- This topic has 4,343 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
G,
Paul had a special anointing in wisdom.1Cor12
4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
Same Spirit but gifts given as God provides.
Quote So then, we must accept your authorities as the end of the matter. We must disregard the definitions given by Thayer and Strong as illegitimate and inaccurate I suppose. Seeking,
I believe you have misunderstood Strong's. He says that a “hellenist” is simply an “inhabitant of Hellas; by extension a Greek speaking person.” As far as Thayer goes he is way out on the limb all by himself. All sources are unanimous against his claim that a Hellenist was a non-Jew. I now offer you a commentary of a 19th century commentator on Acts 6:1,Quote In the time when the gospel was preached there were two classes of jews-those who remained in Palestine, who used thehebrew language, and who were appropriately called Hebrews; and those who used in their synagogues the Greek translation of the old testament, called the Septuagint. These were called Hellenists, or, as it is in our translation, Grecians. These were doubtless the persons mentioned here-not those who were proselyted from Gentiles, but those of Jewish origin who were not natives of Judea, who had come up to Jerusalem to attend the great festivals (Barnes Notes on Acts 6:1, p. 110, Baker Book House). Since you think our sources collide then let's allow the Scriptures themselves to decide.
Jesus said,
Quote I shall be with you a little while longer, and then i go to Him that sent Me. You will seek Me and not find Me, and where I go you cannot come. The Jews murmered in reply,
Quote Where does He intend to go that we shall not find Him? Does He intend to go to the Dispersion among the Hellenists and teach the Hellenists? (John 7:35) The “dispersion among the Hellenists” was clearly a reference to Jews that had incorporated themselves among the Greeks. They are therefore called “Greeks”. So the Jews were thinking that Jesus was going to go to their own Jewish brethren which they called “hellenists” or “Greeks.”
Quote It is well known that at that time there were Jews dwelling in every land. There were multitudes in Egypt, in Asai Minor, in Greece, in Rome, &c., and in all these place they had synagogues (Barnes Notes on John 7:35, p. 260, Baker Book House) It says that it is “well known” that Jews were dispersed in every place. The Jews themselves called their own people who were dispersed “Hellenists.”
Quote Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Hellenists and teach the Hellenists Scripture has decided that Thayer is dead wrong!
Seeking said:
Quote The Phillipian jailer, a Gentile, who Paul baptized was in a Synagogue – not at home and not at the jail. He also must have been a Jew. Hm! You said that the Phillippian jailer was a “gentile”. That's funny, my Bible don't say that he was a Gentile. I suppose you think that Jews didn't have regular jobs in Phillipi. The Phillippian jailer must have been a Jew because Paul promised him that if the believed his whole household would also be saved. This promise was made only to the house of Israel.
Seeking said:
Quote As I said prior, Paul was not discussing what saved but rather what condemned.
His conclusion, regardless of nature law or tablets of stone
was plain, But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.And I have already pointed out that there is one big problem with your explanation. If what you say is true then those Gentiles who never heard the gospel had no remedy for their sin. Therefore, they would have been autommaticallly damned because they never heard the gospel.
Paul was not speaking hypothetically but was speaking indicatively. He did not say, “IF the Gentiles….” He said ,”WHEN the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature do those things in the law….” Paul was saying that Gentiles were actually being justified by their obedience to the law of nature. The law of nature did not say “be baptized.”
You are correct that the righteousness apart from the law was being revealed. But it had not been fully implemented when Paul said this. Until the new covenant was fully in place Jews had to be baptized and Gentiles had to obey the law as revealed in nature.
Here is the ironic thing about what you're saying. You say that the righteousness apart from the law was being revealed while at the same time requiring baptism today. But you must discard baptism because it was a work of the law. You can't have it both ways bro! And you can't circumvent the fact that after Paul said “we turn to the nations” that he never went to a Gentile. He went only into Jewish synagogues. Therefore, the word “nations” was a distinction in class among Jews.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 01 2009,03:54) Quote In the time when the gospel was preached there were two classes of jews-those who remained in Palestine, who used thehebrew language, and who were appropriately called Hebrews; and those who used in their synagogues the Greek translation of the old testament, called the Septuagint. These were called Hellenists, or, as it is in our translation, Grecians. These were doubtless the persons mentioned here-not those who were proselyted from Gentiles, but those of Jewish origin who were not natives of Judea, who had come up to Jerusalem to attend the great festivals Barnes Notes on Acts 6:1, p. 110, Baker Book House). And here are Barnes notes on John 7:35 that you mentioned.
