₦airaland Forum

@TV01,

Becoming a Christian does not necessarily engender wealth, nor is there any inherent covenanted promise that guarantees such.

What is your understanding of 2 Corinthians 8:9 - For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Based on the context, I believe Paul is talking here about material riches. What sayest thou?

@mycc,

i do not think gospel music stands a chance.

While you have not made yourself clear on the basis for comparison, may I bring this to your attention. The past few years have seen a significant jump in the sales of Gospel music while secular music keeps sliding in numbers. Now this is in the U.S. I do not know wht athe situation is in other parts of the world.

@TV01,

A sound premise will test true no matter how simply it is stated. Well said

Jesus never laid hands on anyone to receive the Holy Spirit either. He didn't ride cars, neither did He fly an airplane. I am not too sure about this, but I think He never surfed the internet either.

Christians are called to participate socially by offering succour to the needy, being law-abiding and presenting pure uncompromised witness to their Lord.

So is a Christian in politics participaing in a social or anti-social endeavour?  You need to be clear as you seem to be neither here nor there!

Their involvement was not political by any stretch of the imagination. One can be involved in social discourse without resort to partisan politics. Where state and religion are blurred, fascism sets in. Sharia anybody?

Here are some dictionary definition of politics.
1. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.

2. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government

3. The science or art of political government.

4.  The practice or profession of conducting political affairs.

5.  Use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.

So based on these definitions, are you saying Moses, Daniel, Nehemiah and several of Isreal's Judges were not involved in politics? I seriously beg to disagree.

No stretching of the imagination is required to simply read and understand what politics means and to make a conclusion based off of that.

@stimulus,

Well, it is quite a sad state of affairs that many of us as Christians have issues to debate - all the better, I think, as these are efforts towards a better understanding of what God would have us be and do in our walk with Him. If we assume that all's well and these issues should long have been put behind us without having a good grasp of them, what shall we do when people betake themselves to yet another type of baptism - that spoken of in Scripture as "baptized for the dead" (I Cor. 15:29)?

Oh no - it is not a shame that these issues are still being discussed. There's a gap of over 19 centuries between us and those who first believed and what they practised. We thank God for the NT, so let's humbly open its pages and read it - and I believe you're doing that in some measure.

I never said these issues should not be discussed.  Rather, it is a shame that after 19 centuries, we are still unable to come to the unity of the faith with regards to what amounts to the basic principles of our faith.  Can you imagine repaeting a class for 19 centuries? Doesn't that tell you something is wrong somehwere?

4. The Baptism of Trial - missed often by many of us Christians: "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12:50); see also Matt. 20:22-23). In its simplest form, it refers to the absolute surrender of man's total faculty to God's will, even in the face of death and danger. John 21:18-19 illustrates this type of baptism.

Thanks for bringing my attention to what you term the 'baptism of trial'.  My persuasion is that Jesus was refering to Himself exclusively with the use of the personal pronoune "I".

don't take the view that Matt. 28:19 teaches the baptism of John. The event in Acts 19:1-5 teaches the distinction between John's baptism and Christian baptism. Both are by immersion in water; but they are not exactly the same thing. After the dozen disciples revealed that they only knew the baptism of John in Acts 19, the apostle Paul explained the difference between the two (vs. 4), and went on to baptize them in the name of the Lord Jesus (vs. 5).

Acts 19:1-5 does not teach the dinstinction between the baptism of John (water baptism) and Christian baptism in water.  I am fully persuaded that the Disciples Paul met were not even christians until Paul showed them the way of Christ and they were baptised into the Body.  How can you be born again and never heard of the Holy Ghost? Besides, all they knew was water baptism and not the baptism of Jesus into the Body as Paul outlined in 1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Paul only laid His hands on them to receive the Holy ghost after he was sure they were born again. Baptism in water does not make you born again, it is baptism with the Holy Ghost that makes you born again.

Also remember that Paul said he never baptised (refering to water baptism) anyone other than Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas - 1 Corinthains 1:14 to 16!!! That tells me that Acts 19 couldn't be refering to water baptism.

