OLAADEGBU:

Thanks, Enigma for sorting out the small matter of God's "care for the oxen" I will like to reiterate Paul's take on the unmuzzled ox.

For it is written in the law of Moses,

It is a shame that many NT preachers ignore the spiritual importance of the mosaic law in our life today.  Paul is here quoting the law of Moses as a basis of what he is enforcing in the NT.

Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.

This is the bone of contention which needs to be addressed in the church today.  How do we apply this law in our churches today?  Some may say that this is in the OT and therefore does not apply to us.  How does the Holy Spirit through Paul say this applies to the Church?

Doth God take care for oxen?

I believe this has been thoroughly addressed by Enigma.

[10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope?

This is clear enough for us to understand.  The Scriptures has been written for us to learn thereof.

[11] If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? [12] If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ[/b]?[/i][/size]

The greedy prosperity gospellers were abound in Paul days but this was not a reason not to obey this law.  We should not throw the baby out with the dirty water.

[13] Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? [14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. [15] But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void (1 Corinthians 9:9-15).

Here, we see that the Lord has ordained that full time ministers should be supported by those whose income is from secular sources, this is a command but should be done by willing and obedient servants of God. We see that Paul consecrated himself not to take advantage of this provision so as not to be a stumblingblock as many are today.

I really am glad that the development of the thread you understand the biblical meaning of the word "holocaust" and also has been understood that tithing is within the rules of the Old Testament with oils, grains and animals NO WITH MONEY ,
I really surprised that Paul "does not want to take advantage" of what you claim is an Act of God ,
Somewhat contradictory ,
It's like saying "the law is this, but I did not apply, I do not sack party, that take advantage of others"
And indeed, many today "draw" game "of this alleged" law ", and others make every effort, even comparing men with oxen, to justify what the Bible does not say.

It is amazing how folks on this forum have gone mute on the point that Paul made when quoting the mosaic law and how it applies to the church today:

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." (Deuteronomy 25:4)

Paul not only used it in I Cor 9:9 he also quoted it in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 when admonishing Timothy on how to treat the elders in the church.

[17] "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine" I Tim 5:17).

Elder here are leaders such as the general overseers or bishops of the church, some may be pastors, teachers who feed the flock, such who do this work faithfully and not deceitfully deserve double remuneration.  They may not need or request it, following Paul’s regular example, but they are deserving of it.  It is the responsibility of the congregation (presumably as represented by the deacons) to be sensitive to this situation.

"For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. . . " (1 Timothy 5:18a)

This quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4 was also cited in 1 Cor. 9:9 as I have highlighted earlier.  But I think those folks who are not prepared to see the truth will not see this.    

" . . . And, The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18b)

This reference is a remarkable testimony to the divine inspiration of the gospel of Luke, with Paul quoting Luke 10:7 as authoritative Scripture.  Paul realised not only that it was truly a product of the Spirit’s inspiration, but also that these particular words had been spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ, and thus were of special importance in this connection.

"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine" (I Tim 5:17).

Enigma:

^ What you are adding to the text is not merely 'oxen'; rather that the law was (or was not) made for oxen!

The text simply says what was written or said is/was for 'us'; for our beneft. At no time does Paul indicate that the rule/saying concerning oxen does not apply, has ceased to apply or was not intended to (or to continue to) apply --- about oxen. His point is that the law is written for 'us', for 'our benefit', for man to apply --- thus, legitimately, the saying about not muzzling the oxen can be applied even in a different context to mean he who ploughs/threshes in hope should be partaker of the hope.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is altogether for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down. 

Moi!!! Adding to the text, Moi?!! Haba! Come clean now.

Let us look at it like this.
Question: Is this Amala on the table for Olaadegbu?
Answer: The Amala is entirely for Enigma.

It follows that if Olaadegbu should scoop even the smallest part of the amala then he is stealing cos it wasn't meant for him. Rather all of the amala is meant for Enigma.

I totally understand that a statement can be applied to different meanings in different contexts. and I accept that. But me I'm just looking at what a text means in simple comprehension terms. Paul did not say that what applies to Oxen applies, or can apply to humans too. No, he says that the law entirely for us. It is that word entire that does not allow us to apply it to another context.

