Quick Question

[MbiaJc]

Peter mentions seeing the ressurected Christ as a criteria for appointing one to replace Judas. Paul in confirming his apostleship uses the fact that he had see the resurrected Christ. It was not just seeing Him during His life that qualified one to be an apostle.

You are confusing the issue.

What about Barnabas, Andronicus, Junias,Silasand Timothy? No mention of them seeing Jesus, but Paul confirms their Apoloship?

According to your definition I would be an Apostle because I have seen Jesus.

 

[MbiaJc]

Noted, you are not trained to speak on matters you speak on. Got it.

You made my day, Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa thanks.

I have already told you, scripture proof or no reply, no opinions, especially an inexperienced , with out knowledge or understanding.

 

[JacobHall86]

Actually I have theological training. Hermeneutics for one, which is something you greatly lack. As well as OT and NT word Studies.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Yes my dear sister I am. You are the only one that got it right.
BTW Just because Paul told Timothy that doesn't make him under thirty, does it? Timothy was not a Pastor, he was an Apostle. Which is the real reason Paul told him that, because an Apostle, at that time had the ultmate authority in the Church.

First the Church which has been around since the garden, is patterned after the Leviticus Priesthood.

The sons of Kohath were to start their priestly duties at the age of thirty Num. 4:3 David rolled the age back to twenty five at one time, however Jesus shows us that God meant for it to be at thirty. They served in their temple duties till age 50, at which time they could be appointed to serve on the Sanhedrin.

“You made my day, Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa thanks.

I have already told you, scripture proof or no reply, no opinions, especially an inexperienced , with out knowledge or understanding.”
MbiaJc

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”
Epictetus

 

[PETE_]

You are confusing the issue.

What about Barnabas, Andronicus, Junias,Silasand Timothy? No mention of them seeing Jesus, but Paul confirms their Apoloship?

It is true that there are a few passages in which persons other than the original twelve seem to be designated as apostles. But from the beginning of the Church until of late, no one has ventured on that account to regard Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and Titus, as apostles, in the official sense of the word. The word "deacon," means, a domestic, sometimes a secular officer, sometimes any minister of the Church; sometimes the lowest order of church officers. Because Paul and Peter call themselves "deacons," it does not prove that their office was to serve tables. In like manner the word "apostle" is sometimes used in its etymological sense "a messenger," sometimes in a religious sense, as we use the word "missionary;" and sometimes in its strict official sense, in which it is confined to the immediate messengers of Christ. Nothing can be plainer from the New Testament than that neither Silas nor Timothy, nor any other person, is ever spoken of as the official equal of the twelve Apostles. These constitute a class by themselves. They stand out in the New Testament as they do in all Church history, as the authoritative founders of the Christian Church, without peers or colleagues. http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=31795099#_ftn1
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=31795099#_ftnref1

According to your definition I would be an Apostle because I have seen Jesus.

This is an intresting claim. I have not heard anyone claim to have seen the resurrected Christ before now. Paul's experience was quite amazing compared to the original apostles chosen by Christ Himself.

 

[CooL_Genesis]

So you don't have any actual formal Theological training?

Can you name any man, from the Bible, who had "formal Theological training"? Can the Holy Spirit not "train" or teach men in the way?

My grandfather was called by God to be a pastor of a little church for years. That small church grew into a fairly good sized one because the Holy Spirit was there. It's easy for man to puff himself up because of "higher education", but in the grand scheme of things... all of your Bible knowledge without charity profiteth nothing. Without charity and humbleness, you will never completely understand the Word of the Almighty God.

Paul didn't have "formal training", yet he was a great teacher lead by the Spirit. Jesus didn't have formal training... nor did Moses, nor did Noah, nor did John the baptist... the list goes on and on. The one thing they did have that I've never seen as evidence in your posts was the Holy Spirit, they walked with the Almighty. They were humble and the fruit of the Spirit was evident in their lives.

