It is believed that the first income you get from your job belongs to God, though it appears to be a voluntary thing depending on your understanding and relationship with God.

My question is Must it be the first one? cant you split it between the first and second salaries? How about making it up much later in the future?

Please what do you people really think? I want to give God my first fruit, but the odds appear to be weighing heavily, because i really need enough things to do with the money, especially as it is my first salary, i'll need to get outfits and put my self together, unfortunately there seem not to be anywhere i could borrow from. What do i do?

Read To Tithe Or Not To Tithe. Those teachings are not compatible with the New Testament.

seun,ofcourse it is!!!by the way, what can you say about FIRST FRUIT?OR TITHES.let me break it down for you,FIRST FRUIT,is when you give your first month salary,''the whole salary'' i mean evrything!!! no remove inside the salary.TITHES, is when you give your 1/10 of your salary.

DEARIE,pls don't rob GOD,just put him first and evry other thing will be added to you,GOD said PROVE ME,if i will not open the door of blessing that rooms cannot CONTAIN.sooory do i sound like a pastor? may be GOD is using mw to talk to you.

Hi @ Dearie,

Please do not worry yourself unduly about any monetary significance of "firstfruits", there isn't one, especially not in the NT dispensation.

Firstly, it has a deeper spiritual significance and refers more properly to the harvest of the people of God.

Secondly, along with the mis-interpretation and mis-application of the modern day "tithing" doctrine, is another instance of merchandisers twisting scripture to suit thier ill founded purposes.

God loves a cheerful giver. Give to the needy, not the greedy, and to your hearts content.

Hi @Dennylove,

In the first month, one would have to pay all the salary & a tithe. Totalling 110%
Please explain this apparent conundrum. Thanks.

God bless

I have not come across where NT christians were commanded to particapate in such rituals.

Anybody with insight can please educate us

Guys, could I pick some of y'all brains on this subject a bit more? I'm not calling for fights, please - just let's talk about the topic as gentlemen.

What do you think about Proverbs 3:9 -

'Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase'

I understand the verse does not stand alone and could be better understood in light of its surrounding verses. However, just looking at that verse for now, are we to limit it to the 'rituals' of the Mosaic Law, or its holds a principle beyond that dispensation?

Pilgrim.1, you are not satisfied with all the heresies you preached on tithing now you want to extend it to first fruit and manipulate scriptures to suit the agenda again, don't you ever get tired

KunleOshob:

Pilgrim.1, you are not satisfied with all the heresies you preached on tithing now you want to extend it to first fruit and manipulate scriptures to suit the agenda again, don't you ever get tired

Is there any need to misrepresent people, KunleOshob? If that was supposed to be a reply to my recent post, it's amazing that the best you can do is confuse posters and say absolutely nothing about the subject itself. This was what I said:

viaro:
I'm not calling for fights, please - just let's talk about the topic as gentlemen.

Is that too challenging a sentence to understand? If you cannot discuss the verse, let others have the opportunity to say something more sane.

I think we should discuss as ladies and gentlemen. Let us not forget the ladies in our midst. we don't want to be taken for sexist.

Pastor AIO:

I think we should discuss as ladies and gentlemen.  Let us not forget the ladies in our midst.  we don't want to be taken for sexist.

Oops! Good point, AIO. I apologise (my mistake on the 'gentlemen' without remembering that the ladies come first). Thank you.

viaro:

Is there any need to misrepresent people, KunleOshob? If that was supposed to be a reply to my recent post, it's amazing that the best you can do is confuse posters and say absolutely nothing about the subject itself.

My post was addressed to pilgrim.1 why should it bother you or respond on her behalf

KunleOshob:

My post was addressed to pilgrim.1 why should it bother you or respond on her behalf

I'm sorry that my direct response infuriates you; and no, I'm not responding on 'her' behalf. You have ever been playing this childish game on NL; and if it wasn't that you and TV01 are fond of her, you should have known better. Nothing in what you would have said would have mattered; other than the fact that you have continued to mis-address me for your misrepresentation. I wondered if pilgrim.1 has been in this thread, before you recycled your antics once again. This was why I wondered initially if you're capable of discussing or debating issues amicably with others, or you're just out to keep recycling your amusing attitudes without saying anything on the subject.

