Speaking in tongues

[Sketch]

If they met in people's homes, why would they have had a platform?

That's a good point.
On the flip side of that, why would those standing yield to those sitting down?

 

[garee]

Some People are just uncomfortable with speaking a tongue they do not know. A lot of people just dont mix with other people who speak another tongue.

Unfortunately. But they will need to get over this one day.

In Heaven we will all be praisng the Lord in every tongue God has given us.

Bringing prophecy or called tongues by making sounds that have no meaning is not prophecying. Unless someone interprets what the other person is saying they would have no understanding. God's words is the interpreter of God's thoughts . Not of any private interpretation of men .

He does not make a noise not easy to understand and say find a man to trust what he is saying and call that a personal relationship. It would be more the subtleness of the father of lies . Did God really say?.

You could say on earth when men praise God he understands all the languages .Speaking or praying in the air is not a biblical understanding as a hope of being heard on high

So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words "easy to be understood", how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.1 Cor14:9

 

[garee]

I find some of the words like Hallelujah are actually Hebrew.
The nation of Israel actually speak in Hebrew. When they were in exile they had to learn the tongues of their host countries when they were taken in captivity. But they never lost their native tongue and now they can speak it again.

The nation of Israel that actually speak in Hebrew refused to hear the word of God, prophecy in any language to include Hebrew. But rather did whatsoever their own mouths as oral tradition of men .(Jerimiah 44) it made the word of God to no effect a sign of mocking God.

God sent them a strong delusion to believe the lie and brought prophecy in all the languages of the word as a sign against those who will not believe prophecy .and for all that they still were not converted but refused to believe prophecy . God mocking them with stammering lips who mocked Him by refusing to hear His prophecy.It was offensive to them .

Not all Israel is born again Israel. Only the inward Jews not according to the flesh as outward but again inward of the spirit that had the Spirit of Christ... they believe prophecy in the same way as the gentiles as it is written. ( sola scriptura) No oral traditions of the fathers called the law of the fathers. those tradition made God's tradition scripture to no effect. No man can serve two teaching masters prophecy and the oral tradition as a law of the fathers. Love one hate the other or vice versa.

 

[Dino246]

Bringing prophecy or called tongues by making sounds that have no meaning is not prophecying. Unless someone interprets what the other person is saying they would have no understanding. God's words is the interpreter of God's thoughts .

Bringing prophecy is not prophesying? That's self-contradictory and silly.

It is only your opinion that speaking in tongues is "making sounds that have no meaning".

Not of any private interpretation of men .

You continually misuse the reference to private interpretation, having demonstrated no understood of what that passage is saying.

He does not make a noise not easy to understand and say find a man to trust what he is saying and call that a personal relationship.

Your misrepresentation of speaking in tongues is utterly without basis or merit.

 

[Dino246]

The word "unknown" was added.

True.

Not unknow to the speaker.

Not true. Nothing in Scripture says the speaker knows what he is saying when he is speaking in tongues.

God does not prophecy in a unknown languages. If not one understanding the language of the speaker . Then God has not interpreted it into other language as he did in Acts 2.

Not true; that's not what God did in Acts 2. The Scripture clearly says the disciples spoke in other languages as the Spirit gave them utterance. It was not a miracle of hearing only.

 

[presidente]

The word "unknown" was added.

People who believe in speaking in tongues can see that unknown is italicized in the KJV also. I've never heard anyone use 'unknown' as an argument for what speaking in tongues is.

Not unknow to the speaker.

Paul contrasts speaking in tongues with speaking with his mind as if it were two different things.

]

God does not prophecy in a unknown languages.

God knows all languages.

If not one understanding the language of the speaker . Then God has not interpreted it into other language as he did in Acts 2. Then the person should pray in their heart.

27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

The let it be by two, or at the most by three has do with conversing with each other. Prophecy is a two fold gift . God puts his tongue on one as inspiration and gives the other his understanding according to the words that came from Christ. Both share the gift .As one speaks in his native tongue the stranger hears it in his own native tongue and vice versa.

There is no evidence in the Bible of one person speaking a language and another understanding it in their own language. In Acts 2, the disciples spoken in tongues and the others heard them speaking their own language. It doesn't say they heard some other language different from what the disciples were speaking.