Any man who claims to have "head knowledge" and has not "heart knowledge" of the Word of God knows very little. I can have education about the condition of a poor person and consider that I know ALL about their circumstances, but until I humble myself and get into the rut with them (charity), I know very little of their hardships.

In peace and grace,

-Genesis

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Can you name any man, from the Bible, who had "formal Theological training"? Can the Holy Spirit not "train" or teach men in the way?

My grandfather was called by God to be a pastor of a little church for years. That small church grew into a fairly good sized one because the Holy Spirit was there. It's easy for man to puff himself up because of "higher education", but in the grand scheme of things... all of your Bible knowledge without charity profiteth nothing. Without charity and humbleness, you will never completely understand the Word of the Almighty God.

Paul didn't have "formal training", yet he was a great teacher lead by the Spirit. Jesus didn't have formal training... nor did Moses, nor did Noah, nor did John the baptist... the list goes on and on. The one thing they did have that I've never seen as evidence in your posts was the Holy Spirit, they walked with the Almighty. They were humble and the fruit of the Spirit was evident in their lives.

Any man who claims to have "head knowledge" and has not "heart knowledge" of the Word of God knows very little. I can have education about the condition of a poor person and consider that I know ALL about their circumstances, but until I humble myself and get into the rut with them (charity), I know very little of their hardships.

In peace and grace,

-Genesis

I find it very sad that we all find it absolutely necessary for cardio-vascular surgeons to have an abundance of “head knowledge” but that many Christians do not hold their pastors to the same standard, as though their profession is less important and mere “heart knowledge” is good enough.

I don’t believe that very many Christians would place their confidence in a cardio-vascular surgeon who did not have an abundance of both “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge,” and I most certainly would not place my confidence in a pastor who did not have an abundance of both.

Luke, the gentleman who wrote more of the New Testament (by word count) than any other contributor, was a polylingual medical doctor who possessed a wealth of both Hellenistic and Semitic knowledge in addition to his knowledge of medicine.

The Apostle Paul was one of the most brilliant and well educated people of the day possessing a vast knowledge of the cultures and peoples to whom he brought the gospel of Christ and he applied this knowledge to both his preaching and the writing of his epistles.

The Apostle John was an exceptionally well educated polylingual business man who owned and operated a fleet of fishing boats and his father was a personal friend of the high priest indicating that he and his family were of the privileged, well-educated class.

Mark, the writer of the gospel that bears his name, was a polylingual son of a very wealthy woman also belonging to the privileged, well-educated class.

God does not pour medical knowledge into the heads of those whom He calls to be cardio-vascular surgeons, and he does not pour Biblical, linguistic, cultural, social, or any other kind of knowledge into the heads of those whom He calls to be pastors. Rather he blesses both with the opportunity to get the necessary education. If the former bypasses his call to get an education, he is sent to prison for practicing medicine without a license; if the latter bypasses his call to get an education, much too often the congregation looks the other way.

The call to be a cardio-vascular surgeon necessarily includes the call to an outstanding education; the call to be a pastor, a man who is responsible for the very hearts and souls of the members of his congregation and holds their eternal destiny in his hands, also necessarily includes the call to an outstanding education. When a man is called be become a cardio-vascular surgeon he does not run out and buy a set of scalpels—he first learns his profession. I expect nothing less from a pastor—indeed, I expect very much more!

 

[PETE_]

I agree that pastors should be educated(we all should be seeking more knowledge), but there are more ways to get education than going to school. My father knows more about the Bible than most pastors I know. But he reads and studies 20-30 hours a week, and has been doing so for the last 40 years. Not having a degree from such and such college or seminary does not in itself mean that one is uneducated.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I agree that pastors should be educated(we all should be seeking more knowledge), but there are more ways to get education than going to school. My father knows more about the Bible than most pastors I know. But he reads and studies 20-30 hours a week, and has been doing so for the last 40 years. Not having a degree from such and such college or seminary does not in itself mean that one is uneducated.