It is clear that when the apostles baptized people in the name of the Lord Jesus, they didn't mean at all to disregard the injunction of Matt. 28:19. Not many of us realize that the verse is NOT a 'formula', in just the same way that many people think of the Lord's prayer as a formula (Matt. 6:9-13). Rather, the Lord Jesus spoke in absolute terms of fulness: that to be baptized in His Name is to be baptized in the Name of all that God has revealed of Himself - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is therefore not by happenstance that the Lord Jesus first announced His authority in verse 18: 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth'. Following this, He immediately gave the commission with these words: 'Go ye therefore. . .'

While some may think it's unimportant, I still believe a dinstinction should be made as to what type of baptism is referred to in the context we are discussing.  Most references are to baptism with the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and not of water.  Peter was clear when he refered to the baptism of water in Acts 10, and the same with Phillip when he baptised the Eunuch in Acts 8.  

Peter's remarkable and bold statement in Acts 4:12 should help our reasoning here: 'Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.' Thus, it was in the Name of the Lord Jesus that baptism was offered to all who believed. The same thing is confirmed in Acts 10. As soon as Peter announced that, 'through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins', the Holy Ghost fell upon all who heard his words (vss. 43 & 44). Thereto, the apostle commanded them to be baptized 'in the name of the Lord' (vs. 48).

Peter never said they should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.  Please read that passage again.

@backslider,

I think this is very Dangerous because Molten Lava and hot air in the ground are looking for Escape roots one of the wells may Just be one.

Do you know what you are talking about at all?

@otokx,

Our case is one of poverty begetting poverty. No one talks about hard work; riches in Christ Jesus Is it not rich in righteousness that the bible refers to?? We are very materialistic as a people and that is why we steal.

This is a case of people hearing one aspect of a teaching and running away with it. Hard work is part and parcel of the concept of prosperity and because it has not being mentioned so far does not mean it is disregarded.

I will wait to hear the answers of other antagonist of prosperity with regards to the riches being in righteousness before I say anything. Men, do you make me laugh. People will claim anything just to establish their prjudices.

@trini_girl,

Seun is right, sex isn't worth it if there is no emotion or love.

I will take this a little further. Sex isn't worth it if done outside the confines of marriage. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

@TV01,

The request I made of TayoD is open to all.

Please detail the scriptures showing that we must strive for or as a result of the "covenant" acquire material wealth. I'd appreciate NT references and not the overworked Abrahmas blessings or variations thereof.

Once again, I am not surprised that you have gone beyond what anyone has said here to promote your bias. Who said anything about striving for material wealth?  All I said is that prosperity is part and parcel of our covenant with God that was purchased by the blood of Jesus.  If you do not believe that, I will expect you to swear allegiance to poverty for the rest of your life. Doing otherwise is nothing short of hypocrisy.

Your arrogance at discarding scriptures really amazes me. Isn't Abraham's blessing ours? So what is your choice? The blessing or the curse? You never cease to amaze me my brother.

In any case, I have chosen to take up your request in the hope of getting things really straight about prosperity.  Like I said, prosperity (including riches/wealth) is one of the reasons why Jesus died on the cross.  Here is a NT scripture that mentions that directly.  Revelation 5:12 - Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.  Please notice how riches was even dinstinguished from blessings so that our very spiritual brothers will not try to convince us that God is against us having the gold which He says belongs to Him in the first place.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Reading through chapter six in context reveals that the things that will be added to the Christian are the things which the gentiles seek.  So what do the gentiles seek? Holiness? Consecration? The kingdom of God? No.  What they sek is material prosperity. Jesus says here that material prosperity comes by seeking God's kingdom first.  Common sense tells me that if I do not see those things added unto me, then I must not be seeking first His Kingdom and righteousness.

No where does the Bible teaches that wealth is wrong. It teaches against the deceitfulness of riches as well as not putting once trust in it. In fact, Jesus tells us to make friends with money in other to be received into everlasting habitations.

From Genesis to Revelation, we see God's desire to prosper His own in order to establish His covenant. Right from Eden where God placed gold; to Revelation where Jesus died to take it back from the devil who stole it, God's mind is made up that the gold is His and He intends to use it for His own purpose.

@topic,

What's your opinion on this?

My thoughts are totally different from what has been discussed so far.  First of all, it is a shame that the Body of Christ is still fixated on an issue the Bible regards as an elementary principle.  No wonder we are in such a bad shape - we do not fully grasps the elementary principles of the doctrine of Christ. Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment

Does anyone notice that the word baptisms in that scripture is in the plural? So how many kinds of baptism do we have revealed in scripture?  Basically, there are 3 different kinds of baptism mentioned in the NT.  These are:

1.  The baptism of John - Water Baptism
2.  The baptism with the Holy Spirit - This is different from the infilling of the Holy Spirit or the annointing of the H.S.
3.  The baptism with fire - meant for the chaff or the children of disobedience at judgement.