He identifies the “Gentiles” as follows:“Gentiles – In the original, Greeks. All those who were not Jews were called Greeks, because they were chiefly acquainted with those pagans only who spake the Greek language. It is remarkable that Jesus returned no answer to these inquiries. He rather chose to turn off their minds from a speculation about the place to which he was going, to the great affairs of their own personal salvation.”
I note two other commentators on the subject:
“The Syriac and Ethiopic versions read, “will he go into the countries, or country of the Gentiles”; into Heathen countries,
not to the Jews there, but to the Gentiles themselves:”
(John Gill)Others suppose that the Gentiles themselves are meant –
others, that the ten tribes which had been long lost are here intended. Adam ClarkeClarke seems the most honest of the lot. He basically states there are those on either side of the fence as to who “Gentiles” are.
And isn't that where we are at here! Both sides of the fence on Baptism.
Quote Since you think our sources collide then let's allow the Scriptures themselves to decide. The scriptures only decide when two parties agree is to whom they reference. We are not there yet.
Quote You said that the Phillippian jailer was a “gentile”. That's funny, my Bible don't say that he was a Gentile. I suppose you think that Jews didn't have regular jobs in Phillipi. The Phillippian jailer must have been a Jew because Paul promised him that if the believed his whole household would also be saved. This promise was made only to the house of Israel. You have not told us where the jailer was. You were adamant that Paul only went to the synagogues to preach.
So, the jailer was at a synagogue? Not at the jail and not at home as the text relates?? And you speculate too that the Romans were hiring Jews to be prison guards in the Roman prisions to guard fellow Jews.Quote And I have already pointed out that there is one big problem with your explanation. If what you say is true then those Gentiles who never heard the gospel had no remedy for their sin. Therefore, they would have been autommaticallly damned because they never heard the gospel. True! And the Jew had no remedy for their sin other than to hear and accept the Gospel. Hard pill to swallow for us, yes, but that is what God said, ” Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation , and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, ” Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. I hasten to ad, “or obedience to the law written in nature or on your heart
Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.Quote You say that the righteousness apart from the law was being revealed while at the same time requiring baptism today. But you must discard baptism because it was a work of the law. I don't guess you read me clearly – The bottom line on these discussion is this – You will not prove, to the point of acceptance, your stand regarding no baptism for Gentiles. Others will not prove their point regarding the necessity of baptism as a command requirement to you.
I view Baptism as a faith response expressing a public acknowlegement that can add to the experience of many when and if spiritually and not legalistically applied. To many who legalistically apply it give no evidence of the fruit of the Spirit the calim to have inherited nor do they resemble a walk in newness of life.
I impose baptismon no one and fault no one for desiring to make it a part of their walk.
Seeking
Legalistic righteousness wears many hats and can be found in what you are commanded not to do as well as in what you are commanded to do.
And you can't circumvent the fact that after Paul said “we turn to the nations” that he never went to a Gentile.
Digest your words. They are a Biblical impossibilty or Paul did not obey the Lord in his commission to go to the gentiles.
Seeking
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 02 2009,07:30) theodorej said: Quote The requisite for baptism speaks to a symbolic ritual that one partakes of at the time of repentance and symbolicly represents the cleansing of ones soul and the birth of a new creature in Christ….The physical requirement of emersion in water is elementry,however,the repentance is not…..and the gift of the spirit is of God when we have truly repented and changed… Theo,
The traditional view is that baptism symbolically represents the cleansing of one's soul. But the fact was that baptism effected the real washing of the body as it was also looked upon as sinful by God.There is no such teaching in Scripture that says that baptism is a “sign” that represents the cleansing of the soul. Baptism was required for the washing of the body. But all things have been cleansed now and baptism is therefore unnecessary. It has been abolished.
blessings,
thinker
Greetings Thinker…It appears to me we are on the same page…Perhaps with one relevant issue ,and that would be that the symbolic ritual of the emersion in water has been abolished….It is scriptual and also a part of the process of repentance….For those who will be Baptized by fire this will prove to be a far more challenging encounter…IMO this type of Baptism will be prevelent during the tribulation for those who survive and live into the milenium…Quote (SEEKING @ Mar. 02 2009,01:03) thethinker,Mar. wrote:[/quote]
Quote In the time when the gospel was preached there were two classes of jews-those who remained in Palestine, who used thehebrew language, and who were appropriately called Hebrews; and those who used in their synagogues the Greek translation of the old testament, called the Septuagint. These were called Hellenists, or, as it is in our translation, Grecians. These were doubtless the persons mentioned here-not those who were proselyted from Gentiles, but those of Jewish origin who were not natives of Judea, who had come up to Jerusalem to attend the great festivals Barnes Notes on Acts 6:1, p. 110, Baker Book House). And here are Barnes notes on John 7:35 that you mentioned.
