I agree with the second part. Please prove the first part with Scripture.
You do understand what a 'principle' both is and means, right?
The Jews did not "give" tithes to the church. The Jews under the Law who were landowners were required to tithe the tenth count of every crop and animal that came from the annual increase of the harvest.
Again, you do know that there is more than one type of tithe required of the Jewish people? The tithing they were to do was to not only set up the example but prove that God is their provider and not due to their great ability or lack thereof.
The Gentile believers did not follow the Jewish tithe laws (unless the Judaizers got to them).
No one said they did. But you must also remember that even the pagan both understood and gave a least a tithe in their religious observances. Thus it was something that was universally seen as simple example of one homage to ones gods/God to give in this 'basic' manner.
The tithe laws never served as a "model" for one's "freewill" giving, and they never had one iota to do with one's monetary income.
Great, the I presume you can prove this point from scripture.
With respect to the 'monetary income' many scholars historically and currently disagree with you. Why? Because the system set up did in fact depend on the amount of assets one had or that one had aquired. Those assets as well as their money were used to detemine a persons wealth which is in fact defined as 'monetary'.
No. The Bible never links it with the tithe, per se.
So you concede it can not be specifically denied?
All eight of the numbered statements are parallel truths to illustrate a point that Paul references from the law ("thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn"). The principle is that those who labor in an endeavor should expect just compensation from that same endeavor.
Yes, true. But here is the rub, from where did their payment/compensation come from, in which the
'principle' is derived? Is it not the... Tithe
Notice also that vv.13-14 never mention the tithe, only that those who ministered in the temple partook of the things that were brought to the temple. The point is sowing and reaping, not the tithe.
It doesn't have to specifically mention the tithe as it references the very application of the paying or compensating the minister from the very point of the OT tithe law.
If you are going to say that "even so" implies the tithe (and not simply the principle of sowing and reaping from all eight parallels), then you MUST trace it to its full conclusion.
What?
"EVEN SO" would imply that gospel missionaries receive their food from the same exact temple and altar that the priests and Levites did.
No, your line of reasoning is faulty, because the Temple has been moved and is now known to be the very gathering of the saints
So here as in other places you are arguing against the OT Law of Tithe and no else is saying we are under the OT Law of tithing.
"EVEN SO" would imply that they receive their sustenance from what was brought into the temple, namely the third-year tithes.
No, they receive more than that more often than that. They recieved 1 tenth of the tithes brought, and ate of those things brought, etc... However, this is where you keep messing youself up. You are speaking of keeping the Law of tithing but I am not nor is anyone else that I can see.
"EVEN SO" would imply that Christians today would have to follow the tithing laws and the seven-year cycle. Christian landowners would have to live in the borders of the Promised Land, and at the end of every three years count the tenth of every crop and animal at the end of the harvest and bring these to the Levitical cities. The Levites would then bring the best tenth of all this into the temple storehouse chambers with the priests' supervision. Only the tenth of all third-year tithes would find its way into the temple.
Agian, you built a great scarecrow but that is about all it is. You keep trying to build a case under the maintianing of OT Law of the Tithe but no one else is saying this. If they were then you would have good case but as it happens it is tant amount to nothing in relation to my point.
Also remember there is more than one tithe in the Law that the Jewish people were to obey and not just landowners.
Also, find any and all instances in the New Testament where "preach[ing] the gospel" is found in any form. The action ALWAYS has to do with mission work, NOT church elders who edify the saints. Paul was speaking of himself, and he was a missionary, not a church elder. The church elders' compensation is addressed in 1 Timothy 5:17-18.
First, I think you need to reread that passage. Paul is not speaking only of missionaries like you claim but in fact context bears out that he is speaking 'all' who minister the word as seen in verse 7, 10 and 12 as well as 13 but he is using himself as the focal example.
Constant giving does not have to be "tithing" and nowhere in Scripture is tithing ever from one's monetary income.
First, I never said that consistant giving 'had to be tithing', I said that tithing was the/a principle of consistant giving.
Secondly you apparently don't understand that monetary income is determined not by wealth of coins and gold only but is determined by both possesions AND currency and they were viewed as one and the same.
NT giving never implies any kind of link to the OT tithe laws and there is no possible correlation.
You just stated differently earlier about the passage I brought up with respect to paying ministers of the Word of God.
OT tithing and NT giving are two completely and unequivocally different subjects. There is no link between the two.
Again, the very passage I stated shows a link and can not be denied no matter how many times you say the above. However the link is not that we are under the Law but that the principle that governed that Law still exists.
One is not a model for the other. One does not even succeed the other. They are just plain not even in the same ball park as subjects of the Scripture.
Then I would suggest a little more study on this subject, but that is just me.
The principles of NT giving are cheerfulness, humility, generosity, and sowing and reaping.
All of which are also noted to be under the Law as well.
NT giving and gospel ministry has nothing to do with the agricultural tax and welfare system in the Law for the theocratic nation of Israel.
Here is where you show very little understanding of what the Tithe was. It was not and can not be claimed, in any exegetical sense to be 'tax'. God did not use it as a Tax nor is it ever refered to as a tax. Let's at least get that part right.
There is no amount or percentage threshold conceptually/principally/suggestibly/obligatory. The threshold is the list that I gave above.
I can say you are 2000 years old but no matter how much I say, it will never make it any more truth than the first time.

You gave no list but what you gave is the very basis for Pauls argument for receiving material things. But one can admit on either side there that person who milks that cow can not survive on a swallow of milk a day, nor can the vinedresser survive on 'a' grape a day. There is a consistancy to what is to be given as well as basic understanding of what is needful. IOW - a basic understood minimum for the basics of the work being done. So your 'list' is not contextually what you made it out to be.