TV01:

In the first month, one would have to pay all the salary & a tithe. Totalling 110%
Please explain this apparent conundrum. Thanks.

Well, i think the church/MOG will be happy to collect a tithe of 20% in the second month to make up for the arrears

Giving your first fruit or any offering to God is an act of your faith. Since the bible says the Just shall Live by faith, soit according to your faith. Its of benefit to you that you do it because the bible equally says "if the first fruit be holy the lump shall be also". So if you give Him the first salary of your new job or even the increase of your salary,if it is a promotion, God will certainly take care of the rest. That is to say He will guard your job so that the devourer has no chance of coming near your job or your finances.

The life of a Christian is a life of FAITH.

Pray this has helped you in a way.

Cheers.

@ttts,

ttts:

So if you give Him the first salary of your new job or even the increase of your salary,if it is a promotion, God will certainly take care of the rest.

Your comments may have helped some people one way or another. Although I think there's some value on the subject of the firstfruit type of giving, I don't think it refers to the idea of someone giving up his/her "first salary". The firstfruit is a portion of something, not the whole of that thing. Perhaps you may have a different view, and it would be great to read.

Topics like this [first fruit offerings] are one of the reasons apostle paul warned of of false teachers that would make up clever lies to get hold of our money. When someone is telling you first fruit = first salary you have a perfect example of a clever lie. Clever lies are adaptation of truth to make them have a semblance of truth in them. Another brilliant example of cleverlie popular in some christian sects today is mordern day adaptation of tithes whose practise as been significantly twisted and alien to the original form of tithing handed down to the jews.

God will definitely punish criminals who twist the scriptures to extort money from their congregation,imagine someone giving away his entire salary to one greedy,idiotic fool who calls himself a man of God.

@poster

there is nothing like first fruit under christianity,the bible clearly tells us that jesus christ abolished the mosaic law on the cross of calvarly,christians are enjoined to freely donate to his/her church as one purposes in his heart

check 2 cor 9:7

chukwudi44:

there is nothing like first fruit under christianity,

The term 'first fruit' is used in Christianity - albeit in a different sense. Read Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:23 and James 1:18. You cannot argue that there is "nothing like first fruit".

the bible clearly tells us that jesus christ abolished the mosaic law on the cross of calvarly

Okay. I would like to know how that can be reconciled with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (from the ESV).

Clearly, these two things stand in contrast:

(a) you said: "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"
(b) Jesus said: "I have not come to abolish them"

An explanation (not a quarrel or name-calling) is all I seek; and that would be greatly appreciated.

viaro:

The term 'first fruit' is used in Christianity - albeit in a different sense. Read Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:23 and James 1:18. You cannot argue that there is "nothing like first fruit".

Okay. I would like to know how that can be reconciled with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (from the ESV).

Clearly, these two things stand in contrast:

(a) you said: "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"
(b) Jesus said: "I have not come to abolish them"

An explanation (not a quarrel or name-calling) is all I seek; and that would be greatly appreciated.

Yes, indeed, I sometimes wonder whether Jesus also abolished the law calling for parents to kill their disobedient children. My view is that he did not. In fact, Jesus explicitly reinforced that law in the New Testament.

viaro:

and if it wasn't that you and TV01 are fond of her, you should have known better.

Evening @viaro, I thought you were new here? How would you be aware of the fact - if indeed it is a fact - that I or anyone else is "fond" of Pilgrim.1? Given your first post on this forum was in early October and Pilgrim.1 hasn't posted since early July, has she?

Sweet dreams 

TV

TV01:

Evening @viaro, I thought you were new here? How would you be aware of the fact - if indeed it is a fact - that I or anyone else is "fond" of Pilgrim.1? who by the way hasn't posted since early July, has she?

