₦airaland Forum

davien:
Okay....so the original singularity is not understood....the expansion that led to the universe is(to a substantial degree)...
Hence the expansion is regarded as the creation of the universe...
If you have a balloon and make two dots on it with a marker and then inflate it....those points keep moving further and further...
This analogy is an example to try to portray the expansion of a 3-dimensional plane in which two cardinal locations never converge but keep moving away from one another...
Looking into space...we observe an example of this kind of expansion analogy by the red-shift(farthest visible light) of far away galaxies..
Now....lets say you asked someone who wasn't there to witness you blow the balloon with air and asked him what indicated it ever being inflated..
He'd tell you that when the balloons contents are examined air or a gas is neccessary to inflate it...
So how do we know an expansion took place?
If the universe emerged from such an immensely dense state we should be able to still observe the heat change or radiation around any point of the universe...
Hence we discovered we are saturated by a cosmic microwave background.
Should I continue? do you understand all these?

Yet you forget the most important question, where did you get the ballon?

all4naija:
Good question. From the observable universe and their calculation we know it comes from the first known explosion that brings about exotic particles and it took place hundred of billions of years ago from a singular point. After the explosion the universe expand and as it cool down different particles formed the comic dust, the building block of the things in the universe. This is reality as the LHC and other space programs have been able to prove the with proofs.

Except you are thinking like a typical atheists who assume that every person who believes in a creator are less intellectual than you guys. I will really assume you have identified problems with the explanation you gave, in addition to no explanation you gave me.
Your explanation failed to explain where those materials that exploded came from, neither did it explain what conditions caused them and where the conditions that caused them originated from.

About reality and evidence of occurrence of such explosion, you can not possibly tell me that is a prove. No body recorded or observed the formation of earth so how is that a prove. Also no-body has been able to put up a hypothesis on this issue and observed it in the laboratory either.

Get one thing clear though, my acceptance of the existence of a creator is purely a belief and I recognise that. But you should also accept that you acceptance of no Creator is also a belief and has got noting to do with science.

That said, for your explanation of earth formation to stand you really need to think about this six points
1. Cosmic evolution: You need to explain how time and space came to be, because without time and space where then did the big bang happen and you proof is really a lie.
2. Chemical evolution: You really need to prove how high elements i.e metals and others originated from hydrogen, if you can not fill in this point then what chemicals exploded. Remember chemical reactions need catalysts, and hydrogen on its on can not cause such explosion.
3.Stellar and planetary evolution: no body has documented the observation of star formation nor planet formation. And if you explanation is true then considering the trillions of stars we should have observed the formation of one.
4. Organic evolution: No laboratory in the world has observed the formation of life from non-living thing, evolutionists and even atheists them self have no clue on how consciousness evolved to its level today.
5.Macro-evolution: Assuming for some reason the above 4 occurred without a creator, no body or lab have observed the change from kind of animal to another. Believe they have really tried to get this done but still noting.
6. Micro-evolution: Lastly, all the things said and claimed by evolutionists and atheists has been based on this one factor. The truth about the matter is calling this micro-evolution is delusional, this is simply Variation and they are observed. However, a life form can only produce its kind, people often use zebra and horse as a prove this can lead to macro-evolution but this simply a lie. A horse and a zebra can interbreed which makes them same kind, just like a dog and a wolf. But this is not the problem humans and other primates can not interbreed, so how (you should know what I am getting at).

Also remember that most of these kinds that can interbreed often end up with non fertile offsprings. Now they use fossil as prove of these series of events both fossils can not prove that these animals had offsprings and proves nothing.

So basically this cosmic explosion is been proved on lie noting more. Please accept it as a belief and that will sound reasonable because there is no proof.
I welcome your reply any time though.

all4naija:
Life is a process of different chemical formations which all things come to evolve in stages to what we see to day. Life is not about humans alone but everything that exhibit one or more characteristics of what fall under bio phenomenon. Why earth existence is by chance after forming from the cosmic dust through chaotic process involving gaseous stages before turning into solid to form different universe bodies. Earth happened to fall within the Goldilocks zone where life building blocks or chemicals can be propagated at the right condition that gave rise to different organism that evolves into other forms. You exist and die like the animals you eat on daily bases or plants if you are a vegan.

That is reality not fairy tale. It is observable unlike religion and god!

And where did the cosmic dust come from.
Where did consciousness come from

Although the teachings of religion and worship as it is now may be disputable and the definition of GOD by individuals may vary. I am of the opinion that most physical events and the very existence of earth and life forms points towards a perfect design and reasonably a designer. However, what you call and define this designer as will depend on your individual case.

But then should one ask some questions like:
Where did time and space come from.
Where did chemical building blocks of both material and life come from.
Where did the stars and the planets come from.
where did organic material come from.
How did non-living material transform to living material.
Where did consciousness come from.
Then you may be forced to incline towards a creator, that is if you keep an open mind.

Just the way religion lacks evidence for the answers to these questions, science also lacks the answers to these questions too.
The bottom line really is, when it comes to the origin of life on earth, science becomes a belief and no longer science based on facts,mainly because it lacks evidence as well.

If those people who insist that there is no GOD recognise the fact that it is only a belief and has notting to do with logical thinking and evidence, then I really do not see any problem in that, after all religion is a belief.

My one kobo. and no bashing please

Timileyin: Got to settle some really big fight few days back when preparing to go to a cousin's wedding. I left home with my sister, with the intention of picking my Girl friend alone with way, When we saw her, she demanded my sister, move to the back so as she could occupy her so called space. Which ended been a big fight and they caused a really big scene. Who do i support?

Just an opinion though, but I think in my case my sister should have the front sit. However, if we are married then my wife would have the front sit. My one kobo

egift: We all look forward to a better Nigeria were there is development, security and corrupt politicians are put behind bars. Cheers!

cheers

egift: @ Your Support Of Jonathan Not visiting Chibok:

It is like someone lost a loved one and you ask them to visit you in your house for you to be able to tell them sorry.

By the way, Jonathan has the capacity to visit Chibok and nothing will happen to him. That his administration is making our forces weak and lame - does not mean that Nigerian security agencies has lost it all.

Nigeria is a great nation. Once we kick out the Zoologist, Nigeria can start to heal again.

You might be right, however I disagree with the comments made in that post. Just we be clear I do not support Johnathan and I have not voted before, left the country before I could care about politics really.
I am only being rational

egift: The more details you find out Jonathan has, the more you agree he deserves all the blame for this failure:
- There is no way he was not informed of the abduction few hours after it happened, yet he was in Kano dancing Skelewu with a female party agent.
- He has not visited the community months after the abduction. (And why would he leave the rest of the country to visit the village, are the girls there in the village and will him visiting bring them back)
- He sent out his attack dogs to convince the world it was a scam (even tarnishing our national reputation the more), (And who said it those not sound like scam?, I CLEARLY DOUBT THAT THE NUMBER OF GIRLS WILL GO TO SCHOOL THAT DAY CONSIDERING THE CRISIS AND THE MASS EXODUS OF PEOPLE IN THAT REGION AND THE POOR RATE OF GIRL EDUCATION AND ISLAM)
- He summoned the victims to visit him instead of visiting them. He even tried to bribe them too (WELL HE HAS OTHER THINGS TO DO FOR THE REST OF NIGERIANS, WHO GAVE HIM MANDATE AT THE FIRST PLACE)
- His wife made caricature of the plights of the Chibok victims with crocodile tears on National TV. (OK will say nothing to this one, since I dont know how you quantified the tears)
- He turned deaf ears and played dumb to all the calls and campaigns to do something meaning and be a leader (SO YOU RATHER PREFER THE GIRLS IN A BODY BAG! Right?)
- He had people negotiate on his behave and never had the gut to finish it, pull out at the dieing minute. Even lying about it (NIGERIA SHOULD NOT FOR ANY REASON GIVE IN TO TERROR IN ANY FORM, NEGOTIATING ON THE OTHER HAND HELPED TO GET SOME INFORMATION, AND WAIT A MINUTE YOU SOUND LIKE?)
- Overseeing the most corrupt administration in history (where Police Pension and Security Budget are stolen without anyone getting punished (i really do not think the corruption started with him, and have doubts it will end with him, that is the NIGERIAN nature, you will do worse believe me)
- All the folks accused of starting, masterminding and funding terror, all have very close ties with Jonathan's administration (EVERY BODY IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, THE LAW IS WHAT IT IS, AND NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT).
- And so much more... (AND SOME MUCH NONSENSE YOU MIGHT HAVE GOT LEFT THOUGH).

