₦airaland Forum

I have been following the various threads on music and may I say/ask the following;

Music is apprehended by the senses and appreciated physically (by the body(. Music is first and foremost a sensual experience. I think any discussion of music should not overlook this fact.

Am I saying that God cannot be worshipped by music? No, indeed, the Bible instructs us to make melody in our hearts to God.

Many feel that a distinction can be made between the beats and the lyrics (music & song), and whilst this is obviously true in a technical sense, from a spiritual perspective, I believe there can be blurring between the two, with the distinction being harder to make, if at all.

Many argue that as long as the lyrics are glorifying God then it’s ok. Is it? In many occult rituals, rhythmic beats are used to cross the physical/spiritual divide and summon spirits. Would one suggest that these same beats/rythms/melodies are God glorifying if attenuated with wholesome Christian lyrics. Can one drink the cup of God and of idols?

Further, as spiritual as we sometimes like to think we are with phrases like “that song/music really moved me in my spirit”, if one is honest, who can deny that the experience be it sensual or spiritual is very much alike as it must of a necessity involve the physical even if it then transcends to the spiritual. I hope I am making myself clear here? Would anyone deny that what is in essence a “bootylicious vibe” or a “get jiggy thang“ could be mistaken for a spiritual high?

For a long time, I couldn’t understand that why despite my conversion and renouncing R&B, Gangsta Rap and other secular music, whenever I heard such music (especially pre-conversion favourites), I’d feel a stirring. It finally dawned on me that it’s a carnal response, and that while I am still in the flesh, it will be an ever present danger, even if dormant. As soon as one gives leave to the flesh, it creeps. It’s that spirit vs. flesh battle, so one must beware of feeding the flesh. Could that be why we often find that Choirs are beset with all sorts of carnal issues? Just a question 0 Bro’/Sis’ head of worship ministry

Bringing something into the church does not automatically sanctify it. Remember the "accursed thing"?

If that which is from without the church (the world), attracts people who are not of church (the world) into church, I would be wary.

Personally I find worship in song rings more true when I’m alone and singing acapella.

Sing to the lord a new song!

God bless

I have been following the various threads on music and may I say/ask the following;

Music is apprehended by the senses and appreciated physically (by the body(. Music is first and foremost a sensual experience. I think any discussion of music should not overlook this fact.

Am I saying that God cannot be worshipped by music? No, indeed, the Bible instructs us to make melody in our hearts to God.

Many feel that a distinction can be made between the beats and the lyrics (music & song), and whilst this is obviously true in a technical sense, from a spiritual perspective, I believe there can be blurring between the two, with the distinction being harder to make, if at all.

Many argue that as long as the lyrics are glorifying God then it’s ok. Is it? In many occult rituals, rhythmic beats are used to cross the physical/spiritual divide and summon spirits. Would one suggest that these same beats/rythms/melodies are God glorifying if attenuated with wholesome Christian lyrics. Can one drink the cup of God and of idols?

Further, as spiritual as we sometimes like to think we are with phrases like “that song/music really moved me in my spirit”, if one is honest, who can deny that the experience be it sensual or spiritual is very much alike as it must of a necessity involve the physical even if it then transcends to the spiritual. I hope I am making myself clear here? Would anyone deny that what is in essence a “bootylicious vibe” or a “get jiggy thang“ could be mistaken for a spiritual high?

For a long time, I couldn’t understand that why despite my conversion and renouncing R&B, Gangsta Rap and other secular music, whenever I heard such music (especially pre-conversion favourites), I’d feel a stirring. It finally dawned on me that it’s a carnal response, and that while I am still in the flesh, it will be an ever present danger, even if dormant. As soon as one gives leave to the flesh, it creeps. It’s that spirit vs. flesh battle, so one must beware of feeding the flesh. Could that be why we often find that Choirs are beset with all sorts of carnal issues? Just a question 0 Bro’/Sis’ head of worship ministry !

So maybe sometimes there is no real difference?

Personally I find worship in song rings more true when I’m alone and singing acapella.

Doris B:
Jesus is our example,He never partispated in politics,so its wrong for a christian to do that because especially in Nigeria,no matter how holy you are you must be tempted to loot and steal.

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

debosky:
so we should let the country be destroyed by the corrupt? I don't think so

bible says if you know what to do (to improve the nation) and you do not do it, you commit SIN.

Christians should participate, and show themselves to be above board.

