Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nope. Because it has no "set of exclusive rights."
You haven't seen my checkbook...
Don't be obtuse. You're better than that.
Calling also doesn't mean "depending upon the kindness of strangers." But that's what Jesus directed.
and some of those Christians are set apart to shepherd the flock...
I agree, with one caveat:
it is because it is perceived as gods idea. it's sort of like me
)then you are not doing it right like joel olsteen are you?
sort of Monty Python-esque, isn't it!
I see. Well, as a matter of habit, we are careful to give God full credit for the idea whenever it's presented. God is fully documented as a source, and listed in the bibliography.
Dammit! I knew I was doing something wrong!
Oh, i wasn't offended. That sort of thing just ****** me off. It's juvenile. You're obviously not juvenile, so why subscribe to it?
Tough question, because every congo is different. I think most would say that they're not "in competition." Indeed, we need not be. Yet we advertise as if we were.
Interesting concept. Can you go a little more in depth as to what you mean here?
When was the Didache written? That is something you need to ask yourself to see if it is relevant to the time we are talking about. Second, you have to ask yourself who was it written by. Was it written by Christians, or Jews? If it was written by Christians, then it's importance here dwindles. If it was written by Jews, then it has more importance. The reason is that Jesus was a Jew. Christian traditions simply are later.
You have provided no reason to make that assumption. If you can provide evidence that they did just that, I would be happy to consider it. However, up to this point you've just made baseless assumptions without providing support for your position. So of course I am not going to accept a position that there is no evidence for. That would be ridiculous to do.
Can you show that to be such? No, you can't. Especially when most donations to the church are free will giving, and from the heart.
I find it funny that you conveniently leave out the following verses. "17 Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. 18 But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God."
Yes it is difficult to discern what the gift was for. You certainly never showed evidence for what it was for.
The Pope doesn't claim to be Jesus...
The Pope? Why?
When I read that, I've always understood it to be a reference to the burnt sacrifices... Supplying for the ministry is a sweet-smelling sacrifice to God.Fallingblood said:
and Acts 16:9-15 explains when Paul first preached to the Philippians. verses 16 to 40 were about Paul's imprisonment for his activities there and his release. Act 17:1 He is traveling and ends up in Thessalonica. Verse 2, he remains there for three sabbaths (so about three weeks) . Verses 3 and 4, Jason and others are added to the church. Verses 5 and 6 Jason is arrested with the brethren, but Paul and Silas are not. Then verses 9 and 10:
So where is the issue? It was during this time frame he was sent the money, and it is not much of a stretch like you imagine to see why.
Yeah, that's tough to not fall into the sour grapes thing. We are competitive, but it's more implicit than explicit. Perhaps if it were an explicit thing it'd be easier to deal with and eradicate.
George Carlin says that (paraphrasing) one thing you can always count on Americans to do is to take a really good idea and completely run it into the ground. Another thing you can count on Americans to do is to take a bad idea and completely run it into the ground.
Well...
I wish you would have just read what I posted last time. Because nothing here is actually a rebuttal to what I said. The Didache, as I already stated, was not concerning Jews. It was concerning Christians and their church orders. This church order was not around until after Paul died, and a new religion broke off from Judaism. It occurred after the earth shattering reality of the Temple being destroyed, an event that completely changed the history here. Christianity began forming into a new religion, with new practices, and a new church order. Also, the belief that Paul had, and the early Jesus movement had, that Jesus would return within their lifetimes, had vanished. Instead, they now had to focus on the long haul. Thus, a whole new formation began in Christianity.
Providing just one example simply really doesn't cut it. Especially when we read in the Gospels the vast differences between Jesus and John (or at least what others were saying about them). For instance, Matthew 9:14, some disciples of John comment on a large difference between John and Jesus.
I was talking about Jesus and his disciples. I apologize if I didn't make that clear. I don't deny that Paul worked, in part, for his own support. However, one can not deny that he also received compensation. More so, spreading the Gospel was work. Paul also states that. But please, provide some instances in which he commanded the Elders to work, and not accept compensation, and we can discuss those as well.
You don't need to include all of them, just some. Support your position.
1) Churches, for the most part, do not order their members to give them money. It is a free will offering. One is not being forced to give money, and they definitely are not being forced to give money to the pastor. If they don't want to support the pastor, they can state that in their offering. Also, catch that term. It is an offering. It is given freely.
I did provide an example of how the context was changed. You took a verse out of context, claiming it was saying one thing. I pointed out the context of that verse, and showed that it meant something else. As in, you stated that Paul only received enough for necessities. However, that was false, because once put into context, as I did by quoting the next couple of verses, one sees that he received an abundance. Thus, that shows evidence that you took the verse out of context.
Doesn't say that.
Maybe they received money from another source. Maybe they used money that they worked for. Maybe Jason's group sent money to help. There are a number of different ways. Since we are not told where the money came from, we can't assume that it came from anyone source. To do so simply is not a credible proposition.
Does the author of Acts, or Luke every claim to actually be Luke? No, they don't. In the first couple of verses of Luke, he even tells us bluntly that he was not an eyewitness. That he is relying on the work of others, both written and oral (The Gospel of Mark is one of those written sources). There is not a single instance where the author states that he was this Luke fellow, or that he was a traveling partner of Paul. More so, Acts contradicts Paul in various places. Such as, what did Paul do after his "conversion?" Paul and Acts simply do not agree.
It is a stretch as neither source states what you are saying. Paul nor Acts states that Paul used that abundance for anything. Paul leaves it at the fact that he received an abundance from them. As to what he did with that abundance, he never states. And what ever he used it for, doesn't take away the fact that it was still given to him without any strings attached. Meaning, he had the right to do whatever he wanted to do with it. Maybe he gave it to charity (and in fact, many ministers also support charities), that does not take away the fact that he received as compensation for himself.
No its not. Because when he wrote the letter does make a difference. The letter does not state that they sent him off with a gift. Instead, it states that they later sent him one. Meaning, we don't know when he received that gift in the first place. If we don't know when the letter was written for sure, we can not pinpoint when he received the gift. And since Acts never mentions the gift, we simply can't know.
Way to proof-text! You can proof-text the scriptures to mean anything. Like the advocacy of slavery, or racial purity. The old South and Hitler did that...
That seems to be more of a condemnation of taking money from widows at all than of living off that money. And if you read further in the chapter to verse 23 to provide some context, it seems that the thing Jesus is really upset about in verse 14 is the custom of demanding a tithe from widows.
That seems to be more of a condemnation of taking money from widows at all than of living off that money. And if you read further in the chapter to verse 23 to provide some context, it seems that the thing Jesus is really upset about in verse 14 is the custom of demanding a tithe from widows.
Any reason why you didn't quote all the way down to verse 23?
BTW - what does "long prayer" have to do with paying ministers?
So Jesus is basically bashing the organized church of the era - there is John the Baptist / apostles / Jesus type group ....... and then there is this other scribes / Pharisees type religious group. Both groups used the same set of scriptures etc. etc. only one group does everything for show - all talk, and no work.