orphans

Agreed.

Carrying on from your first comment, I would have to say that any business that presented such a business model would be held to account, and would have its funding pulled very quickly for its failure. The church can use money to evangelize, but they can also do so without money.

That is true, but claiming that a commitment of 10% is the only alternative is profoundly ignorant.

They would also see their 5%, or 13%, or 8.72% the same way. There's nothing sacred about 10% under the New Covenant.


As I said before, it's not the only plan.

However, that was never the plan. Nothing in Scripture suggests that it is the plan.

Assuming that everyone giving 10% is the only way to fund the work of the Church is also swallowing the camel.

No need. I've done the homework, and I know that your conclusion is incorrect.

They met in homes, not expensive Buildings and temples,

sadly the church has gotten away from its roots

Through Abraham to Melchizedek.

pride Has tainted him sadly

You can say that again.

I live in a farming area, and know that there are several well-to-do farmers in the congregation. I have yet to see a grain or cattle truck being unloaded at the altar at harvest time.

The church I attend is relatively well-funded, which means we either have a lot of generous people, or we have a lot of people who are under bondage to a legalistic misunderstanding of biblical giving. I sincerely hope it's the former.

My church does not preach on giving unless it comes up in a passage of a book we are going through, except once a year, and they just ask for people to give (pledge) what god leads them to,

and we take in a few million every year most goes to missions

A careful examination of Hebrews 7 will show that the one who "receives tithes" is Melchizedek, not Jesus.

"1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually."

Melchizedek was made like the Son of God, not the other way around. Melchizedek remains a priest perpetually, just as Jesus is a priest perpetually.

"4 Now observe how great this man [Melchizedek] was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5 And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest’s office have a commandment [a]in the Law to collect [b]a tenth from the people, that is, from their countrymen, although they [c]are descended from Abraham. 6 But the one [Melchizedek] whose genealogy is not traced from them collected [d]a tenth from Abraham and [e]blessed the one who had the promises. 7 But without any dispute the lesser person is blessed by the greater. 8 In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one [Melchizedek] receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, has paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his [f]forefather when Melchizedek met him."

I have added Melchizedek in square brackets only to emphasize the fact that he is the subject. This is all about Melchizedek, not about Jesus. Only by not paying attention to the subject of the passage can one conclude that Jesus still receives tithes.

"11 So if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. "

Note that last phrase... a change of the law also. The change to the Levitical priesthood came with a change of law, and the change to the priesthood of Jesus Christ came with a change of law also. Christians aren't under the Mosaic law.

"13 For the one about whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord [g]was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses said nothing concerning priests. 15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest not on the basis of a law of [h]physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is attested of Him,

'You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.'"

Here is where Jesus becomes the subject.

"18 For, on the one hand, there is the nullification of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect); on the other hand, there is the introduction of a better hope, through which we come near to God. "

Note again the change of the Law.

"20 And to the extent that it was not without an oath 21 (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,

“The Lord has sworn
And will not change His mind,
‘You are a priest forever’”);

22 by the same extent Jesus also has become the [i]guarantee of a better covenant."

... a better covenant of which tithing is not part.

Poor hermeneutics, careless reading, and preconceived notions lead to that erroneous conclusion that Jesus still receives tithes. This passage does not teach that. Further, it emphasizes and repeats that we (Christians) are not under the old covenant.

Sorry, but that still doesn't work.

Here's the verse:

"And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." (Heb. 7:8)

Verb tenses are important in scripture.

"Receiveth" is a present indicative. In other words, what is being described is not only PRESENTLY happening (not long ago with Abraham and Melchizedek), but it is also a statement of fact:

https://www.yourdictionary.com/receiveth

Receiveth meaning

(archaic) Third-person singular simple present indicative form of receive.

1611, King James Version of the Bible (Authorized Version) Proverbs 21:11, When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise: and when the wise is instructed, he receiveth knowledge.

With such being the case, whoever "receiveth them" was PRESENTLY RECEIVING THEM, and he was being contrasted with the Levitical priests who die in that it was witnessed of him that he lives.

Are you suggesting that Melchizedek was yet alive at that PRESENT TIME and receiving tithes?