Sauron

Yep. He's a shifty little coward.

Nope. He *used* to be a prison library, but then he got laid off. (He's still nerdy, of course).

Now he begs money from the fools who read his website. Even though the Apostle Paul made a living by weaving tents, somehow Turkel thinks he should have a zero-work life, supported by christian charity.

The hubris of this fraud sucks the oxygen right out of the room.

Ted Hoffman

Toto would have handled this much better but...

On the contrary (the tent-weaving, if any, was for appearances only), Paul milked the people of Corinth and Galatians almost DRY in the name of "the collection for the saints".

1 Cor 16:2 “On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.”

And he doesnt even ask nicely:

Galatians 6:6 Paul writes that "Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor" (NIV).

HelenM

Asking people to donate money in keeping with their income is not necessarily 'milking them dry'.

In the other letter we have from Paul to the Corinthians Paul writes a) that they wanted to give money and b) that his goal was not to make them poor but that the Christians with more money would share with those who had less, to bring them closer to financial equality - see below:

2 Cor 8:10 And here is my advice about what is best for you in this matter: Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. 11 Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, according to your means. 12 For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have. 13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality . 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality , 15 as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."

The next passage, which is from 1 Corinthians just like yours, shows clearly that the money collected was not for Paul - he preached free of charge - see below:

1 Cor 9:3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don't we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? 8 Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. 15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. 16 Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.

That verse means that if you benefit from what your teacher taught you, you should go back and let him/her know and thank him/her. It's not about money although I suppose you could give your teacher a financial gift to show your appreciation if you wanted.

take care
Helen

Ted Hoffman

If Paul wrote that they wanted to give money, does that prove that they indeed wanted to give money?
If not, whats the probative value of stating what Paul claimed they wanted?

Notice that what Paul says is not factual. He says they were the first to desire. How did he know what they desired? Who was second to desire (the Macedonians?)? How did he know they were the first to desire? Did they supply him with a written declaration of what they desired?

But we do agree that his goal was definitely not to make them richer - right?
He just wanted them to make perform an act of grace like the Macedonians and give all they had. So that God would bless them.
Taking money from people who have worked hard for that money, without giving them back something of (material) value impoverishes them. If what they are given is based on lies or non-factual information (like, God will bless them), its called swindling.
Paul was excercising undue influence on a gullible crowd that did not know any better.
And Paul personally distributed this money to the poor? Who were these "others" - the Macedonians who he had already milked? Does it make sense to take the little that a community has then praise them of being generous - then go to the next community and ask them for money to help another community?

Why doesn't he clearly mention these other communities?

Could you please provide a verse(s) having Paul giving the money he collected from one community to another (poor) community?

If you have none, how do we know he gave other communities this money he perpetually collected? On his word?

Until you can prove that he indeed gave the money collected to other needy communities, its reasonable to believe that he cooly pocketed the whole loot.
A mans gotta eat after all.

This is called a guilt trip. And it doesnt mean he wasnt paid. I have heard preachers who say to their flock <wiping their sweaty brows with a white handkerchief>:

"I toil very hard to make sure you have spiritual nourishment and I am not paid any money for that..."

A few minutes later, after a few solemn graces, a container goes round and money fills it.

Doesn't mean a damn thing.

Helen, you are beginning to sound like them huh, huh.
Maybe one should then give them a goat then huh ? - I mean, given its not about money

Paul, after solemnly claiming he didnt want any money (and I can imagine the spittle at the corners of his mouth as he said this), advises them to give gifts as a sign of appreciation?

Aw, come on Helen, you dont think we are that simple-minded do you?

HelenM

If you're going to assume Paul was wrong, then there's nothing to discuss.

Maybe they told him so. Is that so far-fetched, that they might have?

I don't see anywhere where Paul says he wants them to give all they had.

He didn't 'take' it. They chose to give.

That's your own opinion and it flies in the face of what the text says. Can you back up anything you say with documents that say Paul 'took' the money; that he wanted all they had; that they didn't actually want to give it?

If not then it's just speculation.

There's at least one reference to taking money to the poor Jews in Jerusalem.

Why does he need to? They evidently trusted him. You clearly think that trust was misplaced but you've given no supporting documents to show that it was.

The Corinthians evidently believed he would. If you have any evidence that he didn't, go ahead and provide it. My guess is that you don't have any proof that he didn't give the money to other communities.

No it isn't, at all. If Paul had been a liar and thief, it's more reasonable to suppose he would have been found out and not upheld as 'a great apostle'. His letters would not form a large part of the New Testament. I'd say it's very unlikely that you could be right but no-one found out when Paul was alive - and we know no-one thought he was a liar and a thief when he was alive, because as I said, his letters would not be in the NT if he had been.

The Bible says Paul and those with him supported themselves, doesn't it?

I know - but in other places the passage I quoted clearly said he preached to them free of charge. You did read the whole passage didn't you?

