The Admiration of Education

[Free]

The ‘ministers’, ‘priests’ and ‘bishops’ and ‘archbishops’ who write the books so beloved and respected by far too many make a living from their positions, and from the proceeds of the books they write – and the more popular the books, the more money they make.

[Here’s NT Wright, with some eye-opening remarks. “…the claim is made that the creator of the entire universe has chosen to live uniquely on a small ridge called Mount Zion, near the eastern edge of the Judean hill-country. The sheer absurdity of this claim, from the standpoint of any other worldview (not least that of Enlightenment philosophy), is staggering.”

Here is the full quote:

"We [must not] underestimate the enormity of the claim [made by the Jews]. Again and again in the Pentateuch, the psalms, the prophets, and the subsequent writings which derive from them, the claim is made that the creator of the entire universe has chosen to live uniquely on a small ridge called Mount Zion, near the eastern edge of the Judean hill-country. The sheer absurdity of this claim, from the standpoint of any other worldview (not least that of Enlightenment philosophy), is staggering. The fact that Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Egypt again, Syria and now Rome had made explicit mockery of the idea did not shake this conviction, but only intensified it. This was what Jewish monotheism looked like on the ground." http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/N.+T.+Wright/1/index.html

Not a thing wrong with that. You have taken it out of context and therefore don't understand it, which is not at all surprising.

He also wrote that if one did not subscribe to the Enlightenment philosophy with its rejection of the bodily resurrection of Christ, then progress in the church (of England, one supposes) was unlikely if not impossible.]

Please give a source for this. Having read N. T. Wright fairly extensively, I have only read his full acceptance of the physical resurrection of Jesus, much unlike JWs with whom you have so much theology in common.

I applaud his frankness, but given such attitudes, what excuse do we offer to bother reading these people? We applaud Wright who has ‘re-discovered’ doctrines which the veriest Christian babe could have informed him about. The applause seems folly to me – why do we not instead applaud the babe?

And yet you have not shown anything to be wrong.

 

[Free]

Part 3 The Financial Considerations

We seem unaware of the financial considerations that abound in the theological arena. Book sales are at the forefront, and translations of the Bible are number one in these stakes.

The Bible is the best selling book on the planet, and the publishing houses are only too well aware of that fact, and seize every opportunity to cash in. Hence the vast numbers of ‘translations’ and ‘versions’ now available.

I marvel at the fact that there are so many ‘professional bible translators’ that there is at least one journal dedicated to this subject.

What are they doing, I ask myself? Is there so much work left for them to do? And who pays them? And why? What are they still ‘translating’, given the sheer volume of translations now extant and which have translated every word of the Bible n times over and over?

I am extremely grateful for the work of the textual scholars, the ‘lower critics’, who have by now ascertained with about 99.999% accuracy the exact texts of the NT and the OT.

But that work is now done – and very well, too, as far as I, with my limited acquaintance can tell. A glance at the critical apparatus of Souter’s Novum Testamentum Graece, published years ago, is enough to send one into fits of admiration or worse. The question is, if all that data existed then, what is left to be done today? How much more textual accuracy can emerge now?

As for the higher critics, the main occupants of the chairs of learning in the theology departments, I have little but contempt.

They dissect, brutalise, and destroy so much of the obvious meanings and authority of the text, that I wonder just how applicable Deut. 8 is to such people. Yet, they are paid to do their destructive work, and they do it well, if they value their positions and tenure.

As pieces of manuscripts are found, and many have been since Souter’s Novum Testamentum Graece was first published, they need to be translated and checked against all that exists to see if anything needs revision. So no, the work is not done. We don't have the autographs so this is what must be done to verify what we have.

 

[Free]

Since these are the professors and lecturers in the departments concerned, then what of the graduates of those departments, and the books they write? Should we not be deeply careful to avoid them and their writings like the flu of swine?

Their productions can only destroy, diminish, reduce, dilute the respect and affection we have for the Word of God, especially where the young in the faith are concerned: because they have not the armaments required to resist these onslaughts.

The apostle Paul, that learned scholar of Gamaliel, had to jettison his learning when he came to Christ. “I count it all but dung” he said. Every interpretation he held about the messianic prophecies had to be abandoned wholesale. And he did it. He had plenty to say about this later on too:

1 Cor.1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

[Which ‘wise’ is he referring to here? Very clearly, the ‘scholars’ of the day. There weren’t too many ‘scientists’ around. And his comment? Their ‘wisdom is to be destroyed’].

