₦airaland Forum

i also wanted to mention the word 'glitches'. Quite the word to describe the phenomena.

Jenwitemi: Deja vu could also be as a result of us being in a 3D programmed reality with glitches. I used to have many of them in Nigeria, but funnily enough, i don't have them with equal frequency here in Europe. In fact, almost none at all. Could be that the Nigerian part of the 3D matrix is less perfect and filled with more glitches than the European one. <<Shrug>> Speculations like this is a gift.

'Perhaps', indications that there's more/open spiritual activities (clearer signals) in nigeria THAN where you are. Little wonder, they may be puzzled hearing about spirits, witchcraft, God, rainmakers etc.

Depends on your definition of rich. Jesus though, had all that He needed, plus a treasurer.

Enigma: @Image123

I hope you will answer just one question from me.

Would you say "tithing" is an obligation for a Christian today?

i'm not answering, sorry.

thehomer: No I don't agree that some God made the sun or any objects in the universe. My point is to show you using your own ideas that if you believe some God is responsible for all that, then he must also be responsible for diseases and disasters here on earth. Now if he is also responsible for them, then why bother worshiping him?

The Bible says that the earth initially did not have all these problems, it was specially designed habitable for man. Sin and satan brought the evil. Our belief that God owns the sun, stars and good things is from the Bible. The same Bible points to sin and satan as the source of destruction. Where you get your if God did A, then He MUST have done B, i don't know. I've told you where i get my own view.

Jenwitemi: I say that is just BS. Is it biblically impossible that Jesus and his 12 disciples weren't Christians? Because they weren't christians in their days even though they were in the bible. Stop talking nonsense.

Jesus' disciples were christians. Jesus is the Christ, not a christian.

Goshen360: @ Image123,

I asked you are question above, you didn't answer me but I see you are responding to other threads. Can we continue in our questions series here? Remember we are still in question 5 o, Abi we don finish be that ni?

i'm only still on this thread because i told you that i'll answer your ten questions, when it suits you to ask you can go ahead. i could give a rebut TO EVERY SINGLE PHRASE POSTED but what does it matter? i've said all i need to say to my satisfaction. It's left to each reader, i'm not in the habit of forcing my views on others. i saw all these from the start, and like i said, i'm not interested in going in weightless circles

Jenwitemi: No, it isn't.

Well, it's biblical impossible.

diluminati: ok i didnt see any religious stuff in your explanation, that means religion can not even explain what it is. you are preaching new age oh, just so you know

The existence of spirit, soul and body is not new age. It's biblical.

thehomer: My point is that the same God is also responsible for the earthquakes, tsunamis and malaria. Go ahead and keep giving him glory even when he oppresses your people.

In other words, you agree that God made the sun, moon and stars and the heaven. Or on what basis do you charge Him with being the cause of earthquakes and sicknesses?

Bump, i see i've not missed anything. Wanted to add yesterday a bit about money. Money in the form we know it today was not essential. Like i said, things have greatly changed today. We actually use phones and cars and have to go to school, everyone. People have changed careers, gone back to school in old age, changed continents just for money. All these were basically none existent just over a century ago. Money as we know it, is most vital now than it ever was.
Secondly, what really is money? Money is a medium of exchange widely accepted as final payment. Money is anything generally accepted as final payment for goods and services. There was a time money was gold. In history, money has been silver, shekel, tobacco, crude oil, cattle, animal skin, rare feathers, essentially barter. It's all common sense. They say you can force a horse to the stream but you can't force it to drink water. How true.

Deja vu is simply an evidence that we humans have an inner man, that we are made up of spirit, soul and body. Many people live like we're just body, perhaps because we easily see the body. But there's a different you in you. Depending on natural gifts or development/cultivation, this inside you or youS are more pronounced in some than in others.

It's impossible to love Christ without loving christians.

thehomer: You do realize that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around.
God didn't give earth anything, dying stars did that. And as has been mentioned, who is then responsible for the earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and malaria if you wish to assign the earth to God?

The point is that God made the sun, the moon and the stars. That He permits any of them to transmit light to earth is enough for you to quit your career and give Him all the glory forever for.

