Jesus was simply obeying Mosaic law as an obedient Jew.
The only other occurrence of "tithe" in the New Testament is found in Hebrews, chapter 7. Hebrews is an attempt to convince Jewish Christians that the entire sanctuary system, especially its priesthood, had been replaced by the Melchizedek-type high priesthood of Jesus Christ and the individual priesthood of every believer.

Chapter 7 uses the ineffectiveness of tithing to illustrate that the laws governing the priesthood (including tithing) were "changed" and "abolished" (7:5, 12, 18).

TayoD:


please let's establish if the tithe is a present day reality or not.

HEBREWS CHAPTER 7


5     And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

6     But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7     And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8     And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9     And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10     For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

11     ¶ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12     For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13     For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14     For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

15     And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

16     Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17     For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

18     For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

@TV01,

Gifts in this dispensation are the sacrifice of praise, worship and thanksgiving. Freewill offerings by the Saints (Priests all) to God through Christ Jesus (High Priest).

The fallacy of your statement equating the gifts to praise,worship and thanksgiving is evident in the qualifying word "sacrifice" which you have in front of them. Since when did the sacrifice become the gift? Here you claim these elements are the gifts and you subsequently claim the blood of Jesus takes care of both the gift and the sacrifice. What exactly is your stand?

@Hnd_holder,
I can see that you are really zealous about this whole tithing issue, and that is commendable. But you are getting something very wrong. You are consistently comparing the law to grace with respect to tithing. Please understand that my arguments are not based on the law. They are based on the dispensation of conscience which Melchizedek and Abraham were living examples. Your comparisons should be with the dispensations of conscience and this dispensation of grace.

While you both are talking about the fact that the tithe is meant to build temples and co, can you please show me what temple that Melchizedek was to build with the tithe that Abraham gave to him? While I have tried to keep this discussions to determining if the tithe is the 'gift" element of the priestly offeratorial duties, you guys are jumping the gun going to the use of the tithe. We shall get there if God determines, but for now, let us deal with the issue at hand.

My stand is stated briefly here again.

1. A Priest must necessarily have to offer both gifts and sacrifices.
2. The sacrifice must be blood because it has to do with atonement
3. The gift must be money or the fruits of one's labour.
4. Jesus' High-priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek's. He must therefore carry out the duties that Melchizedek carried out.
5. Melchizedek never offered the sacrifice of blood. He however received a gift from Abraham - the tithe.
6. If the gift that Melchizedek received was the tithe, why should Jesus receive something different?

And may I bring your attention also to verse 8 of Hebrews chapter 7: And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Does jesus forever liveth? So why shouldn't He get the tithe?

You sound as if you are in philosophy class which an average Nigerian are not intrested in.To Tithe or Not to Tithe? that is the basic question.

To Tithe!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus  came from JUDEA and he is a product of words. He never as for any tithe because he is not from abraham. No sacrifice of blood was demanded by him. He was simply mudered and paul try to justify why he was killed. Paul built up septuagint picking his points from old testament.

Do you know that people fought war because of tithe?

Hnd_holder,

Now you have completely lost me! What are you talking about?

, For God loves a cheerful tither

, tithe and it shall be given unto you,good measure etc

, freely you have received,freely tithe

, I thank the lord that you tithed out of your generosity

, how you tithed to the work of the gospel

sumtin wrong with those scriptures

Nobody can prove that Jesus ever paid/gave tithes. There is no evidence for it.

While it cannot be conclusively proved either that He definitely did not pay/give tithes, there is a decent case to say that He never paid/gave it ----------- if the passages concerning tithes are studied carefully, it will be seen that not everyone was required to pay/give tithes.

If Jesus was a carpenter in His early life until His public ministry, then He was not required to pay/give tithes.

To answer a question directed at me on the last page ------ the tithe/tithes is not a "present day reality" if by that one means an obligation to pay/give tithes as it is taught by many present day false teachers and deceivers (and unfortunately some honest but mistaken people too).

Free your mind; learn the truth; when you know the truth, it sets you free!

