₦airaland Forum

EMILO2STAY: leave those frauds like bidam, image123, joagbage and co. These people just like many of the popular pastors who run big churches in nigeria know exactly what they are doing, they know the fraud they teach they know the truth but will not preach it, because they are of their father the devil. when u watch the way they twist the bible you will know the truth is obvious to them but they choose to lie to lazy christians who prefer to read ovation magazine and news papers more than their bible. How can a pastor tell you to give God money so he can make u rich, guide and protect u and ur financies. And mature adult fall for this?...

as you so rightly stated...

Lazy Christians who would rather read anything other than the Word of God are susceptible to yhe smooth words and fair spooches that the fraudsters deliver.

EMILO2STAY: oh! So u know this!, do u sow tithe? you actually pay tithe, you dont give tithe.

Exactly! Tithes were paid. Not given, nor sowed.

Image123: Seems you did not read me well, are you delirious? here it is again.

A covenant is simply an agreement. Any child of God can make an agreement with the heavenly Father based on relationship. That is what is meant by covenant practice. God does not have just two covenants or agreements, even in the Bible.

I understood you perfectly well.

A covenant is an agreement between two individuals.

In order for me to make an agreement on tithing with God, I must first be given the conditions that God wants me to meet. I cannot agree with something that God never told me to do.

Now, I ask again.... show us where in Scripture where God endears, endorses, or enters into this "agreement," to accept monetary tithes?

Image123: A covenant is simply an agreement. Any child of God can make an agreement with the heavenly Father based on relationship. That is what is meant by covenant practice. God does not have just two covenants or agreements, even in the Bible.

Fine. Now, show us where in Scripture where God endears, endorses, or enters into this "agreement," to accept monetary tithes?

DrummaBoy: When Pastor Kun accuses Bidam of being a scripture twister, I sometimes think he way too acerbic but with the comments above, I wish to state that Kun is a 100% right.

The Abrahamic Covenant which was enacted in Genesis 17 goes forth: (permit me to quote the key verses):



Yes, God made a covenant with Abraham and this covenant was unique in that it was marked with CIRCUMCISION!. It was this circumcision that became the mark confidence of the Jews which the NT, especially through the ministry of Paul, made nought of:



The NT covenant is clearly depicted in old and repeated in the new as:



This covenant is ratified by the spiritual circumcision on our hearts and not a physical one. Thus we see the marked difference between these two covenants.

The faith of Abraham which we are called to imitate as sons of Abraham is the faith he displayed long before the covenant was enacted (Genesis 15:6). So that Paul shows us that Abraham can now be the father of faith to both those who are circumcised and those who are not.

The core truth of the NT is that the covenant God has enacted with Christian today is all new and has never before been practised. O, yes, we saw glimmers of it through the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15; even through law of Moses; but it is abundantly clear that this covenant is very new and had never been revealed to people of the past.

So, Christians have come into an all new relationship with God, whose tenets of doctrine and practice is clearly enumerated in the New Testament and no where else. The covenant shows that the marks of other covenants like circumcision, sabath honoring, tithing, etc, are not elements of this New Covenant we have today. The mark of the New Covenant is Love: love for God and for humanity.



And as for this scripture which Bidam cunningly put in to justify his Abrahamic covenant:



Please Bidam should be reminded that that particular Paul's discuss in that chapter started from verse 6 not verse 16. Verse 6 and following said:



Please, let us note how many times faith is discussed in this chapter. The context in which Paul discussed Abraham's covenant not being nullified was in the context of contrasting works of the law with faith in God. Paul was showing us that there was an element that was evident in Abraham's covenant with God and that was FAITH and not works of the law. Paul was not saying, as Bidam would eroneously have us believe, that the Chrisitan covenant is the same as the Abrahamic Gen 17 covenant. What Paul is saying that the same way Abraham came into his covenant with God by faith, so also are we to come into our covenant (which is different from Abraham's) by faith too.

Like I said in the beginning, the mark difference btw the Abrahamic covenant and the NT covenant is CIRCUMCISION. But the similarity btw them is FAITH. It is that aspect of faith we share with Abraham and nothing else. If not, Paul never have argued intensely against circumcision like he did. And the same arguments that put circumcision to nought are the same to put tithing to pieces.

I pray with this few points of mine, Bidam will cease in this inglorious ministry of twisting scriptures.

I'm Mark Miwerds, and I also endorse this post. Drummaboy is "spot on" with his expositing the Scripture concerning the Abrahamic Covenant vs the New Covenant which the post-cross Christian has been so graciously been brought into.

Tithing works for the tithe collector. He gives 10% of the tithes he receives, but he keeps 90% of those tithes. Of course it works for him. He continues to get richer, while the one who tithes to him gets poorer.

But is it truly God who is working for the one collecting tithes?

