₦airaland Forum

No, Viaro:

I find myself unable to accept much of what you've stated here. My reasons are simple - every question I've asked has been turned into a different question and the answer obviously has thus become answer to a different question. I guess you know why you do this - my concern is for those who read this thread seeing it as a "winning" exercise like Tonye-T has just done. You're providing a means of denial.

I won't bother to count how many times I asked who got the rest that Abram would not touch ASIDE of what Aner, Eshcol and Mamre took. The passage states there was something left aside what was eaten and the portion of those men. I didn't get an answer but a very professional evasiveness that made things go off on an unrelated tangent which yet brought a "conclusion".

I won't bother to count how often I stated that Abram's example was one of Christian free-will offering. Your assertions have reduced him to a robber baron who believed in might at war rather than the blessings God promised him that the passage says he was looking forward to. For the first time, I wonder how Abram could ever be considered worthy of emulation in terms of looking ahead for the fulfillment of God's Promise. Interesting how language and interpretation can be used to change meanings even when clear. Maybe thats why Christian leaders today also have become robber barons. Your Abram is the one they follow.

I won't bother to state how many times I stated here that Sodom had no legitimate claims to the spoils BUT only begged for the people. That alone makes me wonder why you hold on to this one point since the passage informs us that Sodom knew he had no claim. But you repeatedly sit on this turning it left and right and making it the subject of this discussion rather than face the import of Abraham's words themselves.

The issues of "Pd.H" and "Russell whatever" mean nothing to me. Ancient peoples gave tenths. I've made references available which state so. Abram gave a tenth. Why ONLY HIM was different from others in motive, is your position and I leave to you! He gave to the only king that welcomed him, prayed for him and who was a priest (I know this will get lost in your next post). Why you then still keep asking "WHY MELCHIZEDEK" and FOR THIS ALONE require "the light of Scripture", beats me.  Repeated allusions and treatises on Paganism, Ph.D holders and Russell "whatever" is simple quite, well, space filling and an amazing way to evade issues.

There is only one analysis here - Abram's Words! Abram said 'I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth and have taken an oath" [23] "that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a sandal, so that you will never be able to say "I made Abram rich" [24] I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me - to Aner, Eschol and Mamre. Let them have their share

What belonged to Sodom that he would not accept? NOTHING   WHAT WAS SODOM OFFERING HIM THAT HE REJECTED BY THE OATH? Why is that phrase there or was the Bible needing to fulfill a quota of words? I'll take nothing but their share plus what we ate - Share of what and what happened to the "balance"? If their share was everything, why then say "I'm taking nothing but their share plus what we ate". The words "plus what we ate" show the sum was greater than their share.

I used to argue to win but stopped as I advanced in years. I see the exact tactics I used then here so maybe the chickens have come home to roost. But I wonder if this is the sort of thing one wins especially with Christianity the way it is now considering the support this coming from "Viaro" would give?

I want help here. Could others (preferably Aletheia, Krayola, Jesoul, Inesqor) help me see what I'm not seeing here or conversely, show Viaro what I'm saying? I've gone as far as I can personally

Tell you what, Viaro - this is warfare by attrition.  You say it over and over and over till I say "that doesn't matter. Lets discuss something else" and then you say since I've agreed that is right, it means this is that ( ) then attack another mundane issue till I say ok. You're making me scream non-stop in my mind and I honestly cannot believe it is Viaro I'm discussing with.

Could other people just come in and let me know if I've lost my mind or not? Are we discussing what I'm reading in front of me. your assertions have gotten me to read these few verses close to a hundred times in under 24 hours. You're going to get me to take a "carbonated' drink this morning.

Help, anyone? Have I lost it?                             300, 000 times

Viaro:

This is the most amazing set of responses I ever read. Its interesting you believe I am the one reading what is not there with your assertions plus you are answering what you want and ignoring others. You're really just highlighting/addressing what I would consider the most mundane issues here leaving the weightier matters. AND PLEASE NOTE - not once have I said "oh ok, now you have agreed with this and that means that". That is not a good way to "rub minds".

When I say Sodom met/welcomed him, you latch on to "welcome" and turn that into a big thing - did you ever consider my choice of words means he saw him or they accidentally met or he welcomed him or whatever. I didn't say there was a ceremony involved that showed any "claims/whatever", did I?

After I said the laws of conquest would infer Abram owned the Spoils, you keep and keep and keep saying Sodom had no claim and buttressing this with "the light of scripture" that comes hundreds of years after. Would it make sense to you for me to use our standards today and thus "agree" with Mazaje that Yahweh was murderous; not considering first, the ways of the "times" and the personalities involved?! And again, I have repeatedly said he didn't have a "LEGAL" claim so why you keep repeating this, I do not know. But I'll bet you will now latch on to the word LEGAL now forgetting I'm talking about a concept not a court case. [i]wondering "Am I conversing with Viaro or did the LAWYER part of DeepSight get his password?"[/i] Please, stop saying the King of sodom had no rights - that is not in consideration here.

The passage discusses [1] Sodom meeting Abram [2] Melchizedek blessing him [3] Sodom discussing with him IN THAT ORDER. How you imagine Sodom wasn't a part of (or shared in) that meeting beats me. This again is another non-issue anyway and I wonder why it is of import to you

My argument that Abram gave Melchizedek a "tenth" - Yes, it was an accepted tradition. We've seen that from references. YOU however, are saying that in Abram's case, it was based on something else. This is my argument - everyone has been pissing all their lives when their bladders are full. Viaro says NO, in my case, I do it when I'm hungry. AND THEN YOU ASK ME TO PROVE THAT IT IS WHEN BLADDERS ARE FULL  . No, Viaro, onus is on you! I have no reason to argue with the norm when we have NO reason to believe otherwise. But for this, you now say "light of scripture". I justify it being Melchizedek - I say he was the only king present who [1] was not involved directly in the goods/warfare [2] was the only one we hear was a priest [3] was the one who celebrated Abram, blessed (prayed) for and rejoiced with him. We all attend parties, Viaro and you give food (first) to those who attend, not people on the street. Thats simplistic but explains my point

If I DO NOT recognise your right to something, I would NOT SAY "I'm taking nothing so you cannot EVER say it was your riches that made me wealthy". And if I said "I'm taking nothing except the portions (due to the rules of conquest) that belong to the others FROM YOU", that would "normally" mean you can have the rest.

I think we've beaten this issue enough. We've not seen who the rest (aside the "tenth", the portion of the 3 and what was eaten) went to. In lieu of that (except you can let me know who it went to), I believe it reasonable that it went back to Sodom's King or Peoples. Please leave the arguments and interpretations and answer just this - who got the rest (again FOR SIMPLICITY) 90% that Abram declined to take and that you've accepted he didn't take? That would prove your point easily.