Callotti: All discussions are relevant on this thread to prove the 'imperfections' of your so-called God!
You might want to stop doing 'drugs' and 'alcohol' for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Please, seek help for your Adult-CADHD(adult cyber attention deficit hyperactive disorder.
You misfire without even shooting ALL THE TIME.
Thanks in advance.

You sound high on blokos, whatever that means.

logicboy: As expected. Keep dodging the question by asking a question. Tool.

Answer the question if you can, i'll answer yours in time.

logicboy: Let's test your stupid theory. So who created the earhtquakes and Tsunamis? Is it man? Who created leprosy?

Who do you think, and why?

If we knew for example, that he was a carpenter who didn't own flock or farms, then we could confidently conclude that people did tithe beyond what was detailed in Lev 27.

How do you know that a carpenter didn't own flocks or farms? How don't you confidently say that Pharisees and scribes don't own flocks or farms? i personally know people today, who work in hospital, school, government, and own flock and farms. Why then should we be confident to conclude otherwise for an agrarian society who lived majorly on subsistence farming?

The real question would be why did God specify the items he did and omitted others? If the 'common practice' deviated from the specific instruction, do you place greater weight on 'common practice' or the instruction?

We cannot move away from seeking God's instructions - the Pharisee's twisted God's law on the Sabbath to imply you shouldn't help people out on the Sabbath, but that was an individual's/group's interpretation. That may have been 'common practice', but that doesn't make it right in any way.

Are we all going to deny history? Just less than 150years ago, even the then developed world of Britain, Germany and America still had 90%(or say a very major percent) of their workforce in agriculture. It's only those living in denial that do not know that THINGS HAVE CHANGED. Back in Bible days, riches were measured in crops and animals, not in dollars. There was no millionaire or billionaire like in Today's sense. The quest was for cattle and barns. Think up any rich man in the Bible, na so so cattle and ram. Material prosperity to them was on agriculture. Even God's promises of material blessings was in line"I'll bless your barns and make your goats fruitful." Even to the NT, Jesus talked about the rich fool and his barns. Think of Job, Abraham, Jacob, Nabal etc. Today, nobody looks at a rich man and care of how many rams he has. We want to know of his naira and pounds. Things have changed greatly in the last 200 years; industrial revolution, combustion engine automobiles, market capitalization, capital budgeting, divisionalization, monetary policies, currencies and reserves. These have come to stay. Today, Money in the form we now know it, makes the world go round. The people of old were simply told to give tithes of their wealth. Today, money is our wealth, our substance. People want the money instead today. People work for the money, not for crops.
What we are missing is the basic needs of man. The economists say it is food, clothing and shelter. Today, money gets you these things. These are the things that 'the gentiles' seek basically. God took care of the priest's shelter by giving them cities, others had inheritance btw. He tool care of their clothing by telling the people to contribute the material. And He took care of their food through offerings, and more consistently through tithes. Today, we should not do less but more for our ministers and leaders who labour and leave other career pursuit in order to shepherd us.
1Corinth 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
Why it's such a great issue among antitithers baffles me.

Finally, on the issue of Jesus receiving tithe, is it the same tithe (instructed with specific requirements in Lev 27) that Jesus is receiving or the 'free/spontaneous' tithe that Abram offered, or another tithe? How does Jesus receive this tithe, when the previous examples of receiving tithes happened in physical form by Melchizedek and the OT priests?[/b]

Jesus is God, and He receives our tithes the same way God receives offerings and tithes. Through the ministers of the gospel that we give them to.

debosky: It's been interesting reading through the responses here, and I have to say I admire people for attempting to explain their views on this contentious issue.

A few comments:

@ Image

If a question has two parts separated by an 'AND', you CANNOT claim to have answered the question fully by only answering one part.

As for the moments you've claimed Goshen was 'dishonest', (regarding the specific instructions) I think his aim was really to get an answer from you on whether God ever gives specific instructions and not whether he ONLY gives specific instructions. I may be wrong, but that's how I read it.

With regards to 'anti-tithers' 'inserting' the word 'only' into tithes, if you do make that claim that tithes are of 'all', then you need to show, within the law/instructions, where tithes encompassed items other than those specified in Leviticus 27. Simply referencing a person saying he gives a 'tithe of all I possess' isn't sufficient as evidence. We do not know what constitutes this 'all' - we do not know if this person was simply a farmer, or a shepherd, or a carpenter. If we knew for example, that he was a carpenter who didn't own flock or farms, then we could confidently conclude that people did tithe beyond what was detailed in Lev 27.

