Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? - Religion (16) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? (42473 Views)
Cash Crunch: Tithes, Offerings Drop In Churches / "First-Fruits": Pastors Are Planning A Major Robbery In January / COZA Introduces Online Payment Of Tithes, Offerings, Seeds & Pledges (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) ... (23) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:06pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: That kind of argument is only self-deflating. Pagans in antiquity prior to the emergence of the Mosaic Law also prayed, gave offerings of various kinds, and had a codified moral law among themselves without having the Law of Moses as their guide (compare Rom. 2:14). Why then do anti-tithing theologians not make the same assumptions in this case by concluding in the same manner that - - 'prayer' was a pre-Mosaic 'pagan custom' in antiquity, therefore it is dangerous for Christians to 'pray'? - or, that 'giving offerings' was a pre-Mosaic 'pagan custom', therefore it is 'dangerous' for Christians to give offerings? - or, that 'morality' was a pre-Mosaic 'pagan custom', therefore it is 'dangerous' for christians to live moral lives? If these things are to be invalidated for Christians on the basis of a so-called antiquated 'pagan-custom' or 'pagan-origin', then there's nothing to argue against the fact that CHRISTIANS ARE NOTHING OTHER THAN CIVILIZED PAGANS! End off! If you cannot make that same conclusion and want to divorce paganism from Christianity, then on what exegetical basis would you approach Genesis 14 on Abraham's tithes in reference to pagan culture? Sorry, but your inference of 'pagan origins' have no bearing on Abraham's tithes. You would have to draw that out directly from the texts of Scripture rather than some far-fetched interpolations. Failing to do that, all else would simply collapse in your opening arguments. My apologies. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:07pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: A couple of questions to help you think carefully through this: 1. By what 'law' did Abraham give tithes to Melchizedek in Genesis 14? 2. What IN SCRIPTURE points you to the inference of 'paganism' in Abraham's tithes? 3. Why exactly did Abraham give tithes to Melchizedek and not to any other king in the region? 4. On what basis would Melchizedek have been qualified to receive tithes from Abraham? When you begin to seek BIBLICAL ANSWERS to these basic questions, then you understand why I've often raised issues around Biblical hermeneutics in order to understand your exegesis. Just because we read of other nations giving tithes does not automatically transfer by correlation in interpreting Abraham's tithes in Genesis 14 as 'pagan'. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:09pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: You perhaps meant to quote EXODUS 19:3-6, not GENESIS 19. No problem, I understand you - and we all make mistakes.  Anyhow, I've earlier answered the query as to WHY God gave the Law to His people Israel - the answer is found in Galatians 3:19 >> [list]'Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.' (ESV)[/list] The answer you're looking for is neither in Genesis nor Exodus nor Isaiah, my dear friend.  Israel did not need the Mosaic Law in order to be God's people, because even after the Law of Mosaic as the Jewish covenant was set aside, Israel continues to be God's people - a point which even Paul affirms in the New Testament (e.g., Romans 11:1 - 'I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!'). This just shows that Exodus 19 does not answer the question of WHY God gave the Mosaic Law.So, I'll just skip all the Genesis-Exodus-Isaiah passages you cied, because they do not furnish with answers to the question of WHY the Law was given. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:12pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: I think you've confused a whole range of issues here. While it is true that God forbad idolatrous worship to Israel as practised among the Gentile nations (Deut. 12:1-4), His intention was never to 'baricade' His people from other nations (call them 'pagan', Gentiles, or whatever). The Law of Moses shows that non-Jews could live among and 'mix' with His people Israel - these non-Jews are often referred to as 'strangers' and 'sojourners' (see Exodus 12:48 and Lev. 19:33). They were not to be discriminated against or treated unfairly (Deut. 10:19), which is why God Himself said that 'ONE LAW' was to guide both Jewish-born and non-Jewish people among them (Exo. 12:49; Lev. 19:34). For these reasons as well, it is wrong to assume that marriage union between Jews and Gentiles were forbidden. On the contrary, God Himself recognizes such a union on healthy grounds, and showed His approval by BLESSING those marriages. You don't agree? No problem, just dress warm and then explain to me the following - (a) how a MOABITESS (Ruth) married a JEW (Boaz) - Ruth 4:10 & 13 (b) why God recognized that Gentile-Jewish marriage union by blessing it with children - Ruth 4:13 ('the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son') (c) how God did not reject such a union so that it was through that marriage we trace the lineage of David - Ruth 4: 21-22 (d) and how God allowed that union to be the chosen one from which His Son Jesus Christ would come into the world (Matthew 1:1 - 'Jesus Christ, the son of David') You see why I have said that your analysis throughout are riddled with huge exgetical holes that do not bear up in the face of sound Biblical hermeneutics? Once you make assertions like the ones you made without exegetical principles, you would only find questions emerging one after the other to show how misinformed your assertions have been. No offence, just wanted to point these things out. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:17pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