So Christians not participating in politics is sin?

Maybe it would help if we considered that social activism is not limited to part politics.
Christians are called to participate socially by offering succour to the needy, being law-abiding and presenting pure uncompromised witness to their Lord.

Analytical:
We have tried to do that severally, giving examples of saints of old. That, you have not agreed with.

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?

God bless

trini_girl:
Very well said One.

Hi TG,

So within the context of your long-term, committed, monogamous, heterosexual etc. etc. relationship, the One' example as outlined swings? When it is patently clear that going by this example, one can assign an arbitary (and of course changing) level of sexual compatability requirement.

This as you can plainly see is a serial phillanderers charter. Presumably your approval means you believe no sin was committed here?

Trini, you are muddled on this one. I'm even more bemused as women are obviously more vulnerable and at greater risk?

God bless

stimulus:
You never cease to amaze me with your apt assessment of the current development being applauded today in many quarters. may God have mercy on us all.

Amen to your prayer. We are all in need of His mercy and His grace to see through. I trust that those who truly seek Him will recieve it.

And thanks for your kind words, but I truly wish that truth was so widespread and so deep that such comments would be uneccesary and none would be decieved. But the Bible clearly foretells times of widespread deception.

However, there's something that I'm constantly trying to call attention to - "balance" in our inputs (and I trust you share the same persuasion). There's a great divide between an erring minister who is humble enough to receive correction; and another minister who is set in his ways to pursue a career of deception.

Very true. One of the problems I see here is the structure of church that some adopt. When one person is exalted and placed on a pedestal, especially as a sole or lead authority figure - compounded with the erroneous notion of said person having some superior anointing - it becomes hard for those considered "spiritually junior" to question or challenge him/her.

This is worsened by unbiblical notions of submission and authority, so in time you have a venerated leader who cannot be questioned let alone withstood. It also becomes hard for the "MOG" concerned to remain grounded. Be it because of the way they are venerated, or the slow creep of believing their own press, thus feeding their own sense of importance and indispensibility in the scheme of things.

I continue to cry that the srciptures show clearly that leadership in the body of Christ (that is a church setting), is clearly outlined as a plurality of co-equal elders. The flesh loves to glory and anyone who succumbs to the reverence (that is not actually mans to claim in the first place), will almost certainly stumble to some degree.

The checks to errant ministers (be there merely mistaken or outright deceitful), should emanate from those they fellowship with. We find the exact opposite. Having set their hearts on the MOG, they become their strongest apologists. Error is perpetuated re-inforced and takes deep root, ultimately becoming outright heresy. As church is no longer local and community based as was the pattern - and given advances in communication - the undiscerning can be decieved on a global scale. Such error should be met and contained locally.

It's why a baby Christian, indeed a carnal man will clearly see/sense that something is wrong in an organisation (althought they may not be able to discern what exactly that is), but those within will not hear of it. It's symptomatic of the "My church", "My Pastor" idolatory.

I am at once prayers biggest fan and it's biggest failure, but did Paul have to pray before confronting Peter? Not really, although I don't say it would be a bad idea. Truth is truth. It's the only thing that stands alone. One who truly loves the Truth will see the error of his/her ways. Prayer comes in if they refuse to hear. This spineless notion of praying for the MOG in silence is wholesale lame. Brother please.

Like you said, we are all to earnestly, vigorously, unceasingly contend for the faith. Fight the good fight.

The voice of one crying.

God bless

Bobbyaf:
That is a good question and topic. Personally, I don't see a problem if christians should take an active part in politics if we stop to properly define the purpose of politics. However, it would be foolish of me to give the impression that any christian is expected to remain spotless while being involved, especially in today's politics.

You may well see it as not problematic, but surely pursuing something that will leave a Christian with spot, wrinkle, or blemish is to be steadfastly avoided if not outright abhorred?

Vintage TV01! I like your dogged spirit, though.

Thank you sir.
As yet, no one has demonstrated how it may be done. And that premise is general and should rightfully be considered before a Christian engages in any activity.

God bless

TayoD:
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 use of the contrasting words prosperity and poverty clearly suggest you are using the words in their extreme sense. Wether read as "strive to acquire" or as "acquired as part of the covenant". I do not agree that that can be inferred from scripture.

Let me repeat my position for clarity' sake;

Becoming a Christian does not necessarily engender wealth, nor is there any inherent covenanted promise that guarantees such. Neither does adherence to certain principles on the basis of being a Christian engender material prosperity (and certainly not in as much as adherence to said principles would not work for an unbeliever).

