@TayoD

You sent me back to my Bible.  thanks.  

I see your point with regard to this purported pre mosaic law tithe from Abraham. So let's for a moment leave out tithing as it was practised according to the law.

If this is the foundation for your belief that NT tithing is scriptural then please answer these questions.

In Genesis 14, after Melchizidek fed Abraham and his men and blessed him, Abraham[b] chose[/b] to bless the priest with ALL the spoils of war(booty), giving him first dibs on 1/10th of it. It was NOT ABRAHAM'S PERSONAL PROPERTY. This was because he didn't want the king of Sodom to boast of making him rich. How then, do you parallel Abraham giving booty to Melchizedek to MANDATORY new covenant tithe from personal income?

Please don't misquote me.  I never said that Melchizedek was Jesus Christ.  In fact, the more I read, the more questions arise about the god Melchizedek worshipped as a Canaanite and a priest in the city of Sodom.  My opinion of him is changing. Who is this El Elyon (Most High God) that Melchizedek worshipped?

As a Canaanite, it certainly was not Jehovah.  I'm open to correction of course, and I lay no claim to having the indepth theological erudition of TV and yourself, but as I see it, if Melchizedek worshipped a false god, it blows the fallacy of pre law tithing to God out of the water. The more I study, the more I hold the belief that tithing is not NT teaching.

@TayoD again 

Re: Jacob's Tithe

Gen. 28:20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,
Gen. 28:21 So that I come again to my father’s house in peace--then shall the LORD be my God,

Gen. 28:22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that you shall give me, I will surely give the tenth to you.


As TV correctly mentioned, Jacob made a personal, conditional vow to God to give a tenth of his possessions once God met his end of the bargain.  No spoils of war mentioned here. No commandment from God. No similarity.

So how do these two totally different tithes transfer to MANDATORY NT tithing?

Neither of them can be used as an example.

Oya, TayoD answer now. I expect more "Smoke & Mirror" theology from your good self. Anything for a laugh !

@trini_girl,

Gen. 28:20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, 21 So that I come again to my father’s house in peace--then shall the LORD be my God, 22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that you shall give me, I will surely give the tenth to you.
As TV correctly mentioned, Jacob made a personal, conditional vow to God to give a tenth of his possessions once God met his end of the bargain. No spoils of war mentioned here. No commandment from God. No similarity.
So how do these two totally different tithes transfer to MANDATORY NT tithing?
Neither of them can be used as an example.

You have to understand something about jacob at this point. He wasn't following in the footsteps of his father. He was a supplanter who has being selfish all his life. In this scenario, he had come to the end of himself and turned to God as a matter of desperation.

He wanted to prosper by all means and knew from his father Isaac, who would have learned form his father Abraham that giving yourself over to God is incomplete without giving your living as well. He was entering into the same covenant that Abraham had, and he realised that the tithe is a necessary part of it.

Please notice that he promised God a tegth of ALL that God gives to him i.e. a tithe of ALL his increase. Doing that is an eloquent testimony to the fact that he acknowledges God as the one who provides and the primary possessor.

Don't get hooked on the spoils of war you are talking about. Babyosisi also said same. As long as she hasn;t won any war, she wouldn't tithe like Abraham. The war booty represents an increase for Abraham and that is why he tithed. This is understood by Melchizedek's proclamation about God being the primary possessor even though Abraham can lay claim to being the possessor of that bounty.

@trini_girl,

You sent me back to my Bible. thanks.

I guess we have the same effect on each other.

I see your point with regard to this purported pre mosaic law tithe from Abraham. So let's for a moment leave out tithing as it was practised according to the law.

Which has been my point up until now. I am of the opinion that the Isrealites would have paid tithe even if the law never commanded it. Jacob their father learnt to pay tithe from Abraham and he would have taught the same things to his children. See Genesis 18:19 - For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. As you may have noticed, Abraham received the blessing after the payment of tithe.

If this is the foundation for your belief that NT tithing is scriptural then please answer these questions.