Since God revealed in His Holy Word that His tithe was crops and livestock, (Lev. 27:30-33) and the monetary tithe he is teaching is not the same tithe that God established in His Word, then what is working on the behalf of the monetary tithe teacher is not God. Rather, it is the monetary tithe teacher's good words and fair speech that is working for him.

Proverbs 7:21 (KJV)
With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him.

Romans 16:18 (KJV)
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Many of the simple fall prey to the con artist because of his smooth words and fair speech. Likewise, many a simple church member falls prey to the good words and fair speeches of the monetary tithe teacher.

Matthew 23:14 (KJV)
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Just as the scribes and Pharisees devoured widow's houses, teachers of the monetary tithe devour the houses of those who are simple enough to fall victim to their good words and fair speeches.

Uche ernest: u dn't ve to knw me, take it or leave it.. Tithe works, if u dn't want to adhere to covenant practice' dnt, if u want to then obey. Bt i tell you this the secret for lasting wealth(generational) is tithing.. How i wish u read the right books.

Covenant practice?

Where in the Bible does it say that tithing of money is a "Covenant practice"?

The only time tithing is done under a "covenant" in the Bible is in the Old Testament. That "tithe" was of crops and livestock... not money.

God's "covenant with Abram was not until AFTER Abram's tithe to Melchizedek, not before. His tithe was not part of a "covenant."

I suggest that you are the one who needs to "read the right books" to get a better understanding of tithes, not Zikky.

Joagbaje: Same goes for tithing , worship, offering , alms giving , fasting and every other spiritual principle .



No rather the non tithing christian is the robber .

Since God reveals in His Word that the tithe that went to the storehouse was to be FOOD, those who tithe money instead of what God said to tithe are in rebellion against God's directive.

Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

Tithe teachers are the robbers. They rob widow's houses for a pretense. In robbing widows, they rob God.

James 4:3 (KJV)
Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume [it] upon your lusts.

Joagbaje,

You claim Luke 18:12 proves that money was tithed. Luke 18:9 proves it wasn't.

Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

The verse you referenced was a parable. It never happened. It was an illustration to show the self-righteous that trusted in themselves, that they were lost.

The Pharisee of the story did not tithe money. This is evident by the fact that at that time, they were under the dispensation of the Law. He would have tithed what the Law required... crops and livestock, to the Levites as per the Law.

Bidam: Paul wouldn't have believed the Spirit that appeared to Him on his way to damascus claiming to be Jesus,if he wasn't a pharisee.Only the pharisees believed in Angels and ressurection.The saducees don't.

Moreso,You lied in your second point.Paul still claimed he was a pharisee after the encounter with Jesus.his name changed,never changed who he was.It is just like saying i am no longer a yoruba since i am now a christian. I can change my name but not my roots.(Acts 23:6-10).

Actually, I did not lie at all. In all of Paul's epistles, he only mentions being a Pharisee in one passage... Phil. 3:4-8. Notice:

Philippians 3:4-8 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and[b] I count all things but loss[/b] for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Paul, when speaking of being a Pharisee, was speaking of his past state,... not of his present state. After his Salvation experience on Damascus Road, Paul rejected the sect of the Pharisees, counting that past life as dung.

debosky: No amount of claiming scripture is profitable for doctrine will ever justify twisted teaching.

Amen, Debosky!

The proper teaching from Malachi 3 should be that Malachi was referring to a tithe of crops and livestock... not money.
The proper teaching from Malachi 3 should be that the curse associated with not tithing was locusts and withholding of rain.
The proper teaching from Malachi 3 should be that the blessings associated with tithing was rain from heaven and withholding the locust from eating the crops... bringing about a bountiful harvest... not more money, better job, good health, close-knit family, etc..
The proper teaching from Malachi 3 is that it was written to Israel, not to the Church. The Church was not robbing God... the Priests of Israel were.

Chris Oyakhilome clearly distorts the proper teaching of Malachi 3, turning the rebuke and exhortation into something that God never said.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

DrummaBoy: @Candour

I missed the Oyakhilome piece on tithing. Pleases can you re-post it here? The one I saw was Adeboye's revelation on firstfruit. A thread the "most holy" Bidam and others wisely dodged.

Found it: https://www.nairaland.com/1189741/tithes-offerings/92#19108183. Thanks Candour!

@Bidam

I need to congratulate you on this latest revelation of Jesus being a Pharisee. Quite ingenious. Keep it up!

Just re-read Pastor Chris' "The Giving That Stands You Out" and was totally disgusted with his blatant misuse of Scripture to justify his greed.

