₦airaland Forum

@sleekmag,

sleekymag:
I think it's not really this complicated

No, it's not: in agreement I said so earlier. And that's why I asked:

      ●  What connected Jerusalem with all these gifts, offerings and tithes?

Simply: Jerusalem was the center where God had caused His Name to dwell - and it was to that place that these gifts, offerings and tithes were to be taken:

      ●  Deuteronomy 12:5-6

          But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose
          out of all your tribes to put his name there,
          even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:

          And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices,
          and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows,
          and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of
          your flocks.


      ●  Deuteronomy 12:11

         Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose
         to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that
         I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes,
         and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which
         ye vow unto the LORD.


Question: How do we know that Jerusalem was the place where God caused His name to dwell?

      ●  Psalm 76:2
          In Salem* also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.

*Salem was the same place that came to be known as Jerusalem - and from this same Salem came Melchizedek to meet Abraham (Gen. 14:18 ).

That was essentially why I took us to both Ezra 8 and Nehemiah 11:1 - because even where they were to be taken to "the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house", the center of all these things was Jerusalem. This is where Nehemiah 10:38 correlates with Nehemiah 11:1 - the mention of Jerusalem there was directly in connection with what was happening at "the house of our God". If it was at another center, it would not have been "as it is written in the law" (Nehemiah 10:34 & 36).

I hope you see my point now in connecting Ezra 8, Nehemiah 10 and the LAW?

Now, when we come to what they were "weighing" out and taking to that center (Jerusalem) where we have the house of God, the chambers, and the treasure house, we see that this all were counted precisely on one basis - the basis on what the total value for Israel's offering was, and not the case for the Levites alone. A few points:

      ●  Ezra 8 (vv. 24-35)

          Then I separated twelve of the chief of the priests, Sherebiah,
          Hashabiah, and ten of their brethren with them,

          And weighed unto them the silver, and the gold, and the vessels,
          even the offering of the house of our God, which the king,
          and his counsellors, and his lords, and all Israel there present,
          had offered:

          I even weighed unto their hand six hundred and fifty talents of silver,
          and silver vessels an hundred talents, and of gold an hundred talents;

          Also twenty basons of gold, of a thousand drams; and two vessels of
          fine copper, precious as gold.

          And I said unto them, Ye are holy unto the LORD; the vessels are holy
          also; and the silver and the gold are a freewill offering unto the LORD God
          of your fathers.

          Watch ye, and keep them, until ye weigh them before the chief of
          the priests and the Levites, and chief of the fathers of Israel,
          at Jerusalem, in the chambers of the house of the LORD.

         So took the priests and the Levites the weight of the silver, and the gold,
         and the vessels, to bring them to Jerusalem unto the house of our God.

         . . . Now on the fourth day was the silver and the gold and the vessels
         weighed in the house of our God by the hand of Meremoth the son of
         Uriah the priest; and with him was Eleazar the son of Phinehas; and with
         them was Jozabad the son of Jeshua, and Noadiah the son of Binnui, Levites;

         By number and by weight of every one: and all the weight was written at that time.

        Also the children of those that had been carried away, which were come
        out of the captivity, offered burnt offerings unto the God of Israel,
        twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety and six rams, seventy and seven lambs,
        twelve he goats for a sin offering: all this was a burnt offering unto the LORD.

I had to quote these verse to show what exactly was happening - that during the time of the return of the remnant from captivity, it is clear that these issues were done as interpreted by the leaders (Nehemiah 8:2 & 8 ) precisely from the LAW.

      ●  Question: But what then happens to the firstfruits?

      ●  Nehemiah 10:35 & 37
      And to bring the firstfruits of our ground, and the firstfruits of all fruit of all trees,
      year by year, unto the house of the LORD: And that we should bring the firstfruits
      of our dough, and our offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees, of wine and
      of oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God; and the tithes
      of our ground unto the Levites, that the same Levites might have the tithes in
      all the cities of our tillage.

Just out of curisoity at this point, sleekmag, how did the Law speak of the "firstfruits of the ground" and of all trees, etc?

sleekymag:
So trying to get clarified on the issue of % according to our individual understanding shouldn't be a problem.

Hmm. . @sleekmag, you have more grace and patience than I do. God bless you, because I'm learning.

@sleemag,

sleekymag:
Ezra 8:24 -30 was only referring to offerings and not tithes (vs 25,28). And it was for the house of God and the King, leaders and all the people of Irael present there gave these.

Neh 10:38 was only talking about the tithe of tithes and not the offerings. Verse 37a talks about these offerings (firstfruits and others) and states that it goes to the chambers.

That's precisely what I had hoped you would point out - the "firstfruits" in Nehemiah and the "offerings" in Ezra.

Question: what was happening here, especially when Nehemiah 10:34 & 36 says these things were done "as it is written in the law"?

That was the basic question I wanted you to observe so that it might help us here. Granted, these terms were used - "firstfruits": but to what were they pointing? I think you're almost there.

sleekymag:
Nhe 11:1 on the other hand was talking about the people needed in Jerusalem.

1 ¶ And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem: the rest of the people also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine parts to dwell in other cities. (KJV)

Jerusalem certainly had many inhabitants at this time; but not sufficient to preserve the city, which was now encompassed with a wall, and the rebuilding of which was going on fast. Nehemiah therefore obliged one tenth of the country people to come and dwell in it, that the population might be sufficient for the preservation and defence of the city. Ten were set apart, and the lot cast among them to see which one of the ten should take up his residence in the city. (Adam's Clark Commentary)

Lol, thanks for quoting Adam Clark. . . but would it help to think for ourselves? I'm quite shy to set my thoughts on commentaries, even though some of them are useful. However, here's a little thing to remember:

"WHY Jerusalem?"

What connected Jerusalem with all these gifts, offerings and tithes?


These two points will help us arrive at something we are almost coming now to notice more easily.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
No he is'nt asking me, but he has asked people in the bible and it is a christain tradition to give money unto god,

That's all there is. Since He didn't ask you, what's your worry? He knows whom He asked; and if you're not included, why legislate for them?