I believe Jesus was refering to the baptism of John in Matthew 28:19 and the way to do it is exactly what Jesus mentioned - In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  Jesus wouldn't have a problem asking the baptism to be done in His name if He so requires. At least, we see this in His teachings on prayer.


Acts 2:8 and 19:5 refer to the second baptism - the baptism with the Holy Spirit.  In Acts 2, Peter said this baptism leads to the remission of sins and it is a prerequisite to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost?  That should immediately jettison the idea that he was refering to the baptism of John.  The baptism with the Holy Spirit is done by Jesus and it is a one time event for the Believer.  It marks the point where we become Born Again and are made a part of the Body of Christ.  This is what John was refering to when he said "He will baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."

The third baptism - baptism with fire is carried out by Jesus as well in judgment of the unbelievers.  This can be referenced in John's statement mentioned above that Jesus is the one to baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire.

I will provide more proofs to support my thoughts are as we go along.

@topic,

Fist of all, I think the word 'pagan' is being used to mean 'gentile.'  That being said, I am more in agreement with the guy who refered to Melchizedek as a 'pagan' priest.

Melchizedek was a mere man. He wasn't God the Father, God the Son nor was he God the Spirit. He was not an Angel either. Melchizedek was a man who ruled as a king over Salem (probably ancient Jerusalme) and was also a Priest of the Most High God. There is no evidence at all in scripture to think he is anything other than a mere man.

While I know what you all will refer to as evidence he is divine, I will certainly show you why I believe those phrases should not lead to the conclusion you arrived at.  I look forward to a good exchange.

@TV01,

While many times I understand what you are trying to say, I do feel you go overboard with it and you tend to point out what is part and parcle of the entire message.  I'll explain.

Indeed the Bible preaches against covetousness.  That is a foundational teaching in the 'doctrine' of prosperity that I have come to understand. My earliest exposure to the teaching of prosperity came through reading Kenneth Copeland's booklet titled: the Fool's Hardy!  He anchored the entire teaching on Proverbs 1:32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.   He pointed out from scripture (especially proverbs) how not to be a fool so as not to be destroyed by the prosperity that is inherent in God's covenant with us.

He labored to show that prosperity is not given so one can consume it on his lusts, rather it is to advance God's cause on earth.  No wonder Psalm 35:27 says Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let the LORD be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.   God is pleasurably interested in the prosperity of His servants who favor His righteous cause and not those who want to be rich just so they could consume such on their lust.

@TV01,

Speaking of which hows Chris "El Presido" Okotie ?

I guess he is working out his salvation with fear and trembling! Why do you ask?

@TV01,

Like I said if you have anything to share, please feel free to do so. Or are you waiting for MOG clearance? Oya, granted  .

So are you MOG now?

No I don't believe the Lord in particular or the Bible in general teach material prosperity.

No I don't believe the Lord in particular or the Bible in general teach material prosperity poverty.

So what is the Lord's position.  don't tell me He has nothing to say for or against prosperity or poverty.

You are making the Lord appear as if He cannot make up His mind about this central subject to everyone's life - whether christian or otherwise.

@TV01,

If they can do so without compromising their faith or serving another master.

This sounds like a backslidden TV01 . No harm intended mr backslider .

@TV01,

You obviously have something to say, don't wait for me , please go ahead!

You started the discussion and it is up to you to tell us what you believe the Lord has to say about money. It is so convenient to sit in your high chair and condemn everything others say not realising you are condemning yourself.

If you believe the Lord teaches prosperity, then i hope you will embrace it and if you think He advocates poverty, I hope you have already swore an allegiance to poverty for the rest of your life.

@TV01,

Wrong, it's religion that is about money (and power).

Interesting response. I guess you realise Jesus spoke more about money in His parables than any other subject.

@babs787,

For your information, I have never read through anything in answering islam that you mentioned. I've being trained to always avoid plagiarism and I will always refernce my sources if any.

