I really have to disagree, BJC about the Greeks being Israelites. My reasoning is based on common sense, not commentary. In Acts 2 we see the believers had all things common, breaking bread from house to house, Levites repenting and selling their property (Under the Law they are not allowed to own anything, remember) So, when the Levite sold his land, he was keeping the Levitical Law that pertained to him.
No I ask you something. I f all this was going on, why would a group of Israelite believers all of a sudden start complaining and taking issue that they were being neglected? Why would it specifically say Greeks and not believers if what you say is so? Why would they be singled out, if Acts 2 is true and the believers had all things common?
I am sure these people were Gentiles, and not Christian. The believers were slacking on their civil duties to the rulers of the city - Greeks and Romans. I am also sure that the Israelite sect of Christians were eating very well, and they continued to share all with each other.
Rachel
Well, Rachel, they were not immune to their form of WayCorp-dom, if you will. It was a commonly held belief that the Jew that was born in the homeland was better than the Jew born during the Exilic period or thereafter because the family just simply decided to stay in the area that they had learned to call "home". This would be why they felt that they were being somewhat excluded. It doesn't mean they were starving or were not being included, but rather something on this order: "one for you - two for me - one more for you and three for me, etc." <_< The Diaspora Jews, were called Grecians because they had been Hellenized, which means that they spoke Greek which was the lingua franca of its day....they also spoke and understood Hebrew for the ceremonial aspects of worship, but their primary language was Greek. It was kind of like being the poor cousins. They were accepted but looked down upon because they didn't have the honor granted to them to be born in the homeland. They were not Gentiles at this time. The first was the house of Cornelius and that was later. The church at the first was very ethnocentric and had not as of yet entertained fully the command of the Lord Jesus. They were moving out, but they had not yet went to the Gentiles.
Perhaps because they were being neglected.
Because even within the group of "believers" there were subsets, categories. There were the Jews who lived in the borders of the old kingdoms of Judea and Israel and there were the diaspora, who spoke Greek, the hellenists.
Because people are fallible and don't always do what they should.
You may be right, but some very solid evidense has been presented by one who disagrees with you.
Forgive me if I missed something in your previous posts, but what duties to the civil rulers? The Jews were supposed to feed the widows of Gentiles?
Well, Oak, I should have read your post first, you pretty much covered it all.
the "message" is a paraphrase based on someone's personal interpretation...
no thanks, i don't need to read someone else's private interpretation!
i've had enough private interpretation (via the way ministry) to last me a lifetime...
by reading someone's paraphrase, you get an inaccurate picture of what is going on...
these folks were not believers who happened to speak greek (greek-speaking believers per "the message"), they were those who were following the hellenistic culture (a pagan culture)... (personally, i would not call people who follow a paganistic culture "christian")
by reading "the message," you have come to the conclusion that the apostles "didn't want to get involved with the poor"... when that is NOT what the text says... it says that it is not appropriate/desirable/fitting for the apostles to leave the Word of God in order to serve or "wait tables"... they would be spreading themselves too thin if they did both... and it's not appropriate for them to abandon the Word for waiting on tables... this says NOTHING about them not wanting to "get involved with the poor"...
the reason this verse "seems a little off" to you is because you are reading "the message" which contains peterson's interpretation...
edited to add:
The Jews were supposed to feed the widows of Gentiles?
they were all of jewish background... but some followed the hellenistic way of life and some followed the hebrew way of life...
the "message" is a paraphrase based on someone's personal interpretation...
no thanks, i don't need to read someone else's private interpretation!
i've had enough private interpretation (via the way ministry) to last me a lifetime...
When you're translating, even the KJV, though considered to be a literal translation has it's share of added words and phrases
by reading someone's paraphrase, you get an inaccurate picture of what is going on...
these folks were not believers who happened to speak greek (greek-speaking believers per "the message"), they were those who were following the hellenistic culture (a pagan culture)... (personally, i would not call people who follow a paganistic culture "christian")
Yes, they were. Can you name any souces other than yourself that agrees with you?
by reading "the message," you have come to the conclusion that the apostles "didn't want to get involved with the poor"... when that is NOT what the text says... it says that it is not appropriate/desirable/fitting for the apostles to leave the Word of God in order to serve or "wait tables"... they would be spreading themselves too thin if they did both... and it's not appropriate for them to abandon the Word for waiting on tables... this says NOTHING about them not wanting to "get involved with the poor"...
Jen-o, who are you addressing here? I said:
Quite the contrary, Rachel. The Grecians were Jewish people that had been displaced during the diaspora or the Exile. The NASB concurs and so does the Companion bible by Bullinger. These people were not Gentiles, but rather Jews. At this time, the church was still very much ethnocentric and was not reaching out to the Gentiles.
the reason this verse "seems a little off" to you is because you are reading "the message" which contains peterson's interpretation...
This was a post by Twinky, not brideofjc. What you deem as Peterson's interpretation, so also the KJV, NIV, NASB et al. Sorry.
edited to add:
they were all of jewish background... but some followed the hellenistic way of life and some followed the hebrew way of life...
i was just posting some of my general observations...
bride, it's not always about you...
but since you are asking me a question, i will respond...
these folks were not believers who happened to speak greek (greek-speaking believers per "the message"), they were those who were following the hellenistic culture (a pagan culture)... (personally, i would not call people who follow a paganistic culture "christian")
Yes, they were. Can you name any souces other than yourself that agrees with you?
actually, i can...
the bible...
in acts 9:29, paul disputed against these "hellenists", and the "hellenists" sought to kill him!
if you think these hellenists were christians, then you have a different definition for "christian" than i do...
and in acts 11:20, some of the christian men that came to antioch preached (euaggelizo) the Lord Jesus to these "hellenists"...
if the hellenists were christians, then why don't they already know about the Lord Jesus?
(up until this time, they had preached the Word to jews only, according to acts 11:19)
[btw, if you read "the message", you would not be able to see the pattern between these verses]
now, you may believe these "hellenists" are christians... but i do NOT...
like i said, we may have very different definitions of what it means to be a "christian"...
as for commentaries, i take all commentaries with a grain of salt...
i do not rely on commentaries... i have the Holy Spirit to teach me, and have no need of any man to teach me (1John2:27)
do you think that your opinion is more valid because it agrees with a couple of "commentaries" (specifically, the NASB & the companion bible)?
still, my point has nothing to do with whether the "hellenists" were jews or gentiles... my point is that "hellenists" are NOT christians (in my opinion, that is)...
but hellenism is more than the language one speaks... hellenism is a culture!
and hellenists follow the hellenistic (pagan) culture; they do not follow a christian way of life...
now, as for "the message", it is a very poor paraphrase heavily laced with peterson's private interpretation (in my opinion, that is) :D
in fact, i believe that this kind of poor paraphrase introduces all kinds of doctrinal errors while watering down the Word of God... to the degree that it is an instrument of satan in his attempt to merge christianity with the other world religions on his quest to form a global religion...