With the current security situation in Nigeria, Jonathan has failed morally, patriotically, politically, economically, as a father of the nation, as a leader, technically, strategically, responsively and mentally. Except when it comes to corruption (inflating security budget and demanding a Billion Dollar Loan).

Note: See corrections and feedback above

Really, If Jonathan has failed morally and every thing you listed, what then is left of the northern people that wnat their region distroyed, charity begins at home they say, I will think if you concerns are geneunie you should direct it to the once that want to make Nigerian ungovernable for him. My 1 kobo

ayoku777: As a christian, Christ and the scriptures should be our standard for defining what is good. We just don't ask if something is good, but also if it is godly. Godly is the believers' definition of "good". And scripturally, having a "live-in" lover is wrong.

Even Jesus Christ that has paid the ultimate price for His bride, the church, with His life, and has given her the earnest of the Spirit (first gift of commitment); has not brought her home yet. They are not yet living together bodily.

It is after the wedding feast of the lamb, that Christ and His church will officially live and be together bodily through the milenial and for eternity.

I believe its best to learn the values of marriage from the one who instituted it in the first place -God; and not from what society deems acceptable now.

So living together with a partner, even a fiancé is wrong and not godly.

Are you living in 21 century or stone age? Just wondering

Hmmmmm, my view is your dream is a clear innovation. If only you could look at it from a different perspective and ask your self what if I can invent I a car that can be controlled totally by a smart phone, what if I can invent a complex computer logarithm that can make a smart phone even more smarter to do extraordinary things. What if your dream is a way of your brain telling you that you are destined to do great things in technology.

My personal experience: I had a very weird dream about genetics and mutations when I was much younger, that is when I developed passion for genetics and today I am doing my phd research in epigenetic activities involved in human development and regeneration. Truth be told I have not made any break through yet lol. But someday! You never know lol.

Just saying think differently

[quote author=Olu'femi Abbey]It's just a shame that the 'bad eggs' among our contemporary pastors are given demon-possessed and unrepentant souls like Kemi the guts to riddicule and slander true Men of God. This is getting too far. She has completely given herself to the devil as instrument of distractions. Many things may be wrong with the Church presently but it is not a mortal's RIGHT to do say whatever thought comes into their mind.

While many may be frustrated with the rate at which scandals are rampant in the Church of God, what we can do is pray for her. Jesus owns the church, He can plant, grow and discontinue whichever assembly He wants...at His own time. We should be careful about what we say about the Church and her leaders. Let God be the ULTIMATE JUDGE.

Kemi Oluloyo needs our prayers. May God have mercy on her.[/quote]I am afraid to say that you might be very wrong. We are all made in God's image and likeness and am sure their is noting like true men of GOD. We are all men and women of GOD. And most importantly GOD gave us the power of free will and not even you or your so called true men of GOD can change that, she is untitled to her own opinions. Also remember that even the bible said that what ever we judge on this earth will be judged in heaven, what ever we forgive on this earth will be forgiven in heaven, so in actual fact her comments is even needed. No offence meant.

I will eat you like egg.

pharmow: It is very wrong of you to indulge in insulting someone for their opinions. If U don't agree with someone's opinion state yours and move on and stop being primitive.




For those justifying what could have transpired between the deceased woman and the accused. I also like giving benefit of doubt to an accused and looking at a case like this from different angle. Because no matter what, an authority of a country will never give an account which support a foreigner that testified to murdering a citizen of their country irrespective of what transpired between them. However, no matter how many angles you look at this case from, it is a pity that this guy has both hands deep in total mess.
Firstly, Let's assume that the story from the police is genuine. There is no further story, the dude will be convicted of first degree murder and will face appropriate punishment.
Secondly, Let's assume the story from the police is false. There are two possible scenarios. The first one is that the woman had an interior motive for taking the boy to her house which could be for sex or for other reasons known to her. While at her house the deceased threatened him with scissor in order for him to agree to her demand. If this is the case, the guy doesn't have a solid case because it would be believed that he is stronger than the woman and can easily overpower her, take the weapon from her, walk away and inform the police of the sexual harrassment. Also, a woman that wanted to have sex with you is not likely to wanna kill you. Hence, no argument for self defence here. The second scenario is that the woman basically single out this guy because he's homeless and hence nuisance to the community. She took him to her house in order to involve him in racial slur and racial killing. If this is the case, then the same argument for the first scenario applies. He's stronger, could have overpowered her, take the weapon from her and inform the police immediately for insecurity of his life. However, let's imagine the unimaginable scenario that this woman is one heck of strong 60 year old muscle that overpowered an 18 year old hard knock homeless guy and was on the point of killing him with her scissor. The guy's counsel can argue self defence of his life. But from the evidences and the aftermath of the happenings, self defence is useless because (1) the woman's phone was used to trace the guy which means that he robbed her before or after her death (murder intention). (2) he did not suffer from body injury. Hence the woman did not attack him and he killed her for his selfish interest (3) He strangled the woman with scarf and covered her face with plastic bag hence there was intention for murder. Otherwise he would have left the woman when she had been weakened by the enstranglement before she died (4) he did not report the case to police, which implies that he knew what he did and believed he's not gonna be caught.

From the arguments presented above, it is very likely that the police account is genuine or the first scenario of the woman trying to have sex with him. In either case I'm certain that this dude will be convicted of first degree murder and face maximum punishment ie. life imprisonment.
Another argument his counsel can present to avoid the maximum punishment is that he's mentally ill as at the time of incident. But he doesn't have a dime, so how can he get a good lawyer? and Italians will never accept a foreigner killing their citizen to go scot-free. His story is a sorry one that has just an outcome. Thank God for him that Capital punishment has been abolished in EU. Else, he would have faced firing squad of mean looking Italian soldiers

Nobody is saying that he will not be convicted. I did mention that even though he might be innocent, taking the phone makes it a bit foolish of him.

Now I will ask a few questions:
Do you really think that an European lady that owns a car and a personal home will have only mobile phone as the valuable item in the house?
How come he only went away with mobile phone as the police alleged?

Have you thought about the phone been giving to him by the lady?

What happened to tablets, computers, golds, diamonds and other valuable items he could have taken if his initial intention was to rob this lady.

I am not siding neither with the boy nor the lady. Since she is dead, the judgment and story will be skwed towards the direction that favours her.

Just thinking, why was the lady semi unclad (attempting to rape a homeless boy?)
Why use pair of scissors to attack him instead of calling the police straight away (if he is really what the police said).


Now the foolish boy may have done nothing, but taking her phone (that spoilt every thing).

Picking homeless stranger (black) to your home (italian), semi unclad and scissors altogether dose not really add up if you ask me.
Self defence is ok but stealing a dead persons phone was really a bad move, I guess the boy knows little about such act and might be innocent.

Please nobody should attack me, I was only thinking broadly, using the information on that news.

imperiouxx: "Indian teenager commits suicide after parents ban her from Facebook"

Correction: She was killed by acute hypofacebookmia.

Hypofacebookmia: a pathological state caused by lack of/low blood facebook.
Causative agent: preventing an addicted facebooker from facebooking.
Symptoms: nausea, anorexia nervosa, hypersensitivity, apoptosis leading successful suicide attempt.

Awwww what a scientific view.
Just adding more to the symptoms:
Symptoms: nausea, anorexia nervosa, hypersensitivity, hyperstress » leading to increased production of reactive oxygen species and inflammation » that will increase DNA single strand brakes » leading to apoptosis and genetic mutation in sense genes » and finally illusion and delusion to mortality attempt and successful suicide.

Please what do we call my twin brothers hair type

Idowuogbo: Awwww... Nwa mummy... I understand.

LOL though I am an old man lol

Idowuogbo:

Hmmm what are those for, was only saying I could not keep hair because my loving mum will not let me lol

I do like keeping medium afro and medium goatee but the truth is my mum will not let rest if I do. I will just receive call from nigeria every single they from my mum saying you should take it down lol [img][/img]

In my opinion this particular statistics is a bit off.
The Nigerian pollution is growing at a very alarming rate and this statistics seems to be saying otherwise.
Is nigeria under populated? People die that is nature, before one will take this 13% into account they need to say what is the exact number of under five deaths in the world.
These people have always used statistical media propaganda to make nigeria look bad, and nigerians look down on them self. I will always stick to what I can see than what so called abuja, London or USA statistics say. How did they gather the data? The last time I checked nigeria has not got a good death registering system.

nwuyag: lol.
you be Jehovah withness member?