@BERNIMOORE, I've only tried to outline my answers to the issues you raised in your rejoinder, if for nothing else than to help a few folks understand why I have said that many people who oppose tithing among Christians do not have a solid grasp of Scripture. On both sides of the divide, many people 'twist' Scripture in one way or another - but we only come to a common ground by employing basic exegetical principles. When people fail to do that, then it shouldn't surprise anyone why some of these recycled anti-tithing arguments tend to be tenuous and fallacious when closely examined. BERNIMOORE: No, I did not at anytime say or infer such an idea. I explained what I meant by that quote so that no one is left scratching their heads or rubbing their eyes. Which is why I decided to lay bare what I am saying so that nobody would run the risk of putting words in my mouth. If you go back to my comments earlier, you find again and again that I have plainly stated that Abraham's tithes are not based pagan customs. In order to clear the air and leave no one in doubt, I also pointed readers to my article showing that 'Abraham's tithes Are NOT Pagan'. Another article I have written also bears out the point that 'Melchizedek Was NOT A Pagan Priest. Between us, BERNIMOORE, you're the one who has used reference to pagan antiquity as your basis for the importance of WHY God gave the Law to Israel and included tithes therein. You will not find me anywhere resorting to paganism to discuss Biblical tithes. Don't worry, nothing you have argued is new to me. For the most part, you seem to be recycling borrowed ideas from anti-tithing theologians whose hermeneutics are based on shoddy scholarship.  |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:21pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hang on!! You're jumping gigantic leaps here. One thing at a time.It is true that I have often referred to Abraham's tithes as GIFTS to the priest Melchizedek - but that does not mean we should therefore trace it to a so-called 'pagan origin and culture then'. That is plain cheating by a long spoon in Biblical exegesis! 1. The Bible does not teach that Abraham's tithes was pagan tithes. 2. The Bible does not teach that Abraham gave tithes to a pagan priest; 3. The Bible does not teach anything about Abraham's tithes being derived from pagan customs; 4. The Bible shows no grounds for a pagan foundation for Abraham's tithes. It's quite important that we clarify this issue before you begin to wrongly assume that I was 'agreeing' with you on anything there. On the other hand, I have referred to Abraham's tithes as a 'worship-response' rather than 'pagan custom'. The reason is because there was nothing to show that Abraham was legally bound to tithe to ANY king - not even Melchizedek. Thus, because he was not acting on a legal code, he was not obeying any 'custom' or 'rule' of the ancient Orients. Even if for argument's sake we assume that he was following a custom, we have to ask: WHICH particular law or custom was he adopting? Please pick a choice and show exactly why that sould be so. The argument of pagan custom on Abraham's tithes actually would disqualify Melchizedek as the recipient of the patriarch's gifts. That gift was not a tax - it was a freewill offering, entirely emanating from Abraham's volition based on the pronouncements of blessings by the priest Melchizedek. The two questions that follow here are: (a) who was Abraham ascribing his victory to - to a pagan deity or to the LORD God who called and made a covenant with him? (b) would Abraham actually be inclined to adopt paganism in order to acknowledge the priesthood of Melchizedek? Please seek answers to those questions and then you will see that there is NO BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATION to interpret Abraham's tithes as paganism. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:22pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: What makes tithing a 'pagan practice'? If it is because pagans in antiquity also tithe, why then do Christians give "offerings" - is the giving of 'offerings' not know in pagan antiquity as well? Did pagans in antiquity not 'pray' as well? Did they not try to live 'moral lives' as well? Sorry, but there's nothing desperate or dangerous in what I recommend in my comments. 'Biblical tithes' are NOT paganism. Neither Abraham's tithes, nor Jacob's understanding of tithing, nor the Levitical tithes were based on the inference of paganism. God gave tithing to Israel, not because He hijacked it from pagans - but because HE gave HIS OWN ANSWER for that practice among His people in Deut. 14:23 - to learn to reverence God ALWAYS. Please tell me: What is dangerous in that? If tithing evokes the thought of 'pagan' this or that in your mind, why then did God give that 'pagan practice' to His own people Israel? Now, if your argument is that just because pagans practiced something (tithing, prayer, prophethood, prophecy, offerings, etc.,) and thereby it is automatically invalidated for Christians, then the same Christians who talk like that should have nothing to do with morality, prayer, priesthood, offerings, and a thousand and ten other things - all of which the same 'pagans' have also practised in antiquity! Please let us stop this trash talk against 'pagans'. Many of the people that Christians are quick to call 'pagans' happen to be some of the finest people in the entire stretch of my neighbourhood and whose 'moral lives' will only shame even many Christians leaders. To be yapping against pagans when some Christians don't even know their own Bibles to be desperately ignorant of reality on the part of Christians. So here, I'll just try and skip over any further reference to 'pagan' mentions in your rejoinder. I find it particularly offensive for Christians to talk-down on 'pagans' as if we have anything better than those folks. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:26pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: No offence, but I'm just wondering what I should do with your denial of the fact that Abraham indeed tithed. Just to be sure, contrary to your denial, Abraham actually tithed. The Bible shows this fact simply and lucidly by recognizing that his gifts to Melchizedek are called TITHES in both the Old Testament (Gen. 14:20) and the New Testament (Heb. 7:6). The word translated as 'tithes' in Genesis 14:20 is the very same word that is used in the Hebrew original to describe the Levitical tithes (see Num. 18:24 for example). And if God's Word called Abraham's gifts 'TITHES', then I am satisfied with that rather than looking for theological loopholes to deny what Scripture teaches. This is why I have said that there's nothing new in your arguments - almost everything in your rejoinder are merely recycled from other anti-tithers who have long abandoned such denials. Sorry, but I don't mean to cause you any grief. That said, I am still looking for answers to these two issues: 1. You will be hard pressed to show that Abraham's tithes were 'subsumed' into the Law Covenant; 2. You will be harder pressed to show that Abraham's tithes were 'gone with the Law'. You did not show anything from Scripture on those two issues I raised. As to the first, I have demonstrated again and again in the other thread that Abraham's tithes were not 'subsumed' into the Levitical tithes. If they were, PLEASE SHOW US where Scripture teaches such a thing rather than merely concluding that it is so. As to the second point, I also showed that Abraham was not under the Law of Moses - therefore, you cannot use the Mosaic Law to bear upon an event that preceded it by hundreds of years. Moses himself shows in Deut. 5:1-3 that the Mosaic Law was not given to their fore-fathers, so where is your grounds for arguing that Abraham's tithes were 'gone with the Law' as if it was part of the Law in the first place?!? Please don't make such huge exegetical leaps - doing so with me will land you in the gutter, especially if your hermeneutics is weak! |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:27pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: Yes, Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek were actually gifts. I refer to them as 'gifts' in order to distinguish it from the anti-tithing fallacy of assuming it was a TAX! Even your quote of 1 Corinthians 9:6-14 from Snowwy does not argue to the contrary; and I don't think that passage is discussing what Abraham's tithes are called. The reference to Biblical tithes being a GIFT rather than a 'tax' is found in Numbers 18:24 - 'the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD'. It is the tithes that bear the character of 'heave offering' because Israel offered it as such to God. If the tithes were a 'tax', then it would not have been described as a 'heave offering'. The Hebrew term for 'heave offering' in that verse is terûmâh, which is the definition that includes GIFT (see Strongs Hebrew Dictionary H8641). It is for this reason that I do not see tithes as a 'tax' but rather as a GIFT, a terûmâh. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:29pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: What are you saying? That the Old Testament to the Jews 'CONSIST OF BOTH JEW AND GENTILES UNDER GRACE'?? I'm sure you did not try to use the Old Testament to mix up grace for Jews and Gentiles - which is why your inference that it consist of both Jew and Gentile simply bears out no point at all. Firstly, the Law of Moses was never given to Gentiles (Rom. 2:14 - ' the Gentiles, which have not the law'). Secondly, the Law addresses or speaks only to those who were under the Law (Rom. 3:19 - 'we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law'); but Gentiles were never under the Law to begin with (as above, Rom. 2:14). So, you cannot infer here that the 'OT Way Law' (whatever that means) was trying to consist both Jew and Gentile. Further, tithing has absolutely nothing to do with salvation, redemption or justification. NO ONE in the entire Bible gave tithes for purposes of salvation or justification - not Abraham, not Jacob, not Israel under the Levitical priesthood. So I do not understand why you were making reference to "justification" when Paul did not even discuss such a thing in 1 Corinthians 9. Sorry, but once again you were arguing an unrelated issue into that passage and sounding as if Paul's use of the Law of Moses in 1 Corinthians 9 was about "justification". Nothing of the sort - unless you can clearly show what verse in 1 Cor. 9 you find Paul talking about justification. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:31pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: Em. . . please rephrase. Paul NEVER said that it should not 'be done' - he was not forbidding such a practice of supporting Gospel ministers on the principles he cited from the O.T. Rather, he wrote that even though he recognized the right of other ministers to receive such support (see 1 Cor. 9:12 - 'If others be partakers of this power over you'), yet he himself had not personally claimed this right to receive such support (v. 12b - 'Nevertheless we have not used this power'; and v. 15 - 'But I have used none of these things'). Then in verse 15 he says that his intention in writing about these thing was not to solicit such support FOR HIMSELF - 'neither have I written these things, that it should be so done UNTO ME'. The highlighted words ('UNTO ME') is missing in your half-quote of verse 15 and makes your conclusion sound as if Paul was forbidding such a practice among other ministers! He certainly was NOT forbidding it. Ministers of the Gospel who labour genuinely for God in the Church are to be 'counted worthy of double honour' (1 Tim. 5:17). The 'honour' in that verse in Greek is simply the wages or salary paid to such ministers or elders for their Godly labour. If you use a study tool, you will find that the word there refers to money. But back to 1 Corinthians 9, Paul recognizes the right of Godly ministers to be supported in such a way - being paid salaries for their work. He does not quarrel with anyone for receiving such support even though he himself had not