I attempted a discussion with you and your response was that I need a lexicon, a different translation of the Bible, a new keyboard, a commentary and Bultmann.
I think you need Ruach HaKodesh. It is only He Who can lead you into real truth as you study the scriptures. What comes across in the sneering tone of your responses to all of the posters here is that you’ve been puffed up by pedantic, esoteric swill at some seminary.
Vigorous study of scripture is essential to spiritual life but it should tell you something that simple fishermen were chosen over seminary types in the selection of the disciples. The seminary types plotted the murder of the Messiah, codified the traditions of men (Talmud) and led the Jews into a ditch.
I’m reminded of the description of the men depicted in 2 Timothy, chapter 2: :”boasters”, “proud” (v. 2); “heady”, “high minded” (v.4); “having a form of godliness” (v.5), “Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (v.7)
I’ll leave you with a couple more of my “flat verses” which demonstrate why humility rather than Bultmann is the key to receiving revelation from scripture:
“all be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5)
3 “(Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth.)”………..
“Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. 8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. (Numbers 12:3 & 6-8)
Did he say something about Moses? Moses wasn’t educated at all was he? What does the Bible say? Acts 7:22 NRSV: “So Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in his words and deeds.”
So who should we listen to, Spencer Sloane, or the apostle Stephen? Obviously the latter. Moses was humble and he was educated. You can be both!
Next Quote, and it’s a doozie!!!!
t’s funny that you should accuse me of being anti-intellectual as the biggest complaint that I get from Charismatics is that I’m too intellectual. I certainly do use lexicons, concordances, and commentaries. I love blueletterbible.com, Biblios, Bible Gateway, and Mechon-Mamre. But I don’t feel the need to research the Hebrew and Greek root of every word every time I study or quote a verse. I’m not against intellectualism to a point; but there is a danger in an over-reliance on the intellectual at the expense of the revelational. Jesus said that The Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. Weren’t the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day just as intellectual as you and your seminary mentors? Are the leading contemporary rabbinical scholars less educated than you and whoever it is that you consider to be authoratative? Less intellectual? Less knowledgeable in ancient Semitic languages? How about the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Chuch? Aren’t they exceedingly intellectual? Many Catholics believe that only the Magisterium can understand the Bible. They would consider both you and I to be presumptuous buffoons for believing that we can study the Bible independently.
It’s clearly recorded in scripture that the Jewish religious leaders plotted The Lord’s murder. If they weren’t seminary types, what were they? Perhaps John, Peter, and Paul learned some literacy skills and a smattering of verses (Isn’t that about all the typical kid in a mainline Protestant Church knows?). But how much did they really know about God when they came to Jesus? Paul was himself a seminary type, and that background was an asset after he became a believer. But wasn’t he a son of satan before he had his Damascus road experience? Wasn’t his conception of God all wrong
Where to begin with this one? Oh, I know. How about?:
“l. I certainly do use lexicons, concordances, and commentaries. I love blueletterbible.com, Biblios, Bible Gateway, and Mechon-Mamre. But I don’t feel the need to research the Hebrew and Greek root of every word every time I study or quote a verse. I’m not against intellectualism to a point; but there is a danger in an over-reliance on the intellectual at the expense of the revelational.”
Okay, did you get that everyone? Reading the original Hebrew and Greek is an “over-reliance on the intellectual at the expense of the revelational.” In other words, its not that important to learn either language (and I am guessing the Aramaic of Daniel too), because you risk being too brainy in order to be so heavenly minded to do any earthly good. Let me say something about “revelational”; first of all, the Bible as a revelation from God, came to humanity in GREEK AND HEBREW. So, if you want to understand God being all “revelationaly,” and get closer to God, wouldn’t it be a good idea to see how God spoke through His prophets and what he said, rather than relying on other’s translations of what God said? Just a thought. This above mentioned quote is not just the most brutal form of anti-intellectualism, for anyone can pull that off, but it just shows how foolish one is willing to remain at the expense of being prideful, yes, prideful, and telling us how more spiritual they are than “seminary-types,” as if “non-seminary types” are somehow automatically humble. Baloney. Horse manure. All that jazz.
The second half of the quote:
“It’s clearly recorded in scripture that the Jewish religious leaders plotted The Lord’s murder. If they weren’t seminary types, what were they? Perhaps John, Peter, and Paul learned some literacy skills and a smattering of verses (Isn’t that about all the typical kid in a mainline Protestant Church knows?). But how much did they really know about God when they came to Jesus? Paul was himself a seminary type, and that background was an asset after he became a believer. But wasn’t he a son of satan before he had his Damascus road experience? Wasn’t his conception of God all wrong”
First, Yes, there were Jewish religious leaders who plotted to kill Jesus, but you know what? Did they kill Jesus through Jewish means? Uh NOOOO! Crucifixion was strictly a Roman political practice. So, #1, the Jews were not alone, so let’s not just blame them, and make them our little scapegoats as Christian anti-Semites have had a bad habit of doing. No one knows for sure the education level of John, Peter, and the others, but there is one thing the authors of the Gospels and the Letters did know: the original greek, as well as the Greek Torah, we call the Septuagint. Seminary is a modern concept, but it is inspired by education, you know, the training we see in Scripture. In fact, rather than keep their heart felt religions for themselves, the prophets built schools to train, wait for it, disciples (remember that little story about Elijah and the ax head in the river?). Secondly, where does the Bible say Paul was ever a son of Satan? Perhaps you are referring to the Gospel of John where Jesus is confronting the Jewish leaders and not the Jews themselves? Well there goes that anti-Semitism again. Blast! No, the Jews concept of God is correct, John said, Salvation is from the Jews! How could it be wrong? Oh yeah *cough* *cough* antisemitism.
Next quote, next commentary:
I wonder what your purpose is in studying scripture? Mine is to continue as a disciple. I believe that it can transform my mind, and keep me from being conformed to the world. As I love God I want to know more about Him and the Bible is His revelation.
Good, I am glad you want to be a disciple. So do I, that’s why I must read the original Greek, and feel compelled to learn Hebrew, and Latin, to understand God’s Word so I can know God more and God’s revelation.
So why did most of the seminary types in Jesus’ generation reject their own Messiah? They had access to the best texts and were either living in the history that we are trying to reconstruct, or were at least much closer to it than are we. They also had a further (huge) advantage in that ancient Hebrew was their native tongue. Furthermore, they were actual products of the ancient Jewish culture that we struggle to understand to get the best understanding of scripture.
At this point, Seminary types is code word for Jew. No, really it is. If Spencer had really examined Scripture, he would see that in Acts, there were Pharisees who are called Pharisees who follow Jesus (Acts 15:5). In John Nicodemus, a “seminary type” (educated and Jew) follows Jesus. Anyways, Jesus is the Messiah not only for Israel and Judah, but also for the Gentiles as well. So why dont you ask, why did the Romans reject Jesus? Why did the Romans persecute Christians and call Christians atheists? The Romans and Greeks had all the access to the best texts living in their history as we are trying to reconstruct. did that ever cross your mind? It apparently doesn’t, since “seminary-types” seem to have big noses and suck our blood and such……
The only thing that the bible requires as evidence that we have the Holy Spirit (that ruach you are trying to talk about) is that Jesus is the Son of God. It says nothing about having to be fishermen or some artificial notion of what it means to be humble. That’s just works righteousness.
Rest assured, whenever our Savior hates the same people that we do, we can rest assured we are worshipping an idol: quote from Anne Lamont, hijacked really badly and Christianized.