No, I am just a christian who has no denomination, just me, my bible and holy Spirit guiding my understanding. No church name attached.

@op I will say yes to your question, he knows who you will be from beginning to end.

That now brings the question of why will a loving father create some people to be hell bound and some people heaven bound
My answer to the above is there is no hell.

My opinion though

TO TITHE OR NOT TO TITHE?

'CP' denotes 'compare passage'It needs to be established at the very outset here that this study does not teach against Christians giving into the work of God. It is about how they give – whether spontaneously, or by compulsion. A teaching persists in the contemporary church that Christians under grace in the New Testament are obligated to tithe as the Jews under the law had to tithe in the Old Testament. There are no defining scriptures anywhere in the Bible however, to validate such teaching. Nevertheless the proponents of tithing do use scriptures to argue their position.The purpose of this study is to examine those scriptures in context to determine if they really can be used for that purpose. But first let us find out exactly what the tithe is (CP Lev 27:30-34). We see from this that the tithe is a tenth part. Under the law here the Old Testament Jews had to pay ten percent of the produce of the earth and the increase of their herds and flocks to God. It had nothing to do with money then, as it has today. Today the tithe is stipulated as ten percent of one’s gross income which has to be paid to the local church. Those who argue for the tithe use Mal 3:8-11 to teach that the local church, being the place where Christians are spiritually fed, is the New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament storehouse where the tithes had to be taken, and that New Testament Christians who withhold their tithes will be cursed the same as the Old Testament Jews (CP Mal 3:8-11). Nothing that God says here can be applied to New Testament Christians. God rebuked the Jews who were under the law and obligated to tithe. New Testament Christians are not under the law because it has been fulfilled in Christ, and they have been redeemed from its curse (CP Ro 10:4; Ga 3:13-14).The tithe is first mentioned in scripture when Abraham tithed to Melchizedec – a priest of the most high God – from the spoils of war after the slaughter of the kings, when Abraham rescued his nephew Lot and the women captives, in Gen 14 (CP Gen 14:18-20). We will learn more about this tithe and how it is represented by the proponents of tithing in the contemporary church a little later when we study He 7. Another argument for tithing is said to be found in Mt 23:23 (CP 23:23). Many in the church believe that by acknowledging the obligation of the Jews to tithe here Jesus is teaching that tithing is also obligatory for New Testament Christians. Tithing is not even the issue though. Jesus was rebuking Scribes and Pharisees who were subject to the law and obligated to tithe anyway. The issue Jesus was addressing was not their tithes, but their neglect of justice, mercy and faithfulness toward others. To practice these was more important then being sticklers for the smallest detail of tithing (CP Mt 23:24-33). This is what Jesus was really leading up to in Mt 23, which precludes V23 from being used to teach that Jesus was sanctioning tithing for New Testament Christians.Compulsory tithing under the law in the Old Testament does not translate to giving under grace in the New Testament. The New Testament does not compel Christians, but rather invites them to give generously in response to the needs of others, and as an expression of their love for God (CP 1Cor 16:1-2; 2Cor 8:1-15; 9:1-15; Ga 6:6-8; Jas 2:13-17; 1Jn 3:16-19). We learn from these scriptures that New Testament giving is voluntary, spontaneous and freely given, not from a sense of obligation nor with an intent to merit blessings. Giving is to be seen as a privilege, not an obligation. 1Cor 16:1-2 is used by those who promote tithing to teach that the money the Corinthians were to put aside each Sunday represented the tithe. 2Cor 8:2-4 is used to encourage Christians to tithe, yet in V8 Paul clearly states that he was not commanding the Corinthians to give; he only wanted them to prove the sincerity of their love for their brothers and sisters in Christ. In V7 he calls their giving an act of grace, which is the exact opposite of mandatory tithing. In 2Cor 9:5 Paul stresses the importance of the collection being seen as a willing gift, not as money that has been extorted from them (CP 1Cor 16:3-4 with 2Cor 8:2-4, 7-8 and 9:5). The clear teaching in all these scriptures is that New Testament giving under grace comes from what one has, not from what one does not have. Christians are only expected to give according to their means, and although there must a readiness and eagerness in giving, Christians do not have to run themselves into debt or reduce themselves to poverty level in order to give into God’s work. This is acceptable to God. The issue is one’s willingness to give – not the amount (CP Lu 11:41; 2Cor 8:11-12; 9:7). Christians must not feel bad if they are ever unable to give (CP 2Cor 8:13-15). This teaches that Christians who are well off should meet the needs of those who are not. In this way none will lack, and there will be equality for all, just like God directed the Israelites with the manna in the wilderness (CP Ex 16:16-18).There are four things Christians must do in giving: they must give willingly from the heart, they must not give grudgingly; they must not give of compulsion; they must give cheerfully (CP 2Cor 8:12; 9:5, 7). Christians who give what they can to those in need will find that the grace of God furnishes a sufficiency for their own needs, and even more, in order that they may abound in good works for others (CP Psa 41:1-2; Pr 11:24-25; 19:17; 22:9; Ecc 11:1; Lu 6:38; 2Cor 9:6, 8-15). At the heart of all Christian giving is the acknowledgement that God is the creator, the owner, and the giver of all things, and what we give back to God is only a part of what He has given to us in the first place (CP Gen 1:1; Ex 19:5; De 8:7-20; 1Chr 29:10-16; Psa 24:1; 50:10-12;Hag 2:8; Jn 1:1-3; Jas 1:17; 2Pe 1:3). Everything Christians have belongs to the Lord. No one has anything that they had not first received from God.Those who hold that tithing is obligatory for New Testament Christians also use He 7: 1-10 to teach that, as Abraham was the antecedent of all New Testament Christians and paid a tithe to Melchizedec, it is incumbent upon all New Testament Christians to tithe. They contend that Abraham was the representative tithe payer of all his seed to come, which Christians are (CP Ga 3:29). Now let us look at He 7:1-10, but in the context of the whole chapter to see what it really means (CP He 7:1-28). When kept in the context of the whole of Ch 7 it is plain to see that tithing, as being obligatory for New Testament Christians, is not being taught in V1-10 at all. Melchizedec is the subject, not Jesus, and tithing is mentioned only in the context of demonstrating the superiority of Melchizedec over Abraham