He identifies the “Gentiles” as follows:“Gentiles – In the original, Greeks. All those who were not Jews were called Greeks, because they were chiefly acquainted with those pagans only who spake the Greek language. It is remarkable that Jesus returned no answer to these inquiries. He rather chose to turn off their minds from a speculation about the place to which he was going, to the great affairs of their own personal salvation.”
I note two other commentators on the subject:
“The Syriac and Ethiopic versions read, “will he go into the countries, or country of the Gentiles”; into Heathen countries,
not to the Jews there, but to the Gentiles themselves:”
(John Gill)Others suppose that the Gentiles themselves are meant –
others, that the ten tribes which had been long lost are here intended. Adam ClarkeClarke seems the most honest of the lot. He basically states there are those on either side of the fence as to who “Gentiles” are.
And isn't that where we are at here! Both sides of the fence on Baptism.
Quote Since you think our sources collide then let's allow the Scriptures themselves to decide. The scriptures only decide when two parties agree is to whom they reference. We are not there yet.
Quote You said that the Phillippian jailer was a “gentile”. That's funny, my Bible don't say that he was a Gentile. I suppose you think that Jews didn't have regular jobs in Phillipi. The Phillippian jailer must have been a Jew because Paul promised him that if the believed his whole household would also be saved. This promise was made only to the house of Israel. You have not told us where the jailer was. You were adamant that Paul only went to the synagogues to preach.
So, the jailer was at a synagogue? Not at the jail and not at home as the text relates?? And you speculate too that the Romans were hiring Jews to be prison guards in the Roman prisions to guard fellow Jews.Quote And I have already pointed out that there is one big problem with your explanation. If what you say is true then those Gentiles who never heard the gospel had no remedy for their sin. Therefore, they would have been autommaticallly damned because they never heard the gospel. True! And the Jew had no remedy for their sin other than to hear and accept the Gospel. Hard pill to swallow for us, yes, but that is what God said, ” Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation , and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, ” Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. I hasten to ad, “or obedience to the law written in nature or on your heart
Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.Quote You say that the righteousness apart from the law was being revealed while at the same time requiring baptism today. But you must discard baptism because it was a work of the law. I don't guess you read me clearly – The bottom line on these discussion is this – You will not prove, to the point of acceptance, your stand regarding no baptism for Gentiles. Others will not prove their point regarding the necessity of baptism as a command requirement to you.
I view Baptism as a faith response expressing a public acknowlegement that can add to the experience of many when and if spiritually and not legalistically applied. To many who legalistically apply it give no evidence of the fruit of the Spirit the calim to have inherited nor do they resemble a walk in newness of life.
I impose baptismon no one and fault no one for desiring to make it a part of their walk.
Seeking
Legalistic righteousness wears many hats and can be found in what you are commanded not to do as well as in what you are commanded to do.
And you can't circumvent the fact that after Paul said “we turn to the nations” that he never went to a Gentile.
Digest your words. They are a Biblical impossibilty or Paul did not obey the Lord in his commission to go to the gentiles.