Sweet dreams 

TV

Hi TV01. Yes, I'm new here; and my apologies on discovering that you're actually fond of Pilgrim.1. I didn't know that as a 'fact' (whatever you meant by "if indeed" it is a fact). But I used that term ('fond of') in a sort of tongue-in-cheek manner in my reply to KunleOshob - seeing that anytime 'viaro' says anything, I'm to be mistaken by anti-tithers for Pilgrim.1, in just the same way that Tonye-t has been referred to as 'viaro'. So again, if I crossed some shores that were forbidden in your realm of being fond of Pilgrim.1, I certainly didn't mean to cause any discomfort. Enjoy your connections - no hassles mate.

Okay. I would like to know how that can be reconciled with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but[b] to fulfill [/b]them

" (from the ESV).

Clearly, these two things stand in contrast:

(a) you said: "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"
(b) Jesus said: "I have not come to abolish them"[quote][/quote]


madam Pilgrim 1

Do u mind telling me what it means to[b] fulfi[/b]l a law.

If the law has not being abolished how come other unlucraive parts of the law like burnt offering,and even the three important jewish festivals of passover ,shelters and unleavened bread has been discarded

chukwudi44:

Clearly, these two things stand in contrast:

(a) you said: "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"
(b) Jesus said: "I have not come to abolish them"


madam Pilgrim 1

Do u mind telling me what it means to[b] fulfi[/b]l a law.

If the law has not being abolished how come other unlucraive parts of the law like burnt offering,and even the three important jewish festivals of passover ,shelters and unleavened bread has been discarded

I left a postscript: "An explanation (not a quarrel or name-calling) is all I seek". Since you can't give that, you can only get the same treatment as you invite - so don't come back and complain.

However, whatever you may derive from 'answering a question with a question', I asked you to reconcile your statement with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17. You confirmed my presupposition that you'd try to duck that question and come back grumbling with your usual excuses. Here is a reminder of the contrast:

(a) you said:     "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"
(b) Jesus said:  "I have not come to abolish them"

Could anything be simpler said? Whatever you may argue, it does not follow that He 'abolished' the Law by 'fulfilling' it - or you would have to find a cleverly dishonest way to twist what Jesus said. Your assertion is the direct opposite of what Jesus stated in that verse - please reconcile them, or just swallow your pride and zip up.

_{(I almost forgot you're honestly an expert at 'confirming' silly tales without engaging your thinking faculty).}

This pilgrim.1 girl is really a complete idiot. You must be extremely very daft to think NLs won't decoded you . mumu ode buruku

@pilrim1

you did not answer any of my questions,let me repeat them again

Do u mind telling me what it means to fulfil a law.

If the law has not being abolished how come other unlucraive parts of the law like burnt offering,and even the three important jewish festivals of passover ,shelters and unleavened bread has been discarded?

chukwudi44:

Do u mind telling me what it means to fulfil a law.

If the law has not being abolished how come other unlucraive parts of the law like burnt offering,and even the three important jewish festivals of passover ,shelters and unleavened bread has been discarded?

Hhaha. . m-e-n. . why are you such a laff? Sorry, you're addressing viaro; so would you mind refraining from playing these lazy games? Everyone should know that the culture of 'answering a question with a question' is retard. And repeating that culture of yours like a broken record confirms the small print I left earlier that you're an expert at non-essentials.

I obliged you a simple thought about your pitiful inference of ducking behind the meaning of 'fulfil' - whatever it may mean to you and me, it definitely does not mean the same thing as 'abolish'. If you believe that they are the same, then please consult a dictionary and see the difference before again confirming your piously artful ducking adventures.

Further, to help you see that both words are not the same in meaning, see the example of Matthew 3:15  where Jesus said "it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness". If you never read that verse before, you might assume by your piously vacant argument that 'fulfil' = 'abolish'. . and if that is so, then you might read that verse to mean: 'abolish all righteousness'!  _{>viaro shakes his head!<}

Bobs, let me outline it again:  "fulfil" is NOT the same thing as "abolish" If you think they are, then your argument would make Matthew 3:15 read like this --

  (a) Bible   -   'it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness'
  (b) chuks  -   'it becometh us to abolish all righteousness'

In your majestic intellect sir, do those two statements mean the same thing? Did I hear you grumble a 'no'? Good. Now if they do not mean the same thing, then kindly get off your lazy backside and put on your thinking cap.

