A Question about Baptist Pastors

[Benjamin]

On the Job Training

Oh, duh, thanks, well, at least I was close... :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Van]

Disagreement

Paul is not a "NT model' for education. His purpose in his education was not for the ministry it was to be a Pharisee. And there is no indication that God called him because of it. The disciples had none other than OJT. Having said that I believe God calls men with a boat load of education and some with little to none, one just the same as the other.

I also believe a pastor should pursue all the education that is reasonable and within his grasp.

Paul's education and knowledge of the scriptures served him well, since he wrote nearly 1/2 of the New Testament. No one said or suggested he was called because of his education. He was chosen from the womb, before his education.

How about Paul's exegetical efforts, for example a righteous man lives by faith alone. Are we to study to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word of truth. Did not Paul tell us to model him? As for me, Paul is a model of a disciple of Christ, who continued to study and to explain God's word.

 

[Revmitchell]

Paul's education and knowledge of the scriptures served him well, since he wrote nearly 1/2 of the New Testament. No one said or suggested he was called because of his education. He was chosen from the womb, before his education.

How about Paul's exegetical efforts, for example a righteous man lives by faith alone. Are we to study to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word of truth. Did not Paul tell us to model him? As for me, Paul is a model of a disciple of Christ, who continued to study and to explain God's word.

Ok well the topic at hand is about formal education. It was in that light that I understood your post. What you have posted here seems to be far different.

 

[Van]

Paul had training as a Pharisee, so well studied Pastors are certainly modeled in the NT.

Paul is not a "NT model' for education.

Quote without comment

 

[Greektim]

Just to be fair to the facts... Paul did not write nearly 50% of the NT. In fact, the majority was written by Luke (good friend of Paul)

And also to be fair, I think the way it was stated was very well said... "well studied Pastors are certainly modeled in the NT."

 

[saturneptune]

So is your church open or closed communion?

Our bylaws do not state either position. Over the years, we have never denied anyone participation in the Lord's Supper. There is a minority position in our congregation of closed, but open is practiced. It has never been an issue of division.

Personally, having observed closed communion once in my life, I find it very destructive.

 

[saturneptune]

Just to be fair to the facts... Paul did not write nearly 50% of the NT. In fact, the majority was written by Luke (good friend of Paul)

And also to be fair, I think the way it was stated was very well said... "well studied Pastors are certainly modeled in the NT."

So you are saying Luke and Acts together contain more writings than the other three Gospels, Romans, the Epistles, Jude, letters of Peter and John, Hebrews, and Revelation?

 

[Greektim]

So you are saying Luke and Acts together contain more writings than the other three Gospels, Romans, the Epistles, Jude, letters of Peter and John, Hebrews, and Revelation?

I mean what I said, Luke-Acts is the majority of the NT (like 30%). It was meant to be jovial since it had nothing to do with this thread. But it is still true. Luke (assuming Lukan authorship for Luke-Acts) makes up the majority of the NT. And if Luke also had a hand in Hebrews (as either the author or amanuensis) then that adds further.

I might need to be corrected, but you could break down the percentages something like this:

L-A: 30%
Paul: 25% Paul and John are the ones I'm not sure about. Paul's 13 letters taken
John: 20% together are not that long. The numbers possibly could be switched.
Matt & Mark: 15%
General Epistles not including John's: 10%

 

[thomas15]

...
I might need to be corrected, ....

Now there is a strange thought!

 

[Van]

Paul wrote 13 of the 27 books of the NT, or nearly half of the New Testament books. However, based on word count Paul wrote only 31% of the New Testament.

 

[Greektim]

Paul wrote 13 of the 27 books of the NT, or nearly half of the New Testament books. However, based on word count Paul wrote only 31% of the New Testament.

which is under Luke's 35% or so

 

[Van]

:tongue3:Much of Acts is simply Luke being a scribe for Paul, and therefore Paul wrote neally half the new testament.

 

[mont974x4]

Which translation, or manuscript, is being used for the word count? Who has the time to count those words? Who decided? Why?

 

[12strings]

Which translation, or manuscript, is being used for the word count? Who has the time to count those words? Who decided? Why?

According to the records kept in the book of 2nd Jude, Luke was jealous of all the attention Paul was getting and so wanted to set the record straight as to who wrote more Canonical scriptures. A heated debate ensued at an online forum, in which Luke & Paul questioned each others salvation (though in veiled terms so as to not draw the attention of the moderators). Peter, James, and the anonymous writer of Hebrews (who refused to use his real name) also pitched in their expert opinions, each citing numerous Old Testament references that supported their side...Paul eventually put Luke on his "ignore" list, until the Jerusalem council II was called to settle the whole thing. John, who was older and more mature than most of these men, watched the whole thing and wondered where the world was headed...

 

[mont974x4]

Please. That was all stolen from the 3rd book of hesitations. Which we all know was greatly influenced by Elvis.

We also must not forget the very productive beer summit that was used to rebuild the bridge between Paul and Luke. Paul drank freely while Luke used a medicinal amount. Simon, was as usual, offended by such a lack of morals but chose to not verbalize it while quietly drinking his Welchers.