claimed this right for himself. Yet, nobody would dare argue that Paul never once received salaries of other churches - because he himself clearly said that he RECEIVED WAGES from other churches (see 2 Cor. 11:  .The point is that Paul did not make financial support for ministers to be the foundation of the Christian ministry. But he strongly affirmed that the support of Christian ministers should not be downplayed at all - and he used the Law of Moses to establish this Christian doctrine. The whole point in quoting 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 is not to enhance your denial in any way. Rather, it was to show that those who argue away the Law of Moses because of 'grace' are often ignorant of the fact that Christian giving is established on the Law of Moses! Paul did not dream it up like a shaman in a high cliff - he quoted the Law of Moses to show us that the OT as SCRIPTURE still has a place in the Christian life and ministry. You disagree? No problem - go back and carefully read the NT epistles, and you will surprise yourself on how many Christian doctrines are taken directly from the same Law of Moses that Christians are hastily throwing away. Bottomline: throw away the OT Scriptre and you have absolutely NO FOUNDATION for any claim you make for your 'NT Christianity'. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 6:36pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
BERNIMOORE: Go where? This guy, you're so funny.Indeed, many anti-tithers I have asked to look into 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 have often tried to shy away from that passage. For those who dare, they offer either excuses or draw fallacious conclusions that try to dribble in unrelated matters that Paul never discussed in that chapter - such as 'justification'. For yet others, you will find them desperate enough to slice verse 15 in half quotes and arrive at the fallacy that Paul did not want the support of Christian ministers in the Church. There are so many laughable things to read from anti-tithers on that passage. The one thing they have been so scared to acknowledge is the fact that Paul used the Law of Moses to teach Christian giving in the Church! All the sob-tales of the Law nailing this and that and doing away with this and that just quite simply fall flat on those two verses. Where do you think the apostles got the teaching on HOLINESS? Answer: from the Law of Moses. Where do you think the apostles got the teaching of marriage relationships among Christians in the Church? Answer: from the Law of Moses. Where do you think the apostles got their teaching of guiding rules for women in the Church? Answer: from the Law of Moses. Where do you think the so-called 'Christian' sabbath came from? Answer: from the Law of Moses. Where do you think the apostles got their teaching on Christian support for NT ministers? Answer again: from the Law of Moses. Where do you suppose the apostles got their teaching about children respecting their parents with a view of 'promised blessings'? Em, answer: from the Law of Moses! And from where dod you suppose Moses got many of his teachings on morality and civil relationships among Israel? Answer - not from the Law of Moses, but from MANY PAGAN CODIFIED LAWS which Christians are so vacuously IGNORANT of!! This is why for the most part, there's only hot air wafting through the windows of anti-tithings arguments. And it was quite a simple matter for me to run through your rejoinder because nothing there is new and many of these things have already been trahsed out elsewhere. All the same, thanks for taking up my concerns. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by crossman9(m): 7:57pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
© 1999 James A. Fowler You are free to download this outline provided it remains intact without alteration. You are also free to transmit this outline electronically provided that you do so in its entirety with proper citation of authorship included. GREED I. Some Biblical references to greed. Ps. 10:3 - "the greedy man curses and spurns God" Prov. 11:6 - "the treacherous are caught by their own greed" Jere. 6:13; 8:10 - "everyone is greedy for gain" Lk. 12:15 - "be on guard against every form of greed; life is not in possessions" Eph. 4:9 - "Gentiles, practice every kind of impurity with greediness" I Thess. 2:5 - "we did not come with pretext for greed" I Tim. 3:8 - (deacons) "not fond of sordid gain" (cf. Titus 1:7) II Peter 2:3 - (false prophets) "in their greed they will exploit you with false words" II Peter 2:14 - (false prophets) "have hearts trained in greed" II. Defining and describing greed. A. Greed is inordinate desire to acquire and possess 1. lust and envy - James 4:2 2. covetousness - Exod. 20:17; Rom. 7:7,8; I Cor. 5:11 3. selfish immoderation of desires - "Me-ism" 4. patterning of the "flesh" B. Greed is sin - contrary to character of God 1. Listed in the Bible with the gravest of sins - Mark 7:22; Rom. 1:29; I Cor. 6:10; Eph. 5:3 2. Roman Catholicism identified as one of seven "deadly sins" C. Greed involves the "personal aspiration" of the "lust of the eyes" (I Jn. 2:16) D. Greed is related to materialism 1. living for possessions - Lk. 12:15 2. get rich quick - I Tim. 6:9 3. love of money - I Tim. 6:10 4. Rockefeller - "How much is enough? More than I presently have." E. Greed is idolatry - Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5 III. Practical expressions of greed. There may be greed if you: , keep "wish lists" of desired objects to purchase. , can't say "no" when offered money to do a job. , are always seeking ways to make more money. , feel resentment when someone acquires what you would like to have , have fallen for several "get rich quick" schemes. , joined a multi-level marketing? , are disturbed after losing a relatively small amount of money. , become perturbed when you purchase an item and find it cheaper elsewhere. , feel good and find relief in going shopping. , would rather have a high paying job than one which is interesting and rewarding , despise paying taxes and have sympathy for those who find ways to avoid such. , feel uneasy around people who are wealthier than you. , make disparaging remarks about people who are rich. , engage in the "one-up-man-ship" of topping another's accounts of acquisitions. , go to an "all you can eat" buffet and feel obliged to eat as much as possible to get your money's worth. , give something wanting to be properly credited or reciprocated. , drive through neighborhoods with exclusive homes yearning to live in such. , ponder how much it is going to cost when a family member gets sick. , feel imposed upon when one of your children asks for money to buy something. , insist on controlling the family finances and the checkbook. , argue with your mate about how much they are spending on personal items. , brag about the "bargains" you got, how "thrifty" you are, or how little you paid for something. , boast of how clever you were in getting the best of another in a business deal. IV. Solution to greed. A. Deriving the character of God by faith. B. God's character involves contentment. God lacks nothing, wants nothing. Lk. 3:14 - "be content with your wages" Phil. 4:11 - "content in whatever circumstances I am" I Tim. 6:6 - "godliness is means of gain, accompanied by contentment" I Tim. 6:8 - "food and covering, with these we shall be content" Heb. 13:5 - "content with what you have" C. We are to be fulfilled and satisfied in the abundance of Christ's life - John 10:10 - "life more abundantly" |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by crossman9(m): 8:03pm On Feb 25, 2012 |
© 1999 James A. Fowler You are free to download this outline provided it remains intact without alteration. You are also free to transmit this outline electronically provided that you do so in its entirety with proper citation of authorship included. GREED I. Some Biblical references to greed. Ps. 10:3 - "the greedy man curses and spurns God" Prov. 11:6 - "the treacherous are caught by their own greed" Jere. 6:13; 8:10 - "everyone is greedy for gain" Lk. 12:15 - "be on guard against every form of greed; life is not in possessions" Eph. 4:9 - "Gentiles, practice every kind of impurity with greediness" I Thess. 2:5 - "we did not come with pretext for greed" I Tim. 3:8 - (deacons) "not fond of sordid gain" (cf. Titus 1:7) II Peter 2:3 - (false prophets) "in their greed they will exploit you with false words" II Peter 2:14 - (false prophets) "have hearts trained in greed" II. Defining and describing greed. A. Greed is inordinate desire to acquire and possess 1. lust and envy - James 4:2 2. covetousness - Exod. 20:17; Rom. 7:7,8; I Cor. 5:11 3. selfish immoderation of desires - "Me-ism" 4. patterning of the "flesh" B. Greed is sin - contrary to character of God 1. Listed in the Bible with the gravest of sins - Mark 7:22; Rom. 1:29; I Cor. 6:10; Eph. 5:3 2. Roman Catholicism identified as one of seven "deadly sins" C. Greed involves the "personal aspiration" of the "lust of the eyes" (I Jn. 2:16) D. Greed is related to materialism 1. living for possessions - Lk. 12:15 2. get rich quick - I Tim. 6:9 3. love of money - I Tim. 6:10 4. Rockefeller - "How much is enough? More than I presently have." E. Greed is idolatry - Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5 III. Practical expressions of greed. There may be greed if you: , keep "wish lists" of desired objects to purchase. , can't say "no" when offered money to do a job. , are always seeking ways to make more money. , feel resentment when someone acquires what you would like to have , have fallen for several "get rich quick" schemes. , joined a multi-level marketing? , are disturbed after losing a relatively small amount of money. , become perturbed when you purchase an item and find it cheaper elsewhere. , feel good and find relief in going shopping. , would rather have a high paying job than one which is interesting and rewarding , despise paying taxes and have sympathy for those who find ways to avoid such. , feel uneasy around people who are wealthier than you. , make disparaging remarks about people who are rich. , engage in the "one-up-man-ship" of topping another's accounts of acquisitions. , go to an "all you can eat" buffet and feel obliged to eat as much as possible to get your money's worth. , give something wanting to be properly credited or reciprocated. , drive through neighborhoods with exclusive homes yearning to live in such. , ponder how much it is going to cost when a family member gets sick. , feel imposed upon when one of your children asks for money to buy something. , insist on controlling the family finances and the checkbook. , argue with your mate about how much they are spending on personal items. , brag about the "bargains" you got, how "thrifty" you are, or how little you paid for something. , boast of how clever you were in getting the best of another in a business deal. IV. Solution to greed. A. Deriving the character of God by faith. B. God's character involves contentment. God lacks nothing, wants nothing. Lk. 3:14 - "be content with your wages" Phil. 4:11 - "content in whatever circumstances I am" I Tim. 6:6 - "godliness is means of gain, accompanied by contentment" I Tim. 6:8 - "food and covering, with these we shall be content" Heb. 13:5 - "content with what you have" C. We are to be fulfilled and satisfied in the abundance of Christ's life - John 10:10 - "life more abundantly"
|
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by Zikkyy(m): 7:29am On Feb 26, 2012 |