In Genesis 14, after Melchizidek fed Abraham and his men and blessed him, Abraham chose to bless the priest with ALL the spoils of war(booty), giving him first dibs on 1/10th of it. It was NOT ABRAHAM'S PERSONAL PROPERTY. This was because he didn't want the king of Sodom to boast of making him rich. How then, do you parallel Abraham giving booty to Melchizedek to MANDATORY new covenant tithe from personal income?

How can you say it is not Abraham's property? When last did you give away things that don't belong to you? What you do with your 9/10th is your problem. You can sow it, you can eat it or you can give it away - the choice is yours.

Please don't misquote me. I never said that Melchizedek was Jesus Christ. In fact, the more I read, the more questions arise about the god Melchizedek worshipped as a Canaanite and a priest in the city of Sodom. My opinion of him is changing. Who is this El Elyon (Most High God) that Melchizedek worshipped?

Melchizedek was a priest of Jehoveh. Why would Abraham agree to be part of a covenant outside of that with Jehoveh. Do you remember the last supper? The token of the covenant that Jesus shared was the bread and the wine. isn't that what Melchizedek fore-shadowed?

As a Canaanite, it certainly was not Jehovah. I'm open to correction of course, and I lay no claim to having the indepth theological erudition of TV and yourself, but as I see it, if Melchizedek worshipped a false god, it blows the fallacy of pre law tithing to God out of the water. The more I study, the more I hold the belief that tithing is not NT teaching.

Now you are flattering me and I am tempted to return the favour. Anyway, I don't see myself as a master of theology. Like my Pastor in Naija said, if God's people are well taught in church, there will be no need for most of these Bible schools around. To be candid, you are one of the people that have left an impression on me on nairaland, so it don't matter if you consider yourself an erudite Theologian or not, the important thing is to affect and change lives.

Like I pointed above, Melchizedek can't be worshipping a false god and yet bless the one in covenant. The NT acknowledges that he occupied such a great office that he could bless Abraham. Who could have been greater than Abraham if not God? Melchizedek occupied God's office while blessing Abraham.

givin to da needy is more or less givin to da church cos God will be happy dat u r helpin is not until when you take millions of pounds or naira which ever one before u r blessed.

Tayo! Tayo!! Tayo!!! Ah ah 

You have to understand something about jacob at this point. He wasn't following in the footsteps of his father. He was a supplanter who has being selfish all his life.  In this scenario, he had come to the end of himself and turned to God as a matter of desperation.

Ok!

He wanted to prosper by all means and knew from his father Isaac, who would have learned form his father Abraham that giving yourself over to God is incomplete without giving your living as well. He was entering into the same covenant that Abraham had, and he realised that the tithe is a necessary part of it.  

TayoD, you are in danger of descending into pure whimsy. There is no mention or reference to anything that went before, Abraham or any other. It was a very personal thing. What you are doing is at once both worrying and dangerous. What covenant did Abraham cut with God (vice-versa, pardon me), that incorporated an element of tithe? Abraham's covenant with God was cut (excuse the pun ) with circumcision.

Jacob referenced neither his father or his grandfather, codified law or pre-existing tradition. Tithing was extant before Abrahams time. It was paid to the most senior chieftain or priest. Jacobs vow was acknowledging Gods sovreignty and seeking provision and protection.

Please notice that he promised God a tegth of ALL that God gives to him i.e. a tithe of ALL his increase. Doing that is an eloquent testimony to the fact that he acknowledges God as the one who provides and the primary possessor.

Whatever the case may be, that doesn't support your preceeding premise.

Don't get hooked on the spoils of war you are talking about. Babyosisi also said same. As long as she hasn;t won any war, she wouldn't tithe like Abraham.  The war booty represents an increase for Abraham and that is why he tithed. This is understood by Melchizedek's proclamation about God being the primary possessor even though Abraham can lay claim to being the possessor of that bounty.

An increase over and above what? Whatever you decide the "what" to be, Abraham never tithed on it.

Which has been my point up until now.  I am of the opinion that the Isrealites would have paid tithe even if the law never commanded it. Jacob their father learnt to pay tithe from Abraham and he would have taught the same things to his children.  See Genesis 18:19 - For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. As you may have noticed, Abraham received the blessing after the payment of tithe.