Well, I haven't. Every pastor in the churches I've been in has been quite honest about whether any of the offering goes towards their pay.

Your experience doesn't mean anything when it comes to Paul - that's what I'd say. So you've heard dishonest preachers. That in no way proves Paul was a liar and a thief.

I already explained Paul was not talking about money. It was my comment, not Paul's, that a person could give a teach a monetary gift if they wanted.

I know I'm not so simple-minded as to miss that all you've done is speculated that Paul was a liar and a thief, without providing any evidence whatsoever that he was.

Helen

Ted Hoffman

Ok, let me see...

Paul wrote that the people of Corinth wanted to give so we must assume they desired to give money to him. It doesnt matter that we have no scriptural evidence of the people of corinth expressing their desire to part with their money.

Its possible that they told Paul (sent a leader to him perhaps) that they wanted to give Paul money and although it is not written, we can assume they somehow communicated their strong desire to give money to Paul - for some reason, they could not send one of their own to deliver the money to their suffering neighbours. So Paul simply came to collect it.

Paul however, still found it necessary to remind them (emphatically) that they MUST give money to people who give them spiritual nourishment like Paul himself.
Paul also made it clear he was not interested in taking their money even though he had a right (by law) and after reminding them that he didnt want their money, he went ahead and collected it from them anyway.

He made it clear that he just wanted to take their money to ensure their hard-pressed "neighbours" were relieved and there was equality.

There is no scripture having Paul actually distributing the money he collected from one community to another. That however, doesnt matter: Paul was an honest man so we should trust him when he says he was colecting the money to help other hard-pressed neighbouring communities. The people of Corinth trusted him anyway, so we should trust Paul too and not expect him to specify where he took the money and to who he gave the money that he kept collecting from the people . He was a man of God after all.

Paul gave the people of Corinth the example of the people of Macedonia, who though they were very hard-pressed in poverty, still joyfully "gave" what they had and Paul praised the Macedonians for their grace in doing so. This however, does not mean Paul wanted the people of Corinth to give all that they had. It only meant that they should give a little and keep some for themselves. After all, Paul didnt want to milk them dry.

Even though Paul talked of more than 500 people seeing Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:5-9) as Jesus "roamed" on earth for 40 days after resurrecting (Acts 1:3-5) as opposed to ascending to heaven on the third day and even though Paul wrote of 12 disciples still living after Jesus had resurrected (even with Judas dead), Paul was never a liar. He always told the truth and never made anything up.

Since he was considered a great apostle by many, Paul must have been an honest man.

We have known of dishonest preachers but that doesnt mean Paul was a liar.

There is no evidence that Paul was a liar even though he took money from poor people and never accounted for that money.

I rest my case.

HelenM

You haven't begun your case. You've simply speculated that Paul was dishonest but given not one shred of evidence that he was.

My evidence for him being honest is that he was clearly revered by the early church, to whom honesty was important.

Over and against this you, living almost 2000 years later, decide to think he wasn't honest.

You can think what you like but you have no case if you have no evidence.

I hope you don't consider your 'argument from silence', evidence. Presumably you realize how weak such arguments are.

Let me know if you actually find some evidence. It seems to me that there's no point in discussing speculations which go against what is implied by the texts, unless you have evidence.

Helen

keyser_soze

I remember sitting in church once, several years ago. I remember the minister talking about how the church needed the community to support it, that without donations, the community, which was a reflection of the church would deteriorate. I remember the earnest look of him, his pleading voice....the tearful "amens" from the crowd. That was before my dad(who was also a minister) informed me that the church was going to be adding another gym. You see, when you have 3 million in savings, you can do that kind of thing. BTW, these are the same type of folks who make a poor person listen to an hour long service, so that they can get a sandwhich. Nothing in the world is as greedy, as a religion.

Just because someone says something, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is true.

HelenM

Yes but, that doesn't have any direct bearing on the honesty of the Apostle Paul.

Why did your Dad take you to that church? Was he defending them or criticizing them?

I know; my point is: just because someone else disbelieves what someone says, it doesn't mean it's false.

If you're thinking I assume all Christian leaders are honest, that's not true. It's rather that when someone speculates that a particular Christian leader is dishonest, who is/was respected by his community, I'd like to see some evidence before I give any credence to the speculative comment.

Especially in the case of you and IM who seem to be arguing that because you've come across one or more dishonest Christian leaders, it's reasonable to conclude they all are.

I don't think that's any more reasonable than if I were to conclude all atheists are dishonest because I met one dishonest one. I'm sure you'd say that's unreasonable but I don't see why your position is any more reasonable.

Helen

pz

They put up a pretense of certainty for that for which they have no real knowledge. They peddle lies for profit.

I wouldn't be willing to say that they are all dishonest, but many are -- and the remainder are deluded and untrustworthy by reason of ignorance.