wordtalk: We’ll get there, if you cooperate. No hard tackles please wordtalk: Thanks wordtalk. If you don’t mind, I like to ask; is it possible the descendants of Abraham rendered similar gifts (i.e a tenth of war takings) as well routine tithing of tenths to a priest (that’s if they are able to find one ) or as burnt offering (where there are no priests). wordtalk: Melchi was considered great because of the ‘nature’ of his priesthood. wordtalk: True, Melchi was considered great because of a priesthood described as ‘unchangeable’. But why was Melchi priesthood described as unchangeable? You will find this in verse 3 Hebrews 7:3 (KJV) 3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. wordtalk: True talk. But I’ll add that the only reason it cannot be shown that Melchi priesthood ‘was only transcient’ is because there are no documentations. It is not because Melchi lives forever. Was Melchi truly without father and mother? You don’t find that in the bible. Even the Hebrew writer does not have such facts. Unless you are saying Melchi is Christ, and that something you still will not find in the bible. Hebrews 7:8 (KJV) 8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Hebrews 7:24-25 (KJV) 24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. Hebrew 7 described the Melchi\Christ priesthood as that of priests with eternal life. Can we really say Melchi continue to live? That would mean Melchi stand as high priest alongside Christ ‘for ever’. That cannot be true, there is only one high priest; Christ. The Hebrews writer needed to ‘big up’ Melchi to achieve his objective, which was to get his target audience to focus on Christ. wordtalk: The life talked about here is that of Christ (not Melchi’s), achieved by his resurrection. wordtalk: Are you saying the Levi priests (Aaron & his sons) were never priest of the Most High God? |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 3:37pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
@Zikkyy, Zikkyy: It depends on who you're including as 'descendants of Abraham'; but if you meant merely Isaac and Jacob, then Gen. 28:22 is just one example. We know that many people have a serious problem with the question of whether or not Jacob actually gave tithes (or, the 'tenths') to God - but that in itself does not negate the possibility of his actually doing so at some point in his life. However, the tithes of Abraham's descendants did not have to be only from spoils of war. As in Jacob's example in Gen. 28:22, his tithes were to come from all that God would have given him without reference to warfare. Thirdly, Scripture does not leave us with specifics or details as to how descedants of Abraham might have given tithes or the tenth to God - whether routinely or at special/specific events in their lives, or whether as burnt offerings or in some other way. The point is that the giving of the tenth was expressed in various ways - either from spoils of war or from one's personal possessions as blessings received from God. Zikkyy: Fantastic - you've expressed it better than I did! |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 3:38pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Zikkyy: I'm not so sure verse 3 gives us the answer as to the nature of his priesthood, since that verse is not to be taken literally. Melchizedek 'abides a priest continually', not because he literally did not have 'beginning of days, nor end of life'. Verse 3 only gives us the 'qualifications' befitting anyone who would hold such a priesthood - such a person should have 'neither beginning of days, nor end of life'. Melchizedek is not literally 'eternal' (which you also agree with); but only abides a priest continually on account of having received the priesthood directly from God. I think that's the point the author seeks to make in that verse 3. However, I think the question of 'why Melchizedek's priesthood is described as unchangeable' is answered in verse 16 and expounded upon in verses 20-21. (a) in verse 16, we find the basis on which Melchizedek's priesthood rests: the priesthood itself is based on 'the power of an endless life' and not on 'the law of a carnal commandment'; (b) in verses 20-21, the Melchizedekan priesthood which Christ Himself has taken up is even more strongly affirmed on a the basis of a divine oath in contrast to all other types of priesthoods which were made 'without an oath'. Put together, what this shows is that the priesthood of Melchizedek was given directly from God without intermediaries, in contrast to the Aaronic priesthood which was mediated through Moses. Another more lucid way you have described this is in your comment that - 'Hebrew 7 described the Melchi\Christ priesthood as that of priests with eternal life.' |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 3:41pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Zikkyy: Well, I respect your view, even though I think there's more to it than that. I don't think that the issue of 'no documentations' establishes this point. The nature of priesthoods established merely on arguments of no documentation was regarded as, not only 'transcient', but also polluted. In the OT, it was entirely essential that 'all Israel was reckoned by genealogies' (1 Chron. 9:1). When serious theocratic issues of national import were at stake, officers and participants were also to be determined by the genealogies. But where true Israelites could not establish their genealogies or pedigrees, they were regarded as 'as polluted, put from the priesthood' (see Neh. 7:61-64). If therefore the writer had intended to demonstrate the durability and power of Melchizedek's priesthood merely on a question of 'no documentation', he would totally have lost his argument. Why? Because his converted Jewish recipients would immediately have interpreted Melchizedek's priesthood as a 'polluted priesthood' on the established basis of Nehemiah 7:64. So, Melchizedek's priesthood was not transcient - not simply because there are 'no documentations' - rather, as we both agree, the durability of his priesthood is derived from the basis on which it rests: the power of an endless life (Heb. 7:16) Zikkyy: No. Rather, as a title ('priest of the Most High God' - Gen. 14:20 and Heb. 7:1) used specifically for Melchizedek, the converted Jew would be able immediately to see that this priesthood was received directly from God without intermediaries. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by FXKing2012(m): 4:26pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Someone pls tell the clowns posting all forms of cartoon characters in here to stop, this is no comedy. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by Nobody: 8:04pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