There are many advantages for a pastor in getting an outstanding university education followed by an outstanding seminary education, especially when both are gotten at the very prestigious, large old schools that have the money to hire the best qualified professors, that have the largest and best libraries, and that attract the brightest students with whom one is able to not only interact intellectually but socially, developing lasting friendships with other men who have an insatiable thirst for the things of God.

Such a fine education, however, is not available to all who are called to be pastors, and those to whom it is not available have the responsibility before God to get a good education wherever they can get it. Personally, I have just as much respect for the “less privileged” pastor who learned the Biblical languages at home and has familiarized himself with the works of the best scholars of both the past and the present as I do for a pastor who has earned multiple doctorates from the finest institutions.

 

[CooL_Genesis]

My point was that "formal Theological training" was not neccessary and brother Jacob was puffing himself up because he has been so blessed with it. I'm all for the advancement of one's education, however... to abuse that blessing with a boast is well... childish and shows little if any maturity.

Some of the men of the Bible were indeed educated. But most, if you look closely, were simple... called by Jesus because their faith was not in men, but in God and in the things that Jesus said, having no "formal theological training". How many of the apostles were fishermen?

I would fear a pastor who didn't know the love of Jesus Christ in his heart. He could have all of the philosophical, hermeneutical, theological, etc., etc. training in the world and without charity and compassion or any fruits of the Spirit... he'd be leading the lost to the egde of the cliff. Pastors that have the heart knowledge of Christ are passionate for His word and for winning souls for the Glory of God. They keep their flocks well tended and well fed. Those who simply have head knowledge put the flock to sleep.

In peace and grace,

-Genesis

 

[JuJube]

Now this is just a thought. Lk.2:48-51
When Jesus was 13 and teaching in the temple and Mary and Joseph couldn't find Him, they came back and MARY asked Him,"Son, why have you treated us this way........?"' And he then asked why were they looking for Him cause He was in His Father's house.(paraphrased) It then says that He continued with them in SUBJECTION. To me right there is key. Jesus had to be obedient. He also was the eldest son and had responsibilities. We also don't know when Joseph was no longer around, so Jesus was taking care of family. Jesus was baptised and was teaching, but the wedding in Cana was where I believe Mary relieved Him of those responsibilities.It was His first miracle.When Mary asked Jesus to do something about the wine, He told His mother that His time was not yet, then she told them to get the water ready...because it was. I believe His ministry started when Mary let Him go. He just happened to be around thirty...or maybe that is the age.

 

[PETE_]

Now this is just a thought. Lk.2:48-51
When Jesus was 13 and teaching in the temple and Mary and Joseph couldn't find Him, they came back and MARY asked Him,"Son, why have you treated us this way........?"' And he then asked why were they looking for Him cause He was in His Father's house.(paraphrased) It then says that He continued with them in SUBJECTION. To me right there is key. Jesus had to be obedient. He also was the eldest son and had responsibilities. We also don't know when Joseph was no longer around, so Jesus was taking care of family. Jesus was baptised and was teaching, but the wedding in Cana was where I believe Mary relieved Him of those responsibilities.It was His first miracle.When Mary asked Jesus to do something about the wine, He told His mother that His time was not yet, then she told them to get the water ready...because it was. I believe His ministry started when Mary let Him go. He just happened to be around thirty...or maybe that is the age.

Saying that Jesus was teaching in the temple at 13 is a bit of a stretch.

 

[JuJube]

Saying that Jesus was teaching in the temple at 13 is a bit of a stretch.

Ooops, Lk.2:42 he was 12. Sorry.

 

[JuJube]

Ooops, Lk.2:42 he was 12. Sorry.

And yes I know He was asking questions and answering them....but I'm sure they were learning a lot from Him.

 

[PETE_]

Ooops, Lk.2:42 he was 12. Sorry.