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

[Here are the ‘scholars and debaters’ again. What’s going to happen to them? They are going to be ‘destroyed’, and have already been made ‘foolish’.

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

[The scholars etc. did not ‘know God’ despite their smartness. They had memorized whole blocks of scripture, but didn’t know a word of its real meaning. Just so today. The professors and lecturers probably know the text with a minuteness that would put us to shame – but don’t have a clue about the truth.]

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

That this is a hugely pointed group of statements which can be aimed directly at our establishments of today, cannot be doubted.


A rough paraphrase would be: Avoid them like the plague.

You have completely misunderstood and misconstrued what Paul is saying, and I am not one bit surprised. Suffice it to say that there is not one thing in there that goes against being a biblical scholar or theologian. The fact that you don't recognize the need for such persons today speaks volumes.

 

[Free]

I was going to address more but I just can't go on with it. Your reasoning on the matter is just poor and fallacious, and your posts display an incredible amount of ignorance regarding the need for biblical scholars and theologians in this day and age.

What you really need to do is post your reasons in point form to make it easy for discussion. It may help this thread progress.

 

[Asyncritus]

Here is the full quote:

"We [must not] underestimate the enormity of the claim [made by the Jews]. Again and again in the Pentateuch, the psalms, the prophets, and the subsequent writings which derive from them, the claim is made that the creator of the entire universe has chosen to live uniquely on a small ridge called Mount Zion, near the eastern edge of the Judean hill-country. The sheer absurdity of this claim, from the standpoint of any other worldview (not least that of Enlightenment philosophy), is staggering. The fact that Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Egypt again, Syria and now Rome had made explicit mockery of the idea did not shake this conviction, but only intensified it. This was what Jewish monotheism looked like on the ground." http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/N. T. Wright/1/index.html

Not a thing wrong with that. You have taken it out of context and therefore don't understand it, which is not at all surprising.

Are you suggesting that this is not Wright's view?

Please give a source for this. Having read N. T. Wright fairly extensively, I have only read his full acceptance of the physical resurrection of Jesus, much unlike JWs with whom you have so much theology in common.

I regret that I cannot find his article. It stands out in my mind because it was the very first thing I read that he wrote, and I was completely startled by it. I'll keep looking.

Whether he believes in the resurrection or not, I cannot say - but you seem to think that he does.

 

[Asyncritus]

I was going to address more but I just can't go on with it. Your reasoning on the matter is just poor and fallacious, and your posts display an incredible amount of ignorance regarding the need for biblical scholars and theologians in this day and age.

What you really need to do is post your reasons in point form to make it easy for discussion. It may help this thread progress.

Perhaps you would like to put your POV in point form, and your reasons?

 

[Asyncritus]

You have completely misunderstood and misconstrued what Paul is saying, and I am not one bit surprised. Suffice it to say that there is not one thing in there that goes against being a biblical scholar or theologian. The fact that you don't recognize the need for such persons today speaks volumes.

This is your favourite refuge when you haven't anything constructive to add.

You might like to show how Paul's condemnation of these 'theologians' of his day was effectively saying 'let's have more of them'. I'll be interested to hear.

 

[Asyncritus]

As pieces of manuscripts are found, and many have been since Souter’s Novum Testamentum Graece was first published, they need to be translated and checked against all that exists to see if anything needs revision. So no, the work is not done. We don't have the autographs so this is what must be done to verify what we have.

Since we have 99.99% of the original texts (in the form of the manuscripts and fragments), it seems very silly to keep 'translating' the 0.001% that may (or may not) show up.

Why do it?

 

[Asyncritus]

Not sure what you're saying and what your point is.

Keep reading, and you'll surely find out.

 

[Asyncritus]

And? There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a living from theology:

1 Cor 9:4-14, 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? 8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (ESV)

1 Tim 5:17-18, 17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages." (ESV)

They should live off the gospel, ie on donations from the brethren and sisters.

I see nothing about huge salaries, limousines, mansions, glass cathedrals, palaces, Swiss guards, and all the fearfully expensive trappings of the priesthood (who are the source of the theologians). Where did you get that idea from?

If your favourite theologian Wright ever becomes the archbishop of Canterbury, he'll be living in Lambeth Palace(!!!!!), with robes costing fortunes, with paintings and gewgaws worth millions, land worth even more and so forth.