You are entitled to your opinions, as we all are.
But your "Jacob learnt to pay tithe from Abraham" premise is tenuous at best. Kindly stop conveniently overlooking Isaac to force-fit this baseless assumption. Abraham was blessed of God way before the Melchizedek incident (Chapter 12 vs 14).

Your scurrillous suppositions would lend credence to the notion that Isaac was not party to the covenant as he has no biblical tithing record. please stop trying to hinge the covenant on the tithe.

How can you say it is not Abraham's property?  When last did you give away things that don't belong to you?  What you do with your 9/10th is your problem. You can sow it, you can eat it or you can give it away - the choice is yours. 

This speaks volumes about the faulty understanding of NT Christianity that proponents of mandatory tithing labour under. It's why the tithe is the joy of the self-righteous religionist. Everything a Christian has is God's. What are you thinking?

Abraham was willing to give his son! Forget gold and silver for a minute. That is, everything he had, all he held dear.

The whole Melchizedek incident/type,  was to show the eternal nature of the Lords High Priesthood and it's superiority over the Aaronic/Levitical type. I don't personally think Melchizedek was priest of a foreign God.

The notion that by tithing one is ratifying a covenant with God is simply not supported by scripture.

God bless

hi TV01. I am about to post a new controversy.

HEB 9: 15- 21
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry


I hope you know that there is  differnce between the New Testament and the Old testament, also there is a difference btween the Old Testament section of the of the Bible and the new testament section of the bible. I believe this topic will be well understood by everyone if we note the differences above.

The old testament section of the bible starts from Genesis and ends at Malachi. while the OLD TESTAMENT started with  Moses, that is why it was called mosaic law(moses received the law ). and it continued  till just before the death of Jesus. so looking at it this way the old testament SECTION extended to matthew mark, Luke and John, they all lived under the old testament. And the NEW TESTAMENT started after the death of JESUS.
16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth

from this (above) u can see that when Abraham gave tithe was not really in the old testament but before it, so also Jacob.

so if the problem for not payin tithe is the issue of old or new testament then this should help otherwise ,
Now I will like to inform you that tithe predated the old old testament.
SELAH!!!

I know i am going to be crucified for this but please read and digest b4 posting the next!! tack

tlops:

hi TV01. I am about to post a new controversy.

Really  ?

tlops:

Now I will like to inform you that tithe predated the old old testament.

As did circumcision.
Tithing predates the bible, Abraham, the Hebrews, so what? There niether is nor was any command to tithe.

Even by your reasoning it is redundant. We have Pre-OT, OT & NT. If we are under the NT what hold has anything prior to on us?

Presumably it's fine to marry your Fathers daughter now as well? Stop already  !

tlops:

I know i am going to be crucified for this but please read and digest before posting the next!

As much as we would like too, we realise that your death would have no redemptive value. As such, we shall satisfy ourselves with booing you off the stage (after marking you as ritually unclean ).

God bless

Hi TV01, first, I like the way u write. (honestly i appreciate that).

I think the purpose of this thread is to argue for or against Tithing based on our different perpectives of the bible and not to make derogatory comments on our persons. That two people do not agree on certain issues does not make room for  our fingers to run faster than brain. If you do not agree simply say i do not and give reasons that will just be okay.

TV01:


Presumably it's fine to marry your Fathers daughter now as well?

the bible clearly calls that sin.

please do me a favour. what do you think about the Old testament/ section and New testament/ setion as described in the previous posting. sincerely I am asking I want to know what u think about it forgetting tithing or any of those things ( and please no ,,,,, )

The 2 types of GIVING have got their blessings. It's important to do the 2 but paying tithes should come first.
Your tithes is not yours, if you don't pay it you'll lose it somehow. Inconveniencing yourself to give to the needy is noble, and it's not unrewarded.

How do you know when the pastor use the tithes to do the work of GOD? And when he uses it for his personal enjoyment?

Christ did not really advocate for tithe. There was a verse where he admonished his would be follower to sell all his belongings and give to the needy not to the church.

