[Hindsite]

1. Abraham never tithed on his own personal property or livestock.

2. Jacob wouldn't tithe until YHWH blessed him first.

3. Only Levite priests could collect tithes, and there are no Levite priests today.

4. Only food products from the land were tithable.

5. Money was never a tithable commodity.

6. Believing converts were never asked to tithe anything to the Ekklesia.

7. Tithing in the Ekklesia first appears centuries after completion of the scriptures.

8. The tithe comes from the "land," not the air or the sea. Fishermen were not required to tithe fish.

9. It was the "seed" or agricultural products from the fields that was kodesh to YHWH and tithable.

10. Products from "trees" were to be tithed. This not only included the fruit, but oils, etc.

11. Of "herds or flocks" it was the "tenth" that passed under the rod that was holy and dedicated to YHWH.

Here is exposed another lie of modern clergymen. It was not the first tenth, but rather the tenth tenth that belonged to YHWH, contrary to every minister I have ever heard, who insists that the first tenth always belongs to YHWH. Unscriptural. Untrue. Read your scriptures--it's the tenth one of a herd that belongs to YHWH.

Another interesting point is this. If a herdsman had but nine cattle, he didn't tithe his cattle at all! Also notice that YHWH did not even require the best of the cattle, just the tenth one to pass under the rod even if it was the runtiest of them all. Remember, we are talking about tithing and not sacrificing (animals for sacrifice always had to be without blemish).

Did you notice that this summary at the very end of the book of Leviticus does not mention the tithing of money? Interesting. But just maybe we will find the tithing of money in some other Scripture?

A warning to all charlatans and would-be tithe extractors and collectors: There is NO temple of YHWH being officiated in Jerusalem today. There is NO Levitic priesthood to officiate at such a temple. There is NO NEED for such a temple or priesthood at this time. Only Levites could collect tithes at the temple. Therefore, EVERYONE collecting tithes today is a charlatan and a fake. If one cannot historically trace back his genealogy generation by generation with no lapses to the family of Aaron, he IS NOT and CANNOT be a priest authorized of YHWH at this time to collect tithes for the temple services and sacrifices.

The above is from http://bible-truths.com/tithing.html

[Nets]

Only Levite priests could collect tithes, and there are no Levite priests today.

Priests and Levites are still around.

[Hindsite]

Priests and Levites are still around.

Can they prove it? If so, then let them collect tithes from the suckers that believe them.

[Nets]

Hindsite, you are the last person who can demand proof from others. Prove to me that Jesus existed and was resurrected.

[Hindsite]

Hindsite, you are the last person who can demand proof from others. Prove to me that Jesus existed and was resurrected.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
All I can do is lead you to some of the evidence, but I can't make you accept it as proof.
I accept it as proof, but you probably want to remain a stubborn atheist for the rest of your life.

You can actually reserch it yourself over the internet. So I will just point you to the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo to start you off.

https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

[youtube]5MMOAV-xYFs[/youtube]

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Yeah Nets, you drang atheist. And lol, Shroud of Turin. Holy fuck.

[ingliz]

Shroud of Turin

The calibrated radiocarbon age of the shroud is AD 1262 - 1384 with 95% confidence.

Source: Professor Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin.

[It is] confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable.

[Conscript]

What's YHWH?

[Nets]

^ Tetragrammaton

[Rei Murasame]

Hindsite actually has a point here though. By the strict interpretation of the text, all of the 'tithes of first tenth' that churches collect are actually a fraudulent flat taxes directed against the poor (it's hammered extra hard in third world countries, failure to pay = sin = hell, etc), and in that sense the presently existing financial structure of many churches resembles the structure of a Masjid which zakat is paid to, more than it resembles anything historically practised by the early church.

But the feudalist pimps clergy have to generate cash from their whores congregants somehow right? Them tricks ain't gonna turn theyselves!

Also, on a wider level, the idea of tithing and of zakat, allows social welfare to be moved out of the domain that people cast votes on (ie, out of the RSA), and into the non-voting domain of civic organisations run by the religious groups. This provides a way for neoliberals to cut the welfare state, and to depend on these regressive organisations to act as the ideological state apparatuses controlling large elements of healthcare, social services, and even schools. So you end up with a state that does not name itself as such, and yet performs its functions.

[Besoeker]

quote]Shroud of Turin
The calibrated radiocarbon age of the shroud is AD 1262 - 1384 with 95% confidence.

Source: Professor Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin.

[It is] confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable.

He'll dispute the validity of radiocarbon dating. If he doesn't, he has to accept the confirmed age. And that of fossils that predate the bible by millins of years.

[Hindsite]

The calibrated radiocarbon age of the shroud is AD 1262 - 1384 with 95% confidence.

Source: Professor Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin.

The 5% where they were not confident is where the carbon dating went wrong.
Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 test proves false

[youtube]GxDdx6vxthE[/youtube]

[Besoeker]

The calibrated radiocarbon age of the shroud is AD 1262 - 1384 with 95% confidence.

Source: Professor Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin.

[quote="Hindsite"]The 5% where they were not confident is where there carbon dating went wrong.
Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 test proves false

Was I right or was I right when I posted that you dispute the radiocarbon dating?
Stastics and probability is clearly not your forte.

[Besoeker]

duplicate.........slow connection.......

[Besoeker]

Duplicate...........again

[Besoeker]

Sorry folks. Duplicate of a duplicate..........

[ingliz]

the carbon dating went wrong

Historical, iconographic, pathological, physical, and chemical evidence points to its inauthenticity.

Examples:

Historical:

The shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth century— when the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in a letter to the Avignon Antipope Clement VII, mentioning that the image had previously been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers.

Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [Henri de Poitiers] discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.