1. Tithes - Malachi 3 was not speaking of a monetary tithe, but the tithe required by Mosaic/Levitic Law. That is, tithes of crops and livestock.
2. Offerings - Again, if one reads the Scripture Oyak references, (Ex. 23:15) it is not speaking of money at all... it is speaking of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. All were to eat unleavened bread for seven days. "No one is to be empty" is speaking of unleavened bread, not money.
3. Financial gifts above the alleged tithes and offerings? That man is the picture of greed and deceit.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Oyakilome totally wrests the Scripture, contorting it into a ministry of lies.

Bidam: Thanks for the hypocritical comment. Last time i checked,Pharisee is just a strict sect in Judaism.Your Paul you esteem to high heavens was a pharisee of the pharisees.

I wonder why the obnoxious comment since you never regarded Jesus as God here.

1. Jesus was not a Pharisee. He was always at odds with the Pharisees.
2. While it is true that Saul was a Pharisee, the Apostle Paul was not. Once Paul came to faith in Christ, he was no longer a Pharisee. He hated the old man and all that was associated with his old nature so much that he said he counted all his past as dung. He even changed his name from Saul to Paul. He didn't even want the old name.

Zikkyy: yes. am sure a portion of the harvest is sold to purchase other necessities. but God was never interested in the income from sales of Agric produce. Tithe was always on the harvest (before it is sold).

Agreed.

The tithe could be redeemed. (bought back)

In order for one to "buy back" something, that something would have to leave one's possession. The farmer could not "buy back" the tithe unless it had already left his possession.

One does not walk into a bookstore with a rare book and tell the shopkeeper, "I'd like to buy back this book, please." That is, unless he had first given the book to the shopkeeper, or sold it first to the shopkeeper. Then, and only then, could the book be "bought back."

The crops tithe was the same. The farmer could not shirk the responsibility to tithe his crops. He had to tithe. Then, and only then, was he able to "buy back" the tithe if he so desired.

Zikkyy: Don't mind joagbaje, a farmer's income/gain/earnings would be his harvest and tithe was on harvest. i still don't understand how joagbaje managed to import cash into the equation.

Farmers had to have had some form of money with which to redeem (buy back) the crop tithe if they so desired.

Leviticus 27:31 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

But money was never tithed.

Zikkyy: So this na your role model? you are expected to follow Jesus, not some guy bragging bout his performance. who send the guy to pay tithe of cash self? my brother you don miss road

how you even translate income/gain/earnings to cash i don't understand. i thought you said the Israelite were farmers by default?

they're only farmers when it fits Joagbaje's theology.

[quote author=Demain_man]The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.

12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”


CONCLUSION:

This is the verse that finally convinced me that paying tithe is the least important before God and the most important before the PHARISEES.

Why the do this 'Men in suits' preach it as if their whole existence depends on it? Of course they are robbers operating in the house of GOD.

Thank you God for bringing me to NL to learn the truth! thank you for true apostle li Candour, Mark, Pastor Kun, Zikky etc

Let the gullible continue in their gullibility and keep paying. As for me, I am enjoying my relationship with God as promised.


Pst Joagbaje, thanks for sharing but pls look at yourself and change your ways because the judgement of GOD will start from the Church. This tithe sin will not be visited on your members because they are gullible and are led by deceit. It will be visited on you and your GO.[/quote]Amen De_main Man! God bless you!!

These modern day Pharisees who brag of their tithing have their reward.

We who have been preaching and teaching the Truth as it is written in God's Holy Word will one day go to our Home in Heaven justified.

Joagbaje: If you read my post this will be unnecessary. Priest took money for tithes. There was redemption. That apart . Men gave tithes of all things . And all things represents all income.

We may not have all the details and that's where guys try to jump on. But certain scriptures still reveal the structure .

Luke 18:12 WEB
I fast twice a week. I[b] give tithes of all that I get[/b]. '

Luke 18:12 amplified
I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I gain.

Luke 18:12. Living bible
I go without food twice a week, and I give to God a tenth of everything I earn. '

So people gave monetary tithes.

Message translation makes it clearer

Luke 18:12
I fast twice a week and tithe on all my income. '

learn how to read the Bible. Luke 18:12 was part of a parable. Never happened. It was no more than an illustration of a prideful man who was rejected of God, and a repentent sinner accepted.

Joagbaje: There are many things they didn't teach. They didn't even teach about being filled with the holy Spirit Or healing or etc.



The bible was clear that money value was given as tithes. Money is a general medium of exchange. Money represents a mans labour.

And, as usual, you are wrong again. The Church taught Holy Spirit Baptism and Healing. They did not teach the fleshly tongues and falling out as churches do since the alleged Azusa Street Outpouring, but they did teach Holy Spirit Baptism and Healing as it was written in the Word of God.

And Money value was not given as tithes. You have no Scriptural support for such a claim.

Why are you bringing up firstfruits? Tithes were not firstfruits.

If tithing were an eternal principle, it would not have ceased for the first five centuries after the cross as it did.

This alleged moral principle was not taught by any Protestant church ontil the late nineteenth century.