(well, no one ever accused me of not having strong opinions) LOLOL :lol:
Jeno/Jenny, Rachel, and Bride of Jesus Christ: I admit the Petersen's paraphrase The Message like Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible relate to overall concepts from Southern Baptist backgrounds. BTW, Amplified Bible is also a paraphrase. Most people now use NKJV, NASB(New American Standard Bible), ESV/English Standard Version as improvements over 1760 American spelling of King James Version(1611 uses Gothic lettering of writing/calligraphy). Some use NIV, NRSV, CEV/Contemporary English Version, NCV/New Centuary Version, and NLT/New Living Translation. Even Moffat, Knox, and Williams are improvements(but from early 20th Cent.) over regular KJV(and not King James' actual personal Bible worth millions/or even billions of dollars/pounds and located in London museum). Paraphrases are sometimes disastreaous. Now quit picking on Twinky, or do I have to get the moderators and Paw involved? Certainly not true Christian spiritual maturity("Renewed Mind").
Now quit picking on Twinky, or do I have to get the moderators and Paw involved?
are you serious?!?
i have seen people threaten this kind of thing here before... so i don't know if you are joking or not?
if you are being serious, just what exactly are you gonna tell the moderators?
oh, that nasty jen-o... can you believe that she posted her opinion about "the message"... not once, but twice even... the unmitigated gall... she has some nerve posting her opinion about a version of the bible in the doctrinal section... well, i just don't like it... and i want you to make her stop... stop that kind of thing right now!... we need the moderators to be involved... yep, we need to have a meeting bout this... we just can't allow people to go around posting their opinions about bible versions... i mean, just who do they think they are anyway... yep, i'm gonna threaten her... i'm gonna threaten her with the dreaded moderators... maybe that will get her to shut up.... LOLOL
and if you are being facetious, i hope you appreciate my humor... LOL :lol:
i was just posting some of my general observations...
bride, it's not always about you...
Who said it was? It was just your post was a tad bit confusing and I didn't know who you were actually addressing?
but since you are asking me a question, i will respond...
actually, i can...
the bible...
in acts 9:29, paul disputed against these "hellenists", and the "hellenists" sought to kill him!
if you think these hellenists were christians, then you have a different definition for "christian" than i do...
Okay, look at the context again, Jen-o. Again, you are citing passages prior to Cornelius' conversion. Saul just got converted and in v26 he goes to Jerusalem, tries to join up with the "disciples", but they're afraid of him. Barnabus takes him to the apostles and vouches for him and so he is accepted. Then we see Paul debating with Hellenistic JEWS (not christians), btw, Paul was a Hellenistic JEW before his conversion, so who better to debate with the Hellenistic JEWS than Paul, a former Hellenist who can stand on their own ground and hold his own? Then it says they went about to slay him. Pagan Hellenists wouldn't have cared, quite frankly. But Jewish Hellenists would have, because they would have viewed Paul as a traitor.
and in acts 11:20, some of the christian men that came to antioch preached (euaggelizo) the Lord Jesus to these "hellenists"...
if the hellenists were christians, then why don't they already know about the Lord Jesus?
(up until this time, they had preached the Word to jews only, according to acts 11:19)
Please look at where you chose to coroborate your thoughts....Acts 11:20 is where Peter is discussing with the leaders in Jerusalem about the conversion of Cornelius, the first Gentile household to become filled with the HS and then the very verse you cite, clearly falls apart in how you wish to use it, by the one that precedes, namely 11:19, which states: "Now they that which were scattered abroad upon the persecution...." These were Jews going out from Jerusalem, not Gentiles.
[btw, if you read "the message", you would not be able to see the pattern between these verses]
now, you may believe these "hellenists" are christians... but i do NOT...
like i said, we may have very different definitions of what it means to be a "christian"...
as for commentaries, i take all commentaries with a grain of salt...
i do not rely on commentaries... i have the Holy Spirit to teach me, and have no need of any man to teach me (1John2:27)
You need to re-read that context again, as well. Not that HE doesn't at any other time, but you still need to re-read your citation again.
do you think that your opinion is more valid because it agrees with a couple of "commentaries" (specifically, the NASB & the companion bible)?
The NASB and Companion Bible are not commentaries, they are study bibles. My point is valid Jen-o because I'm looking at the whole picture and you are not. You are isolating verses and lifting them out of context to prove your point.
still, my point has nothing to do with whether the "hellenists" were jews or gentiles... my point is that "hellenists" are NOT christians (in my opinion, that is)...
but hellenism is more than the language one speaks... hellenism is a culture!
and hellenists follow the hellenistic (pagan) culture; they do not follow a christian way of life...
That's right, Hellenism was a culture...and the Jews were living in it because of the Diaspora and once Christianity took off, there were then Hellenistic Christians.
now, as for "the message", it is a very poor paraphrase heavily laced with peterson's private interpretation (in my opinion, that is) :D
in fact, i believe that this kind of poor paraphrase introduces all kinds of doctrinal errors while watering down the Word of God... to the degree that it is an instrument of satan in his attempt to merge christianity with the other world religions on his quest to form a global religion...
(well, no one ever accused me of not having strong opinions) LOLOL :lol:
You should read up on how the bible is translated, that is all I will say.
Jeno/Jenny, Rachel, and Bride of Jesus Christ: I admit the Petersen's paraphrase The Message like Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible relate to overall concepts from Southern Baptist backgrounds. BTW, Amplified Bible is also a paraphrase. Most people now use NKJV, NASB(New American Standard Bible), ESV/English Standard Version as improvements over 1760 American spelling of King James Version(1611 uses Gothic lettering of writing/calligraphy). Some use NIV, NRSV, CEV/Contemporary English Version, NCV/New Centuary Version, and NLT/New Living Translation. Even Moffat, Knox, and Williams are improvements(but from early 20th Cent.) over regular KJV(and not King James' actual personal Bible worth millions/or even billions of dollars/pounds and located in London museum). Paraphrases are sometimes disastreaous. Now quit picking on Twinky, or do I have to get the moderators and Paw involved? Certainly not true Christian spiritual maturity("Renewed Mind").
All versions of the Bible have something going for them and all have problems. I don't exalt one version above another. I'm just bored with KJV having read it for so many years and I find more modern versions easier to pick through and get to the gist of it quicker.
I think the point made in this thread about the Hellenists being of Jewish extraction is a good point. Why else would they be in Jerusalem at Passover time? Too many just to be traders.
But I am not moved from the idea that the apostles should have got out there pretty soon after Pentecost to hold forth the word to EVERYONE - Jews, Hellenists, Samaritans, Syrians, Arabs, Europeans, and all the world. Their first focus would naturally be the Mediterranean area.
I am considering the course of Paul's ministry, back and forth, back and forth, spending a while in an area, moving on, returning, ordaining leaders for that area, moving on, going back or writing to strengthen them. He spent a lot of time in Antioch and seems to have used that much as a base, returning there time and time again.