You know, until someone answers the question of the gift aspect of the Priesthood of the Lord Jesus, all you have is just mere speculations.

Some are even changing the words of the scriptures to prove a point. The scriptures you all have to deal with is in Hebrews with regards to a Priest being required to offer both gifts and sacrifices.

And while you all will like to assume that tithing is subject to the law, every Bible student knows it predates it. Though love, righteousness and justice are required by law, it does not mean they are subject to it. Same is true of tithing. Though it was required by law, it is not subject to the law.

And for those who think that the tithe is being demanded because of an organizational set-up, please show me what organization Melchizedek had to cater for when he received the tithe of Abraham.

Could it be that I see hypocrisy here, or just plain disregard of obvious facts?

Enigma you are correct.
Carpenters,fishermen,tentmakers,lawyers and doctors were not expected to pay tithes.
Only farmers paid tithes.

Do you disagree tayoD?

The other thing tayoD why do you give 10% of your salary?
There were 3 types of tithes back then why do you choose just one type?

I pay tithes on all my income.  My income from my shares, professional endeavour, real estate etc,   The tithe is paid on all my increases.

Was Abraham a farmer?  He paid tithe of all his increase.  Your reference is based on the law which is a fundamental error that you have failed to correct. And why do you keep neglecting the job description of a priest to offer gifts? Is it that you have no answers for it?

The letter of paul to Herews was Tayo D's refrence. I want him to know that paul was acting as a Lawyer there. we could start another thread on letters of St paul and his style.

In the beginning tithe was supplied by the spontaneous offerings of the faithful. In the course of time, however, as the Church expanded and various institutions arose, it became necessary to make laws which would insure the proper and permanent support of the clergy.
Many Christians  support their churches and pastors with monetary contributions of one sort or another. Frequently these monetary contributions are called tithes whether or not they actually represent ten-percent of anything. However, as tithing was an ingrained Jewish custom by the time of Jesus  no specific command to tithe per se is found in the New Testament

The Tithe War in Ireland (1831-36) refers to a series of periodic skirmishes and violent incidents connected to resistance to the obligation of Irish Catholics to pay tithes for the upkeep of the Protestant Anglican Clergy.

The British Government was alarmed by several aspects of this massacre: by the fact that the order to fire was given by a Clergyman, by the pittance involved in relation to the bloodshed, and by the fact that the people had withstood several volleys and at least one charge by the troops without breaking. Finding the task of collection and the associated outrages an increasing strain, one official lamenting that “it cost a shilling to collect tuppence”, collections were suspended and a Tithes Commutation Act was introduced which reduced the amount payable by about a quarter and made the remainder payable to landlords who would in turn, pass payment onto the Clergy. This partial relief and elimination of the offensive manner of collection ended the uprising, but Catholics were still forced to pay for the upkeep of the Protestant Church of Ireland until its final disestablishment in 1869.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe_War"

Today the new churches depend on tithe  for their income and ready to do anything that will stop them.

This is a popular saying "Tithing was a form of worship to God, and since we still worship God, we must still tithe."
Please I want to know if the advocates of tithe can allow bunt offering in their church Since burnt offerings were a form of worshiping God, and we still worship God, Can we still offer burnt offerings to God?

TayoD,

Even a cursory review of your position reveals it's inconsistency and weakness.

TayoD:

My stand is stated briefly here again.

1. A Priest must necessarily have to offer both gifts and sacrifices.
2. The sacrifice must be blood because it has to do with atonement
3. The gift must be money or the fruits of one's labour.
4. Jesus' High-priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek's. He must therefore carry out the duties that Melchizedek carried out.
5. Melchizedek never offered the sacrifice of blood. He however received a gift from Abraham - the tithe.
6. If the gift that Melchizedek received was the tithe, why should Jesus receive something different?

My response on a number by number basis;

1.
That was always in reference to an earthly priesthood.

2.
True. "Without the shedding of blood, etc. etc. "

3.
TayoD, are you really that misguided or are you simply being mischievous? Your statement     here is a nonsense! Of course a gift will come out of what you earned, worked for, or your time or energy. Why on this occasion have you conveniently omitted to call this tithe? You have also consistently failed to show any basis from scripture or language for making this immutable (in your own mind) connection between gift and tithe.    

