My former pastor paid taxes on his church and never sent a collection plate around. He worked all of his life and took on the mantle of pastor when he was retired. He did have a collection box at the back of the church for discreet giving. I believe that he was right to have a public church instead of a private church in the home. I will back up my belief if asked.
I’m curious what your reasons are for believing he was right to have a public church as opposed to a private church in the home. Are these reasons biblical reasons, or historical reasons from earliest Christianity. I applaud his work ethic as I understand it, at least to the degree that I think you’re saying that he did not accept a salary for the position? That is commendable and in line with early Christianity, although in reality, the early pastors earned their own living and pastored the church simultaneously.
@@firstcenturychristianity6864 From what I have gathered to my knowledge, my pastor felt that a public church added legitimacy and beyond that welcome-mat to seekers those not necessarily Christians. He did have a private church in the home at one point. To be honest, I don't have much else to go on on the subject. My personal belief on as to why is that Jesus told Peter to go pay the tribute to Caesar for him and himself. He did not accept a salary. His church built up from the ground up on their own money. He did earn his living, absolutely and no doubt and would NEVER have ease for his congregants pay his way (I feel I must add I thought he could because why couldn't Peter and the others apparently did?) I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am simply impressed that money does not enter the equation for why they preach without pay. Humbly I submit my answers to you because I do feel you are on the right path as well.
My first church didn't evangelize, and didn't support the poor. They had summer biblical camps, for kids, and asked money for it. They had a baby church in Latin-American with a envoy-pastor from our church, which was doing we don't know what. And so, I felt this church was mostly a structure, with buildings and expenses and a salary to pay to the pastor, and producing very little fruits for God... I stopped giving money very quickly to that church... a matter of a few months... as a babe in Christ... I didn't think God wanted me to pay to maintain a structure... If it was not to win souls or do something for my community, then I would have none of it...
Let me just say at 2:54 that I wasted a lot of money giving "tithes". I could have saved each tenth to use in better ways. Mar_7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
I never denied my father or mother on that, but still. It seems wrong to give away ten percent of my Supplemental Security Income (S.S.I.) away under some sort of forced pledge.
17:08 just before this time-mark. 1Ti_5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. So the Levitical priesthood had to be created because the sons and the fathers were not doing their job? Should I be conflating these to references?
Why not make the fathers and sons do their job instead of paying for someone else to do it? I think I see now. They weren't capable of it. Sort of a circular trade-off. Am I right?
You are correct. The fathers and firstborns, presumably, were part of the golden calf fiasco. This is just after they had heard from God himself, and they bombed their priesthood miserably. Understandable in light of their absence of priesthood roles and duties and examples for at least 235 years. So God sanctifies the Levites to “teach my people the difference between the holy and profane”. Thus the substitution in Numbers 3,8 and 18. However, I believe it was to be a temporary priesthood substitution until such a time as The Melchizedek walked among them and exampled a perfect priesthood, at which time the fathers and firstborn would be reinstated to their intended role, exampled in Ephesians 5:22-33 as Sons of Light or Sons of Righteousness Thus, a pseudo Levitical priesthood (as we see exampled in Corporation Christianity today) is antithetical to a New Testament assembly of kings and priests, and is the most diabolical confidence scheme perpetrated on the Body of Christ.
I think that the whole issue is that when a man has plenty, he should not ignore those with not enough. Pro_19:17 He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again. Should I, feasting on a seven course meal, not EVEN let my dog eat the crumbs that fall off of my table? A man with a million dollars may not have enough to spare even a beggar on the streets simply because he has greater responsibilities.
I like the introduction to this video. It adds something of a bit of professionalism to the whole matter.
My former pastor paid taxes on his church and never sent a collection plate around. He worked all of his life and took on the mantle of pastor when he was retired. He did have a collection box at the back of the church for discreet giving. I believe that he was right to have a public church instead of a private church in the home. I will back up my belief if asked.
I’m curious what your reasons are for believing he was right to have a public church as opposed to a private church in the home. Are these reasons biblical reasons, or historical reasons from earliest Christianity. I applaud his work ethic as I understand it, at least to the degree that I think you’re saying that he did not accept a salary for the position? That is commendable and in line with early Christianity, although in reality, the early pastors earned their own living and pastored the church simultaneously.
@@firstcenturychristianity6864 From what I have gathered to my knowledge, my pastor felt that a public church added legitimacy and beyond that welcome-mat to seekers those not necessarily Christians. He did have a private church in the home at one point. To be honest, I don't have much else to go on on the subject. My personal belief on as to why is that Jesus told Peter to go pay the tribute to Caesar for him and himself. He did not accept a salary. His church built up from the ground up on their own money. He did earn his living, absolutely and no doubt and would NEVER have ease for his congregants pay his way (I feel I must add I thought he could because why couldn't Peter and the others apparently did?) I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am simply impressed that money does not enter the equation for why they preach without pay. Humbly I submit my answers to you because I do feel you are on the right path as well.
My first church didn't evangelize, and didn't support the poor. They had summer biblical camps, for kids, and asked money for it. They had a baby church in Latin-American with a envoy-pastor from our church, which was doing we don't know what. And so, I felt this church was mostly a structure, with buildings and expenses and a salary to pay to the pastor, and producing very little fruits for God... I stopped giving money very quickly to that church... a matter of a few months... as a babe in Christ... I didn't think God wanted me to pay to maintain a structure... If it was not to win souls or do something for my community, then I would have none of it...
Let me just say at 2:54 that I wasted a lot of money giving "tithes". I could have saved each tenth to use in better ways. Mar_7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
I never denied my father or mother on that, but still. It seems wrong to give away ten percent of my Supplemental Security Income (S.S.I.) away under some sort of forced pledge.
17:08 just before this time-mark. 1Ti_5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. So the Levitical priesthood had to be created because the sons and the fathers were not doing their job? Should I be conflating these to references?
Why not make the fathers and sons do their job instead of paying for someone else to do it? I think I see now. They weren't capable of it. Sort of a circular trade-off. Am I right?
You are correct. The fathers and firstborns, presumably, were part of the golden calf fiasco. This is just after they had heard from God himself, and they bombed their priesthood miserably. Understandable in light of their absence of priesthood roles and duties and examples for at least 235 years. So God sanctifies the Levites to “teach my people the difference between the holy and profane”.
Thus the substitution in Numbers 3,8 and 18. However, I believe it was to be a temporary priesthood substitution until such a time as The Melchizedek walked among them and exampled a perfect priesthood, at which time the fathers and firstborn would be reinstated to their intended role, exampled in Ephesians 5:22-33 as Sons of Light or Sons of Righteousness
Thus, a pseudo Levitical priesthood (as we see exampled in Corporation Christianity today) is antithetical to a New Testament assembly of kings and priests, and is the most diabolical confidence scheme perpetrated on the Body of Christ.
I think that the whole issue is that when a man has plenty, he should not ignore those with not enough. Pro_19:17 He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again. Should I, feasting on a seven course meal, not EVEN let my dog eat the crumbs that fall off of my table? A man with a million dollars may not have enough to spare even a beggar on the streets simply because he has greater responsibilities.