46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=31816648#_ftn1


That He was "teaching" is the stretch.http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=31816648#_ftnref1

 

[JacobHall86]

My point was that "formal Theological training" was not neccessary and brother Jacob was puffing himself up because he has been so blessed with it. I'm all for the advancement of one's education, however... to abuse that blessing with a boast is well... childish and shows little if any maturity.

Dont call me brother, this isnt a Baptist meet and greet, and I was not puffing myself up. If some old guy who hates young people on an internet forum thinks im a genious or not doesnt really matter to me.

Boasting would be taking the things he said and showing him where he was wrong.

Paul was educated BTW, to answer your question. I wanted to know where he studied the principles of Hermeneutics and other vital Word Study policies to speak on matters. Because if he hasnt than he is telling us what others ahve told him, which is exactly what he is accusing others of doing.

 

[PETE_]

And yes I know He was asking questions and answering them....but I'm sure they were learning a lot from Him.

That He understood alot for a 13 year old is obvious. But He was not presenting new information to them. There is no indication they were learning from Him at this time.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

My point was that "formal Theological training" was not neccessary and brother Jacob was puffing himself up because he has been so blessed with it. I'm all for the advancement of one's education, however... to abuse that blessing with a boast is well... childish and shows little if any maturity.

Some of the men of the Bible were indeed educated. But most, if you look closely, were simple... called by Jesus because their faith was not in men, but in God and in the things that Jesus said, having no "formal theological training". How many of the apostles were fishermen?

I would fear a pastor who didn't know the love of Jesus Christ in his heart. He could have all of the philosophical, hermeneutical, theological, etc., etc. training in the world and without charity and compassion or any fruits of the Spirit... he'd be leading the lost to the egde of the cliff. Pastors that have the heart knowledge of Christ are passionate for His word and for winning souls for the Glory of God. They keep their flocks well tended and well fed. Those who simply have head knowledge put the flock to sleep.

In peace and grace,

-Genesis

Over the years I have learned that God is not so much concerned with the details of one’s education or doctrines as He is concerned with a man’s personal holiness before Him and his congregation. God has many attributes, but He has one attribute that trumps all the others—and that attribute is absolute holiness. And He expects nothing less of a man than to have clean hands and a pure heart.

Psalm 24:3. Who may ascend into the hill of the LORD? And who may stand in His holy place?
4. He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood And has not sworn deceitfully.
5. He shall receive a blessing from the LORD And righteousness from the God of his salvation. (NASB, 1995)

A pastor, however, who has clean hands and a pure heart but an empty head has climbed into the driver’s seat when he belongs in a child’s safety-restraint seat. I have personally known too many pastors who did not have enough knowledge of the Bible to qualify them for a learner’s permit.

As for being puffed up as a consequence of much learning, that is hogwash! I am not an uneducated man, but when I stroll past the miles upon miles of bookshelves full of books in a large university library I am very deeply humbled by the tiny fraction of the knowledge therein that I possess in my own head. And over the years as I continued my education, the more that learned, the more that I realized how little of the whole I knew. Indeed, an extensive education in the finest schools is a VERY humbling experience. The people who I find to be puffed up are those persons who don’t have enough education to realize how very little they know!

 

[JuJube]

And yes I know He was asking questions and answering them....but I'm sure they were learning a lot from Him.

Ok, I agree...but He was in the temple.., about His Fathers business.

 

[IisJustMe]

That He understood alot for a 13 year old is obvious. But He was not presenting new information to them. There is no indication they were learning from Him at this time.

Did you read the same verse I read? It's Luke 2:49, and it indicates he was both asking, and answering. If they were amazed at His answers, as the verse indicates, it is not only because they were surprised at His learning, but also that they were hearing things they had not previously considered, or thought of in the context of the discussion. You may deny that all you wish, but it will not change the truth, that Him who gave them the Law now stood among them, and if you think you would not learn at the feet of Christ, you must ask yourself in Whom it is (or perhaps "whom") you believe.