Hi Friends,

Kudos to everyone, whether for or against! It's simply not the basis for our salvation. There are people that had no such opportunity and yet saved (ask that thief at crucifixion!). I hope for time to add my views.

@TV01

Where's Analytical by the way? I'd guess he supports mandatory tithing. Apologies if you don't dude !

Thanks for asking after me I have been off for a while on a vacation. My village has no internet access! Permit me to do a lot of catching up on Nairaland.

Bless you all.

@TV01,

Sometimes I just dont want to bother replying you because as usual, you tend to let your imagination run ahead of what someone is saying.

What covenant did Abraham cut with God (vice-versa, pardon me), that incorporated an element of tithe? Abraham's covenant with God was cut (excuse the pun ) with circumcision.

While I will not go into the need for circumcision, please be informed that I never said the Abrahamic covenant was cut with bread and wine. Melchizedek brought the wine and the bread as token of the covenant. He saw ahead into what Jesus did at the Last Supper where the bread and the wine play a critical role and still do in Christianity today.

Jacob referenced neither his father or his grandfather, codified law or pre-existing tradition. Tithing was extant before Abrahams time. It was paid to the most senior chieftain or priest. Jacobs vow was acknowledging Gods sovreignty and seeking provision and protection.

The question is: who did he learn it from and why does it think it is important at that point in his life when he gave his life over to the God of his father?

An increase over and above what? Whatever you decide the "what" to be, Abraham never tithed on it.

Why am I not surprised that you are jumping to such a conclusion.

Kindly stop conveniently overlooking Isaac to force-fit this baseless assumption. Abraham was blessed of God way before the Melchizedek incident. Your scurrillous suppositions would lend credence to the notion that Isaac was not party to the covenant as he has no biblical tithing record. please stop trying to hinge the covenant on the tithe.

Overlooking Isaac? I think not. Doesn't the NT teaches that even though Levi was still in Abraham's loins, he is presumed to owe the tithe and to have paid the tithe in him? Isaac is no exception. Like I said, teaching his children to observe God's ways is one of the main reason why God chose Abraham.

This speaks volumes about the faulty understanding of NT Christianity that proponents of mandatory tithing labour under. It's why the tithe is the joy of the self-righteous religionist. Everything a Christian has is God's. What are you thinking?

Everything Abraham had also belong to God and everything God has belong to Abraham, so what is your point?

Abraham was willing to give his son! Forget gold and silver for a minute. That is, everything he had, all he held dear

Abraham was faithful with his finances before he could pass that test. isn't that what the NT teaches? "If you are not faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will grant you the true riches?"

The whole Melchizedek incident/type, was to show the eternal nature of the Lords High Priesthood and it's superiority over the Aaronic/Levitical type. I don't personally think Melchizedek was priest of a foreign God.

While that is true, it is much more than that. The bread and the wine directly points to Christ's sacrifice in the NT.

The notion that by tithing one is ratifying a covenant with God is simply not supported by scripture.

No one said it does.

TV and Tayo, time for another topic.  You guys just like to be at each other's throats always. 

Tayo - stop giving the church this 10%.  It's unscriptural. Finito!

Hell is about Money!


The concept of hell and a devil with a pitchfork standing in front of an open furnace, the electric chair, are all things put in your minds by religious leaders and the media for their own personal gain. The more you believe in their concept of hell, the more frightened you become and the more you will pay for the religious leaders to forgive your sins and redeem your souls.

     Everybody gains—not just religious institutions. With the concept of horror which you know is entirely based on the devil and hell, everybody gains.

@Horus
Shhh!!! shush!!! they are not supposed to know this, its a secret. The pastors here will murder you if they know you are revealing "Trade Secrets". Keep it quiet, thanks.

BIG GBOOOZAA FOR HORUS

Horus:

Hell is about Money!

Wrong, it's religion that is about money (and power).

[size=16pt]WHO DOES YOUR PASTOR PAY HIS TITHES TO?[/size]

@TV01,

Wrong, it's religion that is about money (and power).

Interesting response. I guess you realise Jesus spoke more about money in His parables than any other subject.