Becoming a Christian is not "the way to material success". It is abundantly evident that material wealth (like the rain and the sun) are experienced by the good and the bad the righteous and the wicked.

Wealth or lack thereof is in no way a testimony to one's faith or right standing with God.

As for that which was purchased by the sacrifice of the Lord, I would sum that up in two words, neither of them being money, wealthy, riches or material prosperity.

Riches (or comfort) or lack of are neither here nor there in the Christian walk. Attitude to abundance or lack, and stewardship of what you are entrusted with are key.

I'll be back to respond to the rest of your post shortly.

God bless

Next up, the indefatiguable TG ! How now?

If you're looking for someone to say that we have to "strive" meaning struggle and endeavour for material wealth, I won't be the one to take the bait.

Gosh, am I that obvious ! I honestly didn't intend it like that, but I appreciate how it might read. Thanks.

However, there are kingdom principles that would make life comfortable for the believer.

I disagree with this on so many levels, I'm not sure where exactly to begin .

Maybe I should ask in what way "comfortable"?

Being a walker on the narrow path immediately puts you at odds with the world. Indeed we rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. No comfort there Miss?

As for material comfort (if that's what you meant), that is not shown from biblical doctrine or narrative. But if it is, millions of Christians are not adhering/following these principles you mention. Care to expound on them?

Finally on this, (to me) in true Christian terms "comfort" almost sounds like a swear word !

Seek first the kingdom of God yes, however the praciticality of it is that we need to work for our money. There is faith, foolishness and presumption. In all your getting, get wisdom, get understanding.

Kinda agree with you here. But the Bible is chocca with reference to the fact that God supplies (and we are not to bother about) more than we need. All things added is for the necessities (and some to bless), not t engender "Christian Consumerism"

3 John 1:2
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

What exactly are you reading into this? "To prosper" in no way means worldly riches.

John 10:10
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

There is life and there is life. Please think on this; "if in this life only". And may I say this if you mean abundant life to be riches, one doesn't need Christ to acquire them.

Back to you girl.

God bless

stimulus:
Does that mean Christians are to be impoverished? By no means! We trust in the living God - for He is well able to richly provide us all things to enjoy (vs. 17).

Cheers all.

Hi Stimulus, for the most part, I pretty much agree with your post. One thing though, When the Lord said "The poor are always with you" did that exclude believers?

I'm not saying poverty is the default Christian position. But I do not see it in the scriptures that becoming a Christian automatically engenders wealth.

God bless

Morning All,

Stimulus, Lafile, truth is most people who are decieved actually want to be. Deep down they'd rather offload the burden of cultivating intimacy with God on to someone else. They are happy with a "facsimile faith" and "comfortable religious endevour".

To acknowledge the fact that a lot of rot is being dissemenated and passed off as Gosple would demand to much of them. They simply prefer not to see the glaring error in what they are being fed.

Additionally all the sorry, worn our, jaded cliches such as "touch not" or "God will judge", are trotted out to absolve themselves of responsibilty. I personally lmao at the "I pay my tithe what Pastor does with it ios between him & God" mantra.

It's more than is at first readily apparent. There are decievers, the want to be decieved and the truly decived. Kinda like The unchurched, the churched and the true church. Most people mistake the 2nd for the 3rd it's why only a few find the narrow path that leads to salvation.

I applaud and encourage you in your efforts to warn true believers. But because some refuse to recieve the love of the truth, God Himself sends them deep deception. Who will deliver such?

God bless

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.

Anyone?

stimulus:
While appreciating your persuasion on issues of this sort, I'm afraid that they do not rise to the crux of the gangrene in Christendom (not, the Body of Christ).

My thoughts exactly. I particularly like the distinction b/w Christendom & The Body of Christ.

How unthinking is the notion that we only pray for false teachers 

That is, you don't confront, challenge or expose false teachers/ing. You let them go right ahead and interceed for them out of sight (while their falsehood wrecks the salvation and impairs the communion with God of many  ). Sounds like the kind of deception a false teacher would use. Indeed, anyone who peddles that arrant nonsense is hereby labelled a false teacher  !

God bless dude

stimulus:
I hope my input would not be stretching issues;

Not at all bro'

stimulus:
but then, the Bible teaches the prosperity (spiritual and material) of God's people.

