Exactly, and if you literally can't afford to give anything money-wise, put up posters and share the gospel of the kingdom or something. Basically just be active as an ambassador of Christ on this planet, afterall, this planet is not our home.

Yes, but it seems kinda hard to believe people can't even earn a dollar. lol.

If your begging or doing hard labor. You will be making SOMETHING.

taken from the site:





and regarding benny hinn, you can read all his false prophecies here:

http://biblelight.net/tbn.htm

It doesn't matter. If it's booty taken from war or earned. It should still be tithed, because it's all the Lord's to begin with.

This post was edited by weasleface on May 24 2011 02:54pm

"Behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the congregation, lest they bear sin, and die. But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance . . . The tithes of the children of Israel which they offer as an heave offering unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance." - Numbers 18:21-24.

"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." - Heb. 7:5.


only the levites could collect tithes.

also, worthy of a read from the site



This post was edited by Tonylol on May 24 2011 03:13pm

Okay, I think I see the argument he is making. He is essentially saying that since the tithes were mandated to the Levites, and since they died out, it no longer applies. This is a fallacy, and I'll explain why;

Hebrews 7:1-10 (which he claims in his favor-- it is not, as we'll see) talks about these issues, including (and here is the key part), that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek. Melchizedek was not a Levite, and his priesthood is perpetual since the record about his priesthood does not record his death.

This is explained in Hebrews 7:3, falsifying this guys claim. It reads (in reference to Melchizedek, see verse 1):
"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."

Ironically enough, the verses he quotes are his ultimate lynch-pin. This means that the covenant (of tithing) still applies, perpetually. Incidentally, Christ's priesthood is Melchizedekan, rather than Levitical.


Let's hit the more obviously incorrect examples in his list:
1. Abraham never tithed on his own personal property or livestock.
A: Genesis 14:20 says he "gave a tenth of all". Hebrews 7:4 says that he gave "a tenth of the choicest spoils". It is unclear, but one cannot conclude his own personal property was not included, or even the entirety of that tithed.

3. Only Levite priests could collect tithes, and there are no Levite priests today.
A: False, see above. Melchizedek established a permanent line of priesthood.

4: Only food products from the land were tithable.
A: False, monetary tithes were given during the era of Kings, and used (among other things) to pay for repairs to the temple. (See passage below, 2 Kings)

5: Money was never a tithable commodity.
A: False, see #4

6: Christian converts were never asked to tithe anything to the Church.
A: Half truth. While this mandate is not explicitly repeated in the NT, neither are many other mandates. Jesus made it clear that he was not coming to remove the old law, that it would remain until the end of time.

7: Tithing in the Church first appears centuries after completion of the Bible.
A: Half truth/False. If one defines Church to include the Judaic temple, then this is false, the levites collected tithes (in part) for the temple. If you do not include that in the definition, then this is merely a half truth, because the church of Christ/Christianity was in a point of being created when/after Christ was crucified. Christianity was heavily persecuted during the first few centuries, and it was exceedingly difficult to create a Church when you had enemies all around you that were ready to put you to death for your beliefs.

He goes on to quote scripture, and we come across another glaring problem, his quotation of Hebrews 7:1-10. Notice that he does not notate each passage numerically, as is generally custom when you're quoting various passages. He uses an interesting translation, on top of that, which makes it hard to catch, unless you try, that he has utterly skipped verse 3! Read for yourself his quotation, and compare it with any other biblical translation. There is no mention to this key verse that explicitly grants perpetual priesthood to the line of Melchizedek.

Beyond this glaring problem, he skipped the issue of the money used to repair the temple mentioned in 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles, which the priests collected.
2 Kings 12:4 (New American Standard Bible) The Temple to Be Repaired
4 Then Jehoash said to the priests, "All the money of the sacred things which is brought into the house of the LORD, in current money, both the money of each man's assessment and all the money which any man's heart prompts him to bring into the house of the LORD,

Bolded some (imo) key parts. The underlined word, "of each man's assessment" refers to tithing. That is their assessment.