Still evasive and avoiding what I am saying!

I'm trying to picture this - Say I am the King of Sodom and you are Abram. After losing my possessions, I meet/welcome you who has just won them in war. As at this time, I am unsure how you plan to handle the issue but accept that what I lost, you gained and only just welcome you if not for getting them back "for me", at least for conquering my enemies. But there is ANOTHER king who joins us. This is Melchizedek who is a Priest. He takes bread and wine and blesses you.

After Melchizedek prays for you, you give him a tenth of these goods. He is the "non-involved" king I mentioned since he was not involved in the war UNLIKE the King of Sodom.

I then sheepishly come before you and plead that you let me have my people. I also say you should keep all the gold/whatever. But you say "let Aner, Esckol and Mamre have their portions". You also say your men have eaten some of the food. Aside this, you want nothing"

Nothing of WHAT? you also say you do not wish I ever be able to say I enriched you. WOULD THIS NOT RESULT FROM YOU TAKING THESE PROPERTIES YOU HAD DECIDED YOU DIDN'T WANT ANY PART OF?

Viaro!!!!!!!!!!!

No Viaro:

You evaded my questions. Here again is what I'm saying

[1] Abram gave a tenth to Melchizedek
[2] His men had "eaten some"
[3] He allowed that Aner and the other two had their portion

[] FOR SIMPLICITY IN COMPUTATION, I ignored 2 and 3 and said Abram gave the rest back to Sodom. There is no argument over [2] and [3] above. Even before you pointed out the mathematical discrepancy, I had said myself that the use of 90% was to simplify and show that he didn't take anything for himself.

My questions remain [1] what "properties" of the King of Sodom did he reject taking? [2] Who, according to the Biblical passage, did Abram (not ME or YOU or Deuteronomy) say owned these "properties"? [3] If according to your most recent post, Abram did take the properties, would he have
been able to say I will not take thine so you cannot say you enriched me? Think about that statement - It was spoils of war that he believed to be his; why then say "I'm not taking what is yours so that you can't say you enriched me"?

See Viaro, I have moved from one point of view to another already when I stopped believing tithes were a duty. And I assure you I find it very easy to accept when I am wrong. All you need to convince me that I was wrong is to answer these 2 questions and kill this issue once and for all. Russell et al mean nothing to me. What I read is what I'm thinking about!

BTW, the King of Sodom did not, as you say, try to claim the "spoils of war" (goods and riches) for himself. All he asked for were his people. In asking for them, one gets the idea that morally, it was agreed that he "could" want the property back (but he didn't). Does it make sense to say "keep the goods which we all know are yours anyway! but give me the people which we both know are yours too since you won"?

VIARO, you are not reading my posts! I answered about Melchizedek earlier - He blessed Abram and he is the only non-involved king we hear of being present. Who would you have given the "tenth" to?

You're using a command given in Deut to "tell" Abram in Genesis that he owned the Spoils?

One question you asked that I didn't answer was why it was Melchizedek he gave the tenth to rather than another king. The passage informs us that it was Melchizedek who blessed Abram. Who would you give to, Viaro? Note that we are not aware of any other "not-involved" king being present at that meeting.

Chairman: Lets make this easy: -

Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Bela lost their possessions along with Lot and his property. Abraham warred and got back these possessions. The conquest informs he, as conqueror, now owned them. Then Abram said he would take nothing of "what belonged to the king of Sodom" except what his companions had taken. What happened to the possessions aside the "tenth" and the portion belonging to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre?

Please Viaro, answer this question without many words. And in the same succint response, tell us what it was he was saying belonged to the King of Sodom that he declined to take from the King of Sodom.

^^^ And if I cross your path, what will you do? 

"Chakula" irritated me and I reacted without thinking. I already regretted that and have stated so openly here. I apologise to him because my jibes were below the belt and unworthy.

You, Uplawal, cannot (do not have the capacity to) irritate me. You are an amusement to me  BTW, why do you have to forgive in Islam - your post is unclear and again, amusing. Or do you just feel the need to click reply? 

Chairman:

viaro:
Whatever people are shouting from anywhere, it does not make any sense for us to turn to unnecessary divides. So with tithe and tenth - whether mathematically, theologically, or otherwise, they mean the same thing in basic understanding. There is no reason to try so hard to make it mean something different - for doing so only makes us as guilty as others who seek unnecessary interpolations here and there. Tithe is simply the tenth.

It doesn't matter - Abraham gave 'tithes' (Genesis 14:20) is the same as Abraham gave 'the tenth' (Hebrews 7:4). They are the same.

Commander, I beg you to listen carefully to what I say and not what I did not say. I have said that my enquiry would be primarily in light of Scripture; so if you're going to appeal to other sources, I could allow for that as far as clarifications are necessary. Therefore, there is nothing in all those excerpts you quoted to show that the tithe/tenth was not based on holiness or righteousness - at best, that is what you want to force upon the issue of tithe/tenth; but that is not what Scripture presents to us.

Now, to deal with the following points in yours which seem to be responding to the points I raised:

No sir, that is what you say and is not what the Word of God says. Quite often, we have traditionally taken the whole passage to mean that 90% went back to the king of Sodom, but that is simply wishful thinking.

Let me discuss this by raising a few questions:

1. If 10% of the spoils went to Melchizedek, on what basis would any careful reader assume that the remaining 90% went back to the king of Sodom?

2. If we are to insist that 90% went back to the king of Sodom, then indeed none of Abraham's confederates got anything out of the spoils - which is not what Scripture teaches.

3. If Abraham's confederates took their portion, on what Scriptural basis could they have done so? And wouldn't that suggest that 90% did not go back to the king of Sodom?

4. On what basis at all, if any, would the king of Sodom stand to claim back any portion/percentage of the spoils of war?

These preliminary questions are vital in the sense that the answers are there in God's Word; but they are not what we often conclude. Point is that, the king of Sodom did not get any 90% back from Abraham. In fact, if we carefully read the passage in context, the king of Sodom got absolutely NOTHING from Abraham.

That is the most basic point; and when we miss this, all kinds of unfounded conclusions begin to emerge here and there to justify an anti-tithing stance. However, I'm leaving them open for now, for is you disagree then please furnish me with your reasons, and I shall then show you why I think you did not consider the verses in the spirit of the Word.

However, please note: Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek is NOT 'pagan' - it was not out of "custom" that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. If you argue to the contrary, please let me know why you do so and believe that Abraham's tithes were 'pagan tithes' and based on pagan customs.