Seeking
Greetings…..Gentiles….Those who are not members of the Ancient Tribes of Israel of which Judah ( the Jews ) are numbered one of twelve…seeking……….You said ….> For it is impossible for bulls and Goats to take away Sin, then you added or obedience to the law written in nature or on your Heart. Why would you say that , when scripture plainly shows GOD wrote the Law on the Hearts and minds of the gentiles. Your assumption, denies the POWER of GOD, who said I will take out of you the stony Heart and give you a heart of flesh and put My Laws in your inward Parts and what about where iot says the gentiles who have not the law but do by nature (new Nature) the things contained in them show the Law of God written on the Hearts by the Hand of GOD. You are making the matter of salvation up to the person and excluding GOD in that Statement as the one who (CREATES) holy righteous Character in our lives. IMO
love and peace…………………………….gene
Quote (Gene @ Mar. 02 2009,03:15) seeking……….You said ….> For it is impossible for bulls and Goats to take away Sin, then you added or obedience to the law written in nature or on your Heart. Why would you say that , when scripture plainly shows GOD wrote the Law on the Hearts and minds of the gentiles. Your assumption, denies the POWER of GOD, who said I will take out of you the stony Heart and give you a heart of flesh and put My Laws in your inward Parts and what about where iot says the gentiles who have not the law but do by nature (new Nature) the things contained in them show the Law of God written on the Hearts by the Hand of GOD. You are making the matter of salvation up to the person and excluding GOD in that Statement as the one who (CREATES) holy righteous Character in our lives. IMO love and peace…………………………….gene
G,
The gentiles spoken of in Romans are not of the new covenant transformed by God but the old, and are those who have not had their consciences seared but retain that true conscience which reflects the law.Quote (Gene @ Mar. 01 2009,09:15) Quote seeking……….You said ….> For it is impossible for bulls and Goats to take away Sin, then you added or obedience to the law written in nature or on your Heart. Why would you say that , when scripture plainly shows GOD wrote the Law on the Hearts and minds of the gentiles. Gene,
Why would I say that? Because God delared it through Paul and I am simply repeating what God said. Paul did not say,
by works of the law shall no man be justified as the Gentiles were in times past.Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Quote You are making the matter of salvation up to the person and excluding GOD in that Statement as the one who (CREATES) holy righteous Character in our lives. IMO No, No, No. That is what would happen if your theory regarding obedience to the law on their heart saved. Salvation would then be up to the person as to if they would obey that law or not.
In reality, choice takes place before God begins His creation of Holy character within.
God says, Luk 9:35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!”
Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Once one accepts that fact and confesses Jesus as Lord God begins HIs transition work.
There is still choice involved. But the choice is, choose Jesus.
Keeping the law is futile.Seeking
Seeking said:
Quote “Gentiles – In the original, Greeks. All those who were not Jews were called Greeks, because they were chiefly acquainted with those pagans only who spake the Greek language. It is remarkable that Jesus returned no answer to these inquiries. He rather chose to turn off their minds from a speculation about the place to which he was going, to the great affairs of their own personal salvation.” Seeking,
You are taking Barnes out of context. He said that in John 7:35 the expression “the dispersed among the hellenists” was a reference to Jews. But you don't seem to care about that part of it. You just jump to the lines that follow and ignore line upon line. This seems to be your approach to Scripture.Again, let's allow the Scriptures to decide,
Quote Now those who were scattered after the persecuton that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but Jews only. But some were were men from Cyprus and Cyrene; who when they had come to Antioch, spoke to Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus (Acts 11:19-20) How will you explain away this passage Seeking? It says that they preached to Jews ONLY. It says that some of them were “hellenists”, that is, Greek speaking Jews.
CHECK MATE!
Seeking said:
Quote You have not told us where the jailer was. You were adamant that Paul only went to the synagogues to preach.
So, the jailer was at a synagogue?What! Paul went to the jail and put himself in chains just to speak to the jailer??? He purposed to go to the synagogues to reason with the Jews. But there were times when he found himself somewhere he did not plan to be.
Seeking said:
Quote I hasten to ad, “or obedience to the law written in nature or on your heart
Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.So we are in agreement that the law to be baptized has been abolished?
Seeking said:
Quote In view Baptism as a faith response expressing a public acknowlegement that can add to the experience of many when and if spiritually and not legalistically applied. To many who legalistically apply it give no evidence of the fruit of the Spirit the calim to have inherited nor do they resemble a walk in newness of life. Huh?
Seeking said:
Quote I impose baptismon no one and fault no one for desiring to make it a part of their walk. You're starting to see the light! Amen!
Seeking said:
Quote Digest your words. They are a Biblical impossibilty or Paul did not obey the Lord in his commission to go to the gentiles. Show where Paul was commanded to go to Gentiles. And please don't give me erroneous translation. I want exegesis. And while you're at it please explain why Paul said “to the Jew FIRST”?
thinker
Hi tt,
Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.Paul consistently first offered the gospel to the Jews
Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 01 2009,13:19) Quote Seeking,
You are taking Barnes out of context.Of course! I should have known.