In I Corinthians 14, Paul writes about the one speaking in tongues interpreting the tongue, so your description does not fit what Paul wrote.

 

[presidente]

Thanks for the reply.

They will recover if God puts his hand on them as God's will.

Paul after he said... The Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; in the same context . Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

He does not need human hands to heal.And I am not saying do not use the shadow as a ceremonial law.But how we use it.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; Acts 17:24-25

Interestingly the word worship used once in scripture in verse 25 in the Greek is therapón. From where we get the word therapeutic or therapy.

So is all this still supposed to be an attempt defend the idea that God never heals through human hands? If it is, you are taking a verse that does not say what you were saying. When someone gets healed through the laying on of human hands, that is not someone taking care of God's needs, serving him as if he needed something. That is a way God works through people.

We walk by faith as that not seen . The laying on of hands is an appeal to God who heals indiscriminately . Not a sigh gift that many would try and make it,

You are the one around here using the term 'sign gift.'

If you think God healing people through the laying on of hands or through individuals with gifts is opposed to 'walking by faith as that not seen' you have a problem that your religion is different from the religion of the apostles and other early Christians. If you think God doing a miracle through an individual is opposed to walking by faith and not by sight, then you have a different belief system from the apostles and the Christians in the first century.

The apostles doing miracles and healing by the power of God is not opposed to walking 'by faith and not by sight.'

The Gospels give us a good example of walking by faith and not by sight. Peter asked to come to Jesus Who was walking on water. Jesus said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on water. When He believed Jesus, he could walk on water but when he saw the wind and the waves, he doubted, and he sank. When Peter trusted Jesus, he could do it. When he doubted because he depended on what he saw, he could not. In this case, he was performing a miracle. Doing a miracle was not contrary to 'walking by faith.' Walking by faith enabled him to do the miracle. Doubting when he 'walked by sight' prevented him from doing the miracle.

You need to think through your philosphy about miracles and gifts. If your ideas and interpretations of scripture about these things do not work in the first century, they are wrong. If doing miracles is opposed to 'walking by faith', then the apostles would have been lacking in faith. Jesus Christ Himself was a great miracle worker.

 

[presidente]

That's a good point.
On the flip side of that, why would those standing yield to those sitting down?

Our modern church service hadn't been invented yet. They didn't have our (often unwritten) rules. For example, we have rules like no one teaches but the pastor or whoever has been assigned to the pulpit that Sunday. Another rule we have is that there be a pulpit up front in a special purpose meeting hall. Another rule we have is that no one interrupts whoever is speaking. Preaching must be sandwiched in by sets of congregational hymns or choruses, the way we do things.

Why would the one speaking yield to those sitting by? Because the one sitting by had received a revelation, so you yeild to let the Spirit speak through someone else, rather than hog the floor. We are to let all prophesy that all may be encouraged.

 

[Sketch]

Our modern church service hadn't been invented yet. They didn't have our (often unwritten) rules. For example, we have rules like no one teaches but the pastor or whoever has been assigned to the pulpit that Sunday. Another rule we have is that there be a pulpit up front in a special purpose meeting hall. Another rule we have is that no one interrupts whoever is speaking. Preaching must be sandwiched in by sets of congregational hymns or choruses, the way we do things.

Why would the one speaking yield to those sitting by? Because the one sitting by had received a revelation, so you yeild to let the Spirit speak through someone else, rather than hog the floor. We are to let all prophesy that all may be encouraged.

I think public speaking was well developed by then. The Greeks and Romans had their amphitheaters and philosophers of all sorts would address crowds and engage in debate.

Otherwise, your interpretation on this seems valid. Someone's home would probably not be set up like our church sanctuaries.

 

[garee]

So is all this still supposed to be an attempt defend the idea that God never heals through human hands? If it is, you are taking a verse that does not say what you were saying. When someone gets healed through the laying on of human hands, that is not someone taking care of God's needs, serving him as if he needed something. That is a way God works through people.

Thanks for the reply.

Which verse is that you say I use that does not say what the Holy Spirit is teaching?

No ones gets healed by the laying on of hands as ceremonial law a shadow. It represent a desire that God would heal .It is not different or greater than praying in ones heart in silent meditation. God does need a sign from us to move His will.

During the ceremony it used as a parable for then time present. The hand was laid on the head of the goat and sent into the wilderness .