Not in one bit. We don't read anywhere that Abraham was 'returning' anything to the people of Sodom. And I agree with you that the spoils belonged to Abraham - and that is why it is factually wrong for Christian theologians to argue that he tithed from what did not belong to him.

Before the 'crash', I had questioned Gary Arnold on that same point (which he never in one instance obliged any answers); but then, more to the point was that, if Abraham had tithed out of what did not belong to him by right, then he would have been displaying theft and not tithe - by the same laws of conquest. I know this, because those with a Ph.D who argue tithes to make Abaraham's tithes a matter of pagan customs are being dishonest. For one, I know that Russell Kelly's argument on that is fallacious, because even where he'd cited Hugo Grotius' work, he was reading something entirely different from what Grotius had written.

Of course, you may disgaree - but you would have to show me where any verse says that Abraham was returning anything to the king of Sodom, let alone that being a 90% anywhere.

Lol, I'm not interested in Abraham's reason for war - I would rather be interested in his reason for his tithing to Mlechizedek and to no other king! Have you thought through that? If you had, then all the preceding would be quite unnecessary - because in that very consideration lies your answer.

Abraham's tithes (as far as Scripture goes) is NOT presented to us as a 'pagan custom'. To insist that it was would simply mean you ignore who Melchizedek was in the first place. Besides, why would Abraham have tithed to Melchizedek and to no other king?

We can follow Abraham's example without trying to be a legalistic clone of the patriarch. We are called the children of Abraham in the NT, no? And if so, does the NT ask us to become clones of the patriarch?

What I see in all this is simply a principle and not legalism. I tend to think that Jewish scholars also do not drag on a legalistic interpretation on Biblical tithes all the way. In fact, many Jews (especially orthodox Jews) who still tithed today, do so on their income in addition to agricultural tithes on crops grown in Israel.

We are agreed that he gave tithes as HIS. Good.

But I do not agree with you that it was to fulfill "traditions demand". That is a fallacy as far as Scripture is concerned. If we are to argue and insist on such, my first question is this: why did he tithed to Melchizedek and not to any other king at all? A second question: what did Melchizedek "demand" from Abraham so the latter could then "fulfill" the said 'tradition'?

Without insisting, there are good grounds to follow Abraham's example. The only reason, IMO, why anti-tithers reject (and do not understand Abraham's tithe at all) is because they have written it all off as "pagan tithes". That is the biggest hindrance they've put themselves, and that is one reason why I wanted to rub minds with you on this subject.

I began to tithe after coming to an understanding that God has never called any of His people to legalism. Even under the OT, the basic tenets we preach for NT giving are all found ion the OT. It all depends on how one interpretes what he/she reads (What is written in the law? how readest thou? - Luke 10:26). If we read God's Word in such legalistic manner, we can be sure to arrive at very warped conclusions.

I explained my particular aversion to the word tithe rather than tenth. I stated it is a personal thing and I thank God that someplace in your post, you allow for "personal interpretations".

Death is not always death, Viaro. Death by a judge's order has the same effect as by a mob action. One is justice but the other is travesty of justice. We both know that

Ok, you say it cannot be proved it wasn't due to Holiness or Righteousness. Same goes for "due to customs and traditions. In lieu of proof for the existence of newer evidence, I would suppose what would be acceptable would be what was normal in those days being the reason. That is my honest opinion.

concerning your points [1], [2], [3] and [4], I wrote in my post that "for simplicity of calculation, I said 90% went to Sodom." But that in actuality, a portion went to Abram's companions. How you missed that suprises me. And the basis that the king would stand to get back anything was specified by Abram himself in saying "I take nothing belonging to you so you can never say you enriched me" Abram in effect says, the property would not be touched by himself.

You say Abram returned nothing back (is that the same as gave nothing back or better still, that the King of Sodom got nothing back?). Please show me how you arrived at this. What I see is you saying that what Abram said was "the goods are mine so its not your property I'm taking so don't for a minute think you can say it was your stuff that made me rich. I paid my tithe to Melchizedek because its my property so get out of the way"

Let me stop here and get a response to the above statement. That would clarify your thoughts on this. But my thoughts I make clear here - In saying "I will accept nothing belonging to you , but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men that were with me", Abram was refusing to take anything. Whether those goods were then burnt or further donated to Melchizedek would then be of no import. But he had said they belonged to someone and it was the king of Sodom he was addressing.

@DeepSight:

You are right and I already did regret it and almost immediately too. It was a rash response borne of irritation at his numerous christmas, dec 25, when was Jesus born etc style.

I ought to have ignored him and if the chance has arisen, I would have deleted the thread. I feel it would be "wrong" to change what my OP contained else would do so. What think you?

@ Christians:

The following quote made me remember who I'm supposed to be - a Christian "sincerely" searching for truth. Reminds me of another quote - DON'T confuse me with the FACTS as I already made up my mind!

Truth often offends those who believe they already have it. Keep this in mind as you study contrary views. It's not uncommon for those who believe they already know what the truth is about any issue or given subject, to be offended (sometimes even angered) about an alternative. Challenging certain teachings that have been accepted as true tends to be agitating. This is often true of many Christians--in virtually any capacity--who generally don't appreciate challenges (cordial or otherwise) to doctrines they sincerely believe and have held for years. Thankfully, sincerity and time have no effect on scriptural truths. Keep in mind that with regard to all matters of faith and practice, the only standard for believers is the Bible. What we've believed for long should not be the acceptable alternative to the Word of God

Mathematically, TENTH and TITHE mean THE SAME THING. However, theologically and today, they mean different things. I live in Nigeria, Viaro, and I hear "The TITHE is the Lords" all the time. It is preached and shouted from every nook and cranny. BUT you will not hear "The tenth is the Lords" if you understand what I mean. In effect, the word TITHE has come to be seen, to mean, a debt that is binding. It is only for that reason that I seperate the meaning of the two in Abram's story. He gave a tenth, NOT a "debt" tithe!

So yes, Abram gave a "tenth" to Melchizedek. Why did he do this?