Who knows what the apostles could have achieved if they had gone out two by two as they had previously been taught, all in different directions? When we see what Paul achieved in just a few short years - okay, they were not all "Pauls" but God works with heart not natural ability alone - what is some had gone to Egypt, some to more south in Africa, some to Babylon, some to other parts of Asia Minor, some to the islands? Paul wanted to get to Spain but he didn't make it there. It's an awesome prospect.
i'm not here to pick nits... picking nits is just NOT my favorite pasttime...
i am posting my general train of thought, and i'm not really into picking apart every line of a post... but i guess i have to respond to some of this stuff... (sigh)
you wrote:
"Who said it was?"
bride, the tone of your posts say it... i don't live in a vacuum...
(i don't know how much of this i really want to get into... let me just say that i've read some of your posts on the "vp is essential" thread)
it's your comments and tone that gave me this impression...
you wrote:
The NASB and Companion Bible are not commentaries, they are study bibles.
bride i am aware of what the NASB and companion bibles are... i even own one of them; imagine that!
the companion bible has MORE "commentary" on the page than it does the Word of God...
(btw, the companion bible IS the king james version)
so when you said that the NASB and bullinger "concurred" with you, just what were you referring to??...
this is what you wrote:
The Grecians were Jewish people that had been displaced during the diaspora or the Exile. The NASB concurs and so does the Companion bible by Bullinger.
this is not what the bible states, so i am assuming that it is the "commentary" that "concurs" with you...
"commentary" is all those comments on the side of the page that are NOT the Living Word of God... i shouldn't have to spell this out for you, bride...
but you shouldn't back up your opinion with a "commentary" and then act like case closed, "thus says the Lord"...
i thought you were putting a lot of weight on "commentary" since you asked me to "cite my sources"
as in:
Can you name any souces other than yourself that agrees (sic) with you?
i don't need to find sources that agree with me... that is not the name of my game... i read (and study) the bible to know the Truth, not to find something that agrees with me!
you wrote:
Okay, look at the context again, Jen-o.
Please look at where you chose to coroborate your thoughts
You need to re-read that context again, as well.
but you still need to re-read your citation again.
You are isolating verses and lifting them out of context to prove your point.
You should read up on how the bible is translated, that is all I will say
if this isn't condescending, i don't know what is...
you rebuke me without ever addressing the content of what i say!
bride, i am NOTinferior to you!
i know you think you are highly educated, but i have a couple of (three) college degrees myself, having graduated with a 4.0 each time...
however, i count my education but DUNG compared to what the Holy Spirit teaches me...
there IS a difference between being theologically educated and being taught by the Holy Spirit!
and i stand by what i said: i have need of no man to teach me because the Holy Spirit teaches me!
(and that IS in context, the context of deception (and there is a lot of deception in man's commentary)... every man is a liar, but the Holy Spirit cannot lie!)
now, concerning the content that you did address:
Okay, look at the context again, Jen-o. Again, you are citing passages prior to Cornelius' conversion. Saul just got converted and in v26 he goes to Jerusalem, tries to join up with the "disciples", but they're afraid of him. Barnabus takes him to the apostles and vouches for him and so he is accepted. Then we see Paul debating with Hellenistic JEWS (not christians), btw, Paul was a Hellenistic JEW before his conversion, so who better to debate with the Hellenistic JEWS than Paul, a former Hellenist who can stand on their own ground and hold his own? Then it says they went about to slay him. Pagan Hellenists wouldn't have cared, quite frankly. But Jewish Hellenists would have, because they would have viewed Paul as a traitor.
first you rebuke me, and then you agree with me that hellenist jews are not christian... (scratching my head)
let me just add: you make a distinction between "pagan hellenists" and "jewish hellenists"... i do NOT... in my opinion, a hellenist IS a pagan (whether they are of jewish lineage OR gentile background)
my whole point is that hellenists (pagans) are NOT christians...
i'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that...
and again, when you write:
These were Jews going out from Jerusalem, not Gentiles.
i know they are of jewish lineage... i never disputed that!... and i never said they were "gentiles"..
but they are christians of jewish lineage...
if you are a jew who accepts Jesus as Lord, then you are a christian and a member of the church of God, the one Body of Christ...
methinks that all of that "theological training" is getting in the way of the simplicity of the gospel!
and i think there is some confusion due to your definitions of jew, gentile, christian, and hellenist (which i define as a pagan)
here you say:
That's right, Hellenism was a culture...and the Jews were living in it because of the Diaspora and once Christianity took off, there were then Hellenistic Christians
and this was my original point... we have different defintions for what a "christian" is... i do NOT agree with you that there is such a thing as "hellenistic christians"... to me, that is like saying there are "paganistic christians" or "christian pagans"... i am of the opinion that christians do NOT follow paganism (and hellenism IS a pagan culture)... but we have been bought with a price... we are citizens of heaven, and confess that we are strangers and pilgrims on this earth... we follow the Lord Jesus Christ, and NOT some paganistic culture of the world...
if you see someone that you think the label "hellenistic christian" applies to, then i would suggest to you that this is a "christian" in NAME ONLY (in other words, a non-christian)... and this is what i think is happening in the world today - that christianity is being watered down, and has become almost meaningless as people have applied the word to just about anything... in my opinion, this is part of the agenda of satan that he is using to set up a global religion which will usher in the reign of the anti-christ...
this is my opinion!... and i don't think you are going to change it no matter what you say about being trained to "systematically destroy your positions on the Word"
as noted in:
Could I systematically destroy your positions on the WORD? Yes. That's what I've been trained to do, i.e. apologize the WORD OF GOD! I don't because I'm dealing with brothers and sisters. In seminary, it is a requirement to take classes on apologetics and one of the finals is to debate another student with the intent on destroying their position and proving them wrong.
i'm just not sure that this is such a "godly" goal...
i'm not here to pick nits... picking nits is just NOT my favorite pasttime...
i am posting my general train of thought, and i'm not really into picking apart every line of a post... but i guess i have to respond to some of this stuff... (sigh)
Gee jen....did a ding dang fine job of picking those nits, didn't ya? lol
BOJC wrote:
"Who said it was?"
Jen writes: bride, the tone of your posts say it... i don't live in a vacuum...
It's better to stick with actual words rather than "tones" which can be misinterpreted by the hearer.
Jen writes: (i don't know how much of this i really want to get into... let me just say that i've read some of your posts on the "vp is essential" thread)
it's your comments and tone that gave me this impression...
Naw, I just don't want someone to "generalize" their comments to multiple people and then later on it is said that I said such and such. If you're going to address multiple people and the post doesn't put who the comment was originally from, you should, i.e. "Brideofjc says:" for example....
Jen wrote:
bride i am aware of what the NASB and companion bibles are... i even own one of them; imagine that! That's great!
the companion bible has MORE "commentary" on the page than it does the Word of God...
(btw, the companion bible IS the king james version)
so when you said that the NASB and bullinger "concurred" with you, just what were you referring to??...
this is what you wrote:
Jen pastes BOJC quote: The Grecians were Jewish people that had been displaced during the diaspora or the Exile. The NASB concurs and so does the Companion bible by Bullinger.