Have you read through my response at all? I told you the same phrase "among thine brethren" used in that prophecy is utilised in other verses of the same chapter. I will not point out the verses to you hoping you will read through the entire chapter in context. Please go back and read through the entire chapter of Deuteronomy 18 again. The answer you seek is right in there.

@topic,

Mine is indeed a combination of the three. However, revelation must be the common denominator in everyone's experience. It takes an unveiling of our eyes to realise Jesus is who He claims He is.

My revelation experience started when I was about 4 years old. I remember attaining the age of accountability which I now understand is what Paul refered to in Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. At that time, I wasn't aware of the Gospel despite the fact that I go to church all the time with my parents. That experience has taught me that I need to be perceptive to the stage of life my kids are in so they could be taught the Gospel at an early age. In any case, I realise I needed a Saviour and I thought to myself that at least God will look at my mom's service and faithfullness to grant me a pardon. But thank God, I grew up to know and receive Him myself and I am so blessed by the saving grace in Christ Jesus.

@Seun,

Thirdly, there is no evidence that Chris Okotie possesses character and discipline. He probably lacks both.

I hope you have the proofs to substantiate this allegation. If you do not, I guess Okotie serves as the mirror that reflects you to you.

@babs787,

While I agree with the observation that your writing skills have improved on nairaland, I must declare without doubt that your ability to comprehend what you read still leaves much to be desired.

@tianshie,

Jerry Ghana is ever the willing turncoat when he smells an opportunity

Is this supposed to be a riddle?  Are you insinuating that Jerry Gana is in it for the "Ghana must go?" 

@TV01,

Sometimes I just dont want to bother replying you because as usual, you tend to let your imagination run ahead of what someone is saying.

What covenant did Abraham cut with God (vice-versa, pardon me), that incorporated an element of tithe? Abraham's covenant with God was cut (excuse the pun ) with circumcision.

While I will not go into the need for circumcision, please be informed that I never said the Abrahamic covenant was cut with bread and wine. Melchizedek brought the wine and the bread as token of the covenant. He saw ahead into what Jesus did at the Last Supper where the bread and the wine play a critical role and still do in Christianity today.

Jacob referenced neither his father or his grandfather, codified law or pre-existing tradition. Tithing was extant before Abrahams time. It was paid to the most senior chieftain or priest. Jacobs vow was acknowledging Gods sovreignty and seeking provision and protection.

The question is: who did he learn it from and why does it think it is important at that point in his life when he gave his life over to the God of his father?

An increase over and above what? Whatever you decide the "what" to be, Abraham never tithed on it.

Why am I not surprised that you are jumping to such a conclusion.

Kindly stop conveniently overlooking Isaac to force-fit this baseless assumption. Abraham was blessed of God way before the Melchizedek incident. Your scurrillous suppositions would lend credence to the notion that Isaac was not party to the covenant as he has no biblical tithing record. please stop trying to hinge the covenant on the tithe.

Overlooking Isaac? I think not. Doesn't the NT teaches that even though Levi was still in Abraham's loins, he is presumed to owe the tithe and to have paid the tithe in him? Isaac is no exception. Like I said, teaching his children to observe God's ways is one of the main reason why God chose Abraham.

This speaks volumes about the faulty understanding of NT Christianity that proponents of mandatory tithing labour under. It's why the tithe is the joy of the self-righteous religionist. Everything a Christian has is God's. What are you thinking?

Everything Abraham had also belong to God and everything God has belong to Abraham, so what is your point?

Abraham was willing to give his son! Forget gold and silver for a minute. That is, everything he had, all he held dear

Abraham was faithful with his finances before he could pass that test. isn't that what the NT teaches? "If you are not faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will grant you the true riches?"

The whole Melchizedek incident/type, was to show the eternal nature of the Lords High Priesthood and it's superiority over the Aaronic/Levitical type. I don't personally think Melchizedek was priest of a foreign God.

While that is true, it is much more than that. The bread and the wine directly points to Christ's sacrifice in the NT.

The notion that by tithing one is ratifying a covenant with God is simply not supported by scripture.

No one said it does.

@topic,

When Moses broke the 2 tablets of stone wherin God wrote the 10 commandments (with His fingers), God told Moses to come back up to the Mount to receive another one.  I just wonder if the muslim 'Allah' is running out of printing ink for him to decide to be killing anyone who "desecrates" the Qu'ran.  The attitude of both 'deities' do show they can neer be the same as protagonist of Islam always like to claim.

