The double portion you speak of in the greek.. is where we get our english name Honorarium. I have no problem taking an offering for someone speaking to defray costs, or to have a set fee-for service pay method.. but paying someone a salary and benefits is not the biblical model. And Paul specifically, encouraged all those in the ministry to model after him.. work in the secular world for your financial needs so as not to be a burden on the church and accept assistance when it isn't a burden.
I don't disagree. My impression was that you opposed any form of consistent remuneration for those serving the Body in leadership.
And no, Early Churches did not have dedicated buildings.. the new Christians were more interested in helping one another rather than building edifices. Also, building buildings would fly in the face of how God historically wanted buildings in his name built. We are not free to design our own.
No.
The Church at Corinth had an edifice. A building. Others likely did, too.
I think that even God can use horribly corrupt things for noble purposes.
Agreed. (As long as we're not talking about Aristotelian nobleness.)
and that the standards for the canon of scripture are very reasonable.
There's still a bit of an elephant in the room here.
Although I believe the 3 are 1, I do not think its something that human philosophers and/or scholars should try and elaborate on. The Holy Spirit inspired what we need to know and we should honor him by taking him as his word.
Even that allegely "simple" approach requires great scholarship, whether led of the Spirit or by man's own endeavor. Otherwise, it's usually rampant vague but adamant conceptualism.
Sacraments are not Christian... the term is used no where in the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Sacraments are a Latin term that were prevalent in the religion that ruled Rome prior to Christianity. If you do your research, you would see that the Romanist practice of Sacraments is pretty much identical to Mithraism.
Sacrament simply indicates the means of God distributing His grace in a physical sense. It's not a voodoo type practice. It's not Mithraism. That's a reach.
The Word is a sacrament. Do you not consider the Word to be the means of God administering His grace to us physically?
Romanism is nothing more than the harmonization of scriptures with existing Prechristian Roman sensibilities and religious practices.
This sounds oddly like modern retrospective rather than actuality.
Christianity started as a sect of Judiasm, yet it has done pretty much everything in its power to de-Jew its scripture and practices... it even persecuted the Jews.
As much as there was Hellenism, there was still plenty of Judaism. This is quite a generalization.
Modern Protestantism is crazy with Hyper-Pseudo-Judaism. Biblical Judaism is extinct. All that remains is Rabbinic Pharisaic Talmudism.
Racism is a human thing, not a Christian thing. Pro-race is just as racist as anti-race.
Think about it. Even Jesus was not his name.. it was more like Joshua... they changed the names for the apostles, name places and pretty much everything to make it more appealing to the Romans.
A linguistic adaptation of a name is not a change. There is not need to refer to Theanthropos in Jewish parlance as Yeshuah. That's a fallacy. It's not an incantation.
I have no problem with being termed Ecclesial Deists, because it assigns responsibility to God.. not the imaginings of the Religious Mafia in Rome.
I don't, either. But an apologetic against it is more important than you contend.
As for the Religious Mafia, I think it important to distinguish between the hierarchial corruption and the general Roman pewsitters.
I believe that God runs and shepherds his people himself.. and he doesn't need a physical institution to do that for him... especially run out of the capital of his sworn enemy that is under a perpetual curse for its invasion/occupation of Israel.
There's no perpetual curse. Israel is not an entity an longer.
There's no doubt God shephers His people Himself in/through Christ alone without a Vicar. There is always a visible Church. It need not be a Church prohibited from meeting in buildings, though to erect monuments of stone CAN be (and much too often IS) idolatry in various forms.
But idolatry has many forms, and I've not seen many exempt from it in their own lives.
Yours is not much of an anti-Roman apologetic. It's more just blanket condemnation and unfounded or partially founded opinion. Don't go on the debate circuit.