4.
Your point here contradicts your next point, why? because it's wrong. "The order after",  refers to it's eternality and nothing else.

5.
If your point in 4. was right then your premise (based on exactness) falls down. Melchizedek did not offer blood, therefore Jesus should not have. Again your point here is in conflict with your premise in 1. If Melchizedek did not offer a sacrifice, that disqualifies him as a priest. TayoD do you realise that in your blind insistence on tithing, your interpretation of scripture renders whole swathes of the Bible (and most of your own statements) contradictory. Are you for real?

6.
I have repeatedly explained, it was an act of thanksgiving/tribute. A practice widely documented as extant in antiquity. Tithing the spoils of war to the priest or warlord of a  region was common practice. The scriptural significance is to show that the order of Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical. May I also add that Abraham did not take a plugged nickel for himself. Just upkeep for those who rode shotgun, and the rest was appropriated by the King of Sodom. 10% t God and 90% to Mammon! Mmmmmmm, Could that be why you are so keen to serve the state with the same or greater vigour than you serve God? May I additionally add that there is nothing to suggest that that one time act was in response to divine mandate or to be a ongoing commandment. Both circumcision and the sabbath pre-date the law, but by divine commandment. And both are now done away with, aren't they? Tithing never having been divinely enacted, requires no abrogation.

I have taken the time to scrutinise your position, would you be so kind as to answer my questions as follows;

Please explain from any part of the Bible the following

1. Where a high priest ever offered tithes to God, and for what?
2. How Jesus our High Priest offers tithe to God in this dispensation
3. Where a pre-law command, ordinance or practice of tithing was ever enacted?


I await your response

God bless

Abraham went to war on behalf of Sodom , to rescue his nephew, Lot.
He gave 10% of these spoils of war to Melchizedek,
he allowed Sodom to keep 90%,
NOTHING for him
Now can you explain how this once a life event?

You are now required as a christian to give 10% of your annual salaries (not the spoils of war, but your money, your hard earned salaries), not once, but year after year after year, not to Melchizedek, but to PASTOR&PASTOR(MRS) who claim to be ministers of Jesus Christ? Like using spoon to feed the SEA

Abraham never tithed on his own personal property or livestock.
Jacob wouldn’t tithe until God blessed him first.
Only Levite priests could collect tithes, and there are no Levite priests today.
Only food products from the land were tithable.
Money was never a titheable commodity.
Christian converts were never asked to tithe anything to the Church.
Tithing in the Church first appears centuries after completion of the Bible. [/color][color=#990000]Amos 4:4, "Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your TITHES after three years."

i really enjoy this hot debate. it's amazingly revealing. i wonder why 'sincere' clergy men should use deceit and misinterpretation of scriptures to fool unsuspecting followers, even to extent of using threats and blackmail like 'if you don't pay your tithe you are under a curse. ' many faithful tithe payers still wonder while they are not exempted from misfortunes as promised in malachi. and when these mishaps occur they are consoled by these clergies with soft spoken rationalisations and theodicies. how long will they fool us? they should tell us when tithe as a doctrine was introduced into the christian faith! if not, an unreserved apology should be tendered to the laity.

Abraham went to war on behalf of Sodom , to rescue his nephew, Lot.
He gave 10% of these spoils of war to Melchizedek,
he allowed Sodom to keep 90%,
NOTHING for him
Now can you explain how this once a life event?

In addition to this being a one-off event, notice that Abraham did not even give the tithe out of his own property; it was from other people's property , "the spoils of war"!

I am only taking the pains to answer TV01's rebuttals because he appears to be the only one making some seemingly relevant biblical references to the topic at hand.  Others are just peddling accusations that have absolutely no biblical perspective and I don't think I should waste my time trying to respond to personal opinions.

1. That was always in reference to an earthly priesthood

Hebrews 8:1-5  1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law
Are you telling me that this scripture is not refering directly to Jesus Christ?  it is clear here that Jesus is also expected to offer gifts and sacrifices, so your point falls flat to the ground.