Shouldn't he get off his backside and get out there among the poor of the Congo or Zimbabwe or Bombay? And preach the gospel to those lying by the wayside, diseased, flea-ridden, and starving to death?

What labour deserves such wages? Writing a few books, adding to the already existing torrent of verbiage?

Let's not even get on to the pope and the Vatican, about this matter.

No Free, even your starry-eyed view of the indefensible can't talk your way out of this, and I recommend you give it up.

 

[Asyncritus]

Not sure what your point is here either.

The point is simple.

It is the theologically untrained who did the greatest work of Christianity in the 1stC. Paul chucked away his qualifications.

The opposition was almost entirely from the theologians.

That's a good reason to be against them, I think.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Are you suggesting that this is not Wright's view?




I regret that I cannot find his article. It stands out in my mind because it was the very first thing I read that he wrote, and I was completely startled by it. I'll keep looking.

Whether he believes in the resurrection or not, I cannot say - but you seem to think that he does.

I've read his great work, The Resurrection of the Son of God, where he gives perhaps the best argument ever for the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Check your facts before you blatantly misrepresent one of the great teachers of the faith.

Something that is useful when it comes to an education is that you learn to SOURCE your works. Something your posts are in dire need of.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

They should live off the gospel, ie on donations from the brethren and sisters.

I see nothing about huge salaries, limousines, mansions, glass cathedrals, palaces, Swiss guards, and all the fearfully expensive trappings of the priesthood (who are the source of the theologians). Where did you get that idea from?

If your favourite theologian Wright ever becomes the archbishop of Canterbury, he'll be living in Lambeth Palace(!!!!!), with robes costing fortunes, with paintings and gewgaws worth millions, land worth even more and so forth.

Shouldn't he get off his backside and get out there among the poor of the Congo or Zimbabwe or Bombay? And preach the gospel to those lying by the wayside, diseased, flea-ridden, and starving to death?

What labour deserves such wages? Writing a few books, adding to the already existing torrent of verbiage?

Let's not even get on to the pope and the Vatican, about this matter.

No Free, even your starry-eyed view of the indefensible can't talk your way out of this, and I recommend you give it up.

Last time I checked, NT Wright isn't the Archbishop of Cantebury, nor is he likely to fulfill that role in the future. Why are you maligning him specifically, when you have demonstrated thus far that you know nothing but falsehoods about him?

Rather odd..

 

[jasoncran]

to be fair its best to at least read the man's book then one is able to honestly criticize his works.

 

[Asyncritus]

I've read his great work, The Resurrection of the Son of God, where he gives perhaps the best argument ever for the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Check your facts before you blatantly misrepresent one of the great teachers of the faith.

Something that is useful when it comes to an education is that you learn to SOURCE your works. Something your posts are in dire need of.

You should learn that you need to read what is actually being said before criticising.

You said he gives perhaps the best argument ever for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How many other arguments have you read, before making this wild statement? One reviewer of the book said that it could have been written in half the space.

I don't know if he does or does not believe in the resurrection. I do know that he said that in order to progress in the 'church' one had to subscribe to the Enlightenment philosophy which rejected the resurrection of Christ.

Since he has progressed in the church, I presume he subscribes to that philosophy. Perhaps you or Free could enlighten us on the point.

I have read that he opposes the concept of heaven-going. Did you know that? And if that is true, do you still agree that he is "one of the great teachers of the faith"? You like quotes? Here:

Much of "traditional" Christianity gives the impression that God has these rather arbitrary rules about how you have to behave, and if you disobey them you go to hell, rather than to heaven. What the New Testament really says is God wants you to be a renewed human being helping him to renew his creation, and his resurrection was the opening bell. And when he returns to fulfil the plan, you won't be going up there to him, he'll be coming down here.

Read more: Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop - TIME http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html#ixzz2rESfjwaU

This is elementary stuff to any Bible student worth his salt. I knew that since I was 16! Here he is, 're-discovering' that elementary scriptural truth.

But my point is not about Wright.

It is about the class called 'theologians'. That class of people who prefer to sit in their towers writing about the Bible and making money from it, instead of being self-employed, like Paul, and getting out there and preaching to the poor, as Jesus did, and His apostles did too.

And what a torrent of garbage has been written by said theologians! The odd useful one is like a jewel in a dung heap - very, very rare.

