(September 5, 2013 at 8:48 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Please explain why his analogy was incorrect.An envanglist teaches the Gospel, which centers around the four Gospels (which is why they call Mat, Mark Luke and John) the Gospels. The Gospels like the book focous on the life, and sacrifice of Christ.
(Paul identifies this as the 'milk' of the word in 1 cor 3)
Milk as in sustinance or noruishment for those who are beginning their walk with God.
A Theologian in the case of Paul sets the 'rules' or guidlines/doctrine on how members of said religion take their faith and apply it to their daily lives.
In 1cor 3 Paul tells the Corinithians that up to that point (Where/when he wrote the first letter to them that becomes the book of 1 corthinians) He had only taught the the milk of the word or rather the Gospel. That from that point on he would be teaching the 'meat' of the word.
How do we know Paul taught the gospels? Because if he did not first 'seed' a church by evanglizing, then to whom would he have written his letters to?
Paul was the Apstole to the Gentiles, and all of the areas he visited and wrote to were gentile cities. the other apstoles primarly focoused on the Jew converts in Jewish cities.
So Paul was both an evangelist, in that he went to a city, introduced Christianity and established a Chruch, and then later a Theologian/Father of several Chrurches in order to maintain and help those who have accepted the Gospel continue to grow in their faiths. So why wasn't there any writtings from Paul on the gospels? Because who would read them, if he himself were there to set up and preach the gospel? Once the church had been established, he left one of his disciples incharge of a body of believers (that is what the letters were to timothy/Instruction and encouragement.) It was to men like Timothy the letters to galitia, Corinth, ephesus, and Rome were written. (In other words why would he need to repeat the milk/gospel to men he left in charge of the Christian Chruch in a given area.)