---

Having settled your dilemma between 'fulfil' and 'abolish' as not being the same thing, do you mind paying close attention to the simple question I asked you earlier: can you reconcile between your assertion and what Jesus said:

(a) you said:     "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"
(b) Jesus said:  "I have not come to abolish them"

Whatever you've claimed is not the same thing as what Jesus boldly declared. You coldly asserted that Jesus "abolished" the mosaic law, and yet we read Jesus Himself saying that NO, He had NOT COME TO ABOLISH the Law. Unless you're hell-bent on forcing words into His mouth, I don't see why or how His statement should be confusing you even until now. If you need to buy more time for your pious deflections, I won't be surprised to read you repeat the same pitiful poetry as you did in your recent reply. You're free to duck all you want - chaps like you like to make illiterate noise, so no surpises there.

Madam pilgrim,

so in essence what u re saying is that the law is till valid abi?

In that case we have to comply with[b] all[/b] the requirements of the law.

Trying to perform one requirement of the law while neglecting the other will attract the curse of the law as plainly stated in gal 3 :10

criminals like you and ur pastors have hypocritically discarde the unlucrative portions of the lawwhile at the same time twisting the law of tithing that was meant to be done once in three years and which never involved money to what is now being done daily,weekly and monthly.

You have not stoopped at that u have gone further to even further twist the scriopture by trying to stave ur ignorant and hypnotised victims of their entire earnings in the name of one obsolete jewish law called first friut.

The truth is that you will all bountifully receive ur reward,I am only fighting this because innocent victims are involved,I would have simply inored vagabond like you using the name of God to commit robbery.

You in particular you are worse than a hypocrite ,you are are chameleon,you just changed ur ID but your inner self remains unchanged.The number of atrocities you have committed on this side is second only to the devil

chukwudi44:

Madam pilgrim,

so in essence what u re saying is that the law is till valid abi?

In that case we have to comply with[b] all[/b] the requirements of the law.

Trying to perform one requirement of the law while neglecting the other will attract the curse of the law as plainly stated in gal 3 :10

criminals like you and your pastors have hypocritically discarde the unlucrative portions of the lawwhile at the same time twisting the law of tithing that was meant to be done once in three years and which never involved money to what is now being done daily,weekly and monthly.

You have not stoopped at that u have gone further to even further twist the scriopture by trying to stave your ignorant and hypnotised victims of their entire earnings in the name of one obsolete jewish law called first friut.

The truth is that you will all bountifully receive your reward,I am only fighting this because innocent victims are involved,I would have simply inored vagabond like you using the name of God to commit robbery.

You in particular you are worse than a hypocrite ,you are are chameleon,you just changed your ID but your inner self remains unchanged.The number of atrocities you have committed on this side is second only to the devil

Em, dear girlie. . you have again made yourself a laff! Where's your answer to the simple question I asked you after twisting Jesus direct statement in Matthew 5:17? Is that up there the best shot you can give to that simple question? Huh?

Seeking to attack me is futile, haven't you noticed? No, you haven't - because braindumps like you are too zealous to defend your piously dubious cacophony than reading the text to see what Jesus said directly.

About Galatians 3:10, your argument that performing one "requirement" of the Law is even far more comical! On Nairaland in the other thread on tithes, I've made abundantly clear that my discussions are not based on seeing anything in this regard as a "requirement". You of all dunces would have ignored that fact while trying to misplace your duplicity here. I've said it before - you hardly know anything and are only very good at confirming tales harvested from hypocrites at askelm.com!

Now, now. . girlie. . if you're better than your last reply at spewing your verbose inanity, wake up and reconcile your cretin assertion with what Jesus directly stated in Matthew 5:17. I'll repeat it again for your ease:

           (a) you said:     "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"
           (b) Jesus said:  "I have not come to abolish them"

At least I made a clear distinction between 'fulfil' and 'abolish' in direct response to your post #25. Now, you can either attempt to upgrade your dustbrain and seek intelligently to address your inanity in the face of those two direct statements (a) and (b), or just keep confirming the retard you are.