Mmm

stimulus:
The difference (in my opinion) is that godly believers are not to focus on materialism to the detriment of their spiritual call in Christ.

"Seek ye first"
"All other things will be"

My take is that Christians are to be concerned primarily with spiritual things. Anything required above and beyond basic needs will be provided.

Many go to great lengths to prove that the gospel is about material prosperity. A pure reading of the scriptures will instead make one wary of having more than is needed.

We are not to chase wealth under the guise of "extending the KOG". It's at best cover for greed and in actuality an outright lie.

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.

God bless

trini_girl:
See here! Startling astonishingly mind boggling manipulative deluded unscriptural brainwashed error and false teaching in all its shining glory and splendor!

Yes 0, well said !

Indeed the Bible preaches against covetousness.

Agreed in a sense. But make that "emphatically warns against".

That is a foundational teaching in the 'doctrine' of prosperity that I have come to understand.

There is not such thing as the doctrine (or gospel) of prosperity. What there are, are false teachers trying to disguise their concupiscence as biblically justified.

My earliest exposure to the teaching of prosperity came through reading Kenneth Copeland's booklet titled: the Fool's Hardy!

Can we use the Holy scriptures as our point of reference please  !

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.

Maybe you should enunciate as clearly as you can (from scripture), the salient points of this covenant.

If God makes rich and add no sorrow, surely he wouldn't give "prosperity" to fools (the unbeliever), or the foolish (immature believers)?

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.

You are putting man before God. This is a hallmark of all man-centric religious thinking. You don't decide to be rich and then bless God. God decides what he would have you do and provides whatever is necessary.

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.

I see what he laboured to do as justifying avarice. Where in NT Christianity as narrated in the Bible were riches ever a pre-requisite or a pre-cursor to anything that God desired or ordained to be achieved through men.

Interestingly enough the proponents of earthly riches/prosperity (and tithing) always overlook the common purse that was the norm amongst early Christians. "Having all things in common". And no one said anything he possesed was his own.

Plus you conveniently ignored my earlier request reposted here;

(plus I would appreciate your categorically showing that The Lord spoke more about money  than anything else in His parables - Would you extend this to His life and ministry as well as the parables? Would you go further and kindly expound on your implication that money is somehow core to the Gospel, KOG or Christian life)

In response to your earlier statement reposted here;

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

God bless

TayoD:
This sounds like a backslidden TV01 .

In what way? I don't see how it can be done. But in order for the discussion to unfold and to give the initiater and fora space to weigh in, I started with that basic premise.

Can show me examples of any one that has successfully done so?
In any event, I can see no scriptural, historical or contemporary backing for this.

Speaking of which hows Chris "El Presido" Okotie ?

God bless

TayoD:
So are you MOG now?

I can explain  !

The call was too, too strong, the annoy.ting too too apparent. I tried to fight it, but the prophetic utterances of highly blessed Nairaland's has propelled me into my undeniable destiny to minister cross denominationally (and inter-planetarily) to the nations.

We are still working on a name/title (any improvement on Apostolic-Prophet to the galactic constellations?). My few followers currently refer to me as "Daddy GC"  !

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

What I am saying is that material things are not the main import of the gospel or the Kingdom.

Although I would add for those who are consumed by the desire to scriptural justify their carnal cravings for earthly riches, that the most oft repeated NT warning is against "Covetousness", followed wierldly enough by "False teachers". Funnily enough, you tend to find the two go together. Now there's a coincidence!!!

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.

On the contrary, I have made my position very clear. In any event I consider neutrality about material things to be preferable to the notion that Christ hung on a cross so that you could prance about in a hummer or that the bigger your house the more you glorify God.

TayoD, any time you please, I'm more than happy to sit down and discuss the eternal weight of glory that is the essence of Christianity. It grieves me to see one with evident zeal blinded by a fixation with the temporal. _{A zeal he said, but not according to knowledge!}

God bless

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

TayoD me old mucker, how far  ?

You started the discussion

I did  ? To the best of my knowledge, I can't take credit for that. Plus it wasn't about money per se or in general, but about a mandatory tithe.

it is up to you to tell us what you believe the Lord has to say about money.

Like I said, I never entered that discussion. But if you'd like to hear, just ask.

It is so convenient to sit in your high chair and condemn everything others say not realising you are condemning yourself.

Exactly where, when and who did I condemn?

