Church support for whom? And what is "honor"?

$200, 000 to start a "church"?  

King James, King James Charles Stuart, King James VI and I, ascended the throne of England in 1603. Coincidentally, what he inherited from Mary, Queen of Scots, she was a Catholic who was beheaded, was in fact a crumbling kingdom that was very much like what Constantine stepped into in 306 AD. Both sovereigns stepped up to a throne that was surrounded by chaos and military enemies who wanted them gone, and many of the kings and queens before had been assassinated or executed. For the survival of their respective kingdoms, they felt the need to completely control their people and consolidate their power. In their respective worlds 4-year term elections hadn't been invented yet, and thus you left that throne because you died, were stabbed in the back, or beheaded. The consolidation of power for both Constantine and King James VI courts was the name of the game. 

Chronologically speaking, King James' court was not all that far removed from the court of Henry the IIX. So no, the Pope had not let go of England, and the Pope to a relative degree still hasn't.

Accordingly, King James wanted "community centers" in every village in English and a vicar on his payroll in that building. Now, flip the hourglass back to John Wycliff. Wycliff lived between around 1328 and died in 1384. Now, read the fine print. Wycliff was proclaimed a heretic by the Catholic church in 1415. 

Why does any of this matter and what does it have to do with $200, 000? 

One of the reasons why Wycliff's bones were thrown into a river by Catholic authorities was because he translated the Latin Bible into English. It is today called the "Wycliff," and it was published by him, which was something that would get you burnt at the stake back then, in 1380.

Here is Philemon in John Wycliff's 1380 English Bible. Philemon 1:2:

1:2most dere sister, and to Archip, oure euene kniyt, and to the chirche that is in thin hous,

See that "chirche"? Almost sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Wycliff was born in Yorkshire, which is right across the street from Scotland, and King James was from Scotland. The Catholic church had been in Scotland and Ireland for literally hundreds of years, so while growing up both Wycliff and James VI grew up around the "chirche."

Wycliff let "chirche" stand because it was what he knew and what the people around him knew. However, Wycliff did not translate direction from Greek. He based his translation on the Latin of the Catholic church, which is what he grew up with. People in 1600 were facility with a "Catholic structure," and King James, just like Constantine, needed to control the "city center." So, King James' translators stuck with Wycliff, and in their eyes Wycliff was somewhat of a Protestant martyr.

Accordingly, there are several words in the Koine Greek New Testament where the historical translation is a semantic train wreck. One of those words in "ekklaisia," or "gathering." The idea of "ekklaisia" being associated with a "place" or a building entered the English world when the Catholic church marched into Ireland and Scotland, and that concept was exactly what King James IV and I needed in every single town and city. Notice that King James' other book was about hunting witches. There wasn't a representative of Eastern Christianity on his translation panel, and every one of them was a paid man of the king. Question: would you argue a point of translation with a king who was known to have once killed a man in a knife fight and who had authorized the burning of witches?

It has only been in the last century that Bible translators have been looking more closely at the Koine Greek. Consequently, in 1st century Koine an "Ekklaisia" is a "gathering of people." In 1st century Koine there is absolutely no nuance at all that associates that with a building. 

Now, how much does it cost to meet at Denny's? If we split the tip, about $15.00. You can make your own Grand Slam, 4 items, and you can pick which ones. Yes, that could be expensive if you went once a week for a month. So, you could meet in .... someone's home? That is what they did in the 1st century, and the idea of a "community Christian center" didn't pick up to around 321 AD when Constantine made it illegal to not celebrate "Apollo Day," which in Rome was the "Sun + day." Ever notice that when you walk out of a "church" on that day the sun is directly overhead? That is 12PM, when Apollo can see you best when you are leaving "his house" on "his day." Why? Because Apollo needed to see it. You mean Apollo could not see inside your heart? Nope. That was why Jesus said that God can see you in your closet (Matt 6:6). Before Jesus' day people generally believed that you had to go to a special place, to see a special guy, do some kind of special ceremony, for God to be see it and accept it. 