3.TayoD, are you really that misguided or are you simply being mischievous? Your statement here is a nonsense! Of course a gift will come out of what you earned, worked for, or your time or energy. Why on this occasion have you conveniently omitted to call this tithe? You have also consistently failed to show any basis from scripture or language for making this immutable (in your own mind) connection between gift and tithe.

Do I sense some sly invectives here, or am I imagining things?  Anyway, I did not conveniently omit calling the gift the tithe.  I was building up my points up to point no 6 which gives the reasons for my conslusion about the tithe.  Okay, here is the connection, AGAIN!!  Melchizedek as a priest must offer gifts and sacrifices, right?  However, the instance we saw in Genesis did not reveal him offering sacrifices but we see him receiving the tithe.  In other words, the tithe must represent an element of his job description (sacrifice or gift), and if it isn't the sacrifice, then it must be the gift.  Isn't that plain and simple enough?

4.Your point here contradicts your next point, why? because it's wrong. "The order after",  refers to it's eternality and nothing else.

I have answered this question before TV01, here was my response:

At this point, I feel I need to clarify TV01's concern about the fact that the emphasis in the new Testament is on the eternal nature of both priesthood (Jesus' and melchizedek's).  Please note that when the Bible talks about the "eternal"  aspect of both Priests, it is a reference to the nature of the priests (in Hebrews, the Bible talks about an endless life).  This has nothing to do with the functions of the Priests. Jesus being a priest, must  necessarily offer 'gifts' and 'sacifices'.  The sacrifice was offered once and for all with, by and through His blood and this is fore-shadowed in the Old Testament by the blood of bulls and rams.  If the gift offered in the Old Testament was the tithe (and please note that this is consistent in both the levitical and melchizedek's priesthood), why would it be any diferent with the Priesthood of Jesus?
Now there are at least a few things you will need to clarify if you maintain a stand that the tithe is not the 'gift' that should be offered in the New Testament.
1.  The New Testament must reveal what the tithe foreshadows.  
2.  What exactly is the gift that Jesus offers today (and please, this is not to minimise the efficacy of His blood.  The sacrifice and the gifts are two different things altogether).
3.  If we see only the gift offered with melchizedek, and both gift and sacrifice offered in Levi, then why should Jesus offer only the blood and neglect the tithe which is the first revelation of the Priestly duties?  Logic and revelation dictates otherwise.

5. If your point in 4. was right then your premise (based on exactness) falls down. Melchizedek did not offer blood, therefore Jesus should not have. Again your point here is in conflict with your premise in 1. If Melchizedek did not offer a sacrifice, that disqualifies him as a priest. TayoD do you realise that in your blind insistence on tithing, your interpretation of scripture renders whole swathes of the Bible (and most of your own statements) contradictory. Are you for real?

What you need to understand is that the Bible offers a progressive revelation about the job description of a priest.  In Melchizedek, we see him receive the tithe, in Levi, we see the sacrifice without neglecting the tithe.  Now in the new Testament, we are told that the Priest must offer both gifts and sacrifices.  Melchizedek was a priest as far as the Bible called him such, and even if we did not witness him offering sacrifices, the Bible job description for his office suggests to us that he must have done so.  And based on your arguments, does that make Jesus less a priest if He does not offer gifts as you keep reiterating?

6. I have repeatedly explained, it was an act of thanksgiving/tribute. A practice widely documented as extant in antiquity. Tithing the spoils of war to the priest or warlord of a  region was common practice. The scriptural significance is to show that the order of Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical. May I also add that Abraham did not take a plugged nickel for himself. Just upkeep for those who rode shotgun, and the rest was appropriated by the King of Sodom. 10% t God and 90% to Mammon! Mmmmmmm, Could that be why you are so keen to serve the state with the same or greater vigour than you serve God? May I additionally add that there is nothing to suggest that that one time act was in response to divine mandate or to be a ongoing commandment. Both circumcision and the sabbath pre-date the law, but by divine commandment. And both are now done away with, aren't they? Tithing never having been divinely enacted, requires no abrogation.