Neither the laying on of hands or the goat can take away sin. But as we are informed in Hebrew 9 it stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:Which was a figure (parable) for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Hebrew 9

I am not apposed to it, but I am to the idea that the hands of men moves God to do the will of men. Hands represent will. We have a privilege to pray in a hope he will heal. It is not a sign gift that we seek after to confirm we have a gift. That would seem to be more befitting to the Pharisees a Pagan idea as those who walk by sight (no faith)

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with "observation:"

 

[garee]

If you think God healing people through the laying on of hands or through individuals with gifts is opposed to 'walking by faith as that not seen' you have a problem that your religion is different from the religion of the apostles and other early Christians. If you think God doing a miracle through an individual is opposed to walking by faith and not by sight, then you have a different belief system from the apostles and the Christians in the first century.

The apostles doing miracles and healing by the power of God is not opposed to walking 'by faith and not by sight.'

The apostles do not do miracles as if God was served by human hands. That simply is a pagan idea making gods in the likeness of men .

I would no more attribute the miracle of God not seen to a apostles (sent one) then we would to Balaam's ass in whom God put his words of faith on its lips and it stooped the madness of the false prophet found in that parable in Numbers 22 used to hide the unseen spiritual understanding. He uses an unclean animal to show he is not served by human hands. An unbeliever (no faith) can be used to bring a miracle of God just as easily as one who does have faith . Again he is not served by human hands as if his kingdom did come by observation, (walking by sight).

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

 

[presidente]

I think public speaking was well developed by then. The Greeks and Romans had their amphitheaters and philosophers of all sorts would address crowds and engage in debate.

Otherwise, your interpretation on this seems valid. Someone's home would probably not be set up like our church sanctuaries.

Our modern sermons are based on Greek rhetoric, at least what many preachers are taught in Bible college and seminary. The three-point sermon is a rhetorical technique that the ancient Greeks used, and shows up in Aristotle's writings centuries before the New Testament was written. But I am unaware of any teaching in the Bible that follows that pattern. There may be some rhetoric that corresponds with Greek style rhetoric, but there are also Hebrew style arguments, e.g. greater to lesser arguments. I forget the Hebrew names for these things.

But back to speeches in ampitheaters, plenty of churches are set up that way. That seems to be the norm across most denominations. But this may be because of Greek cultural influence rather than because of what the church initially did in Biblical times.

The implication of the New Testament is that they had meetings in which multiple believers spoke. I suspect that, as we read in Acts 15, when some came from Jerusalem to Antioch and taught the Gentiles must be circumcised, that Paul and Barnabas probably disputed with them in the meeting. And this would not have been as shocking as it would be to us because of the custom of having an 'open floor' where believers could speak. Then we see that in Jerusalem, when the issue was discussed, some of the members of the church who were Pharisees spoke up and said the Gentiles should be circumcised. There were multiple speakers in church. The apostles and elders met to discuss the issue. Again, multiple speakers, as they sought to determine the will of God.

In I Corinthians 14, the speakers in church are 'every one of you'-- again with the parameters laid down in that passage. The speaker in tongues, an interpreter prophets, and 'ye...all' recieve instructions on particular types of utterances.

There is one passage where Paul taught all night. He was an apostle and was about to leave the very next day. The word translated 'taught' or 'preached' there is the word from which we get our English word 'dialogue' and there could have been some interaction.

Paul and Peter both instruct believers to use their spiritual gifts to minister to others. Peter says to use gifts to minister one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the word of God. Paul says for the one gifted to to prophesy according to the proportion of faith, for the one gifted to teach to teach, for the one gifted to exhort to exhort. The venue where we can do such things to minister to one another is when we meet together.

Hebrews 10:24-25 is the one passage preachers use to tell us not to forsake assembling. But it also tells us what to do when we assemble-- to 'exhort one another', and this is in the context of provoking one another to love and to good works.