You see the one thing that amazes me is the irrationality of people who feel they know too much about their own little world that they can't see why others live. There are many people with various religious and atheistic persuasions in their lives. I don't see how many people have been too disturbed harping on them the way you guys do. If it is not my worry, why do I fight them, or allow their worldviews to upset me? I don't even have to be rude to them in order to present my own worldview - and this is something you can think about. Whatever anyone says he holds as his persuasion on life, as long as he hasn't made his worldview a requirement of how I live my own persuasions, why should I seek every single time to castigate him? What would I gain from that?

He didn't ask you - He asked others, and those He asked are not complaining: what then is the problem?

I believe we can demonstrate a bit more of maturity in these matters. Don't let this attitude continue to define how you live your own life. If otherwise, no worries.

Shalom.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1 & sleekymag
This your back and forth argument about wether tithes is 10% or 1%, levites, priests, Aaron, store house, heave offferings, hallowed part e.t.c Just goes to establish further that Biblical tithing as ordained by God is neither practical today nor is it being practised.

Hehe. . . you see your problem? Since I started shouting say make we no go there, una no hear word. I kept saying that my persuasions are not based on the old covenant and was asking us to look at the principles and what moved Abraham to tithe - but no: every single time, na so-so "LAW, manipulation, barawo" you sabi!

I don tell you before: open your eyes and read - and you will see why I have said again and again that tithes are the simplest of issues to understand, unless people want to be complicated. At this stage, even after you guys have argued for the LAW and refused to look outside of it, you find yourselves tired out already on your own assumptions. Did I not warn earlier that we shall all make a huge mistake to knot ourselves further if we hold on too fastidiously on the LAW? I no talk am before?

KunleOshob:
( what we have today is an adulterated manipulative version).

Na you sabi - that's what you have. E no concern me too much.

KunleOshob:
The structures and culture(levite priesthood which included non ownership of property) that supports and requires biblical tithing is no longer existent even amongst the Jews that received the law and still implement it today, talkless of christians that it was not directed to.

Hahaha! Make I laff u finish! ou are still making the same mistake - always on "the Law". You be lawyer?!? Bros, sidon small and look outside the Levites, then you go see Melchizedek. You hear?

Bless.

@sleekmag,

How body today?

sleekymag:
Note verse 39 states that all that were brought to the chambers were all the offerings collected (as stated in verse 37) but not all the tithes collected, they only brought the tithe of the tithes), where did the remaining tithes go to if they were not taken to the chambers? Verse 37 and 38 makes us see it went to the levites. So, in a nutshell, what went out of the pockets or barns of the Israelites, was never 1% but their tithes, which is 10%.

Okay, no wahala. That was why I asked us to first look to the LAW and find where this practice was declared. What we are missing here is that in Nehemiah 10:38, this practice was said to be "as it is written in the law" (vv. 34 & 36).

When you go back to the LAW itself (Numbers 18, for instance), you find the two types of priestly services in the worship center: and I have enuciated them earlier:

● the sanctuary of the altar - (see Num. 18:3 & 5)

● the Tabernacle of congregation - (see Num. 18:6 & 23)

However, you will find that the Levites were specifically prohibited from engaging in the service of the sanctuary of the altar at that time (see Numbers 18:2-3); rather, it was only the chosen priests from Aaron's lineage that were alloted that service - which is why we find again that in accordance to the LAW, there were two sets of priests in Nehemiah 10 --

● unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God – v.37
● and the priests that minister – v. 39

We should not confuse them, sleekmag.

So, what's the point? The point is that the "tithe of the tithes" in Nehemiah 10:38 was not focusing on the tithe of the Levites alone; but rather on the total value of Israel's tithes. How is this? Because in Ezra 8 we find that when all these things were brought in, they were "weighed" out in reference to what ISRAEL brought, and not what the Levites gave. That is why we read in Nehemiah 10:38 that the chief priest (representative of Aaron) was to be with the Levites when take the tithes. When this is done, the Levites took just a tenth portion of the collective tenth offered by Israel to "the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house". Go on to chapter 11:1 and see that they had Jerusalem in mind when referring to the house of God.

Which again brings us to Ezra 8 - please read it again and see what is happening and then come back and let's see if what you were assuming in Nehmiah 10:38.

Ovamboland:
Hey sister Pilgrim how do you post a previous comment to show the poster and time posted in quotes?

Simple:

(a) when you click on "reply" and are about typing,

(b) just scroll down to the particular quote you want to include in your reply;

(c) then look at the top right hand of that person's quote, where you see the "Insert Quote"

(d) click on that, and it will appear in yours

(e) then edit as you want if you don't want the whole quote.


NB. . no misquote people O. . [color=Black]d[/color]em go vex tear you to pieces if you do so!

@Ovamboland,

Ovamboland:
My dearest sister, it seems you have penchant for drawing wrong concluions from a text, any unbiased reader will see the Annanias and Saphira story is to show NT christians gave money to the apostles evidence of which sister Pilgrim asked for in an earlier post.

I don't have a penchant for drawing any wrong conclusions. The point was that antagonist of tithes have always maintained that there was not a single time money of any kind was involved in tithes, never mind that I have tried to reason out this issue before and it largely went overboard. Yet, when this money and percentage issue was endlessly dragged on, my approach was to bring such anatgonists to admit their own fallacies by making them own up to their denials - in which case you have brought out the same thing I was looking for. While Acts 5 shows us that money was involved, my question still remains: "who instructed them to give money"? Have you found that text yet?

If you don't understand the strain of an argument, why not ask questions? Because antagonists against tithes always argued against money, and never understood that money was involved in what was taken as tithes to the treasure house, my approach was to let these same people whip themselves until they came back to admit their own denials.

Now, if money was indeed involved in both cases of the NT and OT, why on earth have there been this hideous bias that money was a taboo in the OT tithes? What was the mention of silver and gold for in the latter prophets I already pointed to? I don't see anyone yet mentioning anything thereto. Why are people so driven that they just simply refuse to see that their own biases are not helping them fight against tithes?

Ovamboland:
However our sisters reply is that we are trying to bring out a percentage by saying they laid a part falsely at the apostles feet.

False - I did not indicate any such.