@babs787,

Let me start too with biblical verses.

Proverb 12 v 1: to learn, you must love discipline , it is stupid to hate correction.
Proverb 9 v 9; Teach the wise, and they will be wiser. Teach the righteous and they will learn more.

I hope you will learn from the verses you quoted above.  The second sentence of Proverbs 9:9 does not apply to you anyway.  It applies only to the righteous and even Muhammad who asks for forgivenes 70 times dail can never lay claim to being righteous.

Its very funny how you condemn my own similarities but come out with just only one similarity.
You think that other's post is inferior to yours as long as its not in agreement with yours. How could you be telling me that the bible didnt refer to marital status, manner of death etc but the same verse could refer to seeing God face to face, just only one similarity!!!

The reason why I do not agree with the similarities you mentioned is because they are not in line with what the Bible teaches.  The Bible is very clear that the uniqneness of Moses is not in his marriage, life, death or anything of the likes.  His uniqueness is in the fact that while God may talk to other prophets in dreams etc, God talks to Moses face to face.  When we understand why Moses is unique, we must then realise that any Prophet likened unto him must possess that same uniqueness as Moses.  This is very simple to grasp if you will just get over your bias.

#Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken#
Why not view it from the phrase, 'from among thy brethren', 'I will put my words in his mouth' and not relying only on 'like unto thee' , maybe that will provide better understanding. You cannot give me just one similarity to accept out of like five that I listed out for you.

You are venturing on a lost cause here.  Stimulus has provided a very good understanding of the phrase 'from among thy brethren' which you are twisting.  Apart from what Stimulus wrote, all you need do is read throught the entire chapter in Deuteronomy 18. The phrase "from among they brethren" is used in other instances and it is a direct reference to the brothers of Isreal, and the Lord was very clear when He said "in the midst of thee".  Arabs were not in their midst when the Lord gave that promise. 

Now that we have established that Muhammad, an Arab is not a member of the tribe of Isreal and he is not 'like unto Moses', we await your other proof linking Moses to Muhammad. You have promised over and over to provide these but you are yet to come forward with anything.  Are those websites running out of ideas?

You should also note that the jews were expecting three
different personalities: Elijah, the prophet and the Messiah.

Jesus is the Messiah and the prophet they were expecting.  They just didn't understand the different roles He had to play.

#on the other hand, the Bible declares was "face to face with God - That is the literal translation of John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, the word was face to face with God and God was the Word.  And of course, there are many scripturres that indicate the nearness of Jesus to the Father that we can present here as facts.#

Hey, you are giving the bible your own meaning different from the original meaning. See, me I no dey oo.

You only need to pick up a Greek Bible to understand this.

I have given similarities in which some are with regards to their birth, family life, death, career, encounter with enemies, results of encounters, writing down of revelation, nature of teachings, claimed nature etc as against your only one similarity of seeing God face to face.

Like I said, the similarities you mentioned do not hold water as it is evident in virtually all the Prophets.  The only thing that will make any prophet like Moses is if the Prophet talks to God face to face.  How hard is it to understand these very clear scriptures: Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

Numbers 12: 6 he said, "Listen to my words: "When a prophet of the Lord is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. 7 But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord.

@jiggo,

so wich one r we talking about?
Okogwu [Maryam's cousin] / Odogwu?

You are all wrong. It is actually Okosun, Sunny Okosun!!! Get the gist? Like Bond, James Bond

@babs787,

Getting back to the topic at hand.  While I am not trying to insult you, I am reminded of Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. So far, I have tried to argue with you at your level of reasoning in other to show you the folly of your argument. In as much as everyone knows that the Bible wasn't refering to marital status, manner of death etc in arriving at the comparison between Jesus and Moses, we have expressly jettisoned the notion that those rudimentary things you mentioned are not the sole perogative of Muhammad.  Rather, they are common to virtually all the prophets in the Bible.