Greeks liked to give speeches. The synagogues might have had some sermoneering as well. At least, the way Edersheim presents it, it does. If Edersheim's 'Life and Times...' is accurate, then in a Judaic synagogue, there could actually be several speakers, someone teaching in Hebrew, another interpreting in Aramaic. There may have been readers of scripture in synagogue meetings as well. I remember counting up to seven men, I believe, who might do some sort of speaking in the synagogue. And they apparently did not have one man who acted like he 'owned the pulpit' in the synagogue either, since members of the synagogue could speak. A Hebrew scholar friend of mine said synagogues had a custom of first offering Levites a chance to speak. If Edersheim is right, the (falsely so-called) 'rabbi' was not like our clergymen over modern congregations, not like the modern falsely so called 'rabbi' in charge of a congregation. That was a designation used for scholars. But synagogues would have had an administrator known as the archisynagogue and elders, but men of the congregation could speak, and some of them might gain reputations as 'preachers' according to Edersheim. Men in good standing might address the assembly, according to what I read. I am not sure of all of Edersheim's primary sources, but I have been informed that it is still considered good material.

It would appear the early church was more 'open' to members speaking. There is some indication that second century churches woudl still have prophesying in church. There was also the threat of heresies and apparently a move toward having everything go through 'the bishop', one of the elders who (extrabiblically) was made the leader over his counterparts during that time period. Liturgy came to be treated as extremely central to church meetings.

 

[Sketch]

But back to speeches in ampitheaters, plenty of churches are set up that way. That seems to be the norm across most denominations. But this may be because of Greek cultural influence rather than because of what the church initially did in Biblical times.

I think that this is more of a practical consideration than a spiritual issue.
Two or three families meeting as a congregation in a house is one thing.
They couldn't even support a full-time pastor.

As I understand it, synagogues were established that way.
As soon as you had ten families committed to a fellowship you had enough tithe money to support a priest.

 

[Sketch]

Greeks liked to give speeches. The synagogues might have had some sermoneering as well. At least, the way Edersheim presents it, it does. If Edersheim's 'Life and Times...' is accurate, then in a Judaic synagogue, there could actually be several speakers, someone teaching in Hebrew, another interpreting in Aramaic. There may have been readers of scripture in synagogue meetings as well. I remember counting up to seven men, I believe, who might do some sort of speaking in the synagogue. And they apparently did not have one man who acted like he 'owned the pulpit' in the synagogue either, since members of the synagogue could speak. A Hebrew scholar friend of mine said synagogues had a custom of first offering Levites a chance to speak. If Edersheim is right, the (falsely so-called) 'rabbi' was not like our clergymen over modern congregations, not like the modern falsely so called 'rabbi' in charge of a congregation. That was a designation used for scholars. But synagogues would have had an administrator known as the archisynagogue and elders, but men of the congregation could speak, and some of them might gain reputations as 'preachers' according to Edersheim. Men in good standing might address the assembly, according to what I read. I am not sure of all of Edersheim's primary sources, but I have been informed that it is still considered good material.

Yes, there was an existing model for congregational meetings already in place with the way synagogues were run. And also culturally in the secular realm with the Greeks and Romans having meetings with speakers.

 

[presidente]

The apostles do not do miracles as if God was served by human hands. That simply is a pagan idea making gods in the likeness of men .

I would no more attribute the miracle of God not seen to a apostles (sent one) then we would to Balaam's ass in whom God put his words of faith on its lips and it stooped the madness of the false prophet found in that parable in Numbers 22 used to hide the unseen spiritual understanding. He uses an unclean animal to show he is not served by human hands. An unbeliever (no faith) can be used to bring a miracle of God just as easily as one who does have faith . Again he is not served by human hands as if his kingdom did come by observation, (walking by sight).

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

I think you are getting hung up on terminology. The Bible actually tells us that the apostles did miracles and healed. There are verses that say they could do miracles and heal, passages that say miracles or signs were done through them. Both kind of language is found in the New Testament. If we read the whole New Testament we should understand that they did miracles by God's power, not by their own personal power. But it is not 'unorthodox' to use Biblical terminology about the apostles doing miracles.

Jesus spoke to the 12 apostles:
Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

Jesus told the apostles to 'Heal the sick.' Jesus was not wrong because He did not say here, "Let God heal through you" or "Lay hands on people and you won't heal. God will."

It is Biblical language, also, to say that the apostles healed. If we know the word of God, we know that Jesus gave them authority to do so, and that God's power was working through them. There is no reason to get hung up on them.