Ovamboland:
The point is they were walking in deceit and the Holy Spirit found them out. That doesn't mean they didn't give money. Is that clear enough?

Are you so confused? What is the difference now between your point of they were "walking in deceit" and my point of "hypocrisy and LIE"?!?

Ovamboland:
How we interprete Bible verses is very important, in an ealier post (will paste it later) no one responded to, i asked for the objective of Hebrews Chapter 7. Is it to teach the ordination of tithing or to explain the Priesthood of Christ? A lot of tithe preachers hang their belief on tithing here.

The possible reason why you might have been roundly ignored was because you're making noise about what has been dealt with and retired over and over again. If you cared to calm down and reason with people, I'm sure you would get responses.

Ovamboland:
Same goes for Malachi 3:10, What was Prophet Malachi's message about? How the Levitical order was being bastardised or how common Israelites have refused to give of their farm & ranch increase anymore to the Levites as done by their forefathers?

Malachi 3 - reminders:

    "Let me explain why I'm not so inclined to directly use Mal. 3:8-10
     to push the agenda of tithe."  (read it here)

     "However, it is absolutely wrong for any pastor to call down any curse
      upon any Christian for not givin" (read it here)

      "For instance, sarmy asked me a pointed question about using Malachi 3
       to force people to tithe. I shared with him why my answer is NO;
       and opened up a few reasons why I don't think anyone is correct to
       curse any Christian." (read it here)

Your problem is forgiveable - you just jump in, shakara up and down and assume that your queries are breaking news and nobody has ever read, heard, asked, or even touched them before. That is why these days, instead of repeating myself ad hominem on anything, I'll just simply post the links for your guys - and any rascal play claiming I did not say anything will then be met with a straight no-nonsense talk. I've told you before: this is not a personal disenfranchisement that you go about talking carelessly about me. if you want to discuss, please do; if otherwise, pretend you don't notice me. Thank you.

Ovamboland:
In our understanding of the Bible we need to diffrentiate where a premise is being built by the writers for our understanding (very common wit Paul's letters) and a book like proverbs where some verses are not directly related to the preceding one.

There are chapters in the NT with refrences to the OT, if we take the opening verse or the concluding verse as stand alone our understaning is at best shallow .

How many times have I quoted 2 Peter 1:20 in reference to giving a verse a private meaning or interpretation? Why do you think I have been comparing verses to highlight any point I make?!

Ovamboland:
Sorry sister if i didn't quote Bible verses to support all my post, am still learning and don't yet have all at my finger tip and more importantly am at work (only post during short tea breaks)

No worries - good to know that I'm not the only one who gets short breaks to post on the forum.

Ovamboland:
But i believe i'll be blessed if you can pull up verses that contradict my understanding then i can read it up in full context. You will be helping a bible student and brother

Dear brother, you often miss the point. My aim is not to assert myself or my views as the overriding authority here: this is not a "believe-me-at-gun-point" kind of argument! I have often said that my approach these days is to slow down, welcome other people's disgreement with me, discuss with them, keep it to simply what is being discussed so that we don't spin off to other matters that are not relevant here, and then open our hearts and minds to read what the texts say. We can all do these things without trying to call names at anyone or take issues out on anyone. Yes, we may tease one another and all that; but what's with all the snide remarks?

if I find something arresting and point it out, and yet my readers still maintain that they are not convinced, that is okay and we can all be happy in the love of our Saviour as we keep learning. I said very long ago last year that I was not commissioned to shoot anybody who does not believe in tithing. That being so, what is wrong with our believing in tithes - especially when we're not forcing anyone to bend their necks to the LAW?

Blessings.

camchupa:
the church only asked the part time pastors to go and acquire their degree because they have to do the adinistrative work. they need the knowledge to do good administration.

Okay, that's the point that needed clarification. I guess it was not as alleged - that pastors were "asked to go". The part-time pastors could still attend to their calling while pursuing their qualifications, so I don't see how that should be take to mean theyr were asked to go.

Ovamboland:
@ pilgrim

How are you this morning sister hope you're doing well, are hope is to learn from all thee by sharing our opinion

However you accuse me of drawing my own conclusions from bible records but what are e supposed to do? I clearly stated my understanding as my own beliefs. The above quote is a classic case of hypocrisy, how did my statement imply that Jesus went round collecting tithes? Was he not invited to dine with men? and did He not ask to dine with men?

@Ovamboland,

I'm doing okay, thanks - and you?

Well, I did not mean for you to be miffed, nor intended you to become worked up. If my statements were hypocritical, bless you all the same. The reason I asked that question was simple: we're discussing tithes, and based on those you referenced (Abraham, Melchizedek and Jesus) in response to the points I submitted earlier, one would think you were still on about tithes. If you did not mean it so, what was the reason you brought in those same issues if they were not about tithes?

This is why I had asked us to focus on issues that are germane to our discussion here rather than spinning off to arguments that have no bearing upon our present concerns. For this reason also, I have not sought to discuss the LAW and circumcision, because they are not germane to the discussion on tithes (they may be helpful to mention, yes; but they are not the essential features of tithe-dsicussions).

I hope you see the point. Blessings.

manmustwac:
@pilgrim
please answer mazje's question

The moment he gives me an answer, he will read from me.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
the biblical god said people rob him when they refuse to pay/offer things unto him and you are here talking about me. i am talking about his commandments in the bible and the question still remains. . . . why would a god that owns everything depend on people to give/offer things unto him? does that makes sense to you?

I asked you a question which up until now you have refused to answer. Was He asking YOU, mazaje?

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
If you don't base your arguments on tithing on the law why do you constantly quote fromthe same law to buttress you points?

Can I repeat myself on this?

[list][list]

Here is the problem for many: since pilgrim.1 says that she does not argue tithes based upon the LAW, why is she quoting the same LAW? I have my reasons, defined in only one word - PRINCIPLES.

It is not by coincidence that the apostle Paul quotes the same LAW in Numbers 18 when discussing this ministry in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. He does not say that we should apply the law in a legalistic manner; but he draws from it a principle and concludes with these words: "EVEN SO. . ".