Quote But you don't seem to care about that part of it. You just jump to the lines that follow and ignore line upon line. This seems to be your approach to Scripture. Here are Barnes notes. No line jumping, which you would never do, just what he says about Jn.7:25:
Joh 7:35
The dispersed among the Gentiles – To the Jews scattered among the Gentiles, or living in distant parts of the earth. It is well known that at that time there were Jews dwelling in almost every land. There were multitudes in Egypt, in Asia Minor, in Greece, in Rome, etc., and in all these places they had synagogues. The question which they asked was whether he would leave an ungrateful country, and go into those distant nations and teach them.Gentiles – In the original, Greeks. All those who were not Jews were called Greeks, because they were chiefly acquainted with those pagans only who spake the Greek language.
Ditto your – “But you don't seem to care about that part of it. You just jump to the lines that follow and ignore line upon line. This seems to be your approach to Scripture.”
And on Acts 11:19-20 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews.
Act 11:20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
Is there a reason you emphasised “Jews only” and ingnored the second group? So it wasn't “Jews only” after all. That puts us back to the difference in thinking as to what Hellenist were.
Here's Barnes again:
pros tous Hellēnistas. To the Hellenists. This word usually denotes in the New Testament “those Jews residing in foreign lands, who spoke the Greek language.” See the notes on Act_6:1. But to them the gospel had been already preached;
and yet in this place it is evidently the intention of Luke to affirm that the people of Cyprus and Cyrene preached to those who who were not Jews, and that thus their conduct was distinguished from those (Act_11:19) who preached to the Jews only. It is thus manifest that we are here required to understand the Gentiles as those who were addressed by the people of Cyprus and Cyrene.Quote You're starting to see the light! Amen! I saw the light years ago and resolved the baptism issue in my mind then.
Quote Show where Paul was commanded to go to Gentiles. And please don't give me erroneous translation. I want exegesis. Act 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.
Act 22:21 And he said to me, 'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'”
Act 26:15 And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
Act 26:16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,
Act 26:17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles–to whom I am sending you
Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'I suppose you could contend these were devine suggestions and pleading requests by Jesus and not commands.
Seeking
Seeking said;
Quote Here are Barnes notes. No line jumping, which you would never do, just what he says about Jn.7:25: Joh 7:35
The dispersed among the Gentiles – To the Jews scattered among the Gentiles, or living in distant parts of the earth. It is well known that at that time there were Jews dwelling in almost every land. There were multitudes in Egypt, in Asia Minor, in Greece, in Rome, etc., and in all these places they had synagogues. The question which they asked was whether he would leave an ungrateful country, and go into those distant nations and teach them.This is exactly what I said Barnes said. What's the problem? Barnes said that the expression “the dispersed among the Gentiles” referred to the Jews that were scattered among the Gentiles. I don't understand what you're trying to prove here.
Seeking said:
Quote Gentiles – In the original, Greeks. All those who were not Jews were called Greeks, because they were chiefly acquainted with those pagans only who spake the Greek language. Uh, Seeking, there is quite a difference between the literal meaning of a word and the manner inwhich the word was employed. In Barnes' first defintion he clearly said that the term “hellenist” referred to Jews that were scattered among the Gentiles”. I hope you don't really entertain the notion that the Jews considered nations outside their race as the “dispersed”. Come on!
And Barnes' second definition is just the rendering to the word “hellenist” in its literal sense. You are convoluding things.
Seeking said:
Quote Is there a reason you emphasised “Jews only” and ingnored the second group? So it wasn't “Jews only” after all. That puts us back to the difference in thinking as to what Hellenist were. So when it says in Acts 11:19 that they preached to Jews only it does not really mean Jews only? Is this what you are trying to peddle? You expect us to believe that “Jews only” does not mean “Jews only”? The Jews were being categorized into groups of Jews. Such categorization is present also in Acts 2,
Quote And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven….Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthains and medes and Elamites, those dwelling im Mesopotamia, Judea and cappadocia, Pontus and Asai, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoinig Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs-we hear them speaking in oue own tongues the wonderful works of God.” There it is my friend! The disciples who were Galilean Jews were speaking to their fellow Jews from every nation under heaven in their respective, native born languages.
The phenomenon on Pentecost consisted of Jews speaking to various groups of Jews as well as proselytes who were counted as Jews..
Seeking said:
Quote Act 22:21 And he said to me, 'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'” First, you are relying on erroneous translation. The Greek “ethnos' simply means “nations”, that is, the various nations of the Jews. It should never be translated “Gentiles” unless clearly indicated in the context. Example, the word “ethnos” must refer to the Gentiles in Romans 2 because it says that they did not have the law.