And your objection, "The apostles do not do miracles as if God was served by human hands. " seems to me to indicate that you have a different idea from what is presented in scripture about what it means to be 'served by human hands' or else you are getting hung up on terminology and you think someone is saying the apostles are healing by their own power. Even if the latter is the case, your comment still does not make sense. What would the apostles healing people by their own power (hypothetically, not something anyone is arguing for) have to do with serving God by human hands in the sense Paul means in the passage.

Here is a verse about stephen doing wonders and signs. Again, Biblical terminology. We know that God was working through Him.
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

Here we read that Paul healed someone.
Acts 28:8 And it happened that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and dysentery. Paul went in to him and prayed, and he laid his hands on him and healed him.

Acts also speaks of signs being done through the hands of the apostles, and uses terminology like this:

Acts 19:12 Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul,

But since the Bible speaks of the apostles healing people and saints doing signs, it is not unorthodox to use this kind of language. No one is implying they did them on their own apart from the power of God.

 

[presidente]

Yes, there was an existing model for congregational meetings already in place with the way synagogues were run. And also culturally in the secular realm with the Greeks and Romans having meetings with speakers.

True, and it seems the Greek secular model took over and some aspects of Biblical teaching on what to do in meetings fell out of favor.

 

[presidente]

Thanks for the reply.

Which verse is that you say I use that does not say what the Holy Spirit is teaching?

I have no problem with Bible verses you use. I do see you using verses in ways that are different from what they mean in the passages you quote, and wresting certain religious phrases about of scriptures and stringing them together in ways that do not match what they mean in the passages you quote. I have given you several examples of this over the years.

One is using 'walk by faith and not by sight' to mean that believing in or operating in certain miracles or certain spiritual gifts are unbiblical. That is what you appear to be saying. The way you phrase sentences, sometimes, requires some assumptions as to your meaning, but I've read enough of your posts that I think I get a sense of what you are trying to say. Sometimes you try to extract some broad principle by misinterpreting a passage of scripture, but your broad principle contradicts specific teachings of scripture. Your interpretation of 'we walk by faith and not by sight' is an example of this.

No ones gets healed by the laying on of hands as ceremonial law a shadow. It represent a desire that God would heal .It is not different or greater than praying in ones heart in silent meditation. God does need a sign from us to move His will.

During the ceremony it used as a parable for then time present. The hand was laid on the head of the goat and sent into the wilderness .

Neither the laying on of hands or the goat can take away sin. But as we are informed in Hebrew 9 it stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

There are things that had roots in Old Testament times, such as having elders, baptism, the laying on of hands, prayer, that are still valid, ongoing practices in the church that we are not to do away with. You are lumping the laying on of hands into a category of things you consider to be for the past, when the author of the same book you are quoting lists it among the basic principles of the doctrine of Christ.

Hands represent will.

Can you prove that and elaborate on it.

We have a privilege to pray in a hope he will heal.

Jesus taught His disciples.
Mark 11:24
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

He also told Lazarus sister that if she believed, she would see the glory of God. He told people things like 'according to your faith be it unto you.' There are a number of passages like this in the gospels.

It is not a sign gift that we seek after to confirm we have a gift. That would seem to be more befitting to the Pharisees a Pagan idea as those who walk by sight (no faith)

The wording of that first sentence makes it a little hard to decipher. But since i have read many of your posts, I will assume I know what you mean.

It seems to me that you think that those who believe God to actually heal are really just wanting to see a healing so that they will believe God, or to confirm they have a gift. If you think people just pray and ask God to heal so they can get confirmation they have a gift, in most cases, I would think you are attributing the wrong motives to people. There are multitudes of Christians out there, and may someone somewhere has the motives you are imagining. But praying and hoping God will heal out of a motive to confirm that one has a gift is probably a very rare thing, and it does not, IMO.

If your religion is not the same one as presented in the New Testament, you have a problem. The New Testament shows people believing God and receiving from God. The New Testament shows people believing Jesus and receiving healing, deliverance from demons for a loved one, etc.

Someone performing a miracle--believing God to do it and seeing the power of God work through him-- and seeing the results before his very eyes is not contrary to walking by faith. The apostles did such things, and this does not mean that their faith was nonexistent or that it was inferior to yours.