Jen writes: this is not what the bible states, so i am assuming that it is the "commentary" that "concurs" with you...
No, the bible does not state it, but the Jews didn't live in a vacuum either, Jen. Profane historical accounts abound with this information and is readily available. Josephus is an excellent source of historical references to what was going on at the time. One has to consider all accounts to get the whole picture. If we fail to study "outside" of the bible, much of what has been written within the scripture can be misunderstood because we lack the social climate that they were living in when they wrote the books.
"This" is not what I wrote, Jen....I wrote (this is pasted)Quite the contrary, Rachel. The Grecians were Jewish people that had been displaced during the diaspora or the Exile. The NASB concurs and so does the Companion bible by Bullinger. These people were not Gentiles, but rather Jews. At this time, the church was still very much ethnocentric and was not reaching out to the Gentiles.
The study bibles, namely Bullinger and NASB in their "studies" at the bottom or sides of the page concurred with me. I thought this should be clear to you. But if not, my apologies. Btw, Bullinger is the only one that even comes close to a critical Greek commentary. However, it is still a "study bible" and not an official commentary. Commentaries come in all flavors: Pure authorial content; mild authorial and Greek; middle of the road; critical Greek commentaries, poor to excellent.
"commentary" is all those comments on the side of the page that are NOT the Living Word of God... i shouldn't have to spell this out for you, bride...
but you shouldn't back up your opinion with a "commentary" and then act like case closed, "thus says the Lord"...
Because you make "comments" or "study notes" does not a "commentary make."
i thought you were putting a lot of weight on "commentary" since you asked me to "cite my sources"
as in: i don't need to find sources that agree with me... that is not the name of my game... i read (and study) the bible to know the Truth, not to find something that agrees with me!
You'll probably disagree with this and that is your right, but you should find other sources that "agree" with you...this Sister then tells you that you're still on the main road and have not wandered off into "Guess-a-rama-land." Then you say that you "read and study," then why is it that you are completely ignoring "context"? Eisegesis makes for poor reading and studying and I shouldn't have to tell you that either. But you have engaged in it and quite frankly, I've been rather shocked that you have allowed this into your posts.
and i stand by what i said: i have need of no man to teach me because the Holy Spirit teaches me!
(and that IS in context, the context of deception (and there is a lot of deception in man's commentary)... every man is a liar, but the Holy Spirit cannot lie!)
Here is what you wrote Jen and my response:
in acts 9:29, paul disputed against these "hellenists", and the "hellenists" sought to kill him!
if you think these hellenists were christians, then you have a different definition for "christian" than i do...
Okay, look at the context again, Jen-o. Again, you are citing passages prior to Cornelius' conversion. Saul just got converted and in v26 he goes to Jerusalem, tries to join up with the "disciples", but they're afraid of him. Barnabus takes him to the apostles and vouches for him and so he is accepted. Then we see Paul debating with Hellenistic JEWS (not christians), btw, Paul was a Hellenistic JEW before his conversion, so who better to debate with the Hellenistic JEWS than Paul, a former Hellenist who can stand on their own ground and hold his own? Then it says they went about to slay him. Pagan Hellenists wouldn't have cared, quite frankly. But Jewish Hellenists would have, because they would have viewed Paul as a traitor.
then here is what you just posted:
if this isn't condescending, i don't know what is...
you rebuke me without ever addressing the content of what i say!now, concerning the content that you did address:
Now BOJC says to above: It isn't condescending, Jen. It is encouraging you to take another look at what you just wrote and where you're trying to establish you point. Plus, I am addressing your content, though it isn't spelled out. Did I need to? You listed Acts 9:29 as your "content" and so I said: "look at the context again...." i.e. the context of Acts 9:29.
Jen wrote: first you rebuke me, and then you agree with me that hellenist jews are not christian... (scratching my head)
Exactly what do you consider to be a "rebuke"? I see nothing where I wrote anything that said "Geez, Jen, you're really stupid!" That, sister, would be a rebuke!
Perhaps you're reacting to my rebuttals, but they are not rebukes.
Jen wrote:
bride, i am NOTinferior to you!
..
The only one who has even mentioned "inferiority" is you, Jen. And please don't put words in my mouth and say that it was implied.
Jen writes: I know you think you are highly educated, but i have a couple of (three) college degrees myself, having graduated with a 4.0 each time
Now, that, Sister is condescending! Hmmmm, pot calling the kettle black? Because you are just boldly stating that YOU are led and taught by the HOLY SPIRIT, but I'm only "theologically educated." And then "I THINK I'm highly educated", no Jen, I KNOW that I have received a high quality education, having sat with Doctorates, both Ph.D and D.Min's, and Th.M.'s. Men and women who have devoted their lives to the study of the Scriptures. And I think it is wonderful that you have three college degrees. What discipline? Care to enlighten me?
Jen then writes: however, i count my education but DUNG compared to what the Holy Spirit teaches me...
there IS a difference between being theologically educated and being taught by the Holy Spirit!
Sister, I have found from experience that the Holy Spirit will never contradict HIS OWN WORD. Usually, when people are wrong about an assertion that they have made regarding the Scriptures, they get defensive and pull this particular verse out of their arsenal. Sister, the Holy Spirit isn't going to teach you to ignore the context. Now please do not infer that I am saying that you are incapable of ever hearing the Holy Spirit.
Jen writes: let me just add: you make a distinction between "pagan hellenists" and "jewish hellenists"... i do NOT... in my opinion, a hellenist IS a pagan (whether they are of jewish lineage OR gentile background)
my whole point is that hellenists (pagans) are NOT christians...
i'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that...
Yeah, I'm not sure what is so hard about differentiating between the two, because there really can be two, Jen. If a Jewish person moves to Greece....homeland of the Hellenistic culture....does this make him a pagan Hellenist? Or perhaps he becomes influenced by his surrounding culture and learns the Greek language, etc. etc. but he still worships the Hebrew God....now he can be said to be a Hellenistic Jew, which doesn't make him a pagan. Another example: I'm Christian, but I'm living in a decidedly non-christian culture...does this then negate my christianity because of where I live? Nope! My point should be well noted.
Jen wrote: and i think there is some confusion due to your definitions of jew, gentile, christian, and hellenist (which i define as a pagan)
See above, Jen. I think the problem is not mine, but yours. You have confusion regarding the term Hellenist. It's on the same par as American.
Jen wrote:
and again, when you write:
i know they are of jewish lineage... i never disputed that!... and i never said they were "gentiles"..
but they are christians of jewish lineage...
if you are a jew who accepts Jesus as Lord, then you are a christian and a member of the church of God, the one Body of Christ...
Jen, could you please cut and past the actual quotes?
Jen wrote: methinks that all of that "theological training" is getting in the way of the simplicity of the gospel!