Apollo Day was Roman custom, but kit was made law after 321 AD. Constantine wanted his soldiers to have one day where they didn't have to build, but he also wanted them in one place so he could collect taxes.

This is the end of Philemon 1:2:

.... κατ’ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ·

 There, the home, the building, is the place where the "people gather," the ἐκκλησίᾳ. "Meeting" is a much more accurate translation of ἐκκλησίᾳ , but unfortunately, that understanding puts a lot of people out of work.

In His name, with Love

Timothy

"Constantine made it illegal to not celebrate "Apollo Day," which in Rome was the "Sun + day." Ever notice that when you walk out of a "church" on that day the sun is directly overhead? That is 12PM, when Apollo can see you best when you are leaving "his house" on "his day." Why? Because Apollo needed to see it. You mean Apollo could not see inside your heart? Nope. That was why Jesus said that God can see you in your closet (Matt 6:6). Before Jesus' day people generally believed that you had to go to a special place, to see a special guy, do some kind of special ceremony, for God to be see it and accept it. 

Apollo Day was Roman custom, but kit was made law after 321 AD. Constantine wanted his soldiers to have one day where they didn't have to build, but he also wanted them in one place so he could collect taxes."

Good research, I did some work like this a while back and put it in a book that we published, so I understand the effort given. So few know our story, and more get exposed all the time. The "church" machine has made all Christian things more complicated than it needs to be. If friends can gather together for pie and ice cream, then a fellowship can be started.

Brother David:

I am not certain, but I think I found out how to reply directly to your post.  I feel like I have House Church Network training wheels on.

Over the course of the history of Christianity, Church / Fellowship financing and Leadership salaries is one of the hottest topics in our Faith.

It was a hot topic beginning right there in the 1st century.  

While we have Matthew 10, where Jesus sends his disciples out to minister as, "they received for free, give for free," we also have on the other side of that very same issue Luke 8, where we can see that Jesus received financial gifts, see Luke 8:3.  In Luke 8:3, if you read all of the 52-something English translations, you can see the translators tripping over themselves trying to get it just right.  

The problem there with Luke 8:3 is this Koine Greek word, ὑπαρχόντων, or for the Romans, huparch'ontoun.  It is somewhat difficult to translate because in the Koine it is somewhat euphemistic.  In a sense, it is like our phase "make a living."  We can ask someone, "How do you make a living?"  Now, if we were from Japan and trying to figure out this language a reasonable answer might be, "Let's see, I inhale, then I exhale, then I inhale again, and repeat that is how I "make + living."   Literally, however, huparch'ontoun, or  ὑπαρχόντων, is the idea, " ... of one's resources," the ladies' "means," which is another English word that if you speak Chinese or Japanese makes absolutely no sense.  Ie., do you have the "means" to take all of us out for pizza?  Notice there that even in modern American English we have softer, more polite ways of asking someone if they have "MONEY."  That is what Luke is doing, but he writes like this in several places.  Luke:  From his grammar, syntax, and manner we can see in his original he is very, very well educated both in letters and in manners.   Mark's Greek is more working class.

Thus, Luke doesn't say directly that these women gave Jesus silver and gold.  It is too blunt, too crass, and indirect speech was key to understanding this culture and this language.  Yet, that is exactly what he meant.  This is a culture that is very different from ours.  This ὑπαρχόντων is a softer word for silver and gold, sort of like our "means" or "that which we have from how we make a living."  That one, good luck translating that one into Japanese.  You cannot do it literally, not exactly. 

So, Luke is telling us that yes, Jesus received donations of money for his ministry.  We have a choice.  We can throw Luke out, or take that phrase at the author's word.  Related to that, we have Matthew 10:8, where at the end of the phrase as traditionally carved out and translated, we have "freely give" as you have freely been given.  This is clearly stating, do not ask for a fee.