Second, Paul preached only to the nations of Israel after this and ended up in prison for it. Your translation is out of accord with the historical facts.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 01 2009,16:22)
Thinker,I am ending discussion with you on this matter here. This post has been most revealing to me. You act like you are quoting me and deliberately omit part of my post. Here is the part you conviently omitted:
Gentiles – In the original, Greeks.All those who were not Jews were called Greeks , because they were chiefly acquainted with those pagans only who spake the Greek language.
Quote Seeking said:Gentiles – In the original, Greeks. All those who were not Jews were called Greeks, because they were chiefly acquainted with those pagans only who spake the Greek language. I did not say this. It was the part of the Barnes quote you choose to exclude.
Quote And Barnes' second definition is just the rendering to the word “hellenist” in its literal sense. You are convoluding things Oh, the literal sense. And we shoudn't assume it was used in the literal sense should we. Especially when that would blow our theorizing a meaning less than literal.
Now you want to jump from John to Acts. I thought you frowned on text jumping. Or is that only when I do it? OK,
off to Acts 19. I'll just paste what I did in the post I assume you have been referencing:And on Acts 11:19-20 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews.
Act 11:20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
Is there a reason you emphasised “Jews only” and ingnored the second group? So it wasn't “Jews only” after all. That puts us back to the difference in thinking as to what Hellenist were.
Here's Barnes again:
pros tous Hellēnistas. To the Hellenists. This word usually denotes in the New Testament “those Jews residing in foreign lands, who spoke the Greek language.” See the notes on Act_6:1. But to them the gospel had been already preached;
and yet in this place it is evidently the intention of Luke to affirm that the people of Cyprus and Cyrene preached to those who who were not Jewsand that thus their conduct was distinguished from those (Act_11:19) who preached to the Jews only. It is thus manifest that we are here required to understand the Gentiles as those who were addressed by the people of Cyprus and Cyrene.
Quote So when it says in Acts 11:19 that they preached to Jews only it does not really mean Jews only? Is this what you are trying to peddle? Not “peddling” that at all. But not excluding the next verse,
you know – “line by line” to which Barnes commentsand yet in this place it is evidently the intention of Luke to affirm that the people of Cyprus and Cyrene preached to those who who werenot Jewsand that thus their conduct was distinguished from those (Act_11:19) who preached to the Jews only.
Context shows, within two verses, that both Jews and non-Jews were preached to.
Quote Second, Paul preached only to the nations of Israel after this and ended up in prison for it. Your translation is out of accord with the historical facts. When, pray tell, did Paul take his “Faith Only” revelation that you describe that were of the etnos that meant non-Jew?
Did he ever, as I am throughly convinced that that was who Jesus sent him to.Yes, convoluted describes your discussion well. Thus, I will just read and comment no further on this subject.
Seeking
Seeking said:
Quote I did not say this. It was the part of the Barnes quote you choose to exclude. Seeking,
I was not attributing Barnes' statement to you. I was only trying to show that you are taking Barnes out of context. On Acts 6:1 Barnes wrote:Quote In the time when the gospel was first preached there were two classes of Jews-those who remained in Palesine, who used the Hebrew language, and who were appropriately called Hebrews; and those who were scattered among the Gentiles, who spoke the Greek language, and who used in their synagogues the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint. These were called Hellenists, or, as it is in our translations, Grecians. See John 7:35 Barnes gives John 7:35 as a reference to the point tha there were two classes of Jews, the one called “Hebrews” and the other called “Greeks”. Yet you have been saying that the the term “Greeks” refers to non-Jews.
ACTS 6:1:
NIV Translation:
Quote In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained…. Amplified New Testament translation:
Quote Now about this time, when the number of disciples was greatly increasing, complaint was made by the hellenists (the Greek-speaking Jews). NASB marginal note:
Quote Hellenist: Jews who accepted the Greek language and much of Greek culture through acculturation, p. 1525 ESV footnote:
Quote Greek, that is, Greek speaking Jews, p. 914 Reformation Study Bible marginal note:
Quote 1.Greek speaking Jews Scofield Bible note:
Quote Hellenist, i.e., Grecian Jews, p. 1156 With all the evidence above I am wondering if you have misread Thayer also.