and Levi in the first place, and the superiority of Christ’s eternal priesthood over the temporary Levitical priesthood in the second place, which makes the New Covenant superior to the Old. That is the theme of He 7, not tithing. Tithing is only incidental to proving that the New Covenant, of which Jesus is the mediator, is by far superior to the Old Covenant, and it cannot be made to mean anything else (CP He 7:19,22-28; 8:6-13; 9:11-15). We also learn in these scriptures that the Old Covenant has been made obsolete in Christ and done way with in its entirety. That was how God designed it: the Old Covenant was only temporary; the New Covenant under Christ is everlasting (CP Hos 2;11 withRo 3:21-22; 10:4; 2Cor 3;7-14; Ga 3:19-26; 4:21-31; 5:1-4; Eph 2:13-16; He 7:12, 18:22; 8:6-13;9:8 -15; 10:1-10).The clear teaching in all these scriptures is that the Old Covenant, which includes the law on tithing, has been completely abolished in Christ and has no relevance for New Testament Christians. Yet those who stand for tithing argue that the tithe itself was not abolished, because it was established by Abraham four hundred and thirty years prior to the law when he tithed to Melchizedec in Gen 14:18-20, which we looked at earlier, and therefore it should be carried on by New Testament Christians. They use Ga 3:17-18 as their proof text. Let us see what it says, but also in context (CP Ga 3:13-18). This scripture cannot be used to teach that Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedec should be continued. This has nothing to do with tithing, or Melchizedec. It is about the Covenant God made with Abraham. Paul is using the analogy of God’s Covenant with Abraham, and a legal agreement made between humans, to show that once the parties to it ratify an agreement, it stands forever – it cannot be annulled or voided. What Paul is teaching here is that the blessings God promised Abraham stand forever too. They were not affected by the law in any way (CP Gen 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-18; 15:1-18; 17:4-8; 22:15-18;26:1-8; 28:1-4, 10-15 with Ro 4;1-25). This is the Covenant God made with Abraham. The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until the seed of Abraham – Christ – came to inherit the promise, and distribute the blessings to all who receive Him by faith as saviour (CP Ga 3:6-16, 19-29). Everyone in Christ, regardless of nationality or sex, is the seed of Abraham and heir of God’s Covenant promise.It is patently obvious from the scriptures studied thus far that none of them can be legitimately used to promote tithing as a New Testament Christian obligation. As stated at the outset of this study, there is no defining scripture anywhere in the bible to validate any teaching that it is incumbent upon New Testament Christians to tithe. As also stated previously, compulsory tithing under the law in the Old Testament does not translate to giving under grace in the New Testament. New Testament giving is centred entirety around stewardship – Christians giving of themselves completely to the work of God – which includes their time, their finances, and their material possessions (CP Mt 10:37-39; Mk 8:34-38; Lu 14:26-35).None of this is teaching against New Testament Christians giving in to the work of God through their local church. Scriptures are very clear on the subject of giving – only those who sow into the Kingdom will reap the Kingdom benefits (CP Ga 6:6-10). Paul is defining God’s law of sowing and reaping here. It applies to every aspect of the Christian walk: Christians giving of themselves, their finances and their time to others; their financial support of the ministry, their moral behaviour, and their Christian service. Ga 6:9-10 teaches that while ever Christians keep doing good, in spite of the opposition they may encounter, in due course they will reap the fruit of the harvest. And notwithstanding that they are to do good unto all men, they are to be particularly concerned with the well - being of other Christians (CP Mt 25:31-46). All Christian giving has to be as to God, the Christians’ source, for whatever Christians do they are doing it as unto Jesus. Jesus equates Christians’ treatment of those in need with their treatment of Himself: what Christians do for them, they do for Him. The Christian walk is not only a spiritual walk, it must also serve the material needs of others, especially other Christians (CP Jas 2:13-17).Here Christians are presented with the real test of their faith. Christians are not justified by works, but because they are justified by faith, they do the works. This proves their consecration to God’s service and confirms their love for God and for each other (CP 1Jn 3:16-19). The only faith that saves is that demonstrated by works out of Christians’ love for God. This scripture is the exact counterpart of Jn 3:16: “Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. 1Jn 3:16-19 is the acid test of Christianity by which Christians know whether they are following the example of God’s love to others. If Christians are not willing to give of material things to others in need, they certainly would not lay down their lives for them. It is not enough that wealth and material possessions are acquired for self-gratification. They must always be made available for the work of God (CP Mt 6:19-24; Lu 12:13-21; 2Cor 9:5-6). Although God’s law of sowing and reaping dictates that blessings will always be returned for generosity, Christians must never give in order to receive. Giving must always be motivated by love.It is the duty of all who are taught the word to help provide material support for those who teach the word. Those who minister the word are entitled to live off the word (CP 1Cor 9:7-14; Ga 6:6;3 Jn 5-. No workers of the word should have to seek help in any form outside the church. Christians have a duty, which should be seen as a privilege, to contribute to the needs of every worker of the word. They must not be treated like beggars, but received, sent, and supported in a manner worthy of God (CP Mt 10:40-42; Lu 10:3-7; 1Ti 5:17-18). In Mt 10:41-42 Jesus promises that “he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward”. This teaches Christians how important it is in God’s purposes to receive and support true messengers of the gospel.In bringing this study to a close here it needs to be re-stated that while there is extensive teaching on Christians giving into the work of God in the New Testament, there are no scriptures whatever that teach tithing. What they do teach is that Christians belong to God and what they have is held as a trust for him. Their giving is done to help those in need and to advance the Kingdom of God. They are only obliged to give in accordance with their means, out of what they have, and the amount they give is not as important as their willingness to give it. Giving is seen as proof of their love. It is done sacrificially and voluntarily. In their giving Christians sow not only money, but also faith, time and service. To sum up, their giving is characterized by what Paul said in 2Cor 9:7, “every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”
Source bible truth