"In the same manner the Greeks too, the Carthaginians, and the Romans devoted a tenth portion of the spoils of war to their deities." (On the Acquisition of Territory and Property by Right of Conquest - see "http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_306.htm")

"The Greek League against Persia, founded in 481 vows a tenth of the spoils of war to the shrine (7:132), and this happens, after Salamis and Plataea." (Herodotus on Greek Religion - http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/gkrlgn.htm)

"During the twelfth century, evidence points clearly to the growing significance of warfare in the life of the towns, especially in Portugal, Leon, Castile and Aragon. Precise indications of this development are demonstrated in the increasing concern demonstrated by the makers of the municipal charters in three areas closely related to booty. The first is the royal demand to collect the one-fifth tax on the spoils of war, a tax the Christian rulers inherited from the Muslim practice of laying aside a portion of the gains of the jihad for Allah." (Spoils and Compensations - http://libro.uca.edu/socwar/sw7.htm)

"For his courageous role in helping to take the Volscian town of Corioli, Caius Marcius, declining to accept one-tenth of the spoils, was named Coriolanus" (Roman Expansion to 133 BC - http://www.san.beck.org/EC24-RomanExpansion.html)

"In the days of Abu Bakr much wealth came to the state on account of the spoils of war. The movable property won as booty on the battlefield was known as "Ghanimah". Four-fifth of the spoils of war was immediately distributed among the soldiers who had taken part in the battle. The remaining one-fifth went to the State. The State's one-fifth share was further divided into three parts. One part went to the family of the Holy Prophet, one part went to the Caliph, and one part was spent for welfare purposes." (Political, Social, Economic and Military Organization - http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/15_abu_bakr.htm)

"TITHES, a form of taxation, secular and ecclesiastical, usually, as the name implies, consisting of one-tenth of a man's property or produce. The tax probably originated in a tribute levied by a conqueror or ruler upon his subjects, and perhaps the custom of dedicating a tenth of the spoils of war to the gods led to the religious extension of the term, the original offerings to deity being "firstfruits."
The custom was almost universal in antiquity; for Greece and Rome see Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, iv. 2306, 2423; for Babylon, M. Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 668; for China, J. Legge, Chinese Classics, i. 119; for Egypt, G. Maspero, Struggle of Nations, p. 312.f The general notion of tax or tribute often prevailed over that of "the tenth" part, so that in Dion Halicarnassus (i. 23) and Philo (Dc mutat. noin.~. 607) hirapxai and &thTat are synonymous, and in Mahommedan law the "tithe" is sometimes only -510th or ~f'eth." (1911 Encyclopedia) - http://96.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TI/TITHES.htm)

The above informs that this "TENTH" was a custom, not based on Holiness or Righteousness, but as a tradition of many (almost universal) ancient peoples. The Biblical passage says Abram refused to take any portion aside what his men took. For purposes of math simplicity, I call that the remaining 90% or 9/10. That went back to the Sodomites. Thats what the Word says.

The issue of ownership of the SPOILS OF WAR - laws of conquest would determine that the "spoils of war" were Abram's due, since he was the one who warred and won them. However, he refused that, spoke out and said he was returning all to the sodomites who "owned" them (according to him). Lot was his reason for war rather than conquest or profit. That example informed my asking why 9/10s are not preached today amongst us - how many would ever think to give out so much? Come to think of it, the tenth was an ancient acceptable "pagan" custom whist the 9/10 was the "gift". So if we are to follow that example, Viaro, we should pay 9/10 rather than "tithe" if what we are doing is following Abram's example.

Your last query is that he gave "his tithe". Well yes, he did, but most likely to fulfill traditions demands. What I see now is him giving 9/10s which ought to have come to him.

Insisting we follow the tenth/tithe part today is saying we should follow a pagan tradition because Abram followed it. What we rather should do is go out of our way to help others (NOT FOR PERSONAL PROFIT) as Abram did  

I tithed for years on end, Viaro, until I saw a listing of every single time tithes were mentioned BEFORE the law and AFTER it. Periods during the law were omitted. It made interesting reading

My Lord Viaro:

Ok ( ), I did warn myself that this would happen one day (to stand in court against the mighty Viaro) so here I am tail between my legs at your mercy. I've seen your queries and the ball is in your court. Here's the Biblical text as found in the NIV

Gen 14:16 - "He recovered ALL the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people" [17] "After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of sodom came out to meet him in the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley)" [18] "Then Melchizedek King of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, " [19] "and he blessed Abram saying, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth," [20] "And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand" Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything" [21] The king of Sodom said to Abram 'Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself'" [22] But Abram said 'I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth and have taken an oath" [23] "that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a sandal, so that you will never be able to say "I made Abram rich" [24] I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me - to Aner, Eschol and Mamre. Let them have their share"

Where did I go wrong, sir?

Pastor AIO:
"Your sins are forgiven", he said to the cripple.
Oh gosh, they exclaimed, he is blaspheming. Only God can forgive sins.
And perceiving their thoughts he asked, ""Which is easier, to forgive sins or to say rise up and walk".
They had no answer. So he turned to the cripple and said, "get up, rise and walk", and the cripple obliged.

^^^ Another way to look at (re-phrase) that is

which is easier to say "you will be with me in heaven tonight" or "rise up and walk"

Brings up quite a number of possibilities to the mind of the sincere seeker.  Brilliant original post, anyway, and worthy of thought. And as always, Pastor AIO is thought provoking

[1] Abuzola was young and full of verve. Chakula is in his thirties and full of poo
[2] Abuzola was/is very well liked on NL. Chakula is like a boil in the wrong place or like a bad smell
[3] Abuzola presented his case fairly lucidly. Chakula's english has to be read to be believed. Here's an example "Muslim Proud with their Religion because they were worshiped one God, not unlike the compused ones with many god." from https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=442722.msg6025885#msg6025885. Another favorite of mine is "I pray to Allah Almighty to granted jannatul firdausi to him(umar musa y.) and to all muslim that were died, and also to us which we are waiting for our time ameen." which comes from https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=443344.msg6018206#msg6018206.
[4] Abuzola quoted the Quran freely. Chakula quotes "visions of virgins" (whatever that means) but makes no sense
[5] I would like to see Abuzola back here (at least for the comic effect) Chakula should please leave NL if not go claim his fake virgins
[6] Abuzola seemed to have gone to some form of higher educational institution. Chakula must have spent the first 30 years of his life with an illiterate alfa in the sahara desert

Any other differences, people?

@Romeo4real;

Yes my Brother. I did see your response and its not the spambots. I hear there was a server crash and all posts following May 9th were lost.

I got your point about who a Christian is "definition" wise and agree. Where I have problems is when this "excitement gospel" runs off their mouths and cheapens it into a "feel good" thing thus -

questioner/poser "hey, do you believe in Christ?" answer/victim "sure I do"
questioner/poser "do you accept Him as Lord?" answer/victim "sure, why not"
questioner/poser "ok, open your mouth and say anything. I assure you thats the Holy Ghost" answer/victim "dance dance dance and forget your sorrow. Afro juju is good for you and rice and beans is very sweet"
questioner/poser "great great great - now listen. ANY voice telling you anything you do is wrong is devilish cos NO MATTER WHAT you do, you have the righteousness nature and are Christ personified" answer/victim (to himself as he walks off to enjoy) "ol'boy, I hit it this time - ate my cake and still have it. Now where's the nearest lovely young woman I can lure into bed?"