The plain fact is that when Paul denounced the leaders of the Jews saying, “we turn to the nations” he afterwards went only into the synagogues of the Jews. The “Greeks” he preached to in those synagogues were NOT Gentiles. They were Hellenist Jews. Therefore, the word “ethnos” (nations) in Acts 13 distinguishes between class and not race.
You are ignoring historical facts in favor of erroneous translations which say “Gentiles” because you want to force the Gentiles of that time to be baptized. But the fact is that Gentiles were never comanded to be baptized. When Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize “all nations” He was referring to the various nations of Israel which existed at that time. And the fact that the apostles never comanded Gentiles to be baptized shows that they understood this.
Jesus said:
Quote Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into the city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5-6) If they went to Gentiles in the book of Acts then they were disobedient to their Lord. Therefore, baptism was NOT universally required then. And it is altogether done away with now because the old covenant has completely passed away.
thinker
Quoting Thinker –
Barnes gives John 7:35 as a reference to the point tha there were two classes of Jews, the one called “Hebrews” and the other called “Greeks”. Yet you have been saying that the the term “Greeks” refers to non-Jews.
Now you attribute the rest of what Barnes said to what I said. For the last time, here is Barnes on the matter – not what “I said” but what “He said.”
Joh 7:35
The dispersed among the Gentiles – To the Jews scattered among the Gentiles, or living in distant parts of the earth. It is well known that at that time there were Jews dwelling in almost every land. There were multitudes in Egypt, in Asia Minor, in Greece, in Rome, etc., and in all these places they had synagogues. The question which they asked was whether he would leave an ungrateful country, and go into those distant nations and teach them.Gentiles – In the original, Greeks. ALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT JEWS WERE CALLED GREEKS. because they were chiefly acquainted with those pagans only who spake the Greek language. (Barnes)
I am not interested in running off now to Acts 6:1 or Acts 11:19-20 where we have already been and where Barnes disagreed with you again, remember –
pros tous Hellēnistas. To the Hellenists. This word usually denotes in the New Testament “those Jews residing in foreign lands, who spoke the Greek language.” See the notes on Act_6:1. But to them the gospel had been already preached;
and yet in this place it is evidently the intention of Luke to affirm that the people of Cyprus and Cyrene preached to those who who were NOT JEWS and that thus their conduct was distinguished from those (Act_11:19) who preached to the Jews only. It is thus manifest that we are here required to understand the Gentiles as those who were addressed by the people of Cyprus and Cyrene.
You also proposed this – “Act 22:21 And he said to me, 'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'”
First, you are relying on erroneous translation. “Here are a few –
Act 22:21 KJV And he said unto me, Depart: for will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
Act 22:21 ESV And he said to me, 'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'”
AC 22:21 NIV “Then the Lord said to me, `Go; I will send you far away to the.' Gentiles .'”
Acts 22:21 NASB”And He said to me, 'Go! For I will send you far away to the .'” Gentiles.'”
Acts 22:21 ASV And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles.
So we are to believe they all are erroneous and we can only rely on the ones who say it the way you like?
Quote With all the evidence above I am wondering if you have misread Thayer also. What is this suppose to mean? I printed it – copy it and show me what I misread. Cease your wondering!
Quote The plain fact is that when Paul denounced the leaders of the Jews saying, “we turn to the nations” he afterwards went only into the synagogues of the Jews. The “Greeks” he preached to in those synagogues were NOT Gentiles. Here we go again! Remember, you don't like it when folks don't answer your questions. For a final request – WHEN DID PAUL FINALLY TAKE THE “FAITH ALONE” GOSPEL TO THE GENTILES (ETHNOS THAT WERE NOT JEWS)?
As I said on this matter being discussed, ” I will read with interest but not post further. I leave you and others to your game of Chess.
Seeking
thethinker,Mar. wrote:[/quote]
Quote Thinker –Quote
Jesus said:Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into the city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5-6)If they went to Gentiles in the book of Acts then they were disobedient to their Lord.
Here is historical fact from the book of Acts:
Act 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria , and to the end of the earth.”
Act 8:5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that
Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,Act 9:31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and
Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.Either they were disobedient to there Lord or you totally misunderstand the Lord's directions to them and the appropriate timing of those directions and what would consistute disobedience on their part.
I go with, the apostles understood and followed the Lord's directions clearly and precisely. They went to Samaria, preached Jesus in Samaria, and baptizied in Samaria –
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
I observe, “when they believed – they were baptized.”
Seeking
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