TO TITHE OR NOT TO TITHE?

'CP' denotes 'compare passage'It needs to be established at the very outset here that this study does not teach against Christians giving into the work of God. It is about how they give – whether spontaneously, or by compulsion. A teaching persists in the contemporary church that Christians under grace in the New Testament are obligated to tithe as the Jews under the law had to tithe in the Old Testament. There are no defining scriptures anywhere in the Bible however, to validate such teaching. Nevertheless the proponents of tithing do use scriptures to argue their position.The purpose of this study is to examine those scriptures in context to determine if they really can be used for that purpose. But first let us find out exactly what the tithe is (CP Lev 27:30-34). We see from this that the tithe is a tenth part. Under the law here the Old Testament Jews had to pay ten percent of the produce of the earth and the increase of their herds and flocks to God. It had nothing to do with money then, as it has today. Today the tithe is stipulated as ten percent of one’s gross income which has to be paid to the local church. Those who argue for the tithe use Mal 3:8-11 to teach that the local church, being the place where Christians are spiritually fed, is the New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament storehouse where the tithes had to be taken, and that New Testament Christians who withhold their tithes will be cursed the same as the Old Testament Jews (CP Mal 3:8-11). Nothing that God says here can be applied to New Testament Christians. God rebuked the Jews who were under the law and obligated to tithe. New Testament Christians are not under the law because it has been fulfilled in Christ, and they have been redeemed from its curse (CP Ro 10:4; Ga 3:13-14).The tithe is first mentioned in scripture when Abraham tithed to Melchizedec – a priest of the most high God – from the spoils of war after the slaughter of the kings, when Abraham rescued his nephew Lot and the women captives, in Gen 14 (CP Gen 14:18-20). We will learn more about this tithe and how it is represented by the proponents of tithing in the contemporary church a little later when we study He 7. Another argument for tithing is said to be found in Mt 23:23 (CP 23:23). Many in the church believe that by acknowledging the obligation of the Jews to tithe here Jesus is teaching that tithing is also obligatory for New Testament Christians. Tithing is not even the issue though. Jesus was rebuking Scribes and Pharisees who were subject to the law and obligated to tithe anyway. The issue Jesus was addressing was not their tithes, but their neglect of justice, mercy and faithfulness toward others. To practice these was more important then being sticklers for the smallest detail of tithing (CP Mt 23:24-33). This is what Jesus was really leading up to in Mt 23, which precludes V23 from being used to teach that Jesus was sanctioning tithing for New Testament Christians.Compulsory tithing under the law in the Old Testament does not translate to giving under grace in the New Testament. The New Testament does not compel Christians, but rather invites them to give generously in response to the needs of others, and as an expression of their love for God (CP 1Cor 16:1-2; 2Cor 8:1-15; 9:1-15; Ga 6:6-8; Jas 2:13-17; 1Jn 3:16-19). We learn from these scriptures that New Testament giving is voluntary, spontaneous and freely given, not from a sense of obligation nor with an intent to merit blessings. Giving is to be seen as a privilege, not an obligation. 1Cor 16:1-2 is used by those who promote tithing to teach that the money the Corinthians were to put aside each Sunday represented the tithe. 2Cor 8:2-4 is used to encourage Christians to tithe, yet in V8 Paul clearly states that he was not commanding the Corinthians to give; he only wanted them to prove the sincerity of their love for their brothers and sisters in Christ. In V7 he calls their giving an act of grace, which is the exact opposite of mandatory tithing. In 2Cor 9:5 Paul stresses the importance of the collection being seen as a willing gift, not as money that has been extorted from them (CP 1Cor 16:3-4 with 2Cor 8:2-4, 7-8 and 9:5). The clear teaching in all these scriptures is that New Testament giving under grace comes from what one has, not from what one does not have. Christians are only expected to give according to their means, and although there must a readiness and eagerness in giving, Christians do not have to run themselves into debt or reduce themselves to poverty level in order to give into God’s work. This is acceptable to God. The issue is one’s willingness to give – not the amount (CP Lu 11:41; 2Cor 8:11-12; 9:7). Christians must not feel bad if they are ever unable to give (CP 2Cor 8:13-15). This teaches that Christians who are well off should meet the needs of those who are not. In this way none will lack, and there will be equality for all, just like God directed the Israelites with the manna in the wilderness (CP Ex 16:16-18).There are four things Christians must do in giving: they must give willingly from the heart, they must not give grudgingly; they must not give of compulsion; they must give cheerfully (CP 2Cor 8:12; 9:5, 7). Christians who give what they can to those in need will find that the grace of God furnishes a sufficiency for their own needs, and even more, in order that they may abound in good works for others (CP Psa 41:1-2; Pr 11:24-25; 19:17; 22:9; Ecc 11:1; Lu 6:38; 2Cor 9:6, 8-15). At the heart of all Christian giving is the acknowledgement that God is the creator, the owner, and the giver of all things, and what we give back to God is only a part of what He has given to us in the first place (CP Gen 1:1; Ex 19:5; De 8:7-20; 1Chr 29:10-16; Psa 24:1; 50:10-12;Hag 2:8; Jn 1:1-3; Jas 1:17; 2Pe 1:3). Everything Christians have belongs to the Lord. No one has anything that they had not first received from God.Those who hold that tithing is obligatory for New Testament Christians also use He 7: 1-10 to teach that, as Abraham was the antecedent of all New Testament Christians and paid a tithe to Melchizedec, it is incumbent upon all New Testament Christians to tithe. They contend that Abraham was the representative tithe payer of all his seed to come, which Christians are (CP Ga 3:29). Now let us look at He 7:1-10, but in the context of the whole chapter to see what it really means (CP He 7:1-28). When kept in the context of the whole of Ch 7 it is plain to see that tithing, as being obligatory for New Testament Christians, is not being taught in V1-10 at all. Melchizedec is the subject, not Jesus, and tithing is mentioned only in the context of demonstrating the superiority of Melchizedec over Abraham and Levi in the first place, and the superiority of Christ’s eternal priesthood over the temporary Levitical priesthood in the second place, which makes the New Covenant superior to the Old. That is the theme of He 7, not tithing. Tithing is only incidental to proving that the New Covenant, of which Jesus is the mediator, is by far superior to the Old Covenant, and it cannot be made to mean anything else (CP He 7:19,22-28; 8:6-13; 9:11-15). We also learn in these scriptures that the Old Covenant has been made obsolete in Christ and done way with in its entirety. That was how God designed it: the Old Covenant was only temporary; the New Covenant under Christ is everlasting (CP Hos 2;11 withRo 3:21-22; 10:4; 2Cor 3;7-14; Ga 3:19-26; 4:21-31; 5:1-4; Eph 2:13-16; He 7:12, 18:22; 8:6-13;9:8 -15; 10:1-10).The clear teaching in all these scriptures is that the Old Covenant, which includes the law on tithing, has been completely abolished in Christ and has no relevance for New Testament Christians. Yet those who stand for tithing argue that the tithe itself was not abolished, because it was established by Abraham four hundred and thirty years prior to the law when he tithed to Melchizedec in Gen 14:18-20, which we looked at earlier, and therefore it should be carried on by New Testament Christians. They use Ga 3:17-18 as their proof text. Let us see what it says, but also in context (CP Ga 3:13-18). This scripture cannot be used to teach that Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedec should be continued. This has nothing to do with tithing, or Melchizedec. It is about the Covenant God made with Abraham. Paul is using the analogy of God’s Covenant with Abraham, and a legal agreement made between humans, to show that once the parties to it ratify an agreement, it stands forever – it cannot be annulled or voided. What Paul is teaching here is that the blessings God promised Abraham stand forever too. They were not affected by the law in any way (CP Gen 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-18; 15:1-18; 17:4-8; 22:15-18;26:1-8; 28:1-4, 10-15 with Ro 4;1-25). This is the Covenant God made with Abraham. The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until the seed of Abraham – Christ – came to inherit the promise, and distribute the blessings to all who receive Him by faith as saviour (CP Ga 3:6-16, 19-29). Everyone in Christ, regardless of nationality or sex, is the seed of Abraham and heir of God’s Covenant promise.It is patently obvious from the scriptures studied thus far that none of them can be legitimately used to promote tithing as a New Testament Christian obligation. As stated at the outset of this study, there is no defining scripture anywhere in the bible to validate any teaching that it is incumbent upon New Testament Christians to tithe. As also stated previously, compulsory tithing under the law in the Old Testament does not translate to giving under grace in the New Testament. New Testament giving is centred entirety around stewardship – Christians giving of themselves completely to the work of God – which includes their time, their finances, and their material possessions (CP Mt 10:37-39; Mk 8:34-38; Lu 14:26-35).None of this is teaching against New Testament Christians giving in to the work of God through their local church. Scriptures are very clear on the subject of giving – only those who sow into the Kingdom will reap the Kingdom benefits (CP Ga 6:6-10). Paul is defining God’s law of sowing and reaping here. It applies to every aspect of the Christian walk: Christians giving of themselves, their finances and their time to others; their financial support of the ministry, their moral behaviour, and their Christian service. Ga 6:9-10 teaches that while ever Christians keep doing good, in spite of the opposition they may encounter, in due course they will reap the fruit of the harvest. And notwithstanding that they are to do good unto all men, they are to be particularly concerned with the well - being of other Christians (CP Mt 25:31-46). All Christian giving has to be as to God, the Christians’ source, for whatever Christians do they are doing it as unto Jesus. Jesus equates Christians’ treatment of those in need with their treatment of Himself: what Christians do for them, they do for Him. The Christian walk is not only a spiritual walk, it must also serve the material needs of others, especially other Christians (CP Jas 2:13-17).Here Christians are presented with the real test of their faith. Christians are not justified by works, but because they are justified by faith, they do the works. This proves their consecration to God’s service and confirms their love for God and for each other (CP 1Jn 3:16-19). The only faith that saves is that demonstrated by works out of Christians’ love for God. This scripture is the exact counterpart of Jn 3:16: “Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. 1Jn 3:16-19 is the acid test of Christianity by which Christians know whether they are following the example of God’s love to others. If Christians are not willing to give of material things to others in need, they certainly would not lay down their lives for them. It is not enough that wealth and material possessions are acquired for self-gratification. They must always be made available for the work of God (CP Mt 6:19-24; Lu 12:13-21; 2Cor 9:5-6). Although God’s law of sowing and reaping dictates that blessings will always be returned for generosity, Christians must never give in order to receive. Giving must always be motivated by love.It is the duty of all who are taught the word to help provide material support for those who teach the word. Those who minister the word are entitled to live off the word (CP 1Cor 9:7-14; Ga 6:6;3 Jn 5-. No workers of the word should have to seek help in any form outside the church. Christians have a duty, which should be seen as a privilege, to contribute to the needs of every worker of the word. They must not be treated like beggars, but received, sent, and supported in a manner worthy of God (CP Mt 10:40-42; Lu 10:3-7; 1Ti 5:17-18). In Mt 10:41-42 Jesus promises that “he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward”. This teaches Christians how important it is in God’s purposes to receive and support true messengers of the gospel.In bringing this study to a close here it needs to be re-stated that while there is extensive teaching on Christians giving into the work of God in the New Testament, there are no scriptures whatever that teach tithing. What they do teach is that Christians belong to God and what they have is held as a trust for him. Their giving is done to help those in need and to advance the Kingdom of God. They are only obliged to give in accordance with their means, out of what they have, and the amount they give is not as important as their willingness to give it. Giving is seen as proof of their love. It is done sacrificially and voluntarily. In their giving Christians sow not only money, but also faith, time and service. To sum up, their giving is characterized by what Paul said in 2Cor 9:7, “every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”
Source bible truth

TO TITHE OR NOT TO TITHE?