So the question remains - exactly what did God have in mind when He said unto Moses "a prophet like unto thee"?  Well, I have often told you that the Bible always provides its own answers. The principle is 'a little here, a little there' and no scripture will lack its mate.  The Bible clearly indicates what sets Moses apart from all other Prophets and this uniqueness is shared only by Jesus.  Here are the scriptures:

Deuteronomy 18:[/b]15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, [b]like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

Exodus 33:11 - And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Deuteronomy 5:[/b]4 [b]The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,

In short, hear what God said about Moses that makes Him unique:

Numbers 12: 6 he said, "Listen to my words: "When a prophet of the Lord is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. 7 But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"

As far as the qu'ran and your hadiths are concerned, Muhammad never enjoyed the priviledge of seeing God. He claims he was hearing from one Angel Gabriel (why am I not surprsied he used a Bible character). 

Jesus on the other hand, the Bible declares was "face to face with God - That is the literal translation of John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, the word was face to face with God and God was the Word.  And of course, there are many scripturres that indicate the nearness of Jesus to the Father that we can present here as facts.

So therefore, until you can prove to us that Muhammad received word from God face to face much differently than other Prophets did, you have absolutely no case.

@topic,

I learnt long ago that you canot talk right if you do not think right!!! These Politicians have no ideas and therefore can't articulate any.

In any case, Okotie still stands out as the most articulate and vision filled leader seeking our votes. I really wish him well. he stand s a much better chance of inspiring our youths to great heights.

@firstborn,

I agree with you totally. I was going to say about the same thing but you beat me to it. Let Okotie face-off with these Generals, afterall he has been acclaimed most popular Presidential aspirant by an independent and credible group. Let him trade off his ideas against those geriatric thinking politicians.

Knowing PDP however, I'm sure they will resist such an attempt vehemently. They only have to look back at Nwobodo's humiliation when pitted with Okotie at the last election.  Also, I'm sure NEPA will make power available when Yaradua debates and they will not want to give Okotie more air-time because of his increaing threat to their power base.

@trini_girl,

You sent me back to my Bible. thanks.

I guess we have the same effect on each other.

I see your point with regard to this purported pre mosaic law tithe from Abraham. So let's for a moment leave out tithing as it was practised according to the law.

Which has been my point up until now. I am of the opinion that the Isrealites would have paid tithe even if the law never commanded it. Jacob their father learnt to pay tithe from Abraham and he would have taught the same things to his children. See Genesis 18:19 - For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. As you may have noticed, Abraham received the blessing after the payment of tithe.

If this is the foundation for your belief that NT tithing is scriptural then please answer these questions.

In Genesis 14, after Melchizidek fed Abraham and his men and blessed him, Abraham chose to bless the priest with ALL the spoils of war(booty), giving him first dibs on 1/10th of it. It was NOT ABRAHAM'S PERSONAL PROPERTY. This was because he didn't want the king of Sodom to boast of making him rich. How then, do you parallel Abraham giving booty to Melchizedek to MANDATORY new covenant tithe from personal income?

How can you say it is not Abraham's property? When last did you give away things that don't belong to you? What you do with your 9/10th is your problem. You can sow it, you can eat it or you can give it away - the choice is yours.

Please don't misquote me. I never said that Melchizedek was Jesus Christ. In fact, the more I read, the more questions arise about the god Melchizedek worshipped as a Canaanite and a priest in the city of Sodom. My opinion of him is changing. Who is this El Elyon (Most High God) that Melchizedek worshipped?

Melchizedek was a priest of Jehoveh. Why would Abraham agree to be part of a covenant outside of that with Jehoveh. Do you remember the last supper? The token of the covenant that Jesus shared was the bread and the wine. isn't that what Melchizedek fore-shadowed?

As a Canaanite, it certainly was not Jehovah. I'm open to correction of course, and I lay no claim to having the indepth theological erudition of TV and yourself, but as I see it, if Melchizedek worshipped a false god, it blows the fallacy of pre law tithing to God out of the water. The more I study, the more I hold the belief that tithing is not NT teaching.

Now you are flattering me and I am tempted to return the favour. Anyway, I don't see myself as a master of theology. Like my Pastor in Naija said, if God's people are well taught in church, there will be no need for most of these Bible schools around. To be candid, you are one of the people that have left an impression on me on nairaland, so it don't matter if you consider yourself an erudite Theologian or not, the important thing is to affect and change lives.

Like I pointed above, Melchizedek can't be worshipping a false god and yet bless the one in covenant. The NT acknowledges that he occupied such a great office that he could bless Abraham. Who could have been greater than Abraham if not God? Melchizedek occupied God's office while blessing Abraham.