The real question would be why did God specify the items he did and omitted others? If the 'common practice' deviated from the specific instruction, do you place greater weight on 'common practice' or the instruction?

We cannot move away from seeking God's instructions - the Pharisee's twisted God's law on the Sabbath to imply you shouldn't help people out on the Sabbath, but that was an individual's/group's interpretation. That may have been 'common practice', but that doesn't make it right in any way.

Finally, on the issue of Jesus receiving tithe, is it the same tithe (instructed with specific requirements in Lev 27) that Jesus is receiving or the 'free/spontaneous' tithe that Abram offered, or another tithe? How does Jesus receive this tithe, when the previous examples of receiving tithes happened in physical form by Melchizedek and the OT priests?

Apologies for also posing my questions - feel free to skip over them to sort out the main issues first.

@ Image

If a question has two parts separated by an 'AND', you CANNOT claim to have answered the question fully by only answering one part.

Okay, but i answered the question, and that's i think just one question that has that clause. They didn't reveal that i answered any of the questions?

As for the moments you've claimed Goshen was 'dishonest', (regarding the specific instructions) I think his aim was really to get an answer from you on whether God ever gives specific instructions and not whether he ONLY gives specific instructions. I may be wrong, but that's how I read it.

He went through a dishonest means to get to a 'thought' aim. i said it twice and bolded it. i said sometimes yes, and other times no. God's command is broad. We can't just limit it to our pre-suppositions and narrow-mindedness. i've been quite clear on that.
Psa 119:96 I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
(WEB) I have seen a limit to all perfection, But your commands are boundless.

With regards to 'anti-tithers' 'inserting' the word 'only' into tithes, if you do make that claim that tithes are of 'all', then you need to show, within the law/instructions, where tithes encompassed items other than those specified in Leviticus 27. Simply referencing a person saying he gives a 'tithe of all I possess' isn't sufficient as evidence. We do not know what constitutes this 'all' - we do not know if this person was simply a farmer, or a shepherd, or a carpenter.

They inserted the word 'ONLY'. i make bold to say it again, and i say again, let them also show us from scriptures where God commanded that ONLY tithe of crop and animals should be given. Or maybe you'ld help me ask them? We are not bound by the law. Abraham gave tithe of things that were not only crop and animals. Is that passage to be cut off from our Bible? Is it?

Deu 14:28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
What's your increase/rise/profit today, is it crop and animals, then go ahead and tithe of that increase. Mine is not crops and animals, PUHlease. And there's a popular consensus on this thread that i'm not going to hell for it.

Luk 18:12

(ALT) 'I fast twice in the week; I tithe all [things], as many as I acquire.'

(ASV) I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.

(BBE) Twice in the week I go without food; I give a tenth of all I have.

(CEV) I go without eating for two days a week, and I give you one tenth of all I earn."

(Darby) I fast twice in the week, I tithe everything I gain.

(GNB) I fast two days a week, and I give you one tenth of all my income.'

(GW) I fast twice a week, and I give you a tenth of my entire income.'

(KJV) I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
NUFF said perhaps. Oh, one more.

Lev 27:30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD.
Lev 27:31 And IF a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.
Anyone who reads through this chapter should see that verse 31 clearly says of a tithe that involves other than crops and animals. i'm so tempted not to explain because i know what my friends would do is quote everything and quip something about not been surprised or some torrent of abuse and accusations. But for you debo and other readers, There was a clause given for redeeming tithe or vows in that chapter. That is, maybe you vowed a property(house, animal etc), or you were to tithe some mangoes. Then on second thoughts, you felt for one reason or the other, i can't let go of these particular mangoes or property, the solution was that it could be redeemed. What would happen in that case is that you show your vow or tithe to the priest, He will then value/estimate it in monetary terms, then you'll pay a fifth i.e 20% in money. So when people continue with all this shout about crop and animals, i just shake my head slowly at the ignorance and gracelessness.

@Image123
Also in Matthew 23:23 which you and your cohorts love using to manipulate believers into believing Jesus endorsed tithing for christians, Jesus made it clear that Tithing was an aspect of the law(albeit a less important one) but still a part of the now abolished Jewish laws. Is it not funny that even when tithing was relevant it was a less important part of the law and today that it is no longer relevant our modern day pharisees are trying to make it the most important part of their man made church traditions?