money money money. see as money dey wan destroy christians. i tire oh! which cartoons are you seeing? blindy? if its crossmans' abeg leave am jare! i'm loving it  |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by FXKing2012(m): 9:13pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
diluminati: Dont u think you'll do a much worthwhile job attacking politicians who embezzle money and thereby deprive the people of much needed necessities of life than chasing after men of God who are only trying to save souls. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by Zikkyy(m): 12:10pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
wordtalk: By descendant I meant Isaac all the way to the Israelites standing before Moses at the time he was reading out the law. wordtalk: I can see you are not willing to fully commit but let assume they tithed one way or another. I have one last question (hopefully); what happened to tenth the people were rendering just before Moses dished out the new tithing requirement? Did the people continue to render these tenths in their way in addition to complying with the new tithing requirement? |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by Zikkyy(m): 12:41pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
wordtalk: You still don’t get it. This is not about priesthood where the priest retains a title of priest forever; we are talking about priesthood where the priest is forever available to intercede. Even Aaron retains the title of priest after death, but he died and was replaced. This priesthood differs from Levitical priesthood in that the levitical priest dies and another one replaces him. Christ priesthood is forever because he lives forever and not because he received the priesthood directly from God. We cannot say the same for Melchi. A fact you are fully aware of. Hebrews 7:24-25 (KJV) 24[b]But this man, because he continueth ever[/b], hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. wordtalk: How do you abide a priest continually if you are not in office? You don’t find this interpretation even in the Hebrews verse. wordtalk: Com'on wordtalk, are you saying you were ‘on ground’ when Melchi received his priesthood? We don’t know how Melchi received his priesthood, that’s the mystery. wordtalk: It was all about Christ from verse 11. The writer stopped talking about Melchi from verse 11. It was Christ priesthood that was described as unchangeable, simply because he lives forever. Unchangebility here is derived from being eternal. And i like to state one more time that Melchi is not eternal. Read verse 24-25 again Hebrews 7:24-25 (KJV) 24[b]But this man, because he continueth ever[/b], hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. wordtalk: It appears you see the priesthood as belonging to Melchi. Please go back and read that verse starting from verse 15, you will see that the writer was talking about Christ here. Hebrews 7:15-16 (KJV) 15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. Christ came into office not by law\commandment but by power of a life that cannot be destroyed. In other words, he lives forever. This is where the Jews find similarities between Christ and Melchi. Melchi was a priest and it was not recorded that he died; he was seen as still being in office even when we all know he is not. Hebrews 7:24-25 (KJV) 15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life wordtalk: Christ did not take up Melchi’s priesthood. Secondly, The Hebrew verse is not telling us that the Melchi priesthood is attained on the basis of a divine oath. We don’t know how Melchi became a priest. wordtalk: I still don’t see how this proves that Melchi received his priesthood directly from God. The Hebrew writer is not saying it was a standard practice, all he has written was about Christ. I don’t even understand this idea of intermediary. It all came from God anyway you want to look at it. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by Zikkyy(m): 12:57pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
wordtalk: I am not sure the issue of pollution applies here. We are looking at two different periods here. Neh. 7:61-64 applies to a period where you have to be from the tribe of Levi to be priest. The Jews don’t joke with it. Priests were not restricted to a certain tribe prior to that era. Melchi was refered to as a priest in the records, nobody was going to dispute that hundreds or even thousand s of years after. wordtalk: I still don’t see how title tells me anything other than he was a priest. The Levi priests were also priest of the Most High God. It’s either one is a priest of God or he is a priest of baal, or sango or zeus e.t.c. Even Aaron & his sons were referred to as a priest of God. 2 Chronicles 13:9 (KJV) 9[b]Have ye not cast out the priests of the LORD[/b], the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and have made you priests after the manner of the nations of other lands? so that whosoever cometh to consecrate himself with a young bullock and seven rams, the same may be a priest of them that are no gods. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by Nobody: 2:38pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
FXKing2012: abeg go siddon jare. go through my politics post and see who is at my mercy. politicians and fake pastors are all alike. they sweet talk you with their manifesto but in reality they are slimy backstabbers. the fake pastors are more deceifully slick. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 3:37pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
Hi Zikkyy, Zikkyy: That's what I thought, and that's why I kept my reply down to that constraint.
On the contrary, I tried to be quite committed within what Scripture declares and helps us to conclude through Biblical exegesis. If you wanted me to go beyond what the texts of Scripture declares, I would have done so.
Any further questions are welcome anytime.