Theological training facilitates the simplicity of the gospel by training you to look at the whole picture and not make assertions that you cannot back up.
here you say:
BOJC wrote: That's right, Hellenism was a culture...and the Jews were living in it because of the Diaspora and once Christianity took off, there were then Hellenistic Christians
Jen writes: and this was my original point... we have different defintions for what a "christian" is... i do NOT agree with you that there is such a thing as "hellenistic christians"... to me, that is like saying there are "paganistic christians" or "christian pagans"... i am of the opinion that christians do NOT follow paganism (and hellenism IS a pagan culture)... but we have been bought with a price... we are citizens of heaven, and confess that we are strangers and pilgrims on this earth... we follow the Lord Jesus Christ, and NOT some paganistic culture of the world...
Again, see above. Just because you live in a pagan culture, it does not make you a pagan, or otherwise Jen, then you are a pagan! Egads!
Jen writes: if you see someone that you think the label "hellenistic christian" applies to, then i would suggest to you that this is a "christian" in NAME ONLY (in other words, a non-christian)... and this is what i think is happening in the world today - that christianity is being watered down, and has become almost meaningless as people have applied the word to just about anything... in my opinion, this is part of the agenda of satan that he is using to set up a global religion which will usher in the reign of the anti-christ...
this is my opinion!... and i don't think you are going to change it no matter what you say about being trained to "systematically destroy your positions on the Word"
as noted in:
Apparently, this really bothered you, didn't it? LOL. Obviously, you have never been exposed to apologetics, which is a "defense" of the Word of God, which entails that if you have a "defense", then it must also be that you have an "offensive position" as well. Because you must be able to counter any attacks, which means that you must systematically destroy your opponents position.
Jen writes: i'm just not sure that this is such a "godly" goal...
Philippians 1:7c,d - inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the DEFENSE and confirmation of the gospel...
The Word of God says it all.
Jen writes: and in my case, it can't even be accomplished!
Then where is your rebuttal of my rebuttal? If I didn't accomplish my goal regarding Acts 9:29 and 11:20, you should have responded.
well, i sure hope that made you feel better, bride...
because i cannot follow that mixed up color-coded mess...
you, are the queen of the "nits," my dear!
i am NOT going to have a conversation in this manner!
it is ludicrous!!!
bride, i'm gonna let you have the last word...
so have at it!
p.s. when did i graduate to thinking raf was the weatherman... seems like only yesterday that i thought the coffee was too strong!... LOL
It's not a matter of feeling better or not. Your name is attached to your quotes and my name is attached to mine....why would you not be able to follow it? I took great
pains to make it clear by color coding it so that each one stood out.
What manner is that? Responding to each statement and the rebuttal of such?
Sorry if this duplicates what someone else posted regrading Grecians/Hellenists, but I too have trouble following the changing color schemmes within the quotes...but that's just me
From what I understand, Hellenists were Jews who lived within the Greek culture, spoke the Greek language, but still practiced the Jewish religion. Some of these Hellenists (who are by definition Jews) became Christians. Some remained Jews-by-religion and some of those opposed the Christian message preached by Paul and others. Each is a subset of the larger group: Greek speaking Jews who opposed Christianity and Greek speaking Jews who became Christians are both subsets of the larger group of Greek speaking Jews, who are in turn part of the still larger group of all Jews.
Why would a Hellenistic Jew who converted to Christianity not be considered a Christian because they lived in a pagan culture? Are you saying that one can't be a Christian in officially atheistic China, or in Muslim Syria or in pagan (Hindu) India?
Why would you expect the bible to state facts (like whether "Grecians" refers to Hellenized Jews or true Gentiles) that would have been obvious to the reader 2000 years ago? The bible uses a word, "Grecians", but does not define what the word means, so what do we do? Look to extra-biblical sources to see how the word was used in that time and culture, or look to other uses within the bible to see how the word is used. Most, if not all sources will indicate that Hellēn is the word that is used for Greeks specifically and gentiles in general, hellenistēs is used for Greek-speaking Jews and is usually tranlsated "Greek" or "gentile". By taking the position that "Grecians" refers to gentiles, you indulge in the private interpretation that you accuse others of.
i have NEVER said that the hellenists were "gentiles"...
(but you wouldn't know it from trying to read the color-coded thingie)
i have repeatedly stated that the hellenists (in this verse) were jews!...
i have always maintained that they were of jewish lineage, and that they followed the hellenist culture (and the hellenist culture was a pagan culture)...
my point has always been that they were NOT christians...
because once a jew accepts Jesus as Lord, then they follow Christ (and not paganism)
i think that the term "greek-speaking jews" is a very poor translation...
but i accused no individual on this thread of "private interpretation"...
except i do accuse peterson of taking great liberties in his "paraphrase" version of "the message"...
and i believe that his use of the term "greek-speaking jews" is misleading... because a culture is MORE than a language...
i have explained all of this before, but maybe bride has set up a straw man argument to CONFUSE what i actually said!
living in a pagan culture is not the point... we ALL (and all christians) live in a pagan culture...
but following the pagan culture is the thing that i am concerned about...
and, imo, the "jewish hellenists" followed the pagan/hellenist culture... (i hold this opinion because of the context of the use of the word "hellenist" in acts 9:29 and acts 11:20)... and because these "jewish hellenists" were following the hellenist culture, i submit that they were NOT christians...
i agree with you that a hellenist jew who converted to christianity would NOT be considered a pagan (even though they lived in a pagan culture)
this has been my basic position all along...
(although bride has seen fit to twist my words, and accuse me of all kinds of things)... and i'm not sure quite why... except that she seems to enjoy picking a part every line of a post in her "systematical destruction" of anothers viewpoint (which she admits she has been trained to do, and seems quite pround of that)
i'm not sure what she thinks she "systemetically destroyed", but it wasn't my viewpoint or position... since it is clear that after this many posts, she has confused what i said to the point that you (oak) think that i have said the opposite of what i actually said...
anyway, oak, it sure is nice to have a normal converastion about this... :)
and i hope i cleared up my postion for you...
peace,
jen-o
p.s. now, i want to know how long am i gonna think that raf is the weatherman... i would much rather be driving around in the wow mobile (like you oak), or even examining the hairs in the soup... LOLOL :lol:
btw, my post #36 was really not about the grecians/hellenists... (although i did address a little bit of the content concerning this)
but the reason for my post was more due to the "tone" of bride's post to me, than anything else...
as in:
bride wrote:
Okay, look at the context again, Jen-o.
Please look at where you chose to coroborate your thoughts
You need to re-read that context again, as well.
but you still need to re-read your citation again.
You are isolating verses and lifting them out of context to prove your point.