'CP' denotes 'compare passage'It needs to be established at the very outset here that this study does not teach against Christians giving into the work of God. It is about how they give – whether spontaneously, or by compulsion. A teaching persists in the contemporary church that Christians under grace in the New Testament are obligated to tithe as the Jews under the law had to tithe in the Old Testament. There are no defining scriptures anywhere in the Bible however, to validate such teaching. Nevertheless the proponents of tithing do use scriptures to argue their position.The purpose of this study is to examine those scriptures in context to determine if they really can be used for that purpose. But first let us find out exactly what the tithe is (CP Lev 27:30-34). We see from this that the tithe is a tenth part. Under the law here the Old Testament Jews had to pay ten percent of the produce of the earth and the increase of their herds and flocks to God. It had nothing to do with money then, as it has today. Today the tithe is stipulated as ten percent of one’s gross income which has to be paid to the local church. Those who argue for the tithe use Mal 3:8-11 to teach that the local church, being the place where Christians are spiritually fed, is the New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament storehouse where the tithes had to be taken, and that New Testament Christians who withhold their tithes will be cursed the same as the Old Testament Jews (CP Mal 3:8-11). Nothing that God says here can be applied to New Testament Christians. God rebuked the Jews who were under the law and obligated to tithe. New Testament Christians are not under the law because it has been fulfilled in Christ, and they have been redeemed from its curse (CP Ro 10:4; Ga 3:13-14).The tithe is first mentioned in scripture when Abraham tithed to Melchizedec – a priest of the most high God – from the spoils of war after the slaughter of the kings, when Abraham rescued his nephew Lot and the women captives, in Gen 14 (CP Gen 14:18-20). We will learn more about this tithe and how it is represented by the proponents of tithing in the contemporary church a little later when we study He 7. Another argument for tithing is said to be found in Mt 23:23 (CP 23:23). Many in the church believe that by acknowledging the obligation of the Jews to tithe here Jesus is teaching that tithing is also obligatory for New Testament Christians. Tithing is not even the issue though. Jesus was rebuking Scribes and Pharisees who were subject to the law and obligated to tithe anyway. The issue Jesus was addressing was not their tithes, but their neglect of justice, mercy and faithfulness toward others. To practice these was more important then being sticklers for the smallest detail of tithing (CP Mt 23:24-33). This is what Jesus was really leading up to in Mt 23, which precludes V23 from being used to teach that Jesus was sanctioning tithing for New Testament Christians.Compulsory tithing under the law in the Old Testament does not translate to giving under grace in the New Testament. The New Testament does not compel Christians, but rather invites them to give generously in response to the needs of others, and as an expression of their love for God (CP 1Cor 16:1-2; 2Cor 8:1-15; 9:1-15; Ga 6:6-8; Jas 2:13-17; 1Jn 3:16-19). We learn from these scriptures that New Testament giving is voluntary, spontaneous and freely given, not from a sense of obligation nor with an intent to merit blessings. Giving is to be seen as a privilege, not an obligation. 1Cor 16:1-2 is used by those who promote tithing to teach that the money the Corinthians were to put aside each Sunday represented the tithe. 2Cor 8:2-4 is used to encourage Christians to tithe, yet in V8 Paul clearly states that he was not commanding the Corinthians to give; he only wanted them to prove the sincerity of their love for their brothers and sisters in Christ. In V7 he calls their giving an act of grace, which is the exact opposite of mandatory tithing. In 2Cor 9:5 Paul stresses the importance of the collection being seen as a willing gift, not as money that has been extorted from them (CP 1Cor 16:3-4 with 2Cor 8:2-4, 7-8 and 9:5). The clear teaching in all these scriptures is that New Testament giving under grace comes from what one has, not from what one does not have. Christians are only expected to give according to their means, and although there must a readiness and eagerness in giving, Christians do not have to run themselves into debt or reduce themselves to poverty level in order to give into God’s work. This is acceptable to God. The issue is one’s willingness to give – not the amount (CP Lu 11:41; 2Cor 8:11-12; 9:7). Christians must not feel bad if they are ever unable to give (CP 2Cor 8:13-15). This teaches that Christians who are well off should meet the needs of those who are not. In this way none will lack, and there will be equality for all, just like God directed the Israelites with the manna in the wilderness (CP Ex 16:16-18).There are four things Christians must do in giving: they must give willingly from the heart, they must not give grudgingly; they must not give of compulsion; they must give cheerfully (CP 2Cor 8:12; 9:5, 7). Christians who give what they can to those in need will find that the grace of God furnishes a sufficiency for their own needs, and even more, in order that they may abound in good works for others (CP Psa 41:1-2; Pr 11:24-25; 19:17; 22:9; Ecc 11:1; Lu 6:38; 2Cor 9:6, 8-15). At the heart of all Christian giving is the acknowledgement that God is the creator, the owner, and the giver of all things, and what we give back to God is only a part of what He has given to us in the first place (CP Gen 1:1; Ex 19:5; De 8:7-20; 1Chr 29:10-16; Psa 24:1; 50:10-12;Hag 2:8; Jn 1:1-3; Jas 1:17; 2Pe 1:3). Everything Christians have belongs to the Lord. No one has anything that they had not first received from God.Those who hold that tithing is obligatory for New Testament Christians also use He 7: 1-10 to teach that, as Abraham was the antecedent of all New Testament Christians and paid a tithe to Melchizedec, it is incumbent upon all New Testament Christians to tithe. They contend that Abraham was the representative tithe payer of all his seed to come, which Christians are (CP Ga 3:29). Now let us look at He 7:1-10, but in the context of the whole chapter to see what it really means (CP He 7:1-28). When kept in the context of the whole of Ch 7 it is plain to see that tithing, as being obligatory for New Testament Christians, is not being taught in V1-10 at all. Melchizedec is the subject, not Jesus, and tithing is mentioned only in the context of demonstrating the superiority of Melchizedec over Abraham and Levi in the first place, and the superiority of Christ’s eternal priesthood over the temporary Levitical priesthood in the second place, which makes the New Covenant superior to the Old. That is the theme of He 7, not tithing. Tithing is only incidental to proving that the New Covenant, of which Jesus is the mediator, is by far superior to the Old Covenant, and it cannot be made to mean anything else (CP He 7:19,22-28; 8:6-13; 9:11-15). We also learn in these scriptures that the Old Covenant has been made obsolete in Christ and done way with in its entirety. That was how God designed it: the Old Covenant was only temporary; the New Covenant under Christ is everlasting (CP Hos 2;11 withRo 3:21-22; 10:4; 2Cor 3;7-14; Ga 3:19-26; 4:21-31; 5:1-4; Eph 2:13-16; He 7:12, 18:22; 8:6-13;9:8 -15; 10:1-10).The clear teaching in all these scriptures is that the Old Covenant, which includes the law on tithing, has been completely abolished in Christ and has no relevance for New Testament Christians. Yet those who stand for tithing argue that the tithe itself was not abolished, because it was established by Abraham four hundred and thirty years prior to the law when he tithed to Melchizedec in Gen 14:18-20, which we looked at earlier, and therefore it should be carried on by New Testament Christians. They use Ga 3:17-18 as their proof text. Let us see what it says, but also in context (CP Ga 3:13-18). This scripture cannot be used to teach that Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedec should be continued. This has nothing to do with tithing, or Melchizedec. It is about the Covenant God made with Abraham. Paul is using the analogy of God’s Covenant with Abraham, and a legal agreement made between humans, to show that once the parties to it ratify an agreement, it stands forever – it cannot be annulled or voided. What Paul is teaching here is that the blessings God promised Abraham stand forever too. They were not affected by the law in any way (CP Gen 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-18; 15:1-18; 17:4-8; 22:15-18;26:1-8; 28:1-4, 10-15 with Ro 4;1-25). This is the Covenant God made with Abraham. The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until the seed of Abraham – Christ – came to inherit the promise, and distribute the blessings to all who receive Him by faith as saviour (CP Ga 3:6-16, 19-29). Everyone in Christ, regardless of nationality or sex, is the seed of Abraham and heir of God’s Covenant promise.It is patently obvious from the scriptures studied thus far that none of them can be legitimately used to promote tithing as a New Testament Christian obligation. As stated at the outset of this study, there is no defining scripture anywhere in the bible to validate any teaching that it is incumbent upon New Testament Christians to tithe. As also stated previously, compulsory tithing under the law in the Old Testament does not translate to giving under grace in the New Testament. New Testament giving is centred entirety around stewardship – Christians giving of themselves completely to the work of God – which includes their time, their finances, and their material possessions (CP Mt 10:37-39; Mk 8:34-38; Lu 14:26-35).None of this is teaching against New Testament Christians giving in to the work of God through their local church. Scriptures are very clear on the subject of giving – only those who sow into the Kingdom will reap the Kingdom benefits (CP Ga 6:6-10). Paul is defining God’s law of sowing and reaping here. It applies to every aspect of the Christian walk: Christians giving of themselves, their finances and their time to others; their financial support of the ministry, their moral behaviour, and their Christian service. Ga 6:9-10 teaches that while ever Christians keep doing good, in spite of the opposition they may encounter, in due course they will reap the fruit of the harvest. And notwithstanding that they are to do good unto all men, they are to be particularly concerned with the well - being of other Christians (CP Mt 25:31-46). All Christian giving has to be as to God, the Christians’ source, for whatever Christians do they are doing it as unto Jesus. Jesus equates Christians’ treatment of those in need with their treatment of Himself: what Christians do for them, they do for Him. The Christian walk is not only a spiritual walk, it must also serve the material needs of others, especially other Christians (CP Jas 2:13-17).Here Christians are presented with the real test of their faith. Christians are not justified by works, but because they are justified by faith, they do the works. This proves their consecration to God’s service and confirms their love for God and for each other (CP 1Jn 3:16-19). The only faith that saves is that demonstrated by works out of Christians’ love for God. This scripture is the exact counterpart of Jn 3:16: “Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. 1Jn 3:16-19 is the acid test of Christianity by which Christians know whether they are following the example of God’s love to others. If Christians are not willing to give of material things to others in need, they certainly would not lay down their lives for them. It is not enough that wealth and material possessions are acquired for self-gratification. They must always be made available for the work of God (CP Mt 6:19-24; Lu 12:13-21; 2Cor 9:5-6). Although God’s law of sowing and reaping dictates that blessings will always be returned for generosity, Christians must never give in order to receive. Giving must always be motivated by love.It is the duty of all who are taught the word to help provide material support for those who teach the word. Those who minister the word are entitled to live off the word (CP 1Cor 9:7-14; Ga 6:6;3 Jn 5-. No workers of the word should have to seek help in any form outside the church. Christians have a duty, which should be seen as a privilege, to contribute to the needs of every worker of the word. They must not be treated like beggars, but received, sent, and supported in a manner worthy of God (CP Mt 10:40-42; Lu 10:3-7; 1Ti 5:17-18). In Mt 10:41-42 Jesus promises that “he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward”. This teaches Christians how important it is in God’s purposes to receive and support true messengers of the gospel.In bringing this study to a close here it needs to be re-stated that while there is extensive teaching on Christians giving into the work of God in the New Testament, there are no scriptures whatever that teach tithing. What they do teach is that Christians belong to God and what they have is held as a trust for him. Their giving is done to help those in need and to advance the Kingdom of God. They are only obliged to give in accordance with their means, out of what they have, and the amount they give is not as important as their willingness to give it. Giving is seen as proof of their love. It is done sacrificially and voluntarily. In their giving Christians sow not only money, but also faith, time and service. To sum up, their giving is characterized by what Paul said in 2Cor 9:7, “every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”
Source bible truth