If you believe the Lord teaches prosperity, then i hope you will embrace it

No I don't believe the Lord in particular or the Bible in general teach material prosperity. The Bible reveals Christ and Christ preached the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

If you'd like to translate the cross into a money grab and interprete the scriptures as a get-rich quick scheme, pray run with it.

if you think He advocates poverty

No I don't believe the Lord in particular or the Bible in general teach material prosperity poverty. The Bible reveals Christ and Christ preached the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

Subscribing to the notion that material wealth or lack thereof is in any way pivotal to the gospel of Christ or the KOG is at best seriously unbalanced & misguided.

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

God bless

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

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

(plus I would appreciate your categorically showing that The Lord spoke more about money than anything else in His parables - Would you extend this to His life and ministry as well as the parables? Would you go further and kindly expound on your implication that money is somehow core to the Gospel, KOG or Christian life)

God bless

Horus:
Hell is about Money!

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

No time wasting, blacklist this one kia kia. Anoionting ko, lubrication ni 

I was away late March, what was the conclusion of the whole matter?

bongs:
Anybody I could chat with about pastor Chris?

I would suggest the man himself. Just like any one wanting to know God would ggo to God, wouldn't they?

I would further suggest you discuss ideas, doctrine, concepts and the like, but not people. At least not more than incidentally.

You'll find lots of knowledgeablwe people here on NL (religion) who are willing to share with you.

God bless

I often wonder why people in this dispensation of grace and worship in spirit and truth would articulate, give credence or attempt to deepen their relationship with God through people, things or activity?

Regardless of what anyone thinks about many of these high profile (that of course is relative) people, I know one thing for sure, when one has a taste or a glimpse of God for him/herself, these people will never be more than a distraction at best.

I pray the Father that all will come to the knowledge of the truth. And I absolutely believe that those whose hearts are stayed on Him will do so, regardless of false profits and fake apostles, snake-oil salesmen/women, merchandisers, hustlers and belly-god worshippers, of whom we have been severally warned in the holy scriptures, abound in number and are enemies of the cross of Christ.

God bless

tlops:
hi TV01. I am about to post a new controversy.

Really  ?

tlops:
Now I will like to inform you that tithe predated the old old testament.

As did circumcision.
Tithing predates the bible, Abraham, the Hebrews, so what? There niether is nor was any command to tithe.

Even by your reasoning it is redundant. We have Pre-OT, OT & NT. If we are under the NT what hold has anything prior to on us?

Presumably it's fine to marry your Fathers daughter now as well? Stop already  !

tlops:
I know i am going to be crucified for this but please read and digest before posting the next!

As much as we would like too, we realise that your death would have no redemptive value. As such, we shall satisfy ourselves with booing you off the stage (after marking you as ritually unclean ).

God bless

mitchiano:
Most people would categorize me as a religious critic,but for the few who really understand what it means to be Christan in this end time,i am sure they would be asking themselves this same question.

Personally,i am not a church goer because i believe God is getting ready to break out of the "usual"church in order to establish His true church.therefor,every true believer who understands the matrix of the spiritual realm would know that whenever God wants to establish something new,He always uses people who are outside the religious status quo.a typical example is seen in the case of John the Baptist,the bible tells us that "during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,the word of the lord came to John son of Zechariah in the desert"(Luke3:2).f the Spirit of the Lord can by-pass the religious elite in the days of the high priesthood and rest upon a man who was clothed in animal skin,who looked like a retard,how much more can we say of the 21st century churches

I'm so hearing this. My walk has also led me to this conclusion.

Remember, the "status quo" will try to absorb you or destroy you. (They won't label you critic, they'll label you evil, rebellious, deranged, possessed and a heretic.

May God lead, guide and protect you on your walk.

Tayo! Tayo!! Tayo!!! Ah ah 

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.

Ok!

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.

TayoD, you are in danger of descending into pure whimsy. There is no mention or reference to anything that went before, Abraham or any other. It was a very personal thing. What you are doing is at once both worrying and dangerous. 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.

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.

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.

Whatever the case may be, that doesn't support your preceeding premise.

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.

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

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.

You are entitled to your opinions, as we all are.
But your "Jacob learnt to pay tithe from Abraham" premise is tenuous at best. Kindly stop conveniently overlooking Isaac to force-fit this baseless assumption. Abraham was blessed of God way before the Melchizedek incident (Chapter 12 vs 14).

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

God bless

Hi @All,

I've been following and very much appreciate where BackSlider is coming from, although I may not have approached it in the same way.