I don't know for sure what happened to such 'tenths' or tithes. Anything anyone might conclude on that would most probably be conjecture or hypothesis of one sort or another. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 3:37pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
Zikkyy: When you say 'continue to' and 'in addition to', it seems you're making a case for a 'continuum' between both types of tithes. Further, you cannot make such suppositions with 'in addition to', because it is clear that - 1. the people we're reading about ('Isaac all the way to the Israelites ') did not live in the same era or period; 2. prior to the emergence of Israel as a theocratic nation, the generations that lived earlier were NOT UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW - infact, Moses clearly states that the patriarchs WERE NOT given the Mosaic Law (see Deut. 5:3) In view of the above, I have often maintained that - (a) the Levitical tithes are NOT a 'continuum' of Abraham's tithes (b) Abraham's tithes were not 'subsumed' into the Levitical tithes (c) Abraham's tithes does not 'come under' the Mosaic Law (d) Abraham's tithes are not 'subsumed into' the Mosaic Law We should therefore understand that tithes are simply a description of the giving of a tenth of one's resources. It is therefore futile for us to be chasing after a non-existent 'continuum' between the tithes we read of in the Bible - that is why we cannot be talking about people doing this or that 'in addition to' something else. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 3:42pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
Zikkyy: Apologies if I didn't get you earlier. I had assumed we were on the same frequency and had agreed on many things thereto. However, I think your latest answer shows me what you're missing.Biblical priesthood in its broad sense is not merely about 'where the priest is forever available to INTERCEDE'. While intercession is one of the highlights of the Aaronic and other priesthoods (see Heb. 5:1-2), it is yet not the thrust of the Melchizedekan priesthood. The priesthood of Melchizedek is FAR MUCH MORE than intercession - it is one of TOTAL SALVATION. Look back - the Aaronic priesthood, for example, was available for intercession where earthly priests could 'have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way' (cf. Heb. 5:2). The converted Jews were already familiar with the nature of 'intercessory priesthood'. But even this much reverred intercessory priesthood of Aaron COULD NOT BRING SALVATION to anybody, including the priest himself, AARON! This is where the Melchizedekan priesthood steps in - because it was a priesthood based on one fundamental principle above all: the pronouncement of salvific blessings! Melchizedek in Genesis 14 was not 'interceding' for Abraham, but rather pronounced blessings of salvation and victory (see Gen. 14:19-20a, and compare with Heb. 7:6). Blessings pronounced in such circumstances direct our gaze to God's power in salvation and redemption. The priesthood of ULTIMATE SALVATION is what the writer in Hebrews intended his recipients to grasp. Having shown that the Aaronic priesthood of 'intercession' could not save anyone (Heb. 5:2-3), he goes on to affirm that Christ Himself 'became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him' (Heb. 5:9). And on what basis does Christ become such? The answer is in the very next verse - 'Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec' (v. 10). This is even brought together in Heb. 7:25 - 'Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.' In brief, there are two kinds of priesthood: (a) Aaronic (and other types of priesthoods) - 'priesthood of intercession' (b) Melchizedekan/Christ - 'priesthood of ULTIMATE SALVATION and REDEMPTION' 'Perfection' is NOT through the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood of intercession (Heb. 7:11a) - rather, the 'perfection' of our spiritual relationship with God comes through the priesthood of ultimate salvation: that priesthood 'after the order of Melchisedec' (Heb. 7:11b). I went into all this to show why I cannot agree with you that we were dealing with a kind of priesthood where 'the priest is forever available to intercede' as far as we're dealing with Melchizedek. Intercession is included in Christ's priestly ministry - but that is only one among MANY OTHER blessings of that priesthood. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 3:44pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
Zikkyy: No, Aaron did not retain the title of 'priest' after death; for if he did, then Hebrews 7:23 would be meaningless. Once replaced, such priests do not continue to retain such titles of 'priest' - in Biblical hermeneutics, it would mean that the dead priest continues to effectively be priest while he's dead. Such a notion is why so many Christians pray to departed or dead 'saints' and 'priests' - thus, depriving themselves of the priesthood of Christ.
Agreed - Hebrews 7:23.  Zikkyy: I am fully aware that Christ received His priesthood directly from God without any intermediaries - Hebrews 5:10. I am also fully aware that the Aaronic priesthood was attended upon by a mediator - Moses, who 'consecrated' Aaron and his sons into the priestly office (see Exodus 28:42 and 29:9). I am also aware that while Moses was the mediator who himself 'consecrated' Aaron and his sons into the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood, yet Christ was also 'CONSECRATED FOR EVERMORE' as priest (Heb. 7:28). The question, Zikkyy, is this: WHO 'consecrated' Christ?? Find me the 'intermediary' or 'mediator' that stood to 'consecrate' the Son of God - and i will be happy to have learnt something fresh. As for Melchizedek receiving his priesthood directly from God, please tell me: on what basis would you assume that there was a 'mediator' who stood to 'consecrate' him? It is not because we don't find a verse for it - but when you study the texts carefully, you will find indeed that the title: 'priest of the Most high God' was intended by both authors of Genesis and Hebrews to point the reader to that fact. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by wordtalk(m): 3:45pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
Zikkyy: I never said he abides a priest forever when he was not in office - an interpretation I never made. I rather said that he 'abides a priest continually on account of having received the priesthood directly from God.' If he did not first receive the priesthood, would he be in office? No. And would he also have been a priest forever if he did not first receive the priesthood? No, again. So, you see I did not give any such interpretations as you supposed. For the others, I think for the most part you're saying just the same thing I have answered to already. if not, then I will find time to come back and sort them out for you. Enjoy for now. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by Zikkyy(m): 7:53pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
wordtalk: Okay. No need pursuing this further. |
| Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by Zikkyy(m): 8:04pm On Feb 27, 2012 |
wordtalk: I guess my post came out wrong. Intercession was not i what wanted to highlight. It is the aspect of being ‘forever available’ to perform the priestly function. My apologies. wordtalk: I don't understand. Can you please expatiate? |
Please take a position so we can know how to play our 'free-kick'. (1) (2) (3) ... (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) ... (23) (Reply)
Jehovah's Witnesses: the only true religion? / Man Invites Reno Omokri To Join Islam. He Reacts / Happie Boys To OPM Pastor: You Can't Use Our Stars To Rıde Prıvate Jet...
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 178 |