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Do i need to re-say this? Jugdement, Mercy and Faith are WEIGHTIER matters of the law. Have you EVER seen that? Are they also Jewish laws that are no longer relevant? i don't understand how you think, sincerely.

@kunle

I had decided to refrain from responding to Image's heresies but since he specifically mentioned my name above i have no choice but to point out the errors in his baseless allegations.

found a voice at last. i knew i paralysed you and rendered you deaf and dumb like Paul did to that guy for a while. Glad to have you back pointing out your usual copy and paste. (this is likely to gain their attention above real issues BTW)

The bible makes it clear that tithing is a commandemnet under the law,

What the Bible makes clear is that tithing preceded the law, was during the law, and outlives the law.

funny enough image quoted the very verse that said so earlier whilst he was attempting to obfuscate issues, for the benefit of all i would quote the verse again:

Hebrews 7:5:

5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham

so all these your mischieveious word play about tithe being a law is pure diversion. the bible makes it clear is a commandement under the law, therefore it is a part of the law.

It's only funny because you refused to note that nobody's denying that tithes were not paid during the period of the law. The heart of the issue has been that tithing was BEFORE the law.

Also i read somewhere in your epistle of heresies that tithing is a moral law and not a ceremonial law. I can't believe you can be this conceited in tyour lies. Tithing was clearly a ceremonial law

Does he even know the meaning of moral law and ceremonial law? You see kunle, just saying something doesn't make it true.

Tithing was clearly a ceremonial law as it was done once a year biblically and it involved feasting[deut 14:22-29]. it had absolutely noting to do with morals. i pray thee how in your warped sense of easoning could it possibly be a moral law?

To explain in simple language, ceremonial laws were purification laws. Their goal was to make one pure. But that goal was never fulfilled, that's what Jesus came to fulfill and why the ceremonial laws are done away with. They could not make the keepers perfect/clean. Ceremonial laws included the washings, sin offering, drink offering, tresspass offering, meat offering. If you eat this, you are unclean, if you see dead body you're unclean till evening. The priest will have to sprinkle this and rub that and then pronounce you clean. Those are ceremonial laws. They were geared towards MAKING YOU CLEAN. But moral laws are like don't kill, don't fight, don't lie, show mercy, give to the poor, give tithe etc. Even if you did all these all year, the Israelites are not okay until they go for the ceremonial laws fulfillment. You may never kill all your life, or pay tithe every time, doesn't make the Israelite clean or unclean. It was the ceremonial laws that made them unclean and clean. They must bring in the sin offering to be clean, they must not touch dead body or eat unclean food, or touch anything a leper has touched and etc. that's the difference btw ceremonial and moral. i'd be greatly happy and surprised if you gain anything from what i just said though.

Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
he of whom these things are spoken is Christ, not Melchisedek. He's the One the writer has been talking about all the while when we are busy chasing shadows and translations.

Hebrews 7:8
1 Amplified Bible (AMP)
8Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by ONE of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].

AND

Hebrews 7:8
1 Amplified Bible (AMP)
8Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by MELCHIZEDEK of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].

Many would spot the difference in the above quote(s) for a prize of money. How many would spot the difference for a price of honesty. Religion is not necessarily righteousness.

The point here is you said it was Jesus while many translations mentioned Melchizedek. I can't just understand you!

Which translation mentions Melchizedek as receiving tithes? You do not understand the passage, not just understanding me.

Hebrews 7v13-14 say nothing about tithes. You can check all the versions and language bibles you can lay hands on. You're adding to the Word again, why?
This assignment Hebrews 7v13-14 say nothing about tithes. You can check all the versions and language bibles you can lay hands on is yet to be submitted.