That is what we're being offered today and that is why I just say "these are NOT Christian" for if they were, it would be a horror to them to imagine the above talkless to propagate it. Sadly, its not and soon we will find people come in here to "explain" how the Wheat and Tares will grow together till harvest and tell us "Isn't it better than leaving them out there? At least they will learn a better way here".

Maybe a better representation of answer/victim would have be "the deluded"

@Zikky:

Your great grand-pa has paid for you, so no need to pay again abi?  

@ Image123:

Since "Abrahams blessings are yours", next time you go to war, make sure you give "Goodluck Jonathan" 9/10ths and the remaining TENTH to your High Priest (Jesus Christ)

In the meantime while you're not at war, please support your church and the needy and strangers and widows around you   That is [b]your Christian duty [/b]that, and to study and know God's Word as Is 34:16 says because "Gods people die due to ignorance" which God calls REJECTING TRUTH" Hosea 4: 6 & 7

Image123:
nuclearboy
Don't say that. It's better to say wikipedia ko, garyarnold ni. That's the correct lexis.
Now there's nothing wrong with faulting your claims or faulting wikipedia, i just did that. What is wrong is that you refuse to meekly take to simple corrections(an offence you accuse others of). For e.g You just said "Abraham split the money(spoils of war) two ways. He gave a TENTH (that word, NOT tithe was used)". You said that, didn't you and I corrected that, even quoted a verse for it. Instead of taking correction, you're trying to TWIST YOUR OWN WORDS(That's magical). Is money=spoils of war? Did Abraham really give 9/10 to the king of sodom?

Gen 14:16 - "He recovered ALL the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people" [17] "After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of sodom came out to meet him in the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley)" [18] "Then Melchizedek King of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, " [19] "and he blessed Abram saying, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth," [20] "And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand" Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything" [21] The king of Sodom said to Abram 'Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself'" [22] But Abram said 'I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth and have taken an oath" [23] "[size=13pt]that I will accept nothing belonging to you[/size], not even a sandal, so that you will never be able to say "I made Abram rich" [24] I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me - to Aner, Eschol and Mamre. Let them have their share"


@Image123:


The Bible says the four kings seized ALL the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah. BUT they made the mistake of carrying away Abram's nephew Lot and his possessions too. When Abram (who was living near Mamre etc) heard, he involved himself. Verse 16 above tells us that he recovered ALL those "goods" and peoples and brought them back. After Melchizedek's prayer, Abram gave him "A TENTH" of everything. What was everything, Image123? Did he go back to the great trees of Mamre where he was living and bring all his possessions? Did he bring all he owned in life when coming to attempt the rescue?

What he gave to Melchizedek was a tenth of the "ALL" recovered goods. You want to disagree and be legalistic? Ok! But the Bible preempts you by informing us that Abram furthermore refused to take ANYTHING out of ALL they recovered and gave them back to Sodom's king and SAID "I will accept nothing BELONGING TO YOU" so that what? - "YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SAY YOU MADE ABRAM RICH".

Tell me Bro, why did Abram say the goods belonged to the King of Sodom? Why did he say he wanted nothing that was theirs? Why did he refuse to take the goods and give back the people? Will the King of Sodom MAKE HIM RICH WITH ABRAM'S OWN PROPERTY?

Its all there above. You can see it yourself - no change of topic or distractions or trying to emotionalise issues. And DEFINITELY no idiotic SANCTIMONIOUS pretensions of self-righteousness - just what the Bible says.

He WENT BECAUSE of Lot. He recovered all that was taken away. They wanted him to take the goods away. He said they were not his property but belonged to Sodom. He refused to allow any man say he made him rich.

So what are you on about? Why do you just jump to judge? Whether I go to church or not is not at stake here - who was more religious SAUL (before conversion) or PAUL (the Apostle). Do you know what a signboard is? Its a Pharisee - they make ALL the motions but its a lie and doesn't get inside.

That is my answer to your supposed "refutation" - What the Bible says! Fight with it since it is IT that says Abram gave a tenth and then gave the rest i.e. 9/10, back to the king of sodom since it wasn't his own. BTW, it was a custom then to give that tenth to the king. A PAGAN Custom, mind you!

To effectively refute, you will have to show us that Abraham paid tithe aside of what he "returned to Sodom's King" over that war. It would be preferable to see you show scriptural examples of that happening as many times as possible.

I have no fight with Olaadegbu except that they make "ordinances of men LAWS OF GOD" and then play "the righteous" with these lies. Maybe they never read the Word but just listened to someone they trusted. So they were let down by MOG they trusted BUT their innocence will not and CAN NEVER justify a lie, This rubbishing of God's Word by those who ought uphold it is making Christianity a ridicule. Anyone who has NOT studied issues himself should not teach. The sermons you heard and depended on might turn out to be a lie perpetuated by people with an agenda and like Olaadegbu now, you might just find your foot in your mouth because you trusted in a man rather than looking only at God. No pastor is above correction and we cannot depend on their interpretation like it seems he did. Those Jesus said He would turn away to everlasting damnation will come from amongst "men of God" not from Babalawos. And some would argue that they did great things - that means they FELT they were right yet they were wrong. Are you leaving your fate in eternity to another man's ideas?

Anyway, don't let me go too far. Just REFUTE the above

^^^ Hello:

What is wrong with faulting my claim that Isrealis who got (and owned) the law still today follow the age-old right manner in paying their tithes till today as the Torah instructed them? What is wrong with faulting Wikipedia if it is wrong? Please therefore, show us the facts that prove me wrong and you right!

Dude, you have said nothing except to lyingly paint the issue to seem as though I am fighting against God's Word. Why not show me God's Word that contradicts me or says Abraham paid a tenth of anything except the spoils of war to Melchizedek? Is that too difficult to do since you have a Bible and the truth behind you? So why leave that and come proclaiming self-righteously that you are honoring God above Wikipedia?

wikipedia ko, minicoscos ni

From the same wikipedia article on TITHES (reader, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes)

One aspect of Old Testament tithing that advocates neglect is the fact that tithing did not apply to a workman's earnings, but applied to the agricultural crops grown on a farmer's land - this means that tithing was done from the profit a land-owner received from his assets. There are no recorded instances in the Bible of a workman "tithing" from wages that he received for his labor. Since the vast majority of modern workers make a living by selling their labor to an employer rather than by earning profits off of a material asset like a farm, it's debatable whether the practice of "tithing" would apply to a modern worker even if tithing is still part of the New Covenant.