Secondly, the argument many people make about the LAW of tithing is that we are not under the Law, but under grace. Granted. My question is simple - our friends should please explain where Paul was quoting from when he says in 1 Cor. 9:8 - "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?"

Thirdly, when I say that I do not base my discussion of the tithes upon the LAW, what I mean is this: I am not at any time seeking to "justify" the veracity of tithing as a Christian from the LAW. That is why I have often looked outside the Law and intoned that tithing came before the LAW. What the Law did not originate, it cannot abrogate in this case.

Fourthly, I have called attention to another point: the real issue of the LAW is founded on one thing: "justification". No one is justified by the works of the LAW - as is clear in the NT (Romans 3:20, 28 and Galatians 2:16). That being so, I am not seeking a justification from the LAW if I applied its principles in order to understand the significance of tithing. Tithes did not justify anybody in the OT; nor does it justify anybody in the NT.

Fifth, because tithes are not a matter of justifying anybody, I don't see the panic among those who have been screaming it that it is "dangerous" to give tithes under the LAW - when infact I am not giving tithes based upon the LAW?

You see, I could go on and discuss the LAW for another 15 points that will make Christians who argue anyhow to deeply think before they hastily draw conclusions.

[/list][/list]

I hope you will find those helpful; if otherwise, plese gee me a shout back and then I'll expatiate.

KunleOshob:
As i said in my earlier post NT giving is "as your heart desires" so you can choose whether it is in cash or kind, i am sure this statement adequately answers your question about using money in the new testament, i wonder why you refused to see it.

You're only admitting the NT never said "money" specifically - and that is the point. Which again was the reason I wanted you to bear in mind when you are too driven to argue against "money" in the OT; if otherwise, I was going to show you a few examples and ask you if you have any problem with the silver and gold in the OT in this case. We don't have to keep harping against "money" in one case when we know deep in our hearts that the NT does not specifically instruct you to give "money" as offering. We can use our God-given common sense in both cases; but since people who are against tithes have swallowed the wrong idea that it must be every single time "against money", then they need to humbly reconsider their arguments.

KunleOshob:
i think the problem here is your definition (meaning) of tithes which is entirely deifferent from how the bible defines it and the average christian as been made to beleive it is.

Maybe it is a problem for many; but you can see that the definition is not the same thing as its meaning. It is because we make this mistake (such as you have) that many people often look at how much in percentage (%) and are never able to ask themselves what exactly was the meaning of tithes in God's mind. What actually does it point to? All we see and speak about is the agricultural produce that people sit down to eat - nothing more! Whereas, God wants us to see beyond that issue and understand what the tithes were pointing to.

KunleOshob:
Hence the constant disagreement all the time. Your definition of tithe is totally different to evrey other persons and it lacks sound scriptural basis.

If it lacks Scriptural basis, they should simply go to Scripture and show that I did not quote Scripture. Is that too hard to do?

Dearest affee,

affee:
On a serious note
I still no gree o

but every man with his/her own understanding.
I pray the Holy Spirit opens my inner mind to understand, if and only if I am wrong.

I really appreciate your spirit there - amazing. Nobody has to agree with anything, and I have said so. We can all be blessed from all the inputs for and/or against. God bless you dearly.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Clearly this type of giving is more important to Jesus christ than any other type of "christian" giving because this was the type of giving Jesus preached about all the time and not church giving in any form or shape. However this is not to say that church giving is not important, it is just that contrary to what your pastors would like you to believeit is not as important as giving to the needy.

Hmm, I hope our brethren who argue against tithes will see the highlights. I'm not the one makiing a distinction of "TYPES of giving" in the NT now. . . and yet, I'm not the one here saying that one is important than the other. When I mentioned something akin to this, there were shouts. Well done, Kunle. I'll keep this in my fav and wave it for those who rave that pilgrim.1 misbehaves.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
My dearest pilgim.1 whereas biblical tithes was specifically commanded and defined clearly under the law we know that biblical tithes was strictly agricultural products.

When will you guys get this point I made already about not basing my arguments for the tithe upon the LAW?!?   Again a reminder:
_____________________________________

I do not base my arguments of the tithes on the LAW:

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1216.html#msg2884413

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2885787 (succinct here)

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888222 (reiterated)

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888480 (addressed again)

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888555 (again outlined)
______________________________________

The problem here is that the moment you see tithes, everything about you just switches to the LAW. Brotherly, if you wan talk about the LAW in the NT, say so and let us rub minds on that one! There are questions I would like to ask you if you as a Christian are basing your thoughts on the LAW, and then I would like to see how you react.

KunleOshob:
However giving in the new testaments is "as your heart desires" in other wards you are free to decide what to give, how to give and when to give. You have the free will to decide whether you want to give in cash or kind. In summary NT giving is free will (by choice) and not by law, injunction or command so you can decide without any ordination.

Lol, I didn't ask you for "how", I asked you about "WHAT"?  Since you are so used to arguing aagainst "money" for the OT case, please show me your "money" in the NT. If you can't do so, what is your problem with those who gave silver and gold in the OT? Just what is your problem with that?

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Pilgrim.1,

does the above mean that you knew I responded long ago and yet you wrote:


Please clarify before I comment further.

Yes, I saw your terse response earlier, and that was why since I didn't see you categorically respond to my query, I had to reply as quote in order to make you respond more cogently. I would have said the same thing again, but I rather posted the link where Yomi got his thoughts from - because he said so himself. Is there something I was missing?

@Ovamboland,

Ovamboland:
Pilgrim is looking hard for where money as 'giving' in NT is mentioned, can she enlighten uson what Annanias and Saphira received in return for the sale of their property for which they falsely laid only a part before the Apostles.

I'm glad you came to Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5 - because I was waiting until you guys come round and begin to embrace what you have been formerly argumentative about. No rush. Now, if you agree with the "freewill offering" of a postion in the NT, what is "only a part" doing in your submission? A part of what? How much was "a part"? Are you not trying to measure a percentage again, after arguing against it? If any man was free to give whatever "part" they wanted to, why was "only a part" in this couple's case a grievious offence? Was it compulsory that they gave everything?