TO TITHE OR NOT TO TITHE?

'CP' denotes 'compare passage'It needs to be established at the very outset here that this study does not teach against Christians giving into the work of God. It is about how they give – whether spontaneously, or by compulsion. A teaching persists in the contemporary church that Christians under grace in the New Testament are obligated to tithe as the Jews under the law had to tithe in the Old Testament. There are no defining scriptures anywhere in the Bible however, to validate such teaching. Nevertheless the proponents of tithing do use scriptures to argue their position.The purpose of this study is to examine those scriptures in context to determine if they really can be used for that purpose. But first let us find out exactly what the tithe is (CP Lev 27:30-34). We see from this that the tithe is a tenth part. Under the law here the Old Testament Jews had to pay ten percent of the produce of the earth and the increase of their herds and flocks to God. It had nothing to do with money then, as it has today. Today the tithe is stipulated as ten percent of one’s gross income which has to be paid to the local church. Those who argue for the tithe use Mal 3:8-11 to teach that the local church, being the place where Christians are spiritually fed, is the New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament storehouse where the tithes had to be taken, and that New Testament Christians who withhold their tithes will be cursed the same as the Old Testament Jews (CP Mal 3:8-11). Nothing that God says here can be applied to New Testament Christians. God rebuked the Jews who were under the law and obligated to tithe. New Testament Christians are not under the law because it has been fulfilled in Christ, and they have been redeemed from its curse (CP Ro 10:4; Ga 3:13-14).The tithe is first mentioned in scripture when Abraham tithed to Melchizedec – a priest of the most high God – from the spoils of war after the slaughter of the kings, when Abraham rescued his nephew Lot and the women captives, in Gen 14 (CP Gen 14:18-20). We will learn more about this tithe and how it is represented by the proponents of tithing in the contemporary church a little later when we study He 7. Another argument for tithing is said to be found in Mt 23:23 (CP 23:23). Many in the church believe that by acknowledging the obligation of the Jews to tithe here Jesus is teaching that tithing is also obligatory for New Testament Christians. Tithing is not even the issue though. Jesus was rebuking Scribes and Pharisees who were subject to the law and obligated to tithe anyway. The issue Jesus was addressing was not their tithes, but their neglect of justice, mercy and faithfulness toward others. To practice these was more important then being sticklers for the smallest detail of tithing (CP Mt 23:24-33). This is what Jesus was really leading up to in Mt 23, which precludes V23 from being used to teach that Jesus was sanctioning tithing for New Testament Christians.Compulsory tithing under the law in the Old Testament does not translate to giving under grace in the New Testament. The New Testament does not compel Christians, but rather invites them to give generously in response to the needs of others, and as an expression of their love for God (CP 1Cor 16:1-2; 2Cor 8:1-15; 9:1-15; Ga 6:6-8; Jas 2:13-17; 1Jn 3:16-19). We learn from these scriptures that New Testament giving is voluntary, spontaneous and freely given, not from a sense of obligation nor with an intent to merit blessings. Giving is to be seen as a privilege, not an obligation. 1Cor 16:1-2 is used by those who promote tithing to teach that the money the Corinthians were to put aside each Sunday represented the tithe. 2Cor 8:2-4 is used to encourage Christians to tithe, yet in V8 Paul clearly states that he was not commanding the Corinthians to give; he only wanted them to prove the sincerity of their love for their brothers and sisters in Christ. In V7 he calls their giving an act of grace, which is the exact opposite of mandatory tithing. In 2Cor 9:5 Paul stresses the importance of the collection being seen as a willing gift, not as money that has been extorted from them (CP 1Cor 16:3-4 with 2Cor 8:2-4, 7-8 and 9:5). The clear teaching in all these scriptures is that New Testament giving under grace comes from what one has, not from what one does not have. Christians are only expected to give according to their means, and although there must a readiness and eagerness in giving, Christians do not have to run themselves into debt or reduce themselves to poverty level in order to give into God’s work. This is acceptable to God. The issue is one’s willingness to give – not the amount (CP Lu 11:41; 2Cor 8:11-12; 9:7). Christians must not feel bad if they are ever unable to give (CP 2Cor 8:13-15). This teaches that Christians who are well off should meet the needs of those who are not. In this way none will lack, and there will be equality for all, just like God directed the Israelites with the manna in the wilderness (CP Ex 16:16-18).There are four things Christians must do in giving: they must give willingly from the heart, they must not give grudgingly; they must not give of compulsion; they must give cheerfully (CP 2Cor 8:12; 9:5, 7). Christians who give what they can to those in need will find that the grace of God furnishes a sufficiency for their own needs, and even more, in order that they may abound in good works for others (CP Psa 41:1-2; Pr 11:24-25; 19:17; 22:9; Ecc 11:1; Lu 6:38; 2Cor 9:6, 8-15). At the heart of all Christian giving is the acknowledgement that God is the creator, the owner, and the giver of all things, and what we give back to God is only a part of what He has given to us in the first place (CP Gen 1:1; Ex 19:5; De 8:7-20; 1Chr 29:10-16; Psa 24:1; 50:10-12;Hag 2:8; Jn 1:1-3; Jas 1:17; 2Pe 1:3). Everything Christians have belongs to the Lord. No one has anything that they had not first received from God.Those who hold that tithing is obligatory for New Testament Christians also use He 7: 1-10 to teach that, as Abraham was the antecedent of all New Testament Christians and paid a tithe to Melchizedec, it is incumbent upon all New Testament Christians to tithe. They contend that Abraham was the representative tithe payer of all his seed to come, which Christians are (CP Ga 3:29). Now let us look at He 7:1-10, but in the context of the whole chapter to see what it really means (CP He 7:1-28). When kept in the context of the whole of Ch 7 it is plain to see that tithing, as being obligatory for New Testament Christians, is not being taught in V1-10 at all. Melchizedec is the subject, not Jesus, and tithing is mentioned only in the context of demonstrating the superiority of Melchizedec over Abraham and Levi in the first place, and the superiority of Christ’s eternal priesthood over the temporary Levitical priesthood in the second place, which makes the New Covenant superior to the Old. That is the theme of He 7, not tithing. Tithing is only incidental to proving that the New Covenant, of which Jesus is the mediator, is by far superior to the Old Covenant, and it cannot be made to mean anything else (CP He 7:19,22-28; 8:6-13; 9:11-15). We also learn in these scriptures that the Old Covenant has been made obsolete in Christ and done way with in its entirety. That was how God designed it: the Old Covenant was only temporary; the New Covenant under Christ is everlasting (CP Hos 2;11 withRo 3:21-22; 10:4; 2Cor 3;7-14; Ga 3:19-26; 4:21-31; 5:1-4; Eph 2:13-16; He 7:12, 18:22; 8:6-13;9:8 -15; 10:1-10).The clear teaching in all these scriptures is that the Old Covenant, which includes the law on tithing, has been completely abolished in Christ and has no relevance for New Testament Christians. Yet those who stand for tithing argue that the tithe itself was not abolished, because it was established by Abraham four hundred and thirty years prior to the law when he tithed to Melchizedec in Gen 14:18-20, which we looked at earlier, and therefore it should be carried on by New Testament Christians. They use Ga 3:17-18 as their proof text. Let us see what it says, but also in context (CP Ga 3:13-18). This scripture cannot be used to teach that Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedec should be continued. This has nothing to do with tithing, or Melchizedec. It is about the Covenant God made with Abraham. Paul is using the analogy of God’s Covenant with Abraham, and a legal agreement made between humans, to show that once the parties to it ratify an agreement, it stands forever – it cannot be annulled or voided. What Paul is teaching here is that the blessings God promised Abraham stand forever too. They were not affected by the law in any way (CP Gen 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-18; 15:1-18; 17:4-8; 22:15-18;26:1-8; 28:1-4, 10-15 with Ro 4;1-25). This is the Covenant God made with Abraham. The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until the seed of Abraham – Christ – came to inherit the promise, and distribute the blessings to all who receive Him by faith as saviour (CP Ga 3:6-16, 19-29). Everyone in Christ, regardless of nationality or sex, is the seed of Abraham and heir of God’s Covenant promise.It is patently obvious from the scriptures studied thus far that none of them can be legitimately used to promote tithing as a New Testament Christian obligation. As stated at the outset of this study, there is no defining scripture anywhere in the bible to validate any teaching that it is incumbent upon New Testament Christians to tithe. As also stated previously, compulsory tithing under the law in the Old Testament does not translate to giving under grace in the New Testament. New Testament giving is centred entirety around stewardship – Christians giving of themselves completely to the work of God – which includes their time, their finances, and their material possessions (CP Mt 10:37-39; Mk 8:34-38; Lu 14:26-35).None of this is teaching against New Testament Christians giving in to the work of God through their local church. Scriptures are very clear on the subject of giving – only those who sow into the Kingdom will reap the Kingdom benefits (CP Ga 6:6-10). Paul is defining God’s law of sowing and reaping here. It applies to every aspect of the Christian walk: Christians giving of themselves, their finances and their time to others; their financial support of the ministry, their moral behaviour, and their Christian service. Ga 6:9-10 teaches that while ever Christians keep doing good, in spite of the opposition they may encounter, in due course they will reap the fruit of the harvest. And notwithstanding that they are to do good unto all men, they are to be particularly concerned with the well - being of other Christians (CP Mt 25:31-46). All Christian giving has to be as to God, the Christians’ source, for whatever Christians do they are doing it as unto Jesus. Jesus equates Christians’ treatment of those in need with their treatment of Himself: what Christians do for them, they do for Him. The Christian walk is not only a spiritual walk, it must also serve the material needs of others, especially other Christians (CP Jas 2:13-17).Here Christians are presented with the real test of their faith. Christians are not justified by works, but because they are justified by faith, they do the works. This proves their consecration to God’s service and confirms their love for God and for each other (CP 1Jn 3:16-19). The only faith that saves is that demonstrated by works out of Christians’ love for God. This scripture is the exact counterpart of Jn 3:16: “Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. 1Jn 3:16-19 is the acid test of Christianity by which Christians know whether they are following the example of God’s love to others. If Christians are not willing to give of material things to others in need, they certainly would not lay down their lives for them. It is not enough that wealth and material possessions are acquired for self-gratification. They must always be made available for the work of God (CP Mt 6:19-24; Lu 12:13-21; 2Cor 9:5-6). Although God’s law of sowing and reaping dictates that blessings will always be returned for generosity, Christians must never give in order to receive. Giving must always be motivated by love.It is the duty of all who are taught the word to help provide material support for those who teach the word. Those who minister the word are entitled to live off the word (CP 1Cor 9:7-14; Ga 6:6;3 Jn 5-. No workers of the word should have to seek help in any form outside the church. Christians have a duty, which should be seen as a privilege, to contribute to the needs of every worker of the word. They must not be treated like beggars, but received, sent, and supported in a manner worthy of God (CP Mt 10:40-42; Lu 10:3-7; 1Ti 5:17-18). In Mt 10:41-42 Jesus promises that “he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward”. This teaches Christians how important it is in God’s purposes to receive and support true messengers of the gospel.In bringing this study to a close here it needs to be re-stated that while there is extensive teaching on Christians giving into the work of God in the New Testament, there are no scriptures whatever that teach tithing. What they do teach is that Christians belong to God and what they have is held as a trust for him. Their giving is done to help those in need and to advance the Kingdom of God. They are only obliged to give in accordance with their means, out of what they have, and the amount they give is not as important as their willingness to give it. Giving is seen as proof of their love. It is done sacrificially and voluntarily. In their giving Christians sow not only money, but also faith, time and service. To sum up, their giving is characterized by what Paul said in 2Cor 9:7, “every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”
Source bible truth

