It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


You must pay your tithe church...

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:11 PM
Just about any christian church you walk into will tell you that you are required to pay your tithe and point out that Jesus said you had to and other scriptures in the old testament. Some are demanding even calling your employer to get it if on vacation. Others try hard to get by auto pay so if off on vacation in the summer the money remains at home. With un employment on the rise the pressure is on and every kind of scam and abuse out is in full swing and growing. This is more important then Elvis...

What they won't tell you...

The history of tithes by means of I.S.B.E. is that is came by when a king would defeat an other kingdom 10 per cent of the spoils would would go to the victor king. It was a common practice and is not connected to the sheep and goat offerings back to Cain and Able. However when the land of Israel was broke up for the 12 tribes. The tribe of Levi got no land at all it went to the other 11. In return once a year the tribe of Levi would come and collect 10% of what was grown on the land and then the tribe would take 10% of that 10% and give it as wages to the priests for there living. This was the 1st. tithe that was paid. The second tithe was payed not collected for their holy days that would be drink offering and etc. that they would also benefit from. A 3rd. tithe was paid from the land was the poor tithe that they had to pay once every three years. Even if a priest would some how become a land owner he also had to pay this tithe with the rest. No tithe was every paid from a gift or from an inheritance... So this is the background of the 3 tithes that the Scriptures are talking about that was important. It was like the law of the land or Federal law as we would have here.

Jesus said to pay your tithe however He was talking about that tithe not the later creation that did not start till 350ad. The early church never collected tithes they collected offerings. They paid tithes as it was for the running of the temple and national law. With this background one can better understand why they would have sold their land after Christ death and events that happened from it noted in the book of acts. Where this all came from today was when after the temple was destroyed in 70ad. The Catholic church in 350ad. wanted to raise money like today. Only today they do not want to hear the truth at all and the problem is when the new temple in Israel is built if you live there that is where the tithes are paid. Tithes were never like an income tax anyway.

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:49 PM
If you read the Nag Hammadi which was the first and really the true Christian doctrine you will find that tithe doesn't always necessaarily mean money. There is more of a calling for tribute through your offering of dedication and honor of the spirit of God. The percentage thing was put in after the Council of Nicea canonized a few of the altered scriptures that were loosely mistranslated from the original Hebrew texts (I believe in one of the Books of Moses - Deuteronomy). The Roman Empire at that time was very close to falling into ruin and Constantine knew that ordinary taxation of the people wouldn't suffice to keep the divided empire intact. Pagan temple religious offerings were on the decline since they were polytheistic and many Romans just didn't revere a god at all therefore didn't go pay tribute at all. This is where the whole giving money to the church thing came into play. One church, one collection area, tidy system.

The Gnostic Gospels were banned and all Gnostics were declared heretics and pretty much hunted down and murdered simply because they followed the ideology that to tithe or dedicate, pay tribute, whatnot didn't mean coinage. The Roman Empire declared Christianity as the legal religion strictly as a political and financial move but so delineated from the teachings of Christ himself by incorporating allegory from the old pagnistic religions.

As far as the Tribe of Levi, the Levites were not a seperate tribe of themselves. The term used to describe the Levites is an indication that they were in fact teachers and not a different group. Levites would have dispersed amongst the other tribes although it is believed that most of them followed the Tribe of Dan or Dannites.

Basically, churches that have pastors who do not work in other trades beyond the pulpit need a salary to survive and the enforcement of money collection became so integrated in the ritual and requirement of congregations that no one really questions it any longer why there is a set amount or even if that requirement is actually specified in the scipture. Technically, you could take your ten percent and go to a homeless shelter and donate it - bypassing the church all together and still be doing the Lord's work by sharing what you have with those who have nothing. The paying of the church directly is really only found in the Holy Scriptures after the institution of the Catholic Church as established within the Holy Roman Empire. It was stepped up after Martin Luther instigated the Reformation.

You gave the date of 350 AD and that is within roughly 13 years of the Council of Nicea. Constantine desperately needed money, but he also needed peace and Christ taught peace so declaring Christianity the official state religion killed two birds with one stone...keep the masses calm...collect cash...maintain a hold on what was left of the splintered empire.

To answer your questions with clarity, I would think the Nag Hammadi could give you more clear and concise descriptions when it comes to tithing since they were the first "true" Christians but were unfortunately erradicated (for the most part) when their belief of Christ as not being the etheric manifestation of the Spirit of God, but a man of himself who basically acted as a living Sepherioth. With no death/ressurection/ascension the mystique and overtly glorfied image of Christ couldn't have funded Cosntantine and what was left of his rapidly crumbling empire. The image of Christ went from an enlightened teacher created of and guided by the loving nature of Elohim/YHWH/etc. - spreading the word of the Son of God. People began to worship the man himself instead of the divine word he was trying to give the world.

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:58 PM
Who would be the first pastor to dare to operate a church with a membership fee. This fee would be like a gym membership where this similarity would be bringing guest to the church and encouraging membership with monthly dues. It could mean the church staff would not have large houses, Lincoln Escalades and big boats any longer. Who would ever dare show humility which would operate as competition to such vanity addicted appetites. You think the bank would give me a loan to do it? Would church membership increase in comparison to churches who take ten percent of income? I would live in the church to be honest. It would not live up to the standard of vanity, but who needs it in a world full of corruption and sin. I would drive a Ford Pinto compared to the Lincoln Continental if I could reach and help the spirits of those who need a release from the cruel world. Outreach in such a church would be as simple as inviting guests to the one only attendee service of the week, Sunday at 11 am. All other church functions would be restricted to membership and deacon scrutiny of new possible members attending. How simple could it be?

I do agree with you

The government takes enough from us as it is and now they want more. A little realism says the spirit of God would me more interested in people who come to worship him compared to those who show up for the tax exemptions. One pastor could make a difference. Do you agree?

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 10:24 AM
Funny thing, I was actually replying to another thread, when I came across something. It's dealing with those who reject god in favor of kings and so forth. And in that, god says since they have rejected him, the leaders they get will demand a 10th of things.

1 Samuel 8

7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

9Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

10And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

11And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

19Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

Notice it keeps saying they will take a 10th?

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 06:59 AM
I give because I don't value money much, it's just a tool, I also give to poor whenever there are opportunities.

I give to the church. In ours there's no conspiracy, our pastor doesn't even have any brand new vehicles, is old but never got divorced, stuck to one wife, lives in a neighborhood just like any neighborhood. A good church won't get rich with tithes

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 09:09 AM

Originally posted by ahnggk
I give because I don't value money much, it's just a tool, I also give to poor whenever there are opportunities.

I give to the church. In ours there's no conspiracy, our pastor doesn't even have any brand new vehicles, is old but never got divorced, stuck to one wife, lives in a neighborhood just like any neighborhood. A good church won't get rich with tithes

This is exactly the kind of pastor I would trust more than one who must have the best of everything and expects his salary to come from the congregation. A man with virtue of the likes of the one you describe as your pastor is a rare gem in the field of spirituality. It means he's doing it for his love of God and his congregation, not the love of money. Nothing reflects sincerity like the absence of wealth.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 09:48 AM
My pastor is the same way, as are all the previous pastors of my home church. They received only enough pay to take care of their families with, from the tithing the church received.

One of our pastors had 3 school-aged children and usually had a hard time making ends meet even with this full time job, so the church would take an extra offering every year before school let in so that he could afford to clothe his kids without having to pull any extra money out of his budget.

I for one have NEVER given any creedence to these so called 'mega-church' pastors. Money begets greed, which begets corruption. And one of the worst things in the world is a corrupt "Man of God".

top topics


log in