If I understand you right, I believe you are using 'walk by sight' wrongly, interpreting it to mean something that it does not mean in scripture-- something contrary to what the scriptures teach about the apostles and other miracles workers.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with "observation:"

They were probably looking for a conquering king on a horse to come in and set up a kingdom on earth. The restoration of the kingdom of Israel is for some time Christ did not reveal to the apostles, but the kingdom came in a way they were not expecting. Nevertheless, Jesus said if He cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Jesus called casting out demons a sign or miracle (depending on the translation).

Jesus casting out demons and doing miracles was not contrary to the kingdom of God. It was not 'walking by sight.'

 

[presidente]

I think that this is more of a practical consideration than a spiritual issue.
Two or three families meeting as a congregation in a house is one thing.
They couldn't even support a full-time pastor.

That's kind of like if a church used Coca-cola for communion instead of wine, and you asked them why, and they said, "The reason they used wine back in the Bible days is because Coca-cola hadn't been invented yet."

I can't find the 'full-time pastor' in the Bible, at least not the exact same sort of thing we see in our churches today. So why should I assume the reason the early churches didn't have that is because of their economic situation.

The church in Corinth had 'many' people according Acts, at least many were baptized.

As I understand it, synagogues were established that way.
As soon as you had ten families committed to a fellowship you had enough tithe money to support a priest.

The priests were temple thing. Given the Torah's reference to priest's teaching, there might have been some deference to them if they wanted to teach in a synagogue. But maybe not. There were other traditions about scribes teaching, and the falsely so-called 'rabbis'. The synagogue was more of a 'lay' movement. From what I gather, the synagogue never survived off of tithes. Tithes were for the Levitical priestly system. There was a tithe that would have gone to Jerusalem into the temple system there. The people were to spend a tithe on themselves in Jerusalem. They had to go to three feasts by law. There was a tithe for the fatherless, Levite, widows, etc. in the cities every third year. It is possible the synagogues were involved in that collection. It makes sense that they might have been, but that is not the same as the synagogue being supported by a tithe. The way modern synagogues function is by their members paying dues every so often, but I do not know how far back that goes.

There is also nothing in the Bible about the church of Jesus Christ being financed off of tithes, either. The earliest Christians were Jews, and at least many of them were zealous of the law. If they paid their tithes and actually followed the law, they would have been paying to the temple. Acts also says many priests became obedient to the faith. They may have received tithes, as opposed to the apostles or elders.

And the apostles appointed multiple elders in a single church/city, as opposed to a congregation hiring a religions professional from outside the congregation to preach every week as a 'full-time pastor.'

 

[Sketch]

True, and it seems the Greek secular model took over and some aspects of Biblical teaching on what to do in meetings fell out of favor.

I would ask, how much of that is practical and how much is spiritual?

 

[Sketch]

That's kind of like if a church used Coca-cola for communion instead of wine, and you asked them why, and they said, "The reason they used wine back in the Bible days is because Coca-cola hadn't been invented yet."

I can't find the 'full-time pastor' in the Bible, at least not the exact same sort of thing we see in our churches today. So why should I assume the reason the early churches didn't have that is because of their economic situation.

The church in Corinth had 'many' people according Acts, at least many were baptized.



The priests were temple thing. Given the Torah's reference to priest's teaching, there might have been some deference to them if they wanted to teach in a synagogue. But maybe not. There were other traditions about scribes teaching, and the falsely so-called 'rabbis'. The synagogue was more of a 'lay' movement. From what I gather, the synagogue never survived off of tithes. Tithes were for the Levitical priestly system. There was a tithe that would have gone to Jerusalem into the temple system there. The people were to spend a tithe on themselves in Jerusalem. They had to go to three feasts by law. There was a tithe for the fatherless, Levite, widows, etc. in the cities every third year. It is possible the synagogues were involved in that collection. It makes sense that they might have been, but that is not the same as the synagogue being supported by a tithe. The way modern synagogues function is by their members paying dues every so often, but I do not know how far back that goes.

There is also nothing in the Bible about the church of Jesus Christ being financed off of tithes, either. The earliest Christians were Jews, and at least many of them were zealous of the law. If they paid their tithes and actually followed the law, they would have been paying to the temple. Acts also says many priests became obedient to the faith. They may have received tithes, as opposed to the apostles or elders.

And the apostles appointed multiple elders in a single church/city, as opposed to a congregation hiring a religions professional from outside the congregation to preach every week as a 'full-time pastor.'

What do you propose to do?