The truth is there is a lot out there on the religious landscape that claims to be Christian and is not. Many will be decieved, fall and stumble because of such people.

The Bible is unambiguous about this. And they will for the most part arise from within. And while I said I would possibly approach it differently to BackSlider, I doubt wether I would adopt the trite response of calling everyone brother or saying we will all stand before our maker (although that is patently true), just because the called themselves Christian. It's life and it's death and some of these people are enemies of the Cross.

As ever, I don't like to talk about personalities (maybe that's something I need to get over?), but to comment on some of what has passed.

1. T. D Jakes ~ As Stimulus said, I don't think issue cannot be taken with him on the basis of his understanding or articulating of the Trinity. And I hope on this point at least BackSlider can accept that.

2. Could someone please show me what in NT Christinity would require a "Prophetess to the Nations"? What does that mean ? What does it entail??

We have spoken at length about women in authority (with liberty to disagree with one another), church structure and the like. Personally, I don't see it.

When I first came across Juanita Bynum, I wondered what all the fanfare was about. I was particularly interested as a lot of the young (read single  ) women were so into her and her "ministry".

I obtained a copy of her book (the first one I think), she mentioned her "divorce", albeit briefly. My reading of it was her clearly saying "that God took her out of that marriage". That is not how I understand God, or what I understand God to be saying about marriage. Maybe someone could set me straight on that?

I read/hear/see the odd thing about her, the Million $ wedding etc etc. To be honest, I've seen nothing I like and to be blunt she leaves me cold.

To me personally it is neither here nor there, in a very individual sense, she has zero impact on my personal walk. What impact I think her "ministry" may have on others is another thing.

Without overstepping the mark, we should be free to question and scrutinise, the doctrines and practices of all who claim to be followers of Christ. We do it amongst ourselves (and the various traditions) here on Nairaland all the time. Why are those with a high profile, following or "ministry" exempted? Indeed, they should be subject to greater examination. Remember the words of James on teachers?

God bless

Oya, TayoD answer now. I expect more "Smoke & Mirror" theology from your good self. Anything for a laugh !

Lalas:
trini, u still havent answered the question TV asked,

Leave Sis' TG 0! She don carry go ! In understanding or expounding the gospel, big grammer and complicated lingo are not required. Complicated definitions, new-fangled word-usage, grammatical re-engineering and the like will not change the basic meaning of scripture.

TG you have outlined a poor facsimile of marriage, with all but the covenant vows that seal it.

Is sex outside marriage between a man and woman in a long term, monogamous committed relationship NOT biblically sanctioned? Can you show it with references from the scriptures?

Usng the phrase "Long-Term" is to blur and dilute the true import. It leaves too many unanswered questions and gaps that charlatans can slip through. Even cursory scrutiny shows that it lacks so much. Even the obvious questions are myriad; How long is long-term, what constitutes a commitment, under what circumstances can it be voided, and so on and so forth.

Scripturally let me say this

=> There are only three types of Biblically sanctioned relationships a man can have with a women (both believers), Mother, Sister & Wife. Full stop (I'm not digressing to things like co-worker, classmate etc).

=> Note the lady by the Well. The Lord said to her "And the one you have now is not your husband". She could have insisted that the relationship met TG's criteria, and maybe it did. But it fell woefully short of the Holy Writ. He's your Father, Brother or Husband.

=> Even if you are betrothed as Joseph & Mary were, you are not yet permitted to come together. A betrothal fulfills your criteria, but does not allow sexual intimacy until the marriage covenant is cut. There is no grey area on this point. It's very open and shut.

Hope you are well. I shall contact you as soon as I am able.

God bless.

_{TV wakes up real grumpy and goes out spoiling for a fight  !}

amodiaquin:
1. In obedience to His command, NEGLECT NOT THE GATHERING OF BELIEVERS

One does not have to go to a place called church to satisfy this. Indeed one may go to a place called church and not satisfy this.

2. To hear more of His Word

As above

3. I find peace in His presence

Again, as above. And what on earth gave you the idea that God dwells in "temples built with hands?"

4. I teach His Word in Church, If I don't go to church i may miss the person He wants me to speak a Word to that day

And again, as above. Interestingly enough you actually think God may intend for you to speak to someone and your own action/inaction may thwart that? Presumably you consider your role as co-starring with God?

So matey, do you have anything to add to this?

God bless