You should read up on how the bible is translated, that is all I will say
and i responded:
if this isn't condescending, i don't know what is...
you rebuke me without ever addressing the content of what i say!
bride, i am NOT inferior to you!
although bride missed this...
and attributed my remarkes about being condescending to a comment she picked out at random...
to wit,
she thought i was referring to this post of hers:
Okay, look at the context again, Jen-o. Again, you are citing passages prior to Cornelius' conversion. Saul just got converted and in v26 he goes to Jerusalem, tries to join up with the "disciples", but they're afraid of him. Barnabus takes him to the apostles and vouches for him and so he is accepted. Then we see Paul debating with Hellenistic JEWS (not christians), btw, Paul was a Hellenistic JEW before his conversion, so who better to debate with the Hellenistic JEWS than Paul, a former Hellenist who can stand on their own ground and hold his own? Then it says they went about to slay him. Pagan Hellenists wouldn't have cared, quite frankly. But Jewish Hellenists would have, because they would have viewed Paul as a traitor.
because she responded that this was my response to the above "quote"
then here is what you just posted:
if this isn't condescending, i don't know what is...
she, of course went on to respond to my comment referring to her "condescending" statements as if it was attributed to this random quote... when in fact i was referring to the above multiple statements...
this is but ONE example of things being "twisted"... and for this reason, i am not going to try to untangle the color-coded mess of errors, assumptions, accusations, and straw man arguements that bride posted...
i have repeatedly stated that the hellenists (in this verse) were jews!...
i have always maintained that they were of jewish lineage, and that they followed the hellenist culture (and the hellenist culture was a pagan culture)...
Okay, let's see if I follow. You agree that the hellenists mentioned are of Jewish bblood but that they are following a pagan culture. The implication seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that they are following the pagan religion as well.
my point has always been that they were NOT christians...
because once a jew accepts Jesus as Lord, then they follow Christ (and not paganism)
I would agree that someone folowing a pagan religion would not be a Christian, I don't agree that it follows that someone in a pagan culture could not be Christian.
An illustration might be a Christian living in India, a pagan culture. A Christian may choose to wear traditional Indian clothing and speak Hindi and respect local customs, but as long as they are not observing the Hindu religion then that person is still a Christian, albeit living in a pagan culture and following some of this cultures non-religious traditions.
It seems that you are equating culture with religion.
living in a pagan culture is not the point... we ALL (and all christians) live in a pagan culture...
but following the pagan culture is the thing that i am concerned about...
and, imo, the "jewish hellenists" followed the pagan/hellenist culture... (i hold this opinion because of the context of the use of the word "hellenist" in acts 9:29 and acts 11:20)... and because these "jewish hellenists" were following the hellenist culture, i submit that they were NOT christians...
i agree with you that a hellenist jew who converted to christianity would NOT be considered a pagan (even though they lived in a pagan culture)
I guess I'm just not seeing where you have drawn the line. Could you expand upon why you think that these Jews were following pagan religion? And why it makes sense that non-Christians would be complaining to Christian leaders about being shortchanged?
I apologize for misrepresenting your position, I missed a few things in the give and take. I find others' quotes within the tagged quotes and the psoters own thoughts outside the quote boxes to be much easier to follow. But again, that's just me :blink:
Sorry if this duplicates what someone else posted regrading Grecians/Hellenists, but I too have trouble following the changing color schemmes within the quotes...but that's just me
From what I understand, Hellenists were Jews who lived within the Greek culture, spoke the Greek language, but still practiced the Jewish religion. Some of these Hellenists (who are by definition Jews) became Christians. Some remained Jews-by-religion and some of those opposed the Christian message preached by Paul and others. Each is a subset of the larger group: Greek speaking Jews who opposed Christianity and Greek speaking Jews who became Christians are both subsets of the larger group of Greek speaking Jews, who are in turn part of the still larger group of all Jews.
Why would a Hellenistic Jew who converted to Christianity not be considered a Christian because they lived in a pagan culture? Are you saying that one can't be a Christian in officially atheistic China, or in Muslim Syria or in pagan (Hindu) India?
Why would you expect the bible to state facts (like whether "Grecians" refers to Hellenized Jews or true Gentiles) that would have been obvious to the reader 2000 years ago? The bible uses a word, "Grecians", but does not define what the word means, so what do we do? Look to extra-biblical sources to see how the word was used in that time and culture, or look to other uses within the bible to see how the word is used. Most, if not all sources will indicate that Hellēn is the word that is used for Greeks specifically and gentiles in general, hellenistēs is used for Greek-speaking Jews and is usually tranlsated "Greek" or "gentile". By taking the position that "Grecians" refers to gentiles, you indulge in the private interpretation that you accuse others of.
The only reason that I changed the color, was to offset the multiple posts that were within the post. When you reply to the original post, this board has a box that the quote is placed within, but if you reply to a post that contains these boxes, the boxes are deleted and if you do not transfer the words to the second reply, then the reader will not know what you are resonding to et al. That is why I took the time to not only color code it, but to write in "Jen writes....or....BOJC writes....."
This is now my edit: As you can see, Oakspear....the box above does not contain the boxes that you responded to in Jen's posts. This is what I mean and so if you read the box above, the average reader will not fully understand what you are replying to because this board has deleted them.
Sorry if this duplicates what someone else posted regrading Grecians/Hellenists, but I too have trouble following the changing color schemmes within the quotes...but that's just me
From what I understand, Hellenists were Jews who lived within the Greek culture, spoke the Greek language, but still practiced the Jewish religion. Some of these Hellenists (who are by definition Jews) became Christians. Some remained Jews-by-religion and some of those opposed the Christian message preached by Paul and others. Each is a subset of the larger group: Greek speaking Jews who opposed Christianity and Greek speaking Jews who became Christians are both subsets of the larger group of Greek speaking Jews, who are in turn part of the still larger group of all Jews.
Why would a Hellenistic Jew who converted to Christianity not be considered a Christian because they lived in a pagan culture? Are you saying that one can't be a Christian in officially atheistic China, or in Muslim Syria or in pagan (Hindu) India?
Why would you expect the bible to state facts (like whether "Grecians" refers to Hellenized Jews or true Gentiles) that would have been obvious to the reader 2000 years ago? The bible uses a word, "Grecians", but does not define what the word means, so what do we do? Look to extra-biblical sources to see how the word was used in that time and culture, or look to other uses within the bible to see how the word is used. Most, if not all sources will indicate that Hellēn is the word that is used for Greeks specifically and gentiles in general, hellenistēs is used for Greek-speaking Jews and is usually tranlsated "Greek" or "gentile". By taking the position that "Grecians" refers to gentiles, you indulge in the private interpretation that you accuse others of.
The only reason that I changed the color, was to offset the multiple posts that were within the post. When you reply to the original post, this board has a box that the quote is placed within, but if you reply to a post that contains these boxes, the boxes are deleted and if you do not transfer the words to the second reply, then the reader will not know what you are resonding to et al. That is why I took the time to not only color code it, but to write in "Jen writes....or....BOJC writes....."
This is now my edit: As you can see, Oakspear....the box above does not contain the boxes that you responded to in Jen's posts. This is what I mean and so if you read the box above, the average reader will not fully understand what you are replying to because this board has deleted them.
Hey, no judgement, do what works for you, I just have trouble following it.
Sometimes what I do is open GSC in two windows. In the first window I hit the "reply" button at the bottom of the post, this gives me the post that I am replying to, but as you said, it does not include the post that that post is replying to. In the second window I find the post that the post I am replying to is replying to. I hit the reply button, then copy what pops up to the first window. Now I have the original post, the reply by a second poster, and now I can add my reply to the reply.