Due to the fact that[b] the New Testament explicitly directs Christians to give voluntarily as each person has determined in their hearts (2 Corinthians 9:7)[/b] and condemns those who make a show of their donations to organized religion (Mark 12:41-44, Matt. 6:3), the arguments for tithing as a Biblical practice seem to violate the basic principles of Biblical interpretation used by most conservative Protestants. These Christians usually stress the plain meaning of the text, and regard the New Testament above the Old Testament as the authoritative word of God. One reason why the practice is so vigorously promoted by conservative Protestant leaders, aside from the financial benefits of tithing for their institutions, may be that people who tithe or make other large sacrifices for the Church gain a positive reputation for their devotion. Christians may also feel that they've earned God's favor through their sacrifice.[2] Opponents of tithing note that the Bible explicitly condemns making public sacrifices as a means of enhancing one's reputation (Matt. 6:3), so the public testimonies of tithing advocates actually run the risk of being sin.
.

^^^
Mr Bacchus:

Please remember I didn't answer your "now lost" quiz and am not amongst those who informed that they drink. That aside, why don't you ever answer questions or deal with issues but rather turn to slinging these asinine insults. If anyone ever told you that you were funny, they were only trying to make you feel good. You actually sound retarded especially saying the HS won't lead anyone to insult an idiot and then IN THE SAME STATEMENT say the spirit leading a Christian is the "bacchus spirit". So I "insult" you and that makes me anti-HS but you insult the HS in me (abi you're not judging that now by saying it is the spirit of drunkeness) and THAT MAKES you Holy Ghost filled? 

Abraham split the money (spoils of War) two ways - He gave a TENTH (that word, NOT tithes, was used) to Melchizedek and 9/10 back to the King of Sodom. You're preaching the "tenth" as tithe. Are you not supposed to preach the 9/10 too? Remember, these were "spoils of war", not his natural possessions. Why didn't he give his "TITHE" i.e. increase on his income or salary as you preach today? Please PLEASE show us one example of Abraham paying "tithe" or even paying "a tenth" from his personal property.

Jacob promised "a tenth" to God. He decided to do so OF HIS OWN WILL much as the NT asks us to give lovingly, willingly as led by God's Spirit. Why are you lying here again in hopes of furthering your lying argument?

You say you are preaching a gospel that ways be made right but you lie even in what you say. I HAVE NEVER SAID ANYBODY SHOULD NOT GIVE so you are lying against me and using God's Name even in doing so. I give willingly and often. Giving is good and should be encouraged BUT it is a lie that tithes are applicable today to Christians the way you preach.

Both myself and you know that many Isrealis are still following the OT law. Great! So check wikipedia or other Isreali sources - UP TILL TODAY, they pay tithes ONLY on agricultural produce from the LAND! Those are people who "know" how it was and have been following the traditional way for thousands of years - why are they not doing what you are doing OR ARE YOU SAYING the Isrealis don't know and have never known the right way to "pay tithes" and that it was only in the 19th century that the TRUE way was discovered?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes
"Traditional Jewish law and practice has included various forms of tithing since ancient times. Universally, Orthodox Jews practice ma'aser kesafim (tithing 10% of their income to charity) and take challah. In modern Israel, Jews continue to follow the laws of agricultural tithing, e.g., terumah, ma'aser rishon, terumat ma'aser, and ma'aser sheni. In Christianity, some interpretations of Biblical teachings conclude that although tithing was practiced extensively in the Old Testament, it was never practiced or taught within the first-century Church. Instead the New Testament scriptures are seen as teaching the concept of "freewill offerings" as a means of supporting the church: 1 Corinthians 16:2, 2 Corinthians 9:7. "

"The third year was called "the year of tithing" Deuteronomy 26:12-14 in which the Israelites set aside 10% of the increase of the land, they were to give this tithe to the Levites, strangers, orphans, and widows. These tithes were in reality more like taxes for the people of Israel and were mandatory, not optional giving. This tithe was distributed locally "within thy gates" Deuteronomy 14:28 to support the Levites and assist the poor."

"According to Catholics, as those who serve at the altar should live by the altar 1Cor 9:13, it became necessary for provision of some kind to be made for the sacred ministers.

In the beginning this was supplied by the spontaneous offerings of the faithful. In the course of time, however, as the Church expanded and various institutions arose, it became necessary to make laws which would ensure the proper and permanent support of the clergy.

Many Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) support their churches and pastors with monetary contributions of one sort or another. Frequently these monetary contributions are called tithes whether or not they actually represent ten-percent of anything. Some claim that as tithing was an ingrained Jewish custom by the time of Jesus, no specific command to tithe per se is found in the New Testament. However, this view overlooks the fact that [size=13pt]Israel's tithes were of an agricultural nature, not financial"[/size]

"The Levites, also known as the tribe of Levi, were descendants of Levi. They were assistants to the Israelite priests (who were the children of Aaron and, therefore,a subset of the Tribe of Levi) and did not own or inherit a territorial patrimony Numbers 18:21-28. Their function in society was that of temple functionaries, teachers and trusted civil servants who supervised the weights and scales and witnessed agreements. The goods donated from the other Israeli tribes were their source of sustenance. They received from "all Israel" a tithe of food or livestock for support, and in turn would set aside a tenth portion of that tithe for the Aaronic priests in Jerusalem"
END QUOTES

The most instructive fact of this all, is that, tithes were never paid in Churches till the late 1800s. It was when "institutionalised" "big business" Christianity started that the lie was introduced basically as a means of enriching Churches.

@Olaadegbu:

I have paid tithes before but I was misinformed. Today I give "gifts" out of love NOT because I am afraid of being "in the wrong" which is what tithe preaching is about. You ignored everything garyarnold brought to this table and its obvious you're happy this server crash happened because it allows you continue to sell this lie. However, remember that the issue concerns God. Uzziah DIED because he thought it was right to help God forgetting God elevates His Word above even His name. You have seen more than enough truth on this and pride is not a godly attribute. I wonder how someone who cannot accept correction can claim to be Christian. Enjoy your day

I've always believed in the quickening of the mind by the HS. Things have become easier to grasp for me since that day 23 years ago and its obvious why Christ said not to worry what we'd say when presenting/defending the Gospel - sharpness is innate in Christians! Where I come across a dimwit, its obvious the HS does not reside in such persons as idiocy and the HS are opposites. Olaadegbu is a dimwit and proud to boot.

How can someone say "tithes came before the law" and then immediately say "Jesus did not come to abrogate the law but to fulfill it". So He came to fulfill what was not part of the law, ehn? What relationship then does Jesus have to the tithe since its not under the law you say He came to fulfill. Dimwit!