Pathological:

The anatomy is wrong - The head too small, an arm too long, no genitals, no navel, etc.

Jesus' face, body, arms, and fingers were unnaturally thin and elongated, one forearm was longer than the other, and his right hand is too long. The man is improbably tall, between 5' 11½" and 6' 2" tall. Jews who lived in the 1st century were much shorter than this." (As someone has commented, if Jesus was really this tall he would have really stood out and there would have been no need for Judas to point him out to the Romans). "The head is disproportionately small for the body, the face unnaturally narrow and the forehead foreshortened, and ears lost. The front and back images, in particular of the head, do not match up precisely, and the back image is longer than the front. The back of the head is wider than the front of the head. The hair is hanging straight down, as if the man was sitting.

Chemical:

Analysis of the image and 'blood' reveals the chemical signature of two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder.

[Hindsite]

Historical, iconographic, pathological, physical, and chemical evidence points to its inauthenticity.

Examples:

Historical:

The shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth century— when the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in a letter to the Avignon Antipope Clement VII, mentioning that the image had previously been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers.

quote="Bishop D'Arcis, 1389, Letter to Clement VII"]Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [Henri de Poitiers] discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.
Pathological:

The anatomy is wrong - The head too small, an arm too long, no genitals, no navel, etc.

Jesus' face, body, arms, and fingers were unnaturally thin and elongated, one forearm was longer than the other, and his right hand is too long. The man is improbably tall, between 5' 11½" and 6' 2" tall. Jews who lived in the 1st century were much shorter than this." (As someone has commented, if Jesus was really this tall he would have really stood out and there would have been no need for Judas to point him out to the Romans). "The head is disproportionately small for the body, the face unnaturally narrow and the forehead foreshortened, and ears lost. The front and back images, in particular of the head, do not match up precisely, and the back image is longer than the front. The back of the head is wider than the front of the head. The hair is hanging straight down, as if the man was sitting.
Chemical:

Analysis of the image and 'blood' reveals the chemical signature of two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder.

Everything you post here has been proven wrong. So that you will not remain ignorant, I will provide more current information for you below:

Mandylion Image of Edessa = Shroud of Turin

According to Christian tradition, the Image of Edessa was a holy relic consisting of a square or rectangle of cloth upon which a miraculous image of the face of Jesus had been imprinted—the first icon ("image"). In the Orthodox Churches, including English-speaking Orthodoxy, the image is generally known as the Mandylion.

The first record of the existence of a physical image in the ancient city of Edessa (now Urfa) was in Evagrius Scholasticus, writing about 593, who reports a portrait of Christ of divine origin, which effected the miraculous aid in the defence of Edessa against the Persians in 544. The image was moved to Constantinople in the 10th century. The cloth disappeared from Constantinople during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, during the Fourth Crusade, and is believed by some to have reappeared as a relic in King Louis IX of France's Sainte-Chapelle in Paris. This relic disappeared in the French Revolution.

This Mandylion image of Edessa is the same as the image of the Image of the Shroud of Turin. The Mandylion was the Shroud folded in eights so that only the face of Jesus appeared. The folding marks were still visable on the Shroud when the scientist examined it.

http://shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Ar ... ylion.html

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... dessa.aspx

The story behind the Shroud of Turin carbon dating debacle

The violation of the sampling protocol in 1988 appears to have been a colossal mistake. Recent micro-chemical tests performed on thread samples from the area cut for carbon dating have been compared with threads taken from the main body of the Shroud and low and behold they are not the same! It appears that Gonella and the carbon labs were fooled by the handiwork of highly skilled French re-weavers according to museum textile experts.

Another violation of the protocol now seems more important too. The labs were supposed to do micro-chemical tests on the sample to make sure it was representative of the entire cloth. Guess what, they didn’t do that either. It seems like they just looked at it and said, “Yep, sure looks like the Shroud to me. Let’s cut it and get out of here.”

We had to wait 17 years for Ray Rogers, a retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific laboratory and lead chemist for the original Shroud project in 1978, to do the micro-chemical tests the carbon labs were supposed to do in the first place. Published recently (January 20, 2005) in a peer reviewed scientific journal, ThermoChimica Acta, is an article containing the results of his analysis.

The key findings are as follows:

The radiocarbon sample that was used to date the Shroud has a very different composition and structure than the rest of the cloth and was not valid for dating the Shroud.

* The sample used for carbon dating had been dyed with Madder root dye and applied to the surface in a plant-gum medium. This was to hide the repair (probably done in 1534). This dye and gum mixture does not exist anywhere else on the cloth.

* The flax portion of the carbon sample had been bleached by a different method than the Shroud showing that the threads were manufactured at different times and not part of the original cloth.

* The carbon dating sample also contained a significant amount of cotton. The cotton was woven in with the flax in the repaired area to help the dye adhere better. There is no cotton in the main body of the Shroud.

* Linen (flax) contains a natural polymer called vanillin. Vanillin decays over time. Most medieval linen still contains a portion of the original vanillin whereas the vanillin content of the Dead Sea Scroll wrappings is completely depleted. The area cut for carbon dating still contains 37% of its original vanillin whereas 0% remains in samples taken from the main body of the Shroud.

* All combined, it indicates that the carbon labs dated a rewoven area of the cloth. It also shows that the Shroud is significantly older than 700 years. Dr. Ray Rogers can only offer a date range of 1,300 to 3,000 years old because the rate of vanillin decay depends on storage temperature, something that is not known. But now, the Shroud being 2,000 years old doesn’t seem out of the question anymore.

http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

[Hindsite]

duplicate.........slow connection.......

Maybe it is a virus on this website. I have the same problem here, but not on other websites that I have visited.

[anasawad]

For Shias, that should be 1 fifth of a person fortune given for the benifit of the nation.