I have books in my collection from the early seventeenth century in which protestant churches questioned the monetary tithe that was being forced on the roman catholic masses, saying that the Holy Scriptures declared the tithe was for Levites only.

Sorry Joagbaje, but the monetary tithe is not of God. Both the Word of God and historical records prove that.

Like I said, I pray one day you learn how to read the Bible. Thus far, you have proven you are unable to do so.

You say the Law is still in effect. Well, the Law that you say is still in effect reveals that the tithes God ordained and required were agricultural... Not monetary. You Sir, are the Lawless one.

Bidam: Too bad you are the guy here grasping at straws. There is no gentile bible. It is one whole book both for jews and gentiles. The synergy is unmistakable.The TORAH WAS GIVEN TO MANKIND."Testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21)

I pray you one day learn how to read the Word of God.

Fact #1: Torah was given to Israel. This is clearly seen when one reads the Torah.

Fact #2: Gentile Converts were not to be required to keep the Torah. This is clearly seen in Acts 15.

Fact #3: It is tempting God when you tell Gentile Converts that they must keep Torah. Again, clearly seen in Acts 15.

Fact #4: The commandments contained in ordinances (Torah) were abolished by Jesus Christ. Clearly seen in Ephesians 2.

Fact #5: No Judaizer will ever bewitch me into obeying or submitting to the Torah!

Cornelius may have known the Torah could not be broken at that time. But Cornelius would also have known that the Torah was given to national Israel and not to him.

Cornelius would also have known that the tithes required in the Torah were of agricultural nature only.

Too bad you have so hard a time grasping that fact.

God is no respecter of persons

My wife is a Jew. I, am not. God shows her no more love or favor than He does me.

I worship the only true God.

Bidam: You can't judge oyaks based on biblical tithe. You can criticize the message not the messenger.

sure we can judge the messenger. Jesus said, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Oyaks preaches the monetary tithe because that lie is in his heart. He rejects the truth written in God's Word and changes all the specifications of God's tithe to the specifications of the man-made monetary tithe.

We have the Word of God that judges Oyaks. He (and all other monetary tithe teachers) has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

christemmbassey: bros going by ur theory, we should close down all d courts n d prisons, let armed robbers, murders, molesters etc go free bc we all are dsame b4 God n d bible says all will face judgement. What is d dif between a christian who steals n an unbeliever who steals? Bros both are thieves, n God is no respecter of persons. If we should judge an unbeliever, we must also a christian.

Exactly, christemmbassey!

The Apostle Paul wrote that we are to judge those within. Paul himself did so when he "rebuked Peter to the face because he was to be blamed."

Galatians 4:22 (KJV) 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

Galatians 4:23 (KJV) 23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise.

Abraham had two sons. You guys can continue to lie against the Word all you want, but the Bible proves you to be liars against the truth. The works of your father ye will do.

Genesis 16:3-4 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

Hagar was Abram's wife.

Genesis 16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and[b] Abram called his son's name[/b], which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

Ishmael was the son of Abram.

Genesis 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

No contradiction here whatsoever. Abraham had sent Ishmael away. He had disowned him and Hagar upon Sarah's wishes. To Abram, Isaac was his only son at this point in time.



We see a similar thing in the life of Jesse.


1 Samuel 16:10-11
Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are these all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest [David].

Note that David is said to be the youngest of EIGHT sons

1 Chronicles 2:13-15 And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:

Here, David is the youngest of SEVEN sons

At some point in time, one of Jesse's sons was taken out of his life. Thus, he was only to have said he had seven sons when it is obvious he had eight.

Ishmael was Abram's son. When Abram sent him away, he was no longer recognized as his son.

The Bible says Hagar was given to Abram to wife.

Let's see what the commentator's say...

Adam Clarke: And Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar—and gave her to her husband—to be his wife—There are instances of Hindoo women, when barren, consenting to their husbands marrying a second wife for the sake of children; and second marriages on this account, without consent, are very common—Ward

Jamiesson, Faussett & Brown: Sarai … gave her to … Abram to be his wife—“Wife” is here used to describe an inferior, though not degrading, relation, in countries where polygamy prevails. In the case of these female slaves, who are the personal property of his lady, being purchased before her marriage or given as a special present to her, no one can become the husband’s secondary wife without her mistress consent or permission. This usage seems to have prevailed in patriarchal times; and Hagar, Sarai’s slave, of whom she had the entire right of disposing, was given by her mistress’ spontaneous offer, to be the secondary wife of Abram, in the hope of obtaining the long-looked-for heir. It was a wrong step—indicating a want of simple reliance on God—and Sarai was the first to reap the bitter fruits of her device.

When a bondwoman was given to a man by his wife to be a wife unto him, that bondwoman became the husband's secondary wife. Abram was married to Hagar.