I'm not saying that you should do it, just that I do. That's how I got the post that you replied to in there.
I see what you're trying to accomplish with your colors and "So-and-so said" intros, but it just doesn't work for me.
i, too, usually open up a second window so that i can refer back to what has been said in previous posts..
i have a real hard time following posts within posts within posts... but, hey, that's just me... :~D
however, now i am on webtv, and cannot open up a second window (nor do i have access to the icons)... so i'll be brief... :~)
my original motivation for posting on this thread was to comment on "the message" paraphrase... (and no, i'm not picking on twinky)... but somehow i got entangled in this discussion about the hellenists...
i'm trying to look at a much bigger picture... no, i do not think that culture and religion are synonyms... but i do think that they are intrinsically linked to the degree that it is difficult to separate one from the other... culture influences one's worldview... and religion (and its practices) also influences one's worldview... culture influences and shapes religion and vice versa...
for example, culture has influenced peterson as he wrote his paraphrase "the message"... and those who believe that "the message" is an inspired version of God's Word (and read it with that mindset), will therefore have their religious views shaped by peterson's worldview...
here is a link to an interesting article about "the message"...
www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html
i do make a distinction between a biblical worldview... and a cultural and/or religious worldview...
all christians live in pagan cultures - china, india, syria, america (yep, america), etc. etc.
so, of course, it is possible for a christian to live in a pagan culture... in fact, we all do...
so when i read about the "hellenists" in acts, it is my understanding that they were jews (of jewish lineage) who were following a mixture of hellenistic/pagan practices and jewish religious practices (with the mixture more heavily weighted towards the hellenistic culture)
this does not seem so unusual to me... i see people everywhere who mix paganism with religion... indeed, who mix paganism with christianity... and there are plenty of people who call themselves "christian" who just go thru the religious motions, but their heart is far from God...
anyway, my main point about the hellenists were that they were NOT christans... (not christians as described in the book of acts)
but i am really more concerned with the direction "christianity" is headed in... because many false teachers and prophets have crept in and are introducing all kinds of pagan ideas and practices into christianity...
hope that helps a little...
btw, i don't fault you for misunderstanding my position... it kinda got a little tangled up in here...
all christians live in pagan cultures - china, india, syria, america (yep, america), etc. etc.
so, of course, it is possible for a christian to live in a pagan culture... in fact, we all do...
And here I thought that I was a Pagan living in a Christian culture...
so when i read about the "hellenists" in acts, it is my understanding that they were jews (of jewish lineage) who were following a mixture of hellenistic/pagan practices and jewish religious practices (with the mixture more heavily weighted towards the hellenistic culture)
Okay, but why is that your understanding? What is it that leads you to conclude what you posted about them? You may be right, but I can't seem to see the basis for your opinion. Part of my objection is that it seems incredible that non-Christians would be approaching Christian leaders with complaints.
One of the reasons I went into Fellow Laborers is because we were supposed to spend two years studying The Book Of Acts and then return to our hometowns, as better equipped leaders, to handle God's Word.
But I gotta tell ya, I don't really know squat about The Book Of Acts.
That might just be one of my biggest disappointments in how the program evolved.
all christians live in pagan cultures - china, india, syria, america (yep, america), etc. etc.
so, of course, it is possible for a christian to live in a pagan culture... in fact, we all do...
And here I thought that I was a Pagan living in a Christian culture...
QUOTE
so when i read about the "hellenists" in acts, it is my understanding that they were jews (of jewish lineage) who were following a mixture of hellenistic/pagan practices and jewish religious practices (with the mixture more heavily weighted towards the hellenistic culture)
Okay, but why is that your understanding? What is it that leads you to conclude what you posted about them? You may be right, but I can't seem to see the basis for your opinion. Part of my objection is that it seems incredible that non-Christians would be approaching Christian leaders with complaints.
They wouldn't have Oak....These were the daily food handouts that were going on....the fellowships amongst the Christians....you can make a sure bet they did not include pagans, Hellenists or otherwise, at least not in these....these were the love feasts.
Hey, no judgement, do what works for you, I just have trouble following it.
Sometimes what I do is open GSC in two windows. In the first window I hit the "reply" button at the bottom of the post, this gives me the post that I am replying to, but as you said, it does not include the post that that post is replying to. In the second window I find the post that the post I am replying to is replying to. I hit the reply button, then copy what pops up to the first window. Now I have the original post, the reply by a second poster, and now I can add my reply to the reply.
I'm not saying that you should do it, just that I do. That's how I got the post that you replied to in there.
I see what you're trying to accomplish with your colors and "So-and-so said" intros, but it just doesn't work for me.
Your mileage may vary!
I opened up two windows, still couldn't get the actual boxes to reprint....
Never mind, I now know what you're doing....when you reply to multiple posters, SOMETIMES this board puts them within the same post....but the only time I've ever seen that is when you post immediately after each other....if you wait this board puts it into two posts.
This is now my edit: just like it did here....
Ya know
One of the reasons I went into Fellow Laborers is because we were supposed to spend two years studying The Book Of Acts and then return to our hometowns, as better equipped leaders, to handle God's Word.
But I gotta tell ya, I don't really know squat about The Book Of Acts.
That might just be one of my biggest disappointments in how the program evolved.
But, hey-------I'm just sayin'
The only ONE that will fully equip you to handle God's Word is the Holy Spirit.
i have NEVER said that the hellenists were "gentiles"...
(but you wouldn't know it from trying to read the color-coded thingie)
i have repeatedly stated that the hellenists (in this verse) were jews!...
i have always maintained that they were of jewish lineage, and that they followed the hellenist culture (and the hellenist culture was a pagan culture)...
my point has always been that they were NOT christians...
because once a jew accepts Jesus as Lord, then they follow Christ (and not paganism)
i think that the term "greek-speaking jews" is a very poor translation...
but i accused no individual on this thread of "private interpretation"...
except i do accuse peterson of taking great liberties in his "paraphrase" version of "the message"...
and i believe that his use of the term "greek-speaking jews" is misleading... because a culture is MORE than a language...
i have explained all of this before, but maybe bride has set up a straw man argument to CONFUSE what i actually said!
living in a pagan culture is not the point... we ALL (and all christians) live in a pagan culture...
Jen-O: Sorry to be so late, but please. Tell me what the Jews were doing that was considered "PAGAN" What exactly is pagan?