They have drunk deeply from the higher critical troughs, either directly or indirectly (meaning via their teachers at university or seminary) - and a simple and direct proof of that fact is that you will be hard put to find one such 'scholar' who believes that the gospels were written before AD70. Almost with one voice they agree that anything >AD70 is acceptable.

And why? Because they cannot bring themselves to believe that Jesus could have spoken the Olivet prophecy, so clear and precise are His predictions. Therefore that had to be written after AD70!!!!

That, to me, is enough to condemn them all - because at the root of their belief on the matter, is the premise that prophecy is not possible. And that is a disgrace to the Word of God and its Author, the Lord God Almighty.

And that is what they have learned from their higher critical brethren, and is what they will purvey, directly or indirectly.

And the 'little ones' , the sheep of the flock, will be misled appallingly.

 

[Asyncritus]

Did you read what I actually said?

I said that IF HE BECOMES Archbishop of Canterbury then he will live in Lambeth Palace.

But whether he does or not, the fact it that the A.o.C, whoever he is, is living in Lambeth PALACE right now, and was 'crowned' as A.o.C!

Some Christian humility and poverty of spirit there!

 

[Jesse Stone]

Asyncritus

Pastors and Priests, Theologians and Seminary professors, Missionaries and Musicians, whatever else that is professional, is just that in Christianity. Professionals. Paid Professionals. I gave up awhile back trying to convince Christians that there is something wrong with a system that isn't any different than any other system in the world. A system that proves more the hand of man than the hand of God. They can't see it when they are a part of it.

I know Christians who see it. But really don't care enough to take the time you have to try to rebut it. They feel they have better things to do, like work and care for their families, attend Church once or twice a week, read their Bibles, and go fishin. They realize they can't change human nature and leave it in the hands of the God they think can.

God hasn't chosen to change anything in all this time. It's been the way it is since before the Council of Nicaea. Why do you suppose that is? It can only be one of two reasons. Either God isn't there to change anything and we humans really are here on our own. Or it's in the plan of God to be that way, and only God knows why. Arguing hasn't changed anything thus far. Things just keep on truckin the way they always have. There are probably people, like those mentioned by Peter, who use it as an excuse to not give any consideration to the possibility of a future that extends beyond what is only apparent. But that too is part of human nature.

In the end whether it's right of wrong, will be determined by God himself. Free may be right and I'm a total idiot who understands nothing about what the Bible is saying. But I don't think so. It seems to me it is God who rewards and punishes in the end. And us feeling bad about the way things are when obviously God does not is just spinning our wheels. Why should we be concerned about something that God isn't concerned about? Any reason why we should do that? Spin our wheels going nowhere? Or is it just a way to get something off our chest? That's really just blabbering to oneself really. Those who should hear won't and those who would don't need it.

Paid professionals and those who want them certainly don't need our help. They've already got what they want. To my mind they've got what they deserve. As Jesus put it, they have their reward. Isn't it more reasonable to help someone who needs it? Instead of arguing for a lost cause, try helping out a child in a dysfunctional family sometime. Just by being their friend. Someone they can talk to if they need it. Someone who will give them a bite to eat when they need it. I find that much more challenging and rewarding then arguing for a cause that even God hasn't cared about for a millennia and a half. And you would be surprised at how much more influential that makes you. Not to all of them mind you. But to some of them who never forget how you helped them through a rough time.

Don't have to preach at them. Just make sure they know what it means to have an open mind, and not be fooled by extremists. Whether extremists who say people who believe in God are sick, insane or a virus among the human race. Or whether they say that if you don't believe exactly what they believe you'll go to hell.

The God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is said to be compassionate, gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy. That he doesn't want anyone to perish. Extremist Christians only know of a God who might treat them as they deserve. And he will treat the closed minded according to their own closed mind by leaving them to their own devices. Just as he has left those who follow Christianity instead of Christ. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can open a closed mind through much speaking. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You should learn that you need to read what is actually being said before criticising.

Funny, I could say the same thing about you with regards to N.T. Wright's works, which you obviously haven't read any.

You said he gives perhaps the best argument ever for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How many other arguments have you read, before making this wild statement?

Plenty, and not to detract the others I have heard, they just don't give you as good of a perspective of the historical context as N.T. Wright does.

One reviewer of the book said that it could have been written in half the space.

One person said it (no link) so it must be true right?....

