Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Brudder John,
Of course I meant requirements in the Bible! That was clearly implied in the part of my post that you conveniently left out… Did you leave this part out because you don’t agree with my assessment, or was it a simple oversight on your part.
You take issue with the use of my term “system”. Again, I readily admitted that it was If you, as a seasoned English teacher, have a better term, then you are free to fill in a better or more accurate term. Either way, I am not going to get into a war of semantics….didn’t we have enough of that in the Local Church of Witness Lee?
Your reference to Matthias is quite irrelevant to my little diatribe about early church history. As you mention, Matthias was not chosen (much less trained or mentored) by the Lord Jesus, and he is not so much as mentioned in the Gospels. In any event, he does not come into play when it comes to the first generation of leadership in the Church. If you have information to the contrary, then I will stand corrected. (wouldn’t be the first time)
Anywho…. All I was really trying to do was address the concerns of ToGodAlone in his original post: As I am apt to do, I probably went overboard. TOO MUCH INFORMATION – that is my specialty. So sue me.(just kidding)
|
UntoHim,
I did not find a clear implication in your post #11. That is why I asked for clarification. As to what I quoted from your post, to which you took exception, I could have quoted the entire thing and still have had the same questions. There was nothing “conveniently left out,” as if I did it on purpose to mask your true presentation.
You also seem to be bothered by my quoting the word, “system,” from your post. (Unfortunately, your reply about this word was cut off after “was.”) You ask me to choose a different word for you to use in your argument, which I don’t yet fully understand. (If you need a word, please try a thesaurus.) Then, you state that you don’t want to get into a war of semantics and liken that to what went on in the Local Church. This is a non sequitur for me. (And, just so I can get it all off my chest, I never expected the moderator to label me “a seasoned English teacher,” since I have never written such a thing on this forum.)
In your next paragraph, you would brush away my reference to Matthias, saying that it is irrelevant because he was not chosen, trained, or mentored by Jesus. I thought that you were writing about a system that had been established by the “original apostles” about those who were being selected
after the Lord’s earthly ministry. To me, Matthias qualifies and is relevant, being the first one selected; but, maybe you have a different group in mind. You also write, “In any event, he does not come into play when it comes to the first generation of leadership in the Church.” I would say that he was in the first generation although not among the originals. Now, this finer point really may be a matter of semantics; but, if I am to understand your idea, then it would require clarification on your part. I would say, however, that you don’t need to bother with further definition on my account, since this is not what I was really interested in anyway.
As I hope you can see, I’m confused by what you originally wrote (the parameters of your thesis), as well as your follow-on post. When I read from you, “There is solid evidence that the original apostles had originated a system (for lack of a better term) of choosing, training and mentoring young men for leadership in the churches,” I thought that you might know something from somewhere that would help me understand more about what you claimed in that sentence. (This is what I was mostly interested in.) It seems from your response that you do not.
In your reply, I detected an adversarial response and felt attacked. I did not intend for my post to make you feel attacked (if you did). I was simply trying to find out what you knew, that is, your claimed “solid evidence.” (Maybe I should have put a smiley face after my Matthias comment.) Regardless, now that I know the two lists of qualifications to Timothy are your evidence, and I don’t consider the lists to be evidence of what you seem to be claiming, notwithstanding your retreat behind “system,” I am content to end my part in this discussion.