I have highlighted the real reason that comes to our attention in Acts 5 - it has nothing to do with how much "part" they gave. It was rather hypocrisy and a LIE (see Atcs 5:4 & 9). This is important and should teach us a serious lesson: even your best intentions, when it is hypocritic and a lie, can earn you serious problems. The same thing here on whether we tithe or argue against tithing - on either side, when people say "just give", the careless attitude we often exhibit in this matter is what is actually revealing the state of our hearts.

Meanwhile, those who have been shouting against "money" in the case of tithing in the OT should show us where there was any instructions specifically in the epistles for giving "money". If it is okay to scream against "money" in the OT, please show us the instruction that says give "money" in the NT.

Ovamboland:
Pilgrim is trying to show us tithing was instituted before the law and therefore can not be abrogated by the end of the law but has failed to show this from the bible.

I already have discussed it, repeated it; and if you want, I'll do the same thing I did earlier by posting the links:

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1216.html#msg2884413

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2885787

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888222

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888480

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888555

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1312.html#msg2908410

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1344.html#msg2918203

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1376.html#msg2918691

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1376.html#msg2921847

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1376.html#msg2922746  

Rather than make blank statements, go there and show from all the scripture references that I was injecting words into the verses that the Bible never mentioned.

Ovamboland:
She has also not being able to show from the bible any refrence by the chldren of Isreal to Abrahams tithe to Melchisedek in instituting the Levitical order of tithe as a derivative of Abrahams faith giving. Just her own private interpretation

Check my recommendations above.

One thing I find really hilarious is the lazy attitude of thinkers who just come to make noise and yet have nothing to offer. If I have to disagree or agree with anyone, I do so and go directly to the scripture they are using for their argument. I don't lazily come back and claim they have not been able to do this or that - I go directly and quote the verses and show what they did or did not do. Can you do so?

Cheers.

@Ovamboland,

Ovamboland:
However, sister Pilgrim,
I wonder why in one breadth you concured with a poster that christian tithing originated from Abrahams tithe to Melckisedek and then go on to teach about Levitical tithing mathematics and calculations.

You don't need to wonder about it. When I started mentioning the fact that the NT shows us the "principles" of the OT on this subject, the house almost came crashing on me. That was why I calmly tried to simply allow people to keep on driving their thoughts on 10% and all types of percentages until I brought in the 1% in Nehemiah 10:38. My point was simple: if those who shout against tithes are too driven with their tradition to even think for a moment, then they would come back showing how very tedious their position was on this matter - not to me; but rather to them. I have asked long ago to examine the reason why no percentages were specifically asssumed in the NT for tithes - because the apsotles were trying to direct our minds to something more intrinsic than mere 10%. Since una no wan hear word, come back and begin to kid yourselves that "10% of 10% = 10%" - go and write that in O'level maths and see what you get!

This is the type of childish reasoning we go about with and people laugh at Christians for assuming these issues. Instead of us to sit down and calmly reason, we let our preconceived assumptions drive us to extremum and then become too reactive when others show us that our "Christian arithmentics" is a laughable imbroglio. Please show me, Ovamboland, how you have calculated "10% of 10% = 10%" - that's all you need to do, rather than trying to take issues with me. This is not a personality vexation, that's why I'm asking you to calm down and reason along, or just keep up with your euphemistic games and dres warm.

Ovamboland:
I also wonder that you defend the often misquoted Malachi 3:10 as applicable to all isrealite when prophet Malachi opened the message with refrence to misdeed of the Levites and Priests. the prophet made refrence to Judah(only 1 tribe) to show where they've also got it wrong. Is it the whole nation of Isreal that presented blind sheeps to the alter? No it was the levites

I'm not given to rants, dear brother. The word simply says: "Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation" (Malachi 3:9) - and that is enough for me. If you have an argument about that, turn upwards and shake your fists at God Himself who said so, if it helps you.

Ovamboland:
No you not that that each tribe of Isreal is a nation in it's right and at points in time of history there own kings (reference King of Judah)?

Look at you. .  Phew, make I calm down.   Bros Ovamboland, I should rather make friends with you and show you what you don't know. So let me calmly ask you a simple question: if you're supposing that each tribe of Israel was a nation, are you supposing that there were TWELVE NATIONS of Israel? Abeg go study the matter small-small first, so that we go talk better.

Blessings.

@Ovamboland,

Good morning, and I trust you're enjoying your week?

Ovamboland:
Pilgrim you are definitely wrong with this one, Melckisedek had earthly needs to be met by Abraham's tithe. The priesthood was not a magical one.

I'm quite delighted to be called back to this so I could learn from others. The one problem in your submission is that you're assuming rather than taking your thoughts directly from the Word. Could I now show you why I'm not convinced that your reaction is appropriate? Here:

1. First of all, I don't remember saying anywhere that the priesthood was a magical one. People tend to over-react on issues and then begin to spin out of circle by bringing in arguments that nobody has mentioned. The one thing I have decided to do is slow down and take the points step by step only in reference to what people are saying here in recent times, because earlier than that others have felt I was running ahead of their speed. All the same, not a single time did I infer that there was magical in the priesthood - so where do you connect me with your "definitely wrong" reaction?

2. You should simply have taken me to Scripture and shown me where Abraham's tithe was to meet Melchizedek's needs - did you show that? No. If I was the one that was making vacant statements such as you have, the house would come crashing on pilgrim.1 - but I've goodnews for you: Abraham's tithes were not given to meet Melchizedek's needs. Let me show you from the Word:

   (a) Melchizedek was already a KING and PRIEST when he met Abraham - Hebrews 7:1

   (b) His GREATNESS was categorically emphasized when he met Abraham - Hebrews 7:4

   (c)  Melchizedek was the one who brought supplies (bread and wine) to Abraham
         and not the other way round (see Genesis 14:18 and Hebrews 7:1)

   (d) The less (Abraham) is blessed of the better (Melchizedek) - Hebrews 7:7

The description of Melchizedek's greatness in Scripture nullifies your presumption, my dear Ovamboland. If this King of Salem had any need, his own city (Salem - same as Jerusalem, Psa.76:2) would have provided that very need, for he was not king of an empty land. It was significant here that Melchizedek (being the priest of the Most High God) came out to meet Abraham - this was not because of any material need; for to be so presumptious as such, is simply to ignore what the Word says and drive your own ideas into the text (eisegesis).