At the risk of a merry-go-round, the comparison below answers the point wholly in my view.

Enigma:
. . .
The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is altogether for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down. 

It could even be modifed in the forms below and the meaning would remain as clear as Paul's statement was clear {and indeed in accord and no discord with Jesus' teaching on God taking care of birds and animals etc}.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is entirely for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is no doubt for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is by all means for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is surely for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down.

I think my point is entirely clear enough and Paul's point altogether clear enough and I really do not see myself adding anymore to this particular issue. 

Enigma:

At the risk of a merry-go-round, the comparison below answers the point wholly in my view.

It could even be modifed in the forms below and the meaning would remain as clear as Paul's statement was clear {and indeed in accord and no discord with Jesus' teaching on God taking care of birds and animals etc}.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is entirely for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is no doubt for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is by all means for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is surely for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down.

I think my point is entirely clear enough and Paul's point altogether clear enough and I really do not see myself adding anymore to this particular issue. 

Okay, I can see where you have erred.  Let me try to explain it this way:

The king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful.
Is this passage about King's Houses.  Was the person writing the proverb concerned with King's houses?  Or was he concerned with my uncle's hut?
He was concerned entirely with my Uncle's hut. 

The king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful.
Is this passage about King's?  Or is it about us the common man?  It is ENTIRELY about us, the common man. 

You see, you are failing to apply the correspondences properly.  When Paul says the passage is for our benefit he does not mean that it is for our benefit to apply anyhow that we want to.  He  means that it is for our benefit the way it seems to be for the benefit of oxen.  ie.  we are to benefit from it the way the Oxen in the text benefit from not being muzzled. 

The parallel is between people and Oxen. What applies to the Oxen in the passage can apply to humans too. This is the part of Pardes called Derash. Jews use it a lot. In fact you find it in mathematics too. 3 is to 4 as 15 is to 20. What applies in the relation of 3 to 4 applies to the relationship of 15 to 20.

This is where we are at odds, I think.

I have not "erred", my friend.

As I said, you can maintain your interpretation and with it that Paul was at odds with Jesus.

No biggie.

Pastor AIO, you seem to be stuck on the small matter of God caring for the oxen, lets see where Paul quoted Moses again in his epistle to Timothy when he wrote:

"For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn And, The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18)

Do you want to comment on this verse?   Tell us what it means and how it applies to us today.

OLAADEGBU:

Pastor AIO, you seem to be stuck on the small matter of God caring for the oxen, lets see where Paul quoted Moses again in his epistle to Timothy when he wrote:

"For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn And, The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18)

Do you want to comment on this verse?   Tell us what it means and how it applies to us today.

You haven't got the foggiest idea what my concerns in this thread are. You need not disturb yourself over it.

Enigma:

I have not "erred", my friend.

As I said, you can maintain your interpretation and with it that Paul was at odds with Jesus.

No biggie.

ANALOGY!! That is the word that I was looking for. Your analogy with the King's house was totally erroneous. I've tried to explain it to you, but it seems that you don't get it. No worries.

^^^

Nope, I get everything you are saying. It is simply that you are wrong and you are making a false interpretation. Worse, using the false interpretation to make an unfounded allegation that Paul was contradicting Jesus.

Also, Olaadegbu's question is absolutely on point and the deflection is an inadequate answer.

Anyway as I said before, I am content for you to maintain your interpretation. 

Enigma:

^^^

Nope, I get everything you are saying. It is simply that you are wrong and you are making a false interpretation. Worse, using the false interpretation to make an unfounded allegation that Paul was contradicting Jesus.

Also, Olaadegbu's question is absolutely on point and the deflection is an inadequate answer.

Anyway as I said before, I am content for you to maintain your interpretation. 

My brother, let's leave the issue there.

Pastor AIO:

My brother, let's leave the issue there.

Agreed brother; shake hands.

@Pastor AIO
It has been tried by all means ALAADEGBU into reasons, but he is fascinated by citing biblical passages that never studied ... He has the vocation of pastor. Perhaps one day fulfill his dream has its own church tithing and copper.
It is useless to reason with him ... blind fanaticism.
It is useless to continue the discussion with a thud.