@trini_girl,

Gen. 28:20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, 21 So that I come again to my father’s house in peace--then shall the LORD be my God, 22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that you shall give me, I will surely give the tenth to you.
As TV correctly mentioned, Jacob made a personal, conditional vow to God to give a tenth of his possessions once God met his end of the bargain. No spoils of war mentioned here. No commandment from God. No similarity.
So how do these two totally different tithes transfer to MANDATORY NT tithing?
Neither of them can be used as an example.

You have to understand something about jacob at this point. He wasn't following in the footsteps of his father. He was a supplanter who has being selfish all his life. In this scenario, he had come to the end of himself and turned to God as a matter of desperation.

He wanted to prosper by all means and knew from his father Isaac, who would have learned form his father Abraham that giving yourself over to God is incomplete without giving your living as well. He was entering into the same covenant that Abraham had, and he realised that the tithe is a necessary part of it.

Please notice that he promised God a tegth of ALL that God gives to him i.e. a tithe of ALL his increase. Doing that is an eloquent testimony to the fact that he acknowledges God as the one who provides and the primary possessor.

Don't get hooked on the spoils of war you are talking about. Babyosisi also said same. As long as she hasn;t won any war, she wouldn't tithe like Abraham. The war booty represents an increase for Abraham and that is why he tithed. This is understood by Melchizedek's proclamation about God being the primary possessor even though Abraham can lay claim to being the possessor of that bounty.

@babs787,

Here are some striking similarities between Jesus and Moses.

1. Moses and Christ were born in poverty (The Israelites being under subjugation to a foreign power). (Exodus 1:9-14).

2. On both infants death was plotted. (Exodus 1:15-16,22, Matthew 2:13ff.).

3. Both were rescued by divine intervention. (Exodus 2:2-10, Matthew 2:13ff.).

4. Both were revealed by signs and wonders. (Exodus 7:10,19,20; chapters 8-12; 14:21-22; 17:6-7; Matthew 8:14ff; Luke 7:11; Matthew 14:13, etc.).

5. Moses was prepared in the wilderness for forty years; Christ for forty days. (In Biblical symbolism forty stands for preparation). (Acts 7:23 with Exodus 7:7, Matthew 4:1 ff.).

6. Both are called "faithful servant" in Scripture. (Hebrew 3:2-5).

7. Moses liberated Israel from the bondage of their oppressors; Christ liberated believers from the bondage of sin (of which Egypt throughout the Bible is the type). (Exodus, Isaiah 53, John 8:32-36, Romans 6:18-22, 8:2, Galatians 5:1).

8. The water was subject to the authority of both: (The Red Sea to Moses; the Sea of Galilee to Christ). (Exodus 14:21, 17:6, Matthew 14:22ff., John 6:16ff., Matthew 8:18).

9. Moses spoke to God, "face to face"; so did Christ, on the Mount of Transfiguration. (Exodus 33:11, Matthew 17:3).

10. After this experience, the face of Moses shone; and so did the whole appearance of Christ. (Exodus 34:29, Matthew 17:2).

11. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant (Testament); Christ of the New Covenant, or Testament. (Exodus 19 and 20, Hebrews 12:24).

12. Both prophesied events that were fulfilled. (Deuteronomy 18:15-22, 28:15-29:67, Matthew 24).

13. The Jews rebelled against both. (Exodus 5:21, 14:11-12, 17:2-4, Numbers 11:1-33, Luke 4:16-30, John 11:47-50, Matthew 26:50-56, 27:15-23 etc.).

14. Both died because of sin - Moses for his own sin; Christ for the sin of the whole world. (Numbers 20:12, Deuteronomy 34:4-5, I Corinthians 15:3, John 1:29, 10:14-16, Isaiah 53, etc.).

15. We have reason to believe that Moses rose again (Jude 9, Luke 9:30); Jesus Christ without doubt rose from the dead according to the Gospel. (Matthew 28:14, Luke 24:34, I Corinthians 15:4).

16. The most important and anticipated event of the life of Moses happened after his death: the occupation of the Promised Land. And so it was with Christ: Christ, being the anti-type of Moses, secured new life for us by His death. (Romans 5:6-8, 8:34, I Corinthians 15:3,22, II Corinthians 5:15, I Thessalonians 5:9-10, etc.).

While this list was not made by me, I can still add to it if you remain adamant.