Ovamboland:
Remember Jesus Christ had physical needs met by many. he was hungry and was fed by different people at various bible accounts. The devil even tempted him on the basis of His 'needs'.

In other words, Jesus went about collecting tithes, ba?

You see, I've simply left you guys who are so opposed to tithes to keep confusing yourselves. The problem you have against tithes is driving you to keep reacting out of spin that you come back making assumptions that you can't defend. Rather than run ahead of my own thoughts, my approach this time around is to help you examine your own arguments and see how very untenable they are.

Nevertheless, indeed many people ministered unto Him (Luke 8:2-3); but what if they never did - would He have suffered lack at any point? If the Lord Jesus wanted His needs met, He knew how to do so without anyone's contributions, gifts or tithes. Why? He who fed the five thousand (Matt. 14:14-21) and the four thousand (Matt. 15:32-38) was well able to provide for His own needs if it came to that. The devil knew this very thing about the power of Christ, and that was why he tempted Him to turn stones to bread (Matt. 4:3-4). Yet, Christ would not abuse this power, for His desire was to do the Father's will and obtain redemption for us.

Ovamboland:
At no time are we told in the bible that Melchisedek did not possess human flesh with physical needs and i want to believe Melckisedek did not burn the tithe of spoils on to the Most High.

You may "want to believe" anything you feel like reading into the text - it's not my worry. I don't remember ever saying that Melchizedek did not possess human flesh, so what are you arguing here? The point is that the Bible does not teach what you want to believe about Abraham's tithes being to meet the needs of Melchizedek - to infer it so is to drive your own reaction into Scripture, rather than reason "out of" the Scriptures (Acts 17:2).

Dear brother, let us calm down and take our Bibles in our hands, drop the ideas we have adopted to to just react against what we don't know, open our eyes and hearts, read what the Bible says, and let God show us what we have been missing all along. This is why I sometimes am not too given to commentaries - because i have come across so many "commentaries" that are helpful, but in so many places such commentaries are skewed. This is the dreason why when we come here on this platform, the consistent questioning of our queries will bring us to just one point: the undeniable and irrefutable declaration of Scripture. No man's otiose arguments can stand that test. I hope you find these matters helpful to the heart - and God bless you as you do so.

Shalom.

@TV01,

TV01:
I'm not totally sure of the way forward, but perhaps is we discussed Christian life in the NT, with an emphasis on the daily lives of the saints and elders, the injunctions about giving we will recieve further insight. Perhaps we could - even on a seperate thread - consider what predicated giving and distribution in the NT, how and what collections or aid were used for,and further, how in this dispensation one would worship The Lord with physical gifts.

I feel you, bro. I understand how these matters come across to us sometimes, and I would have "taken a chill" as I said earlier. It just seems that the interest to open up this most enigmatic subject continues as we all would like to know what we can share step by step on the many assumptions we hold on both sides of the divide. I was hoping to relate with others and clear these toothing problems best as I could before coming back to offer some help to this:

Why don't Catholics, Anglicans, JW or others pay tithe
What is the tithe used for
Is it's use biblically prescribed
What would happen if it was eliminated and all giving became freewill and disbursement became needs based?

We shall get there. . . patience, bro. . patience.

Blessings.

Hi Nasogold,

Nasogold:
THUS I WILL ONLY AFFIRM THAT 'IF YOU DO NOT LIVE A TITHE LIFE, YOU WILL DEFINITELY HAVE A TIGHT LIFE'.

Lol, please be gracious to our brethren - they are not forcing us to give up tithing; they just want us to share with them step by step why we feel persuaded to tithe and yet still maintain that it is not to be compelled on anyone. Can we gently all share? Blessings.

Hi @affee,

How body?

It's great to have people disagree with my submissions - that is quite a healthy sign and a grace to help me query my own assumptions, so that I'm not forcing my own ideas on others. My principle for doing this is found in 1 Tim. 4:16 ~~

    'Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them:
     for in doing this thou shalt both save
            ^(a) thyself,
            ^(b)and them that hear thee.

I should be careful both for myself and those who chance upon reading what I offer.

affee:
I want you to take a closer look at Neh 10: 38-39,

38. A priest descended from Aaron is to accompany the Levites when they recieve the tithes, and the Levites are to bring a tenth of the tithes up to the House of our God, to the store trooms of the treasury. (The NIV Rainbow Study Bible)

affee:
The priests and Levites also gave tithes after they had received the tithes of the Children of Israel, and it clearly states that they gave a tenth (10%) of the tithes not 1%.

I deeply appreciate your view here; however, I think so many people keep making a huge mistake here. I humbly submit that some Bible commentators and some versions (e.g., Douay Rheims) find that verse very difficult to fit their idea - because they have largely ignored preceeding verses.

Here's what's happening in Nehemiah 10:38 & 39 -

     (a) that verse was not talking about the tithe of the Levites

When a lot of people ignore the previous verses and ancillary references, they miss precisely the fact that the Levites and the priests were involved here. What "priests" are we talking about here? There are two classes of them:

              ~ the 'priest' (chief among others), v. 38
              ~ the priests (several others), vv. 37 & 39

These two groups were working with the Levites when these tithes were taken from Israel - but nowhere did those verses say that the Levites were giving their own 10%. To assume it so, is simply to read into the verse and confuse the whole context (a case which is known as eisegesis).


     (b) that verse was talking particularly about the tithe of Israel

It was the collective tithes of Israel (and not a portion of the Levites) that was taken into the treasure house and chambers of God. Why would I think so? For the following reasons:

              ~ for the fact that verse 38 simply said so

              ~ verse 38 did not say it was the tithe of the Levites

              ~ verse 38 simply said that the Levites shall "bring up the tithe of the tithes"
                 unto the house of God;
                 it did not say that the Levites would offer up their own tithes and take it to
                 the treasure house.

Now, using the principle of 2 Peter 1:20 ("that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation", we need to seek out other verses to see what was happening in Nehemiah 10:37-38. Aside from the fact that some commentators have simply run with their thinking, my question earlier was this:
      ___________________________________________________________________

       Now, ask yourself if Nehemiah 10:38 is what was happening in Numbers 18? Here:

              ~ 'and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes
                  unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house.'