Ptolomeus: @Pastor AIO
It has been tried by all means ALAADEGBU into reasons, but he is fascinated by citing biblical passages that never studied ... He has the vocation of pastor. Perhaps one day fulfill his dream has its own church tithing and copper.
It is useless to reason with him ... blind fanaticism.
It is useless to continue the discussion with a thud.

My dear frenemy that has been stalking me hiding under a different ID, you have exposed yourself. If you have a problem with tithing why don't you challenge God instead of being a spiritual rebel all over the place?

The Way of Cain

"Whoso boasteth himself of a false gift is like clouds and wind without rain" (Proverbs 25:14)

Cain initially was a religious man, evidently proud of his achievements as a "tiller of the ground" which God had "cursed" (Genesis 4:2; 3:17). He assumed that God would be much impressed with the beautiful basket of his "fruit of the ground" which he presented as an "offering unto the LORD." Cain became bitterly angry when God "had not respect" to Cain and his offering (Genesis 4:3-5).

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain," shedding the blood of an innocent lamb in substitution for his own sin and guilt before God, "by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Hebrews 11:4). Since "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17), Abel was merely obeying God's Word, but Cain, proud and self-righteous in attitude, was presuming to offer up his own merits in payment for the privilege of coming to God.

This was a "false gift," however, with no meritorious value at all before God, "like clouds and wind without rain." The apostle Jude warns against any such presumption, especially now that we can freely come to God through His own perfect "Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). "Woe unto them!" says Jude, "for they have gone in the way of Cain . . . clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots" (Jude 11-12). This severe indictment was lodged against all who, like Cain, are superficially religious, but who, by their self-righteous resentment against God, are "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). We must not boast of our gifts to God, but only of His gift to us. HMM

For more . . . .

OLAADEGBU:

My dear frenemy that has been stalking me hiding under a different ID, you have exposed yourself. If you have a problem with tithing why don't you challenge God instead of being a spiritual rebel all over the place?

Dear OlAAGDEBU.
You are not my Frenemy ... either you are my enemy ...
I have no enemies.
You are faithful to their creed.
You feel bad and enemies all those who think differently.
You accuse me of having more than one nick on this forum ... it is absolutely wrong, and I ask the moderators to make public my IP.
I am Uruguayan, writing from South America and would be very easy to know if I write with two nicks. Or is that the writer with two or more nicknames you are and why you are afraid?
You will be upset that I disagree with you? Well I'm so sorry!
You say that I lurks? Why put yourself as a victim, when it causes all their fans and irrelevant threads?
I have no problem with the tithe, because I'm not stupid ... I do not pay tithe to any thief.
You are annoying me, you lose your cool, falsely accuses, attacks ... are increasingly fanatics ... and that claims to be Christian ... contradictory ...
What will Jesus say to judge their actions!
You defend the tithe, and it is their problem if you prefer to be a slave, but do not lie, do not quote scriptures changing its meaning.
Do not confuse people healthy heart.
As a slave to be happy.

Ptolomeus:
Dear OlAAGDEBU.
You are not my Frenemy ... either you are my enemy ...
I have no enemies.
You are faithful to their creed.
You feel bad and enemies all those who think differently.
You accuse me of having more than one nick on this forum ... it is absolutely wrong, and I ask the moderators to make public my IP.
I am Uruguayan, writing from South America and would be very easy to know if I write with two nicks. Or is that the writer with two or more nicknames you are and why you are afraid?
You will be upset that I disagree with you? Well I'm so sorry!
You say that I lurks? Why put yourself as a victim, when it causes all their fans and irrelevant threads?
I have no problem with the tithe, because I'm not stupid ... I do not pay tithe to any thief.
You are annoying me, you lose your cool, falsely accuses, attacks ... are increasingly fanatics ... and that claims to be Christian ... contradictory ...
What will Jesus say to judge their actions!
You defend the tithe, and it is their problem if you prefer to be a slave, but do not lie, do not quote scriptures changing its meaning.
Do not confuse people healthy heart.
As a slave to be happy.

I didn't say enemy I said frenemy! Are you for us or against us?