TayoD:

Interesting response. I guess you realise Jesus spoke more about money in His parables than any other subject.

You obviously have something to say, don't wait for me , please go ahead!

(plus I would appreciate your categorically showing that The Lord spoke more about money than anything else in His parables - Would you extend this to His life and ministry as well as the parables? Would you go further and kindly expound on your implication that money is somehow core to the Gospel, KOG or Christian life)

God bless

@TV01,

You obviously have something to say, don't wait for me , please go ahead!

You started the discussion and it is up to you to tell us what you believe the Lord has to say about money. It is so convenient to sit in your high chair and condemn everything others say not realising you are condemning yourself.

If you believe the Lord teaches prosperity, then i hope you will embrace it and if you think He advocates poverty, I hope you have already swore an allegiance to poverty for the rest of your life.

Maybe his pastor pays his tithe to the ladies in his church who are very generous in opening and closing their legs for his pleasure

TayoD me old mucker, how far  ?

You started the discussion

I did  ? To the best of my knowledge, I can't take credit for that. Plus it wasn't about money per se or in general, but about a mandatory tithe.

it is up to you to tell us what you believe the Lord has to say about money.

Like I said, I never entered that discussion. But if you'd like to hear, just ask.

It is so convenient to sit in your high chair and condemn everything others say not realising you are condemning yourself.

Exactly where, when and who did I condemn?

If you believe the Lord teaches prosperity, then i hope you will embrace it

No I don't believe the Lord in particular or the Bible in general teach material prosperity. The Bible reveals Christ and Christ preached the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

If you'd like to translate the cross into a money grab and interprete the scriptures as a get-rich quick scheme, pray run with it.

if you think He advocates poverty

No I don't believe the Lord in particular or the Bible in general teach material prosperity poverty. The Bible reveals Christ and Christ preached the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

Subscribing to the notion that material wealth or lack thereof is in any way pivotal to the gospel of Christ or the KOG is at best seriously unbalanced & misguided.

Like I said if you have anything to share, please feel free to do so. Or are you waiting for MOG clearance? Oya, granted  .

God bless

@TV01,

Like I said if you have anything to share, please feel free to do so. Or are you waiting for MOG clearance? Oya, granted  .

So are you MOG now?

No I don't believe the Lord in particular or the Bible in general teach material prosperity.

No I don't believe the Lord in particular or the Bible in general teach material prosperity poverty.

So what is the Lord's position.  don't tell me He has nothing to say for or against prosperity or poverty.

You are making the Lord appear as if He cannot make up His mind about this central subject to everyone's life - whether christian or otherwise.

TayoD:

So are you MOG now?

I can explain  !

The call was too, too strong, the annoy.ting too too apparent. I tried to fight it, but the prophetic utterances of highly blessed Nairaland's has propelled me into my undeniable destiny to minister cross denominationally (and inter-planetarily) to the nations.

We are still working on a name/title (any improvement on Apostolic-Prophet to the galactic constellations?). My few followers currently refer to me as "Daddy GC"  !

So what is the Lord's position.  don't tell me He has nothing to say for or against prosperity or poverty.

What I am saying is that material things are not the main import of the gospel or the Kingdom.

Although I would add for those who are consumed by the desire to scriptural justify their carnal cravings for earthly riches, that the most oft repeated NT warning is against "Covetousness", followed wierldly enough by "False teachers". Funnily enough, you tend to find the two go together. Now there's a coincidence!!!

You are making the Lord appear as if He cannot make up His mind about this central subject to everyone's life - whether christian or otherwise.

On the contrary, I have made my position very clear. In any event I consider neutrality about material things to be preferable to the notion that Christ hung on a cross so that you could prance about in a hummer or that the bigger your house the more you glorify God.

TayoD, any time you please, I'm more than happy to sit down and discuss the eternal weight of glory that is the essence of Christianity. It grieves me to see one with evident zeal blinded by a fixation with the temporal. _{A zeal he said, but not according to knowledge!}

God bless

@TV01,

While many times I understand what you are trying to say, I do feel you go overboard with it and you tend to point out what is part and parcle of the entire message.  I'll explain.