      Where do we find this in the LAW?
      If you can find this, you will see what the commentators missed.
      ___________________________________________________________________

The reason why I asked us to go back to the LAW where they got this practice from is because Nehemiah 10:36 says that they were doing all those things "as it is written in the law", particularly as appertained to the priests that minister in the house of God.

You will see that the LAW itself warned again and again that the Levites had no inheritance - thus, they could not be said to be having any income (whether or farm produce or otherwise). What the LAW asked them to offer for themselves was the heave of "the tithes of Israel" - please go back and see what it says about the heave offering in reference to Israel's tithes in Num. 18:24 -

    "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD"

It was this heave offering that the Levites were to take just 1% (10% of 10%) and reckon as their own. Do the maths - anybody knows that 10% of 10% is not equal to 10%!! That is deliberately falsifying the figures to fit our own presumptions - and that is what the commentators have done!

                   10/100 = 10%

                   10% of 10% = 10/100  x 10/100 = 1/100 = 1%.

No matter how anyone slices it, you cannot say that "10% of 10%  =  10%". . . anyone who hears that coming from Christians will shake their heads at us in pity! Let's not sweat at this matter - it is simply 1% and not 10%. Why so?

Back to Nehemiah 10:38 - "and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house."

Wait a mo, let us ask again: whose tithes was the "tithe of the tithes"? Many rush to say it was the tithes of the Levites - because we only assume it so; but the verse never said so. We only need to notice a few things in that verse as highlighted there:

               - the house of our God
               - the chambers
               - the treasure house

Have you noticed here what was happening? Read Ezra 8 and see for yourself. Here we shall see what was taken into the treasure house, the chamber and the house of God:

    (a) twelve chief of the priests separated (v. 24)

    (b) the silver, and the gold, and the vessels were weighed out (v. 25)

    (c) the silver and the gold are a freewill offering unto the LORD God of your fathers (v. 28)

    (d) here's where the answer to our problem begins (v. 29):

                'Watch ye, and keep them, until ye weigh them before
                 the chief of the priests and the Levites,
                 and chief of the fathers of Israel, at Jerusalem,
                 in the chambers of the house of the LORD'

                 'So took the priests and the Levites the weight of the silver,
                  and the gold, and the vessels, to bring them to Jerusalem
                  unto the house of our God.' (v. 30)

    (e) the priests and the Levites who measured these things out were named (v. 33)



Of course, I could spend some time and go into detail to show all these matters. But why all these? Because we have been running with the idea that what was written in Nehemiah 10:38 was the tithes of the Levites, whereas it never said so. Someone called my attention to the Douay Rheims version, arguing that it says so - I asked the kind lady if Genesis 3:15 was accurately rendered in the same version. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Let us not run with the ideas of men who bend these things to fir into their own thinking. There is simply no way anyone can slice this verse to teach that 10% of 10% is still equal to 10% - that would be adjusting a new trend of Arithmentics that we can't defend!

I shall come back and share some more on the matters of the Treasury - and only then I think it would dawn on us why tithes are not always a matter of 10% every single time!

Warmest regards.

origina9ja:
very very very dark people

Lygophobia?

Lol, mine:

Bogyphobia – demons and goblins

Build what's your dream.

Hi sleekmag,

Thanks for your comments.

sleekymag:
Why i'm on pilgrim.1's side because i agree tithing shouldn't be made mandatory; it is not mandatory in the NT, but is God's mystery for prosperity. If you can claim all the blessings in the OT by obeying God's word, as well as the 10 commandments, then following the tithing commandment according to the melchizedek law (which abraham partook of) and whose order Jesus is (Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek) shouldn't be seen by anyone as outdated.

Well, you have touched on something that so many people have been missing hitherto - that was why I have been holding back and not even going there for now at all until the basic issues have been settled, whether or not we agreed/disagreed on that. Albeit, I touched on that when I discussed that "(B) The basis of Christian tithing is the Melchizedek Priesthood", but it seemed that I was running ahead of the questions people were asking and had to slow down and wait for us to clear them before proceeding.

sleekymag:
However my point of disagreement with you pilgrim.1 still centers on the 10% or 1% issue.

I am so grateful that at least a few people could disagree with my submissions, and you do it so gracefully - thank you.

sleekymag:
Tithe is strictly 10%. No more, no less.

Neh 10:38
38 And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house. (KJV)

It's called the tithe of tithes because the levites themselves had no inheritance. It was what they got from the children of Israel that they gave the tithes out of. In essence, they were also paying their own tithes, which was 10% of their allotment from the children of Israel. If 1% were the case, as in tithe of tithes, we would have had at least a scenario wherein the children of Israel brought their 1% directly to the high priest (since they could give 1% - the hallowed part, in your terms). But no, they always had to give 10%, and that was to the levites, then the levites gave 10% of that (their own tithes) to the priest. because the priest also was of the levite tribe.

Two things to note here:

(a) The children of Israel handed the tithes in this case directly to the Levites, and not to the highpriest. First, God stated that everything that was devoted in Israel was Aaron's, and not rather belonging to the Levites (Num. 18:14). However, it was not handed over to him directly, but rather had to pass through the Levites to Aaron, for it was called the "All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer unto the LORD" (Num. 18:19). Of course, the Levites took part of their own and gave unto Aaron as well (Num. 18:28).

(b) Now, when the Levites offered Israel's heave offering to Aaron, it was the 10% they offered, not their own 1% of the total value of Israel's heave offering. But when we come to the ingathering of tithes for the nation as a whole, Nehemiah 10:38 shows that it was the total tithes set apart that was taken into the treasure house - not the Levites tithes. I know a lot of commentators have mistaken that for the Levites' heave offering, but they were wrong - because they had largely ignored the preceding verses, which I should highlight in a moment.

Nehemiah 10:37-38

     ~ verse 37 distingusihes the "tithes" and "offerings"
     ~ verse 38 shows that the tithe of the tithes were
         the collective tithes of Israel, and not that of the Levites
~ we can see how these are not confused when we come
to Malachi 3:8 - "In tithes and offerings."