You are being cynical TV01,  however, I'll still give you answers.  Maybe you should tell us all the reason why Abraham gave out the other 90% to the King of Sodom.  Don't take the scripture out of context to establish your point.  It is very obvious that what you do with the rest of your money is up to you as long as the tithe is taken care of.  And did you notice that the portion he gave to his men was from the 90% and not of the 100%?  He understood that the tithe must come first ahead of evrything else.  And your use of the word mammon is completely wrong.  Mammon refers to money and not to Ceasar!  Circumcision and the sabbath were adumberations of a reality in the New Testament and I agree that they are done away with.  Please tell me, what is the reality of the tithe in the New Testament?  You need to show us how abraham's offer of the tithe to Melchizedek was meant to be an act of thanksgiving and a tribute.  Where is the tithe documented in the New Testament as being anachronistic?  You are making for law the commandment of men, my dear friend.  If it's not in the scripture, it is jut the opinion of men!

I have taken the time to scrutinise your position, would you be so kind as to answer my questions as follows;

While you have said a lot of things, you are yet to clearly provide answer for the only question I've really asked of you.  What is the 'gift' that Jesus our High Priest must offer today as part of His High Priesthood function?  We can not go on to the other issues you raised until we sort this out.  And please remeber that the gift cannot be the sacrifice since sacrifes are basically for atonement.

@Enigma,
The "spoils of war" are legitimate increase. You cannot give what isn't yours.

Once more you are off the point. You can not be making a point from Paul's view. Letter of Paul to Hebrews were the hand work of Marthins, (as a result of lost scrolls.) It is just a summary of letters written by Paul to the CHRISTIAN Hebrews.

Make your point to all Lovers of Naira land not to a particular person since you are wiser than all of us.
The issue is TITHE not gifts

The begining of Tithes
The custom  of giving tithes reaches back into unknown antiquity. It is mentioned in Genesis 14  without anything to indicate that it was something newly instituted. Just as Abraham  is there represented as offering tithes of the spoils of the enemy to the royal priest Melchisedech so in Genesis 28 Jacob  is recorded as giving a tithe of all his possessions  to the Lord

Under the Mosaic Law the payment of tithes was made . The Hebrews  are commanded to offer to God  the tenth part of the produce of the fields, of the fruits of the trees, and the firstborn  of oxen and of sheep (Leviticus 27:30 Deuteronomy 14:22 . In Deuteronomy  there is a mention not only of an annual tithe, but also of a full tithe to be paid once every three years.

While it was to God  Himself that the tithes had to be paid, yet we read (Numbers 18:21 ) that He transfers them to His sacred  ministers : "I have given to the sons of Levi  all the tithes of Israel  for a possession, for the ministry wherewith they serve me in the tabernacle of the covenant ." In paying the tithe, the Hebrews  divided the annual harvest into ten parts, one of which was given to the Levites after the first-fruits had been subtracted. This was partitioned by them among the priests . The remainder of the harvest was then divided into ten new parts, and a second tithe was carried by the head of the household to the sanctuary to serve as a sacred feast for his family  and the Levites 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14741b.htm

In the Christian Church ,as those who serve the altar should live by the altar (1 Corinthians 9:13 provision of some kind had necessarily to be made for the sacred ministers.
In the beginning this was supplied by the spontaneous offerings of the faithful. In the course of time, however, as the Church expanded and various institutions arose, it became necessary to make laws which would insure the proper and permanent support of the clergy . The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law ,
The earliest positive legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the canons of the Council of Maçon in 585. In course of time, we find the payment of tithes made obligatory The Church looked on this payment as "of divine law , since tithes were instituted not by man but by the Lord Himself" (C. 14, X de decim. III, 30). As regards the civil power, the Christian Roman emperors granted the right to churches of retaining a portion of the produce of certain lands, but the earliest instance of the enforcement of the payment of ecclesiastical tithes by civil law is to be found in the capitularies of Charlemagne , at the end of the eighth century. English law very early recognized the tithe. Tithes are of three kinds: predial, or that derived from the annual crops; mixed, or what arises from things nourished by the land, as cattle, milk, cheese, wool; and personal or the result of industry or occupation. Predial tithes were generally called great tithes, and mixed and personal tithes, small tithes. Natural substances having no annual increase are not tithable, nor are wild animals.
There are many exempted from the paying of tithes: spiritual corporations, the owners of uncultivated lands, those who have acquired lawful prescription , or have obtained a legal renunciation, or received a privilege from the pope .
At first, the tithe was payable to the bishop , but later the right passed by common law to parish priests .