If we put Matthew 10 to Luke 8 into the flower mixer and turn the mixer on, what we can pour out later is a solution to this challenge.  Moreover, it is reflective of all of our relationships with Christians.  I can freely give from my means, after all if we read Luke 8, we can see that Jesus didn't say no, you can't give me money.  However, we can also see from Matthew 10, that we cannot say, "I'll come teach for you if you pay me."   In first Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and Acts, Paul is on that side of the coin.  1 Timothy, I must say, I cannot comment on it.  The teaching is too "hard" for here.

We do, however, have a good picture of 1st century Christian worship, and on how they dealt with money, pastors, and church funding.  It is a document that is held to be one of the oldest known Christian documents.  It is called the "Didache," the Teaching.  It is a 1st century Fellowship Handbook.  It was found behind a wall in the late 19th century in Istanbul.  Almost all of us agree that it is in 1st century Greek.  Chapter 12-13 cover those who charge money for teaching. 

This is a fair English translation.   https://davidmathiraj.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/didache-01.pdf

From chapter 12:
But if he desires to settle among you and has a trade, let him work for his bread. But if he has no trade, you should provide for him according to your own discretion. In no way should anyone live among you unemployed as a Christian. And if he is not willing to do this, he is making a trade of Christ. Beware of this kind of person.

Here is a key point.  This word, it has so much Greek seasoning that you can smell it.  See "trade of Christ"?  These Greek there is very, very unique.  Here goes:

Do you know the word Christ?

Do you know the word for "Emporium"?  (Lol!)

Now, a little back story, there are two words in Koine for market, agora and emporium.  What is the difference, and there is one.

The agora is the town market.  The emporium is the global trade center.  If you read a 1st century trader's manual, you will see the trade ports along the coast of Egypt, Africa, the Red Sea, and even India, marked not as "agora," but as "emporium."  

So, what our Christian brothers said about these types, they called them, χριστέμπρός, χριστ = Christ, and έμπρός = emporium-traders.

It has to have been the biggest insult in the Christian world.  That word is ... so derogatory that it is hilarious.  

Yes, we can give, but no, we cannot haggle the price.  Yes, we can receive gifts, but no, we cannot set fees. 

See the Didache, chapter 12, Matthew 10, Luke 8, Acts 20:34, I Cor 4:11-12, and 1 Thes 2:9-10.

---------------------------
One of the main differences, if not the difference, is that Armenian Christianity has a different "fine text."  You will never see one of us on a street corner poking holes in the clouds with our finger telling people what "God says in the Bible."  To most of us, that is blasphemy.  It is blasphemy because it assumes that we know the mind of God.  

What we can say, and do say, are things like this, "What the Spirit is saying to me through this is .... X."  I might also say something like "The Spirit teaches me to apply this passage in this way in my life."  Period, full stop.

The Armenian monks broke from Rome around 400 AD.  Books on theology will tell you that it was because of an argument about the essential nature of Christ.  That is the other side telling our side of the story.  It is part of the truth, but not the truth.

Around 400 AD Rome handed us a list of rules and beliefs, and said, "This is it, sign the papers."  We wouldn't sign, and we wouldn't sign because we do not know the mind of God, we only know what the Spirit shows us.  We wouldn't sign, and Rome had a fit.

My Christian friends often ask me, "Hey, come to our service and listen to pastor so-and-so."  What they don't know is we "can't do that."  When the pastor says, "God is telling us here that .... X."   What we can say is, "In my life, I feel that the Spirit is telling me to apply this to my life as X."

So, while I shared how I feel the Spirit leads me to apply the Didache chap 12, Matt 10, Luke 8, Acts 20:34, and 1 Thes 2:9-10, that is merely, and only, what I feel how the Spirit guides me to apply that in my life.  Is that the "Word" of God?  To answer that, I would have to assume that I can completely "know" the mind of God.  

I claim Matt 23, and thus I am but a mere Christian brother.  

God bless all of you.