I don't know if he does or does not believe in the resurrection.

I do, and I read hundreds of pages where he defended his belief in the Resurrection of the Son of God, where he argues for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Go educate yourself, it's easy to find writings of his on the resurrection.

I do know that he said that in order to progress in the 'church' one had to subscribe to the Enlightenment philosophy which rejected the resurrection of Christ.

You know no such thing, and if you ever did read such a statement from him then it was taken out of context. I have searched high and low for this quote and have found nothing. Retract this falsehood.

Since he has progressed in the church, I presume he subscribes to that philosophy.

You presume falsely, he first of all did not make that statement. (you won't be able to find a quote that doesn't exist) He has progressed in the Church because of his knowledge and wisdom as a New Testament Scholar.

I have read that he opposes the concept of heaven-going. Did you know that? And if that is true, do you still agree that he is "one of the great teachers of the faith"? You like quotes? Here:

LOL, okay you really don't understand him do you.

Let's examine his quote:

Much of "traditional" Christianity gives the impression that God has these rather arbitrary rules about how you have to behave, and if you disobey them you go to hell, rather than to heaven. What the New Testament really says is God wants you to be a renewed human being helping him to renew his creation, and his resurrection was the opening bell. And when he returns to fulfil the plan, you won't be going up there to him, he'll be coming down here.

What could Wright mean by him coming down here?

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. Revelation 21:1-3

He is talking about how God's intention is to restore creation, not throw it away and take people to some kind of amorphous heaven. The combination of heaven and earth, where God descends with the city of new Jerusalem to be with mankind forever. This is New Testament theology 101, and N.T. Wright highlights this clear biblical teaching often in his writings. Such as a great book of his called Surprised by Hope, it's a good read.

This is elementary stuff to any Bible student worth his salt. I knew that since I was 16! Here he is, 're-discovering' that elementary scriptural truth.

You don't know as much as you think you do... as has been made apparent in this thread.

But my point is not about Wright.

It is about the class called 'theologians'. That class of people who prefer to sit in their towers writing about the Bible and making money from it, instead of being self-employed, like Paul, and getting out there and preaching to the poor, as Jesus did, and His apostles did too.

They function as TEACHERS of the faith, which God also gave to the Church. Paul received monetary support from the Philippians on occasion, and Paul also argues for the right of their leaders to live off of the gospel, but he personally did not use that right because of his mission to advance the gospel.

These people aren't rich by any means, and also teach at college's for which they receive compensation. Your problem with them is unbiblical, and ill placed.

And what a torrent of garbage has been written by said theologians! The odd useful one is like a jewel in a dung heap - very, very rare.

Your opinion is noted.

They have drunk deeply from the higher critical troughs, either directly or indirectly (meaning via their teachers at university or seminary) - and a simple and direct proof of that fact is that you will be hard put to find one such 'scholar' who believes that the gospels were written before AD70. Almost with one voice they agree that anything >AD70 is acceptable.

Your gross generalizations are a bit concerning..

And why? Because they cannot bring themselves to believe that Jesus could have spoken the Olivet prophecy, so clear and precise are His predictions. Therefore that had to be written after AD70!!!!

Really!? lol Okay there...

That, to me, is enough to condemn them all - because at the root of their belief on the matter, is the premise that prophecy is not possible.

What!?! Apparently you are only concerned about liberal scholars. I know plenty of Biblical scholars who accept that prophecy is possible. What nonsense.

And that is what they have learned from their higher critical brethren, and is what they will purvey, directly or indirectly.

And the 'little ones' , the sheep of the flock, will be misled appallingly.

Well, I'm here to make sure that people aren't misled by your lies and false accusations.

 

[Free]

Asyncritus

Pastors and Priests, Theologians and Seminary professors, Missionaries and Musicians, whatever else that is professional, is just that in Christianity. Professionals. Paid Professionals. I gave up awhile back trying to convince Christians that there is something wrong with a system that isn't any different than any other system in the world. A system that proves more the hand of man than the hand of God. They can't see it when they are a part of it.

And? Just what exactly is the problem with "paid professionals"? Are they to do these things for free? Notice the Scriptures I already posted for Asyncritus:

1 Cor 9:4-14, 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? 8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (ESV)

1 Tim 5:17-18, 17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages." (ESV)

Paul is very clearly saying that it is right that "those who proclaim the gospel," as well as elders, be compensated enough to make a living. As for theologians and scholars, so what? It's academia. We could use the same argument to then say that all engineering professors shouldn't be paid; that there is something wrong with them being a "paid professional." As for missionaries, do you realize how little money they actually get? They're typically not much better off then the very people they are serving. And what about musicians?