Of course, other issues have been brushed aside. Answers to 5e and other questions have been ignored instead of accepted only to come up at a later time, some other thread, i'm sure. What's 'reigning' now is Hebrews. They conveniently ignored Matthew 23 when i spoke on it. They pushed away Genesis and Luke. Very soon, i can predict that instead of tackling the issues raised on Hebrews, they'll run to Leviticus, then maybe Malachi. You are confirmed insincere and unwilling to learn. Everything outside your preconceived knowledge is heresy and obfuscation. Your role models did worse to Jesus.
John 8:48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

---

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
The summary of what's been said in Hebrews 7, is it something on tithe? you guys seem to believe so much that the passage's focus is on tithes. Goshen has even promised severally to show the hidden thing revealed to him alone, and soon to be appluaded by fellow antitihers as hottest revelation to enter the planet.
How you all miss thatt and say it's not talking about Jesus is amazing. The whole of the OT is talking about Jesus, how much more the NT!
Hebrews 7 doesn't say that 'He(Jesus Christ) is not eligible to receive tithes' and some other nonsense you guys have been making up.

Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
But 'He RECEIVETH THEM'. WHo is receiving them. How can it be Melchisedek? Does that even make sense at all? i trust you all to ignore this AGAIN.
Does it make sense at all for Melchisedek to still be receiving tithes in the present continuous? How, and from who does he receive tithes? Who's giving tithes to Melchisedek, that we can say Melchisedek receiveth them? These and many other ignored, are the uncomfortable questions. i've given uncommon time and detail to answering your posts on tithes. i've even taken many phrase to phrase, not your usual wave of the hand quoting all have said and adding some one liner like "you are dishonestly obfuscating issues and goshen will take care of you". Very pathethic whining from the cremes of antitithing when they've met things superior to their usual ignored rants.

---

AGAIN, look at some of your translations. None of them directly says that Melchisedek receiveth tithes.

Hebrews 7:8
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
8 Those priests get a tenth, but they are only men who live and then die. But Melchizedek, who got a tenth from Abraham, continues to live, as the Scriptures say.
As the name implies, it's very easy to read in men's opinions. The original mentions no name in that verse. You're all scholars, go and look it up if you're bold enough.

Hebrews 7:8
Amplified Bible (AMP)
8Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].
i say it again for emphasis. There was no name mentioned in the verse. And PLEASE open your eyes, i doubt God's going to open them for you. OPEN YOUR EYES and see that it says in that verse, "they are received by one", NOT "they are received by Melchizedek". i'll stop there, if you can't see it in this first two you quoted, you wouldn't see it even if i brought up a thousand other versions. And it's the same reason i don't have much joy as regards your verse by verse proposal, as i usually would. i've seen the future.

Who is this ONE that receives even into the future, cos no one's giving tithe to Melchi at present.

Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
The ONE of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Who on earth is WITNESSED that He liveth, Melchisedek? NO. It's the Lord's Christ.

Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
2Corinth 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them
Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
4 scriptural witnesses. FOUR proving that Christ is the one that liveth forever more. There's no witness to bear out Melchisedek, except of course Melchisedek is Christ, as 'some scholars' have thought. there goes scriptural proofs that witness the One who liveth to receive my tithes and make intercessions for me.

logicboy: You are talking nonsense.

Why dont you also credit god for natural diseases like leprosy and genetic disorders?


Why dont you credit god for natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis?

Because they were not in the plan, and were not happening when God formed the earth. the Bible says everything was good.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

^God allows His sun to set and rise on earth. That in itself is enough. God gave earth all its 'natural' resources. His atmosphere, His land, His Spirit. You're such a hoped ingrate.

Pastor Kun: I see you have summoned up enough courage to post on this thread after leaving your partner in crime to ridicule and make a big fool of himself. For the record it is those of us who oppose the tithe doctrine that are the true berean christians as we have studied the scriptures and now know beyond reasonable doubt that christians are not required to tithes contrary to the falsehood you and your cohorts teach to fleece off believers off 10% of their regular income.

Little wonder you have no peace on this. A ninety nine page argument on tithe and still no peace for you. Up the tempo bro.

can i be suprised? The suspects did not tackle the post nor any of the issues raised. Na so so murmur and complain. Tackle the rebut if you have the honesty to. You guys are a shameless lot.

The OP was asking with respect to a certain scripture passage.

My morning has come then in Jesus' name.

Your pastor should.

Whatever we may face in the night, joy is coming in the morning bro.

The real issue of the OP's wife is money management, not tithes. i tithe and i don't owe anybody. What happens to the 9/10 is the real issue here. The 9/10 is nine times greater than the tithe. The OP's wife probably suffers from the praise and esteem of church members. That, and money management is what she should work on.