Hello to you,
I don't hesitate to say it because the text of scripture is very clear that three years as disciples of Christ is the same as saying that the apostles underwent training. Even Paul, the unnaturally born apostle did not go immediately from baptism by Ananias to Missionary Journey.
Training is not a dirty word unless we champion an anti-intellectual ignorance.
Was it equal to a Seminary training? I suspect it wasn't. Given a choice between seven years in a purely academic setting and three years at Jesus' feet I would have opted for the three simply because I value first hand experience of the Christ far more than anything else.
It would appear that you recognize training process so again, unless you are championing an anti-intellectual ignorance the word "training" should not be reason to pause.
Amen. Wisdom is wisdom wherever it is found and those who value wisdom prize it whenever it is encountered. It is Genetic Fallacy to deny wisdom simply because it comes from a source we do not value.
Amen.
Let us be careful with how freely we shift the goal post here. Nobody, that I have read, has suggested that schooling is a prerequisite. At most it has been recognized that training is a benefit.
Be that as it may it is impossible to read Paul and not notice his many appeals which he bases on an understanding of religious text. An understanding which was greatly informed by his time as a disciple of Gamaliel prior to his time as a disciple with followers of the way.
His understanding challenges comtemporary understandings within Judaism and the fledgling Church.
He didn't cast all of that aside and start from nothing. He built on the wisdom shared with him, and added his wisdom to the mix.
Agreed. They aren't always relegated to the priestly class either. Phariseeism, while religious, was not a school of thought reserved only for priests.
Amen. That is true. We also find in the gospels evidence of the laity making the same compromises for reasons of their own. A Pharisee invites Jesus to dine with him and sneers that he would allow himself to be soiled by the touch of someone unclean. An angry mob claims a death penalty for a woman caught in adultery. Jesus allows it with the proviso that so long as the first stone is cast by one who is without sin. The Pharisee asking God not to treat him as the Tax-Collector.
All of the religious persons. Not all of them represent the priesthood.
Who in the Jewish tradition is not entrusted with the word of God?
Why is a complex question unless we presume that all individuals are identical and all are motivated identically. And clearly not all who were entrusted with the word of God resisted. Enough clearly did so that it becomes a perennial issue. Let us not paint all with the same brush. No wisdom can be found in that.
It also is antithetical to your earlier assertion about silver buried in each.
So while the answer to why is complex in that each individual is their own constellation there are a number of paths that lead to similar responses. Self-interest works as an umbrella term and it can be motivated by a number of elements. Some see self-interest as fiscal gain, others see self-interest as fame rather than fortune and others still exercise self-interest as a denial mechanism ensuring that they can avoid the painful process of being transformed.
I'm sure the list could be exhaustive. I trust I have provided enough to make my point.
Which I think is essentially the denial point briefly described above. If the word of God can be rendered static then it can be grasped, controlled and confined. Anything dynamic may work upon us rather than be made to work for us.
Agreed. That is a perversion. Not one relegated only to priestly class or a seminary training. Unless, again, one has an anti-academic bias.
Amen. We shared classes together and I noticed the same. That said, there was wisdom and knowledge offered and like any disciple we were watched to see what we would do with what we were offered.
Allegedly. I think if that was truly the stress there would have been a greater emphasis on field study where we actually applied learning rather than sitting in a classroom as eager sponges soaking up what was shared.
I'm yes and no on that. Being just as immersed in higher learning as yourself my observations vary a smidge. To be overly simplistic I observed that while there was some anxiety about competence from a contextualizing perspective (that is knowing the times and the culture of the day into which scripture was originally spoken) what really terrified was competence with respect to content (knowing what is contained in the actual text).
My class was ready and willing to look at a passage and discuss it with respect to author, date of writing, original audience. Hand them the same passage and ask them where to find it and the sweat started to pour.
It was noted that since I was so strong in the theology and history areas I should spend more time in the pastoral areas. Few pastoral courses actually put me into pastoral settings. And because that was what was noted as a weakness I took every opportunity afforded to me to plunk myself down into challenging pastoral environments.
I have no idea how any of my classmates dealt with weaknesses identified in themselves.
The unexpected person is such a heavily used motif only those unfamiliar with the text would fall for it.
It should also be pointed out that while the unexpected person is generally full of flaws themselves the narrative ensures that we know who to be looking at next.
Jacob doesn't take us by surprise. Some of what he does may be shocking but he does not come at us from out of left field. I have no doubt that to his contemporaries he is the proverbial dark horse. The narrative discourages us from making the same mistake as we listen. Because scripture does that for us we miss the powerful impact that the context provides.
Jesus kisses a leper clean. That horrifies his contemporaries and we wonder why. With context added we see why the fear existed even if we still don't feel it ourselves.
Content and context work well together when one is examined at the expense of the other we lose part of the whole.
Getting back to sitting at the feet of Jesus and why I would value it over my seminary training.
I can study the content of the Gospels and I can profit from it. I can study the context of the Gospels and I can profit from that. The written words on the page communicate less than 100% of the event. We do not read in the narrative that Jesus' eyes twinkled, that he had trouble keeping a straight face, that he refuse to look another in the eye when delivering a rebuke or if others could not bear to make eye contact with him as he delivered it.
So much of human communication is absent from the text handed down to us.
Wisdom knows when it operates with gaps in knowledge. Ignorance cannot see gaps to save its life.
Can a Seminary training give us greater vision. Sure it can. Does it eliminate all gaps in wisdom or knowledge? By no means.
Wisdom that doesn't perpetually remind us that we know less than we think is not wisdom at all. It is folly.
Here I have not argued that those with a Seminary training know all. I have argued that we do see and know something.
And if we are going to go head to head in a battle of wisdom with somebody lacking a formal training then the winner is clearly the one who sees gaps to wonder about and not the one who cannot see gaps and wonders not at all.
