No. Read Hebrews chapter 7, it will explain that fully.

So… basically, there’s two priesthoods. The Levitical, which condemns the world, and puts everyone under condemnation, and then the Melchizedek Priesthood, whom Jesus fulfilled.

So, why did Abraham have to sacrifice Isaac? That’s the question. And why did God not make him? Two good questions to ask, before we answer this question.

1. Abraham had to be taught what the price was for forgiveness. God’s only Son, like Abraham’s only son, needed to be sacrificed. But, God took Abraham to the threshold, and prevented him.

2. God prevented Abraham, to show that human sacrifice was unlawful, and Christ needed to pay for our sins. And how? By our slaughtering Him, and putting Him upon a cross.

So, with that being said, God promises Abraham a blessing on Isaac, that from Abraham’s Seed—who is Jesus—there will issue a seed who will bless all nations. And that’s Christ. And of course, after the Battle of Sidim, which is the first battle in recorded history—it’s the first clash of empires—Abraham meets the Priest Melchizedek, and that priest is whom Abraham offers a sacrifice to (not Isaac, but an animal; those are two separate events).

So, there’s two priesthoods, the one through Levi, by way of Aaron and Moses, which brought the law into being, and puts everyone, and every nation—including Israel—under condemnation for sin. And then you have the Law of Liberty, Zion—not Sinai—who is the Seed Christ Jesus. Whom, He is of a priesthood of Melchizedek, and that priesthood is established in an earlier covenant with Abraham. Because Abraham is about ten generations before Moses and Aaron.

So the Levitical Priesthood was for the Jews, for a specified time so they could have an Earthly kingdom, and Earthly reward. But when they failed, that covenant was annulled through Christ’s blood. But, that covenant is unchanging and everlasting, and it will punish all evildoers. Everyone who is not submitted under Christ, that law—as unfair as it is—will put every man, woman and child under the condemnation of death, unless they repent, and trust on the blood of Jesus. Because of sin.

And the law we follow now, is in Christ Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 12–15, and of course the Fruits of the Spirit, and we’re to abstain from sin like is found in Romans 1 or Corinthians or Timothy. Basically, the law we follow is written in the Gospel. The Torah is still good for teaching… we can still look at it for common sense wisdom. But, the death penalty is annulled in Christ’s blood, therefore the sacrifice is in Christ Jesus, and the Law is in the Gospel, not the Old Testament. And if you follow the Old Testament law, you’re judged by those statutes, and therefore condemned by the prophets and the curse. Which the curse is nailed into Jesus, and is not something that we have to endure, unless we are found in unrepentant sin.

None. Just a brain. That’s kind of why the whole word has taken on a negative connotation.

A lot of intellectuals move outside their fields, too. Like, they find a niche in some science, and then think that broadens it out to religion; or they get a doctorate in Gender Theory and think that makes them an authority on Economics. Like Richard Dawkins is a good example of someone moving from their field of expertise into something unknown. He’s amazing at what he knows about Evolution—though Noble is probably closer, due to the recent discoveries they’re making about genes. They say DNA has some elements of Artificial Intelligence programming. That’s called “Learning Theory.” So, I think Noble is closer to the truth.

But, generally, a preacher once said, 27 out of the 31 civilizations that existed, fell due to losing God. There’s something real about God. You see it in sages like Pythagoras, you see it in sages like Confucius… there’s a real part of humanity that needs God. It just makes us better people. We have hope, and if we don’t attain this life and its benefits, we have the next.

So… to be an intellectual you just have to have a brain. And many people dabble in one field of knowledge, but don’t necessarily gain the credentials in another.

While a Renascence Man dabbles in all fields of knowledge, and gets a basic proficiency at everything—usually by following established tradition in the empirical sciences and witness testimony of history.

However, Christ seemed to live a perfect moral life… He seemed to demonstrate perfect Charity and sacrificial love. He seemed to validate our exasperation with the world, and also our feelings of needing solitary isolation. He was a true man, who showed true morals, and there’s tons of physical evidence that shows the Bible is true. I just think the evidence shows that God interacted with the Jewish People, and brought God Made Flesh into existence, where He could teach us what man couldn’t. And through His apostles, and Prophets and Saints He established a tradition that’s sound in all sense of the word.

As it is, God’s law is self evident, and that’s what converts. Specious theories of Creationism and Creation Science—for any of their theories to be true, the Earth would have to basically be flat. It couldn’t be the cosmology talked about by science, it’d have to be a completely different one.

But, still, Christ came, He died, He raised—we have witnesses who died believing that, including His own brother James—He had wounds when Thomas touched Him. He was God made in Human Flesh. He was the moral paragon, which humans need because without it, we don’t know right from wrong. We need the Bible to tell us how morality actually functions, even down to the nitty gritty about what it is to wage war.

But, again the conversation is about intellectuals. Anyone can be an intellectual. However, your intellectual prowess comes from the quality of information you look at. So, to be a useful intellectual, you have to find useful information. And you need the acumen to identify what is and isn’t. Which if you ask me, is guided through the Holy Spirit, as He is the giver of all knowledge.