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14741b.htm

Bro' TayoD,

TayoD:

I pay tithes on all my income.  My income from my shares, professional endeavor, real estate etc,   The tithe is paid on all my increases.

Mmmmm, the statement above sounds familiar;

Luke 18:12 ,  I give tithes of all that I possess.'

Sounds more like a religious that a faith based response to me  .

Plus,I don't actually think you properly answered BabyOsisi's question.

TayoD:

Was Abraham a farmer?

With the amount of livestock he possessed, one would have to say "not only but also" of course he was a farmer! No oil bunkering back then mate   .

TayoD:

He paid tithe of all his increase.

Who? when?? where Absolutely not true. There is no record in scripture of Abraham ever giving anything other than that a off tithe to Melchizedek. To whom did Abraham give this tithe of his increase? When did he do it? Where in the scriptures can I find an account of Him doing it

TayoD:

And why do you keep neglecting the job description of a priest to offer gifts? Is it that you have no answers for it?

If it's been answered once it's been answered a hundred times. 101 follows;

Are you really going to hinge a whole doctrine on a totally erroneous (and quite obviously so) interpretation of gift = tithe, and an obsessively fixation with "priest offering gifts"? Time and again I have asked you to show the link in scripture or language for this interpretation and you have not been able to do so.

If you considered further the ministry of priesthood, you would realize that the main function of a priest is always mediatory. Mediation for sin is the prime role, whilst there are others, including prayer requests, prophesy, gifts etc are all these secondary. There is no longer a mediatory priesthood within Christianity. One mediator - The Lord, and we all mediate in prayer, thanksgiving and praise as a royal priesthood.

The Lord is now seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High and lives forever to interceed for those who come to God through Him. Intercession was never mentioned in "the job description". But so what? If you have a half decent understanding of priesthood, grace the NT dispensation, and the whole working of God, this would make perfect sense.

I must say, I feel your fixation with "gifts & Sacrifice" is making you see things in a very limited way, but lets press on. The ironic thing is exploring this issue end-to-end would show beyond all shadow of a doubt how wrong the doctrine of a mandatory tithe is.

God bless

[b]Abuses soon crept in. The right to receive tithes was granted to princes and nobles, even hereditarily, by ecclesiastics in return for protection or eminent services, and this species of impropriation became so intolerable that the Third Council of Lateran (1179) decreed that no alienation of tithes to laymen was permissible without the consent of the pope. As a consequence, other means have had to be adopted to support the clergy and maintain the ecclesiastical institutions ,and to substitute other equivalent payments in lieu of tithes. Soglia (Institut, Canon, II, 12) says "The law of tithes can never be abrogated by prescription or custom , if the ministers of the Church have no suitable and sufficient provision from other sources; because then the natural and divine law , which can neither be abrogated not antiquate, commands that the tithe be paid." In some parts of Canada , the tithe is still recognized by civil law , and the Fourth Council of Quebec (1868) declared that its payment is binding in conscience of the faithful .[/b]

Mmmmm, the statement above sounds familiar; Luke 18:12 ,  I give tithes of all that I possess.'

That is a very good one TV01.  I'm happy we can at least get some laughs out of this.  I actually think it's funny, though you largely ignored the background behind my statement.

When I said Abraham gave tithe of all his increase, I was refering to his increase from the war.  Evrything he got from the war were newly acquired and he paid a tithe of all.  And as I explained previosly, the Hebrew word used signifies the best portion of the whole lot.

With respect to babiosisi's question, the farming aspect I was refering to was the fruit of the ground.  This is what those who are so intent on following the tithe according to the letters of the law are demanding.  I am not into tithes according to the law, I am into it according to the priesthood of the Lord Jesus which is after the order of Melchizedek's.