"Lay by yourselves AS God has prospered you" - How does that become "you can see that they were not only gathering tithes and offering but did this on the first day of the week, which reveals that they used to meet regularly on Sundays instead of Saturdays"? Only Sunday? Why not Thursday too?

And of course, greed will always sneak in "garden of eden" tactics: - "What is the secret of prosperity? Giving." So now the essense of Jesus Christ and the Gospel has again become "prosperity". So why does the Bible say a Christian's reward is in Heaven and what would you call someone who changes God's Word?

Its like a broken or scratched record that gets to "give" and can't get past - give give give give give give give give give give! Well the Bible has an answer for the give "gospel". It says you are of the generation of "leeches". Prov 30:15. BTW, it also tells us you are never satisfied and are a "fire". Why people are answering you is not that they think you have a point but because of the silent majority who will visit this thread, read, and quietly go away. They will get the true picture and also come to understand your type and your "gospel".

Enigma:
Joagbaje

In all honesty, until recently I had thought that the reason you display the attitude you have constantly displayed here is attributable to your honest belief in your doctrine because you are thoroughly brainwashed. I still believe that you are brainwashed of course; however, I am beginning to take very seriously the viewpoint that part of why you defend false doctrine so vigorously is because, as a pasiitor, to whom lower mugs pay tithes and offerings etc you are benefiting enormously from false doctrine. Similarly, part of your reasons for defending Oyaks is because you are a beneficiary of his set up.

Where a man's treasure is, there his heart too, will be.

@Enigma:

Welcome to reality.

BTW, how's ~let doing?

Romeo4real,

Are these Christians who say the Bible is wrong or that Scriptural doctrine is wrong doctrine?

^^^ My sincere apologies. I agree that is what you were saying and my choice of words was wrong in passing my message across to Gunnaz.

And I agree with you that a number of loony "bats" walk in the midst of Christians. What I do not agree with is that they are Christians. IMHO, these are "deluded" "loons" (pun intended). BTW, I've seen quite a few on NL

Again, my apologies

^^^ Spiritsize (lovely name for one who doesn't want anything to do with Christianity):

You're not a Christian and will NEVER aspire to be one but you registered today, read this thread through and decided to come support Joagbaje. You say we have decided to remain religious instead of spiritual But that is standard CEC gist - Religiousity! How then does a non-christian who doesn't even want to be one know so much of CE's doctrine including the lingo quoting them almost perfectly?

Then you say

spiritsize:
WE WERE SINNERS BECAUSE WE HAD THE NATURE, CONSCIOUSNESS, MENTALITY OF SIN, NOW WE (ALL OF US) ARE RIGHTEOUS BECAUSE WE ARE THE NATURE- CHRIST, GOD, SPIRIT, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT,

You were sinners, ehn? And now you're what since not a Christian or hoping to be one?


God willing, you'll win this years award for the most stupid poster on NL

Shey you guys have started again registering multiple IDs and supporting yourselves Just that the one who typed the above has to be so stupid that maggots won't eat his rotting carcass for fear of idiocy "contamination" I guess we (being brainless like you, you thought) were supposed to be amazed that "a non-aspiring to be Christian" unbel, even saw sense in your delusions unlike us baby-teeth Lying, Sinful Morally bankrupt pretenders to Christianity.

Whatever the righteous do doesn't make him unrighteous indeed! Yet you work out your salvation - isn't that because you can lose it?

@Zikky:

Why are you suprised at T-Tithes? didn't you read what he wrote above saying it is "thieves that should work so they can give to the poor"? Isn't it obvious the guy is rabid and just looking for someone to bite? He's totally out of his mind! A person that does not realise most poor come because of the sweet-mouthed honeyed speech that beckons to them to "sow" and get a miracle.

2008, Ashimolowo was at Victory Church, Ibadan and offered "24 hour miracles" to anyone who "sowed" 20K. you can imagine a lot of people sowed ( ). Some borrowed to "sow".

@Tonye-T:

You're ignorant and refuse to learn in addition. You ask what change in priesthood has to do? Everything, Tonye. The Bible says we ALL are levites. That means ALL Christians. There is only one High Priest (MOG) and that is Jesus Christ. Who did the levites pay tithe to? Please answer this then tell me who you, a supposed levite are supposed to pay to. Please note it is the Bible that says there is only ONE high priest amongst all the priests! There is no seniority aside His own amongst them.

Following the point above, that High Priest HIMSELF said "when you feed the poor you feed me, in clothing them, you clothe me and in sheltering them, its me you shelter". So if you wish to pay your "tithe" to the high priest (being the only Levite's LEVITE), who has He said to pay it to?

We know you're likely past redemption. But it is good you have made a stand like this as it has allowed a lot of truth to be shared here and a whole lot of people will read and leave quietly. Almost all of them will pray that God does not give them children after your order. The others will vow to beat such rubbish out of their children by themselves. That alone, is sufficient as reward here. We'll know the next generation will possess brains and a conscience

I lot of people are reading this, tonye and you are just showing you are absolutely shameless, morally bankrupt and without conscience.

My name means nothing to you, becoming "Jesus" is not the issue, hypocrisy is obviously synonymous with your guiding spirit. Why are those the issues for you here - why not answer the queries or provide your scriptural evidence?

Is this not obviously because you're empty and without substance?

Over and over here, we ALL have said "giving is GOOD" and synonymous with Christianity. BUT manipulated "collection" by pastors is wrong and ANYBODY who turns God's Word upside down is worng, no matter how many people are in their congregation or how you wish it away.

God gave out of love. Jesus did same and we see the word compassion interred with His actions over and over. I will give out of love. BUT YOU TURN IT INTO A TAX AND TAKE WHAT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU.

Now, if the above is not clear to you, its because you are mentally deficient and amoral. That word btw, means that you do not know the difference between right and wrong.

Peter married though Paul didn't. Jesus worked and so did the apostles. And the Bible says we all are members of a Royal Priesthood. So no Christian should work according to you OR we all should have tithes paid to us? Is that english elementary enough for you now? Abi your mature teeth will break on that?

On the hair chris sports, did you ever read the Bible that EVEN women should not be vain but clothe themselves with modesty? If even women should be modest, what say ye about men? Jesus' donkey was ridden by the King of Glory. Who is wearing chris's flyest suit (what is a flyest suit?). and on eating holy things, no wonder its only food you people know. Ole!

Ma'am:

Actually, I felt a bit hesitant telling him as it is but decided its better to as we say, tell the truth and let satan Joagbaje be ashamed.