I feel petty

i shal tith my time into youtube videos on this topic

This post was edited by short_circut on May 24 2011 04:34pm

the tithe given to melchizedek was 10% of the booty of war. it was essentially stolen goods, not abrahams in the first place. I'm not seeing a connection to how that one tithe can relate to todays tithes to the church.
although, considering the site said that only levites could receive tithes is slightly misleading.




nice find, I guess the site has more flaws than I expected.



the house of the lord (temple) was destroyed, the lord no longer dwells in temples made by hands. instead, we are the temple now

"And, coming out, Jesus sent from the sanctuary. And His disciples approached to exhibit to Him the buildings of the sanctuary. Yet He, answering, said to them, 'Are you not observing all these? Verily, I am saying to you, Under no circumstances may a stone here be left on a stone, which shall not be DEMOLISHED.’" (Matt. 24:1-2).

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (II Cor. 6:16)

I just realized that this guy just got owned by the MAN himself

Tonylol: Read all of what I wrote, not just what you want to read.

1) The tithe of Abraham is inconclusive. Genesis does not define what "all" means, and Hebrews further confuses the issue. Neither can be used conclusively to say he did or did not use personal funds, and in addition, this proves nothing in any case. This could be considered "income". If you come into a whole bunch of "spoils" by any means, the government will tax you on it, much the same as it would be assumed you should tithe it. If anything, assuming it meant the spoils (income) backs up the fact that you're supposed to tithe on your income!
2) Hebrew 7:3 clearly gives the line of Melchizedek priesthood "forever", along with the rights to accept tithes. This refutes his claim only Levite priests were allowed to do so. He intentionally (and I would even say maliciously) omitted this verse in his arguments and quotation of the other relevant verses.
3) The 2 Kings passage is to refute his claim that NO MONETARY tithes were allowed/accepted. This shows that he has stated a blatant lie.

Just because the Temple and the Levites no longer exist does not mean that tithes are also no longer necessary (see Abraham and the line of Melchizedek). Hebrews 7:1-10 (In it's entirety, not excluding verse 3 like this crackpot likes to do) clearly tells you that not only the Levites have authority to collect tithes, and makes no mention that it is no longer a law and ordinance.

The only part I didn't refute was his #2 about Joshua. Judging by the blatant inaccuracies of everything else he has written, it's probably safe to assume that that too is also suspect; though I have not looked at it in any great detail, nor is it overly relevant to the question at hand in any case.

I went into this unsure, and like everyone else, hoping he was correct (no one likes to pay taxes/tithes!) This guy is a crackpot, and I have thoroughly refuted the nonsense he is trying to get you to believe. In summary, this man is trying to deceive you (and others), and it looks like your grandmother is correct.

edit: In part II, he goes on to make more outlandish claims, and self contradictions. He repeatedly states tithes were not money, but then directly quotes the verse where Jesus upended the "money changers", and call them a den of thieves. He grossly misrepresents Luke 18:12 to somehow mean tithing means little or nothing, when the moral of that parable was that the pharisee was arrogant, haughty, and self-righteous, and by those actions he was inferior to the sinner whom humbled himself before God. This parable tells you that all your "good deeds" mean nothing if you do not humble yourself before God. This also teaches that not tithing is a sin, like many other things, but ultimately forgivable if you repent (as the sinner in the story does). Are there churches that overextend monetarily? Yes. Does this comprise all or a majority of them? Absolutely not! It's rather ironic that he quotes verses such as II Peter 2:1-3, but when I read that verse in context of his musings, it sounds more like it's pointing directly at him, and a warning towards his misinterpretations and deception. He goes on about Acts 15 for a while as well, but there's one key thing to remember; you are only saved through Christ, this is true, but that does no mean you are then free to continue living a life of sin and contrary to Christ, so it does not absolve you of all of the Law of Moses like he likes to infer.