Sorry but you don't have an argument here.

Free may be right and I'm a total idiot who understands nothing about what the Bible is saying. But I don't think so

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never said that nor implied it. You are understandably struggling with Scripture, as every single Christian does. The problem is that you seem to not want to use all of the God-given means in your quest to understand.

As an engineer (despite being retired), I hold you to a higher standard than most. You really should have the reasoning to be able to think clearly through these issues and see the irrationality of the arguments presented in the opening posts of this thread--they could have been written by Gail Riplinger.

It seems to me it is God who rewards and punishes in the end. And us feeling bad about the way things are when obviously God does not is just spinning our wheels. Why should we be concerned about something that God isn't concerned about? Any reason why we should do that? Spin our wheels going nowhere? Or is it just a way to get something off our chest? That's really just blabbering to oneself really. Those who should hear won't and those who would don't need it.

Are you suggesting that those who disagree with you are "those who should hear" and those who happen to agree with you are "those who...don't need it"? Do you see how spiritually proud and arrogant that would make you sound?

Paid professionals and those who want them certainly don't need our help. They've already got what they want. To my mind they've got what they deserve. As Jesus put it, they have their reward.

And, as I have pointed out previously, the same can be said about you and Asyncritus. Not only do you largely reject scholars and theologians, which is an entirely unbiblical and irrational position, you then set yourselves up as judges of them and then do the very same things that you accuse them of doing.

Don't have to preach at them. Just make sure they know what it means to have an open mind, and not be fooled by extremists. Whether extremists who say people who believe in God are sick, insane or a virus among the human race. Or whether they say that if you don't believe exactly what they believe you'll go to hell.

Who are you referring to as "extremists"?

The God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is said to be compassionate, gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy. That he doesn't want anyone to perish.

That is true, and yet that same God is also judge, and has judged many to their utter ruin and destruction. There are numerous passages on this, both in the OT and NT.

Extremist Christians only know of a God who might treat them as they deserve. And he will treat the closed minded according to their own closed mind by leaving them to their own devices. Just as he has left those who follow Christianity instead of Christ. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can open a closed mind through much speaking. It doesn't work that way.

And yet by rejecting theologians and scholars, are you and Asyncritus not being more closed-minded then most? You are right and everyone else is wrong.

Please understand, I am only saying these things to get you to think through the issues thoroughly. If I have misunderstood something you said, please let me know.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Did you read what I actually said?

I did, which is why I added that he "likely isn't going to be in the future," with regards to him possibly becoming the Archbishop of Cantebury.

I said that IF HE BECOMES Archbishop of Canterbury then he will live in Lambeth Palace.

And if I become President of the United States I'll live in the White House... Hypotheticals are pointless if they almost entirely unlikely. N.T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham, which happens to the last position the current Archbishop of Cantebury held, however, Wright since then and has been far more involved with this scholarly endeavors and seems to be his focus from here on out. It is highly unlikely that he will ever become the Archbishop of Cantebury, and maligning him by making a hypothetical that is highly unlikely is not an intelligent argument.

Besides, do you even know the history of Lambeth Palace? It's not as if it's state of the art? It was built hundreds of years ago, when the culture of the Church was far different than it was now, and the Anglican Church has simply chosen to hold on to that tradition. No one would argue that the Archbishop of Cantebury is lavishly wealthy, that's just absurd.

But whether he does or not, the fact it that the A.o.C, whoever he is, is living in Lambeth PALACE right now, and was 'crowned' as A.o.C!

Do you even know what this place looks like? Do you know that many of the rooms are actually offices and chapels, and that it isn't just his residence? Do you know that the Archbishop of Cantebury has lived at this residence for the last 800 years?

You speak about these things with judgement, yet you fail to address the history and tradition involved, nor do you bother to properly represent the actual residence but give false impressions by throwing around the world "palace," in all caps. Hyperbole and falsehoods.

Some Christian humility and poverty of spirit there!

Please remove the log from your own eye. Arrogantly denouncing the majority of Christians and vaulting your own opinions as extremely superior. What about your behavior thus far bespeaks humility?