All this baby and no-teeth and milk-teeth and rubbish he goes about saying tends to grow on one after awhile. Thats why I invoked the memory of Balaam's donkey who would have thanked God it wasn't a man comparing itself to the guy.

Tonye-Tithes:

You're an amazement: when did you or pastor "mog" become Jesus?

Jesus was being honored! For an entity that came down from Glory, submitted Himself to the limitations of the flesh and was about to pour out His very life for us, what do you think is enough talkless plenty or too much, to honor him!

Are you now comparing a man (all have come short of the Glory of God) to Jesus? Which man? Do you realise any guy who wakes up, has good diction, stands before a mirror and builds self confidence and his oratory prowess can be a pastor? Which one of them on earth today has the "effect" Adolf Hitler had when he gave speeches? Why not give him your "all" too?

Who told you it was supposed to e sold and the money given to the poor? Was it not Judas, your predecessor in thievery, who wanted it to come to him, that said so JUST AS you too are now looking for any and every way to ask that people bring their monies to you? Bottom line is Glory and Honor is due to God (Jesus) - it is not due to you (pastor). Let me see you deny that. But you won't will you? You'll pretentd its not there, go and look for another lie and set of even more silly questions that only prove your knowledge of God and the Bible is shallow.

Joagbaje:
@Nuclear BOY
Humble yourself to admit it where you are wrong. There is no issue about this. Must you vomit guile in your posts? Leave joagbaje out, leave Chris oyakhilome out. open your bible and discuss topics , not names and personalities. But if youre so interested about CEC, Its not a bad idea to take a walk to the closest branch, attend the foundation school ,and you will have sound understanding of doctrine of salvation.

Righteousness is the nature of the Christian , Sin is the nature of the unsaved. No matter how much you clothe a monkey to look like man, he is still monkey in nature. No matter how good a natural man behaves, he is still a sinner. No matter the offence of a Christian , It has not changed his nature from righteousness. He didnt earn it by works or good deed. He cant lose it by works or bad deed, A man can not be born again two times, It is babies that struggles with sin. Sin has no dominion over us.

If a baby crawls on four , or poohs on himself , he is still a human being, one day he will grow out of it.
Paul never calls a Christian sinner, even when they stole!

Ephes. 4:28
Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

I am not aware Paul called a christian SINNER. Only JAMES will use such language.

LOL at B O Y ^^^ Did you ever read that we ought have the heart of children. This guy is proud to be without guile as you accuse!

As you say above, James of course, was a sinner and not worthy to have joined in writing the Bible, no?  And of course, Christianity is about Paul not the Lord Jesus  I'm sure Balaam's donkey would have happily asked for permission to give you a flying drop-kick! And gotten it too

Concerning monkeys, well, thank you for letting us know why you are not a Christian : dress up a sinner in Christian clothes and hand him a Bible and he will remain a sinner AKA you. And thats why reprobacy is in your pysche: A sinner cannot be righteous! 

The funniest portion of your post suggests that I should go and "submit" myself to your foundation school - is that where Lawrence Agaba, the other UBA manager, and the thieves who just stole 60 Million from your church "bank" attended and learnt their theft-trade?  Is that where people are taught to pretend that they are sick and diseased and then "rise" out of it when chris ministers speaks fake phonetics over them?  Is that where people are told to "kabash"endlessly and that anything that comes out of their mouths is "speaking in tongues"? Did you read the post/thread where a female member of this forum said she started out saying "oooooo I am very very hungry hungry eba potato rice and beans hungry hunger want to go home and eat eba with egusi soup" etc. Is that where she learnt that?  Is that where we will be taught that tithes are the only way to salvation AS LONG AS they are paid to you and your ilk?  Is that where we men will be taught to jerry-curl our hair , wear perfume and groom our nails when the Holy Bible exhorts even WOMEN to not be vain but to wear modesty? 

Thanks for the offer, Joagbaje. But I stopped underestimating satan long ago and prefer not to eat with him/you. And you must be the 8th wonder of the world if you believe "righteousness" shows as your nature. What shows, sincerely, is avarice, greed , a marked departure from moral and intellectual sanity and a rabid desperation to remain applicable.

Lies have short legs, Joagbaje, and truth has now caught up with you. I hope you saved some cash when the going was good and the gullible numerous. God's Word has caught up with you and it is "retribution" time 

Part of why I called you "Master" rather than "Mr" is because you are immature. the other part is because you are happily shooting yourself in the foot with that foot climbing down your gullet.

You have just described yourselves perfectly. You change God's Word from "give the Needy" to "Give the Pastors" thus rebelling by [1] lying [2] saying God knows less than you [3] stealing from the needy [4] condemning the needy to starvation [5] rebelling etc and so He has indeed given you over to reprobacy.

The Bible says Christianity's reward is in Heaven but you say its on earth: reprobacy. The Bible says the lust for money and greed is what sets people off on the path to perdition but you say "more more more". Now Proverbs tells us about the leech's two daughters:- all they say is "give me, give me give me". So you are also a leech.

When you change God's Word to your own, you are denying Him His Glory and ultimately saying like Lucifer "I will be like the Most High". Being like Him is the only reason that can make a man believe he has a right to change God's Word. Yet you are not incorruptible.

As for retaining the knowledge of God, there's no need going too much into that - you have proved that the only knowledge you retain or EVEN WISH to retain is that of Baal, your money "god".

Now I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ whether it comes with tribulation or pain. I give willingly and work very very hard for what God has given me financially though I know its His grace and not my work. You are ashamed of a Gospel that does not come with money; you are jobless and believe you've found a treasure chest in "manipulating" the gullible for your self gain.

True did Jesus say "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also". People will sacrifice anything for their target. I left the world for Christ, some leave one woman for another but YOU! You are sacrificing God Himself for money. Yet you remain poor for if not, why are you here desperate to get people to bring their "all" to you. Go repent!

Abuzola minus-minus (AKA Olaadegbu):

You are in denial, delusional and not making sense!

God knows how many thousands of people will read this page and posts! How dare you allow me "prove the truth" when you have scriptural backing for your lies. Why not show us as God said in Is 45, YOUR STRONG REASONS AND PROCLAIM THEM THAT THOU MAYEST BE JUSTIFIED.

For that is the truth, ain't it? Even God allows us bring our case and if we are right and true, we win our petition. You on the other hand, having no locus standi, must slink away in shame, petulant and muttering at the whipping you got from God's Word for it is God you're fighting against since its His Word not min that shows you as the intellectual and spiritual fraud you are.

Master Olaadegbu, go read your Bible and learn the truth rather than showing the world via NL, the hole in your head.