"And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire." (Luke 10:7)

The statement of our Lord Jesus Christ (worthy of his hire) is quoted by Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18, and is the only place where a New Testament writer quotes another New Testament passage as bonafide "Scripture." This incidence gives confirmation of the New Testament as being on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures. So Paul not only quoted the Mosaic Law he also quoted the saying of the Creator and redeemer of our souls.

OLAADEGBU:

I didn't say enemy I said frenemy! Are you for us or against us?

Nor against nor in favor.
I simply give my opinion.
It amazes me the fanaticism with which you defend tithing, and bile passages you quoted out of context. You, who both supposed to defend the word of god and jesus, is changing the context to defend an indefensible position. You know it.
As for my identity, I reiterate that I do not use double nicks, if you say, is why he does ... I reiterate that I see the moderator.
It's easy to reach me as I write from another continent.
But. I pray that you post your thoughts, but not assault, not accuse others.
Ask your god (or his pastor, and you pay tithe) that gives you inner peace. The are in need. You are proving to be a very bad education, not only in this thread, but also in others.

Ptolomeus:
Nor against nor in favor.
I simply give my opinion.
It amazes me the fanaticism with which you defend tithing, and bile passages you quoted out of context. You, who both supposed to defend the word of god and jesus, is changing the context to defend an indefensible position. You know it.
As for my identity, I reiterate that I do not use double nicks, if you say, is why he does ... I reiterate that I see the moderator.
It's easy to reach me as I write from another continent.
But. I pray that you post your thoughts, but not assault, not accuse others.
Ask your god (or his pastor, and you pay tithe) that gives you inner peace. The are in need. You are proving to be a very bad education, not only in this thread, but also in others.

When atheists and satanists are actively fighting against tithing then true discerning Christians should take note. satan is truly the accuser of the brethren.

Ptolomeus:
Dear OlAAGDEBU.
You are not my Frenemy ... either you are my enemy ...
I have no enemies.
You are faithful to their creed.
You feel bad and enemies all those who think differently.
You accuse me of having more than one nick on this forum ... it is absolutely wrong, and I ask the moderators to make public my IP.
I am Uruguayan, writing from South America and would be very easy to know if I write with two nicks. Or is that the writer with two or more nicknames you are and why you are afraid?
You will be upset that I disagree with you? Well I'm so sorry!
You say that I lurks? Why put yourself as a victim, when it causes all their fans and irrelevant threads?
I have no problem with the tithe, because I'm not stupid ... I do not pay tithe to any thief.
You are annoying me, you lose your cool, falsely accuses, attacks ... are increasingly fanatics ... and that claims to be Christian ... contradictory ...
What will Jesus say to judge their actions!
You defend the tithe, and it is their problem if you prefer to be a slave, but do not lie, do not quote scriptures changing its meaning.
Do not confuse people healthy heart.
As a slave to be happy.

Are you an atheist or a Christian operating from the nation of Suarez?

"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." 1 Corinthians 9:14

Giving And Receiving

"Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only." (Philippians 4:15)

As Paul went on his missionary journeys, he never asked for money for himself from the people to whom he preached. He later wrote to the Thessalonians, "because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:9). He did stress the teaching of Christ that "the labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18; Luke 10:7) and that "even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:14). But he himself said: "I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me" (1 Corinthians 9:15).

Thus he was especially moved when the impoverished Christians at Philippi, without being asked, "sent once and again unto my necessity" (Philippians 4:16), and they were the only ones who did! This act of generous concern came about, Paul recognised, because they "first gave their own selves to the Lord" (2 Corinthians 8:5). As a result, Paul could assure them: "My God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:19). Not only their material need, but every need.

They had learned a wonderful truth that every Christian needs to learn. As Paul told the Ephesian elders: "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). Therefore, let each of us give in His name "not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work" (2 Corinthians 9:7,8.) HMM

For more . . . .

begging in the name of tha lawd.
xtian almajiri

Giving and Receiving.

Jesus said:

"It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

Logic Mind:

begging in the name of tha lawd.
xtian almajiri

Who is begging?

PastorAIO:


You haven't got the foggiest idea what my concerns in this thread are. You need not disturb yourself over it.

What then is your concern, Alhaji Pastor?