Now, ask yourself if Nehemiah 10:38 is what was happening in Numbers 18? Here:

     ~ 'and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes
         unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house.'

Where do we find this in the LAW? If you can find this, you will see what the commentators missed.

sleekymag:
the tithe of the tithes--The Levites, having received a tenth of all land produce, were required to give a tenth of this to the priests. The Levites were charged with the additional obligation to carry the tithes when received, and deposit them in the temple stores, for the use of the priests.

Now, where did James Fausset get that idea from - that the Levites were to give a tenth to the pries[b]ts[/b] (plural)? What happened to giving the tithes to Aaron?

Please carefully go through, and you will see what those godly men missed out. We cannot just jump at their ideas and keep promoting them, even when they happen to be incorrect.

Cheers.

Instead of admitting or denying the claim, Waziri rather spoke elaborately on the agency's new anti-corruption "proactive" style, which she said was to prevent an act of corruption before it took place.

Waziri's proactive measures were designed for others - not for those wey dey "see road"!

@sarmy,

sarmy:
I thought you said God ordained tithe prior to Law, which is the reason why even though we are no longer under the law we can still observe it. (no probs)

Well, I may be mistaken, but I don't remember saying so precisely. I highlighted the ministry as found in 1 Cor. 9:13-14 and observed that the apostle pointed out that the Lord had 'ordained' it so - but he was not point to Abraham's case, but rather to Numbers 18. Could we still observe it? I believe so - but not legalistically as based upon the stipulations of the Law, because neither in the OT or in the NT does the Law justify anyone.

sarmy:
Likewise, christians giving/offering under NT is in worship of God, how is tithe then different from the other Offerings under NT?

I will come back to this point in detail, and I ask your forgiveness that the question would not be tailored in just two sentences. However, suffice to say that the reason why I have been waiting all this while is to help us clear this misconception of basing our thoughts every single time on "money". Earlier on, sleekmag, JJYOU and others had cautioned that we be careful to note that our giving is not all about money - but it seems that so many people missed that, and that is why they are still expressing some concern about "money" etc. I will touch on that issue and deal in detail soonest. For now, please understand that not all "giving" in the NT is treated the same.

sarmy:
And if there is mystery to the name TITHE beyond the ordinary, what about the fact that none of the early churches directly used the word TITHE to represent any of their 'GIVING'

For two reasons, as I already shared:

(a) because they (IMHO) were not focusing on a percentage (%). This is why I keep saying that as long as we remain on %, we will keep confusing oursleves and keep haggling on this issue. In the same way, what did they call it in the NT - "freewill offering"? Where? If they never called it a name, why is it that TITHE is the one thing people are so scared of?

(b) they (IMHO) were more concerned about the "principles" than on a legalistic application of tithes. Thus in every mention of it in the NT, not in one instance would you find a condemnation of tithe. NOT ONE. People hastily condemn what they have not studied, but I don't take that approach.

sarmy:
And none of the apostles instructed the early church to classify their offerings into TITHE and others

That is why I kept saying that nothing is made compulsory to the believer under the new covenant. The problem here that I want to help deal with first is this issue of why people are so disturbed about the term TITHE. If it is the money issue, I am waiting to see where "money" was ever mentioned as part of our "giving" in the NT. If money was not mentioned and we are all too happy to assume it is "money", doesn't that already highlight that we have more problems on our hands than this issue of tithes?

Best.

Olaolufred:
This Yar'adua is obeying the rule of law according to the most useless party in the world.

We know!
At least, that's what BBC would have us believe.

BBC: Last month, he left the country for two weeks, telling ministers he was going on a pilgrimage to the Muslim holy city of Mecca, but went to a hospital in Saudi Arabia for treatment.

Dear Chris,

Lol, thank you for sharing your thoughts and trying to persuade me that you haven't been on the same page ever since. The only problem is that the issue of the warfares is what has kept recurring in your musings, and that was why it was difficult for me to see any other thing you might have presented as the real current for your situation.

All the same:

Chrisbenogor:
I am going to make a crazy assumption which is that in 2500 years organised religion would be extinct.

It would have been a good stake to bet your money on - if you had enough to stake it! Lol, aside from that, if man is still here by that time, religion will remain. Religion has a long and definitely durable history - most of which we know absolute zilch about. However, no be today people begin fight religious beliefs. . it's been longer than twice 2,500 years. The more people make these "predictions" about the end of religion, the more they wake up to see how far from reality that prediction is.

Shalom.

Hi hubreality,

hubreality:
Paulipopo, i know exactly ur stand in the things of the Spirit. Jesus said 'the words i speak to you are Spirit and Life(John 6:63). This is beyond the quoting of scriptures and the play of religion and it's politics. If the Spirit of Him that raised Jesus from death dwells in you, you will in faith and in Love. Sow the right seeds now and always for harvest time is certain.
God bless you.

You need not keep repeating yourself on the same thing - paulipopo is not hard of sight and I'm sure he has seen it. Anyway, how are you doing?

KunleOshob:
Tithes were clearly defined in the old testament (compulsory ten per cent of the produce of the land) whilst new testament giving is freelly given meaning as i so desire or i as i purposeth in my heart, not subject to rules. so i don't need any set of guide lines or ordination to give as a christian, i am free to give freelly as i purposeth in my heart.

Brotherly. . Kunle! Kunle!! KunleOshob!!! How many times I call you so?

I only asked you one kweshun:
___________________________________________________

"could you point us where money was specifically mentioned in
the type of giving that God ordained for you in the NT"
___________________________________________________

You guys are funny! You have problem with money in the OT - but you no fit tell me where you see the same "money" for your own bias in the NT! Na kweshun I ask o. . me I never see am na i[color=Black]m[/color] make me dey ask. You see, I keep saying this: what you accuse others of should not become tyrannical to you when asked to show your own case. That is the principle I always live by. If I can't showcase my convictions without bias and naivety, then I would not be driven to shlepp and harp at others about the same thing.

I don't mean to be tedious, lovable brother. . . but just help us see "money" in your NT "freewill", and I go hear!