Students should be collecting tithe from their pastors

I believe that current speaking in tongues practiced in today's greedy church's is just a way of delusion. The speaking in tongues in the bible was the apostles speaking a particular language that people understands. Not just making noise like pagans or making sounds like animals which is what today's pastors and their deluded members do.

Mathew 6:5-15
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9 “This, then, is how you should pray:

“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[a]
    but deliver us from the evil one.[b]’
14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

The vain words and heathenish repetitions which we are here warned against, are most dangerous, and yet very common; which is a principal cause why so many, who still profess religion, are a disgrace to it. Indeed all the words in the world are not equivalent to one holy desire. And the very best prayers are but vain words and repetitions, if they are not the language of the heart.

These pastors are teaching money not gospel. I thought tithe should be paid from income, the question is how will students that collects money from their parents for feeding, school fees and transportation pay tithe. In reality students are among the less privileged and they should be the ones collecting tithe from their pastors, church members and their parents. But these greedy pastors will rather collect from them, what can be a big sin than deciveing a student who has no work to give you money in the name of tithe.

Image123: Don't know where you got such gospel, hopefully it is not a figment of the antitither's imagination. Oyedepo for instance does.kt tell you that tithing works all the time. Read one little book he wrote "The hidden covenants of blessings". He says in EVERY chapter of the book that tithing alone is not enough.

And why does he need a booklet written by your greedy pastors, when the bible is there for all.

Twisting the bible is one thing but must times these pastors are very smart that they try to mislead their members with out them knowing it indirect twisting of the bible.

I prefer to call it systemic omissions, a situation where these pastors intentionally reads only one verse instead of the whole chapter, or reads only one sentence or line instead of the whole verse in the bible, which then allows them to pass the wrong massage across to their members.

The second one is numerous amount of pamflets, booklets, bulletins and books these pastors write that allows them to carry out these systemic omissions mentioned above again with maximum delusion to their members.

The questions are, how will a pastor that calls him or her self God's servant prefer to read only one verse or one sentence from a bible chapter, even when they know that members might not put it into context.

Second is why have Christians decided not to read the bible but prefer reading pamflets,booklets and bulletins written by their pastors for the sole purpose of delusion.

Not till we Christians read the bible our self and stop relying on pastors translation of God's words only then can we really see these pastors for what they are.
People needs to stop been lazy and read the bible for them selves after all we all have got holy Spirit by our side and we can equally make the right choices between wrong and good by our selves.

Even the bible said your left hand should not know the amount and what you gave. Therefore, one does not need to say that he or she is giving any amount or know to who it is given to, hence predefined amount of giving that is tithe (10%) has no reward from God, the bible said those who make know what amount and what they are giving, have received their reward for making it open. God who sees the heart knows that you have giving and will reward you, in this tithe is excluded because the amount is predefined, know and giving out of fear of devourer.