Indeed the Bible preaches against covetousness.  That is a foundational teaching in the 'doctrine' of prosperity that I have come to understand. My earliest exposure to the teaching of prosperity came through reading Kenneth Copeland's booklet titled: the Fool's Hardy!  He anchored the entire teaching on Proverbs 1:32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.   He pointed out from scripture (especially proverbs) how not to be a fool so as not to be destroyed by the prosperity that is inherent in God's covenant with us.

He labored to show that prosperity is not given so one can consume it on his lusts, rather it is to advance God's cause on earth.  No wonder Psalm 35:27 says Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let the LORD be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.   God is pleasurably interested in the prosperity of His servants who favor His righteous cause and not those who want to be rich just so they could consume such on their lust.

Indeed the Bible preaches against covetousness.

Agreed in a sense. But make that "emphatically warns against".

That is a foundational teaching in the 'doctrine' of prosperity that I have come to understand.

There is not such thing as the doctrine (or gospel) of prosperity. What there are, are false teachers trying to disguise their concupiscence as biblically justified.

My earliest exposure to the teaching of prosperity came through reading Kenneth Copeland's booklet titled: the Fool's Hardy!

Can we use the Holy scriptures as our point of reference please  !

He pointed out from scripture (especially proverbs) how not to be a fool so as not to be destroyed by the prosperity that is inherent in God's covenant with us.

Maybe you should enunciate as clearly as you can (from scripture), the salient points of this covenant.

If God makes rich and add no sorrow, surely he wouldn't give "prosperity" to fools (the unbeliever), or the foolish (immature believers)?

God is pleasurably interested in the prosperity of His servants who favor His righteous cause and not those who want to be rich just so they could consume such on their lust.

You are putting man before God. This is a hallmark of all man-centric religious thinking. You don't decide to be rich and then bless God. God decides what he would have you do and provides whatever is necessary.

He labored to show that prosperity is not given so one can consume it on his lusts, rather it is to advance God's cause on earth.

I see what he laboured to do as justifying avarice. Where in NT Christianity as narrated in the Bible were riches ever a pre-requisite or a pre-cursor to anything that God desired or ordained to be achieved through men.

Interestingly enough the proponents of earthly riches/prosperity (and tithing) always overlook the common purse that was the norm amongst early Christians. "Having all things in common". And no one said anything he possesed was his own.

Plus you conveniently ignored my earlier request reposted here;

(plus I would appreciate your categorically showing that The Lord spoke more about money  than anything else in His parables - Would you extend this to His life and ministry as well as the parables? Would you go further and kindly expound on your implication that money is somehow core to the Gospel, KOG or Christian life)

In response to your earlier statement reposted here;

Interesting response. I guess you realise Jesus spoke more about money in His parables than any other subject.

 
 
God bless

TV01:

There is not such thing as the doctrine (or gospel) of prosperity. What there are, are false teachers trying to disguise their concupiscence as biblically justified.

I hope my input would not be stretching issues; but then, the Bible teaches the prosperity (spiritual and material) of God's people. The difference (in my opinion) is that godly believers are not to focus on materialism to the detriment of their spiritual call in Christ.

stimulus:

I hope my input would not be stretching issues;

Not at all bro'

stimulus:

but then, the Bible teaches the prosperity (spiritual and material) of God's people.

Mmm

stimulus:

The difference (in my opinion) is that godly believers are not to focus on materialism to the detriment of their spiritual call in Christ.

"Seek ye first"
"All other things will be"

My take is that Christians are to be concerned primarily with spiritual things. Anything required above and beyond basic needs will be provided.

Many go to great lengths to prove that the gospel is about material prosperity. A pure reading of the scriptures will instead make one wary of having more than is needed.

We are not to chase wealth under the guise of "extending the KOG". It's at best cover for greed and in actuality an outright lie.

The request I made of TayoD is open to all.

Please detail the scriptures showing that we must strive for or as a result of the "covenant" acquire material wealth. I'd appreciate NT references and not the overworked Abrahmas blessings or variations thereof.

God bless