TV01, you have labored and huffed, and puffed but still have not told me what the gift is.  Is it so insignificant despite taking up at least 3 verses in the Book of Hebrews?

Apart from the spoils of war, what other tithes did Abraham evr give/pay , from his own property?

The principle is that Abraham paid tithes of all his increase. Whether the increase comes by way of the spoils of war or the fruits of the ground is insignificant. If it is an increase and you have a High Priesthood, then the tength of the increase is paid to the High Priest.

Hi TayoD,

Reference your quote below;

TayoD:

The principle is that Abraham paid tithes of all his increase. Whether the increase comes by way of the spoils of war or the fruits of the ground is insignificant. If it is an increase and you have a High Priesthood, then the tength of the increase is paid to the High Priest.

It's a lie!

1.
The scriptures is not stinting in it's description of Abrahams wealth. His herds, his flocks, his male and female servants, but nowhere is he ever noted as tithing on his own possessions or increase.

2.
The tithe when it was in effect was given to the priest, who in turn passed a tithe of the tithe to the high priest. How many times must we repeat that there was no divine ordinance behind Abraham's one time act of tribute of the spoils of war to Melchizedek.

TayoD:

With respect to babiosisi's question,

I believe Babyosisi was referring to the fact that there where actually different kinds and amounts of tithe, given at differnt times over a three year cycle and approximated to around 23%.

TayoD:

TV01, you have labored and huffed, and puffed but still have not told me what the gift is. Is it so insignificant despite taking up at least 3 verses in the Book of Hebrews?

TayoD, in a sense I conceede your point, but only in as much as it's a mute one.

I believe over the course of our discussion o this particular point, we have extensively discussed on priesthood, with particular reference to the completenessof the one time offering of the Lord.We have also touched on the various aspects of the priests mediatory role.

Your position is founded on a totally baseless (scripturally or grammatically) assumption of gifts=tithe. I have repeatedly asked you to reference this, and to date you have failed/refused to do so. An erroneous doctrine, based on a groundless assumption, predicated on erroneous interpretation.

But I'm pleased you asked about the reality of the tithe in the NT.

My prayer is that one day you will realise that a NT Christian should understand the "everything you have you recieved" the impoverished thinking that harps on about a tithe, is at best regressive. We are but stewards of what is God's anyway. It's both religious and miserly to boast about giving "the best 10%" to God, it's all His. Even true lovers of God subject to the law knew this. That sir, is the reality.

God bless

ps. Yes sir, you are imagining things .

@TV01,

You make a big mistake when you claim the reality of the tithe in the NewTestament is that God is the owner of all. Wasn't that acknowledged by Melchizedek when he met Abraham? Despite this reality in that dispensation, they still paid the tithe. So you have even corroborated my points with your statement.

When I said Abraham paid tithe of all, I was refering to his increase from the spoils of war. Is it that you really do not follow my reasoning or you have just chosen to quote me out of context? Better still read Genesis 14: 20: 20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. I hope you can now see that "tithes of all" is actually not my own words but the scriptures. Besides, I made it clear that the tithe is of the increase and not his assets.

2.The tithe when it was in effect was given to the priest, who in turn passed a tithe of the tithe to the high priest. How many times must we repeat that there was no divine ordinance behind Abraham's one time act of tribute of the spoils of war to Melchizedek.

You have basically described how the tithe is practised under the law. Are we or Abraham under the law I ask? What other Priest was Melchizedek supposed to pay a tength to? You are beginning to add to the scriptures my friend, and you should be very careful.

You are yet to show me where the Bible says that Abraham only paid the tithe once. Who told you it was just a tribute? Where do you get your information from? So a simple act of tribute was made part of the law to the extent that God used strong words against those who failed to pay it? You make me laugh my friend.

I'm sorry if you find my dogged hold on the 'gift' part of the priestly function offensive. I personally think that there is no idle word in the Bible, and I cannot wish you godspeed if you choose to willingly discard a divinely inspired statement.