Please o, just to get this point that seems a sticking point out of the way. What does it mean to fulfill the law? It can be referring to one of two things that I can think of. Either it is a reference to laws themselves or it is a reference to the purpose of the laws.

If something is unfulfilled then it is defective in some way or the other. Currently I have a defective keyboard that I play at home. As I don't have much money I cannot afford to buy a new one so I am managing it. If someone bought me a new one then I'll be able to discard it. Or if someone helped me fix it then it won't be defective anymore. Buying a new one is addressing the purpose of the keyboard. Fixing it is addressing the purpose too but by adjusting the keyboard itself.

The Law is defective. Otherwise it wouldn't need fulfilling. If you tell a yoruba man that ' ori e o pe', there is no way that he'll understand anything other than his life/destiny is defective. in other words his life can never better lai lai. it is the same thing 'pe' means to be complete/fulfilled.

Now if the law is defective and you want to fulfill it you can do so by addressing the law itself or rather the purpose to which the law is intended. If you address the law itself then you will either be adding laws to make it complete or remove such laws as are deemed defects. As far as I know the body of rules which is called the law in the bible has remained the same as it was prior to the coming of Jesus.

So we need to look at the purpose of the law. The law is there to guide us in righteousness. Yet it is defective. We are merely managing it for want of something better. If we can find another means to walk in righteousness then it is best to discard the law and go with the better means. I don't know about you but for me I find guidance in righteousness from the spirit of God. It is superior to anything in the law and therefore I have no qualms about discarding the law completely. I have got myself the upgrade. Where the law is the v.1 the Spirit is the V. 2000. The purpose of the law is thoroughly fulfilled and so the law can be discarded.

Dear Pastor AIO, thank you for your observations and contributions to this small matter. Just a small point, really. . and nothing personal. But here is essetially where you may have missed the point:

Pastor AIO:

The Law is defective. Otherwise it wouldn't need fulfilling. If you tell a yoruba man that ' ori e o pe', there is no way that he'll understand anything other than his life/destiny is defective. in other words his life can never better lai lai. it is the same thing 'pe' means to be complete/fulfilled.

No, it is not the same thing - "fulfil" and "abolish" are not the same things at all. Not in the context of Matthew 5:17, nor of Matthew 3:15 I quoted earlier in post #26 to distinguish between them. If both words mean the same things, then the latter verse would be reading the same as "it becometh us to abolish all righteousness".

In all of this, whatever anyone may derive for the meanings of those words, it is clear they are NOT the same thing. Nada, zilch. You can see that in contexts of the verses themselves, it would be absolutely skewed to make them the same things; and yet to assert that Jesus abolished the mosaic law is a direct assertion against what He said in Matthew 5:17.

_{All I sought was for an explanation from chukwudi - not name-calling and all sorts. Incase he hadn't noticed, when people discuss free from such insolence, they won't find me returning any such to them. But if they like to do so as the highlight of their style of discussing, I'd oblige them just about the same.}

viaro:

Dear Pastor AIO, thank you for your observations and contributions to this small matter. Just a small point, really. . and nothing personal. But here is essetially where you may have missed the point:

No, it is not the same thing - "fulfil" and "abolish" are not the same things at all. Not in the context of Matthew 5:17, nor of Matthew 3:15 I quoted earlier in post #26 to distinguish between them. If both words mean the same things, then the latter verse would be reading the same as "it becometh us to abolish all righteousness".

In all of this, whatever anyone may derive for the meanings of those words, it is clear they are NOT the same thing. Nada, zilch. You can see that in contexts of the verses themselves, it would be absolutely skewed to make them the same things; and yet to assert that Jesus abolished the mosaic law is a direct assertion against what He said in Matthew 5:17.

_{All I sought was for an explanation from chukwudi - not name-calling and all sorts. Incase he hadn't noticed, when people discuss free from such insolence, they won't find me returning any such to them. But if they like to do so as the highlight of their style of discussing, I'd oblige them just about the same.}

I didn't say they were the same thing. Did you read my post? What do you make of it? Fulfillment can lead to a discarding of it. That is my point. What do you think?