I need a refresher, so please. Refresh me so I amy respond.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
12
11
25
Popular Days
Apr 6
13
Mar 19
8
Mar 26
7
Apr 5
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 9 posts
jen-o 12 posts
Twinky 11 posts
brideofjc 25 posts
Popular Days
Apr 6 2008
13 posts
Mar 19 2008
8 posts
Mar 26 2008
7 posts
Apr 5 2008
5 posts
brideofjc
Well, Rachel, they were not immune to their form of WayCorp-dom, if you will. It was a commonly held belief that the Jew that was born in the homeland was better than the Jew born during the Exilic period or thereafter because the family just simply decided to stay in the area that they had learned to call "home". This would be why they felt that they were being somewhat excluded. It doesn't mean they were starving or were not being included, but rather something on this order: "one for you - two for me - one more for you and three for me, etc." <_< The Diaspora Jews, were called Grecians because they had been Hellenized, which means that they spoke Greek which was the lingua franca of its day....they also spoke and understood Hebrew for the ceremonial aspects of worship, but their primary language was Greek. It was kind of like being the poor cousins. They were accepted but looked down upon because they didn't have the honor granted to them to be born in the homeland. They were not Gentiles at this time. The first was the house of Cornelius and that was later. The church at the first was very ethnocentric and had not as of yet entertained fully the command of the Lord Jesus. They were moving out, but they had not yet went to the Gentiles.
Well, Oak, I should have read your post first, you pretty much covered it all.
Edited by brideofjcLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
the "message" is a paraphrase based on someone's personal interpretation...
no thanks, i don't need to read someone else's private interpretation!
i've had enough private interpretation (via the way ministry) to last me a lifetime...
by reading someone's paraphrase, you get an inaccurate picture of what is going on...
these folks were not believers who happened to speak greek (greek-speaking believers per "the message"), they were those who were following the hellenistic culture (a pagan culture)... (personally, i would not call people who follow a paganistic culture "christian")
by reading "the message," you have come to the conclusion that the apostles "didn't want to get involved with the poor"... when that is NOT what the text says... it says that it is not appropriate/desirable/fitting for the apostles to leave the Word of God in order to serve or "wait tables"... they would be spreading themselves too thin if they did both... and it's not appropriate for them to abandon the Word for waiting on tables... this says NOTHING about them not wanting to "get involved with the poor"...
the reason this verse "seems a little off" to you is because you are reading "the message" which contains peterson's interpretation...
edited to add:
they were all of jewish background... but some followed the hellenistic way of life and some followed the hebrew way of life...
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
bride,
i was not addressing you specifically...
i was just posting some of my general observations...
bride, it's not always about you...
but since you are asking me a question, i will respond...
actually, i can...
the bible...
in acts 9:29, paul disputed against these "hellenists", and the "hellenists" sought to kill him!
if you think these hellenists were christians, then you have a different definition for "christian" than i do...
and in acts 11:20, some of the christian men that came to antioch preached (euaggelizo) the Lord Jesus to these "hellenists"...
if the hellenists were christians, then why don't they already know about the Lord Jesus?
(up until this time, they had preached the Word to jews only, according to acts 11:19)
[btw, if you read "the message", you would not be able to see the pattern between these verses]
now, you may believe these "hellenists" are christians... but i do NOT...
like i said, we may have very different definitions of what it means to be a "christian"...
as for commentaries, i take all commentaries with a grain of salt...
i do not rely on commentaries... i have the Holy Spirit to teach me, and have no need of any man to teach me (1John2:27)
do you think that your opinion is more valid because it agrees with a couple of "commentaries" (specifically, the NASB & the companion bible)?
still, my point has nothing to do with whether the "hellenists" were jews or gentiles... my point is that "hellenists" are NOT christians (in my opinion, that is)...
but hellenism is more than the language one speaks... hellenism is a culture!
and hellenists follow the hellenistic (pagan) culture; they do not follow a christian way of life...
now, as for "the message", it is a very poor paraphrase heavily laced with peterson's private interpretation (in my opinion, that is) :D
in fact, i believe that this kind of poor paraphrase introduces all kinds of doctrinal errors while watering down the Word of God... to the degree that it is an instrument of satan in his attempt to merge christianity with the other world religions on his quest to form a global religion...
(well, no one ever accused me of not having strong opinions) LOLOL :lol:
peace, sister bride,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Jeno/Jenny, Rachel, and Bride of Jesus Christ: I admit the Petersen's paraphrase The Message like Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible relate to overall concepts from Southern Baptist backgrounds. BTW, Amplified Bible is also a paraphrase. Most people now use NKJV, NASB(New American Standard Bible), ESV/English Standard Version as improvements over 1760 American spelling of King James Version(1611 uses Gothic lettering of writing/calligraphy). Some use NIV, NRSV, CEV/Contemporary English Version, NCV/New Centuary Version, and NLT/New Living Translation. Even Moffat, Knox, and Williams are improvements(but from early 20th Cent.) over regular KJV(and not King James' actual personal Bible worth millions/or even billions of dollars/pounds and located in London museum). Paraphrases are sometimes disastreaous. Now quit picking on Twinky, or do I have to get the moderators and Paw involved? Certainly not true Christian spiritual maturity("Renewed Mind").
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
are you serious?!?
i have seen people threaten this kind of thing here before... so i don't know if you are joking or not?
if you are being serious, just what exactly are you gonna tell the moderators?
oh, that nasty jen-o... can you believe that she posted her opinion about "the message"... not once, but twice even... the unmitigated gall... she has some nerve posting her opinion about a version of the bible in the doctrinal section... well, i just don't like it... and i want you to make her stop... stop that kind of thing right now!... we need the moderators to be involved... yep, we need to have a meeting bout this... we just can't allow people to go around posting their opinions about bible versions... i mean, just who do they think they are anyway... yep, i'm gonna threaten her... i'm gonna threaten her with the dreaded moderators... maybe that will get her to shut up.... LOLOL
and if you are being facetious, i hope you appreciate my humor... LOL :lol:
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Who's picking on Twinky?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I'm okay, I'm okay. Not feeling picked on.
All versions of the Bible have something going for them and all have problems. I don't exalt one version above another. I'm just bored with KJV having read it for so many years and I find more modern versions easier to pick through and get to the gist of it quicker.
I think the point made in this thread about the Hellenists being of Jewish extraction is a good point. Why else would they be in Jerusalem at Passover time? Too many just to be traders.
But I am not moved from the idea that the apostles should have got out there pretty soon after Pentecost to hold forth the word to EVERYONE - Jews, Hellenists, Samaritans, Syrians, Arabs, Europeans, and all the world. Their first focus would naturally be the Mediterranean area.
I am considering the course of Paul's ministry, back and forth, back and forth, spending a while in an area, moving on, returning, ordaining leaders for that area, moving on, going back or writing to strengthen them. He spent a lot of time in Antioch and seems to have used that much as a base, returning there time and time again.
Who knows what the apostles could have achieved if they had gone out two by two as they had previously been taught, all in different directions? When we see what Paul achieved in just a few short years - okay, they were not all "Pauls" but God works with heart not natural ability alone - what is some had gone to Egypt, some to more south in Africa, some to Babylon, some to other parts of Asia Minor, some to the islands? Paul wanted to get to Spain but he didn't make it there. It's an awesome prospect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
gee bride,
i'm not here to pick nits... picking nits is just NOT my favorite pasttime...
i am posting my general train of thought, and i'm not really into picking apart every line of a post... but i guess i have to respond to some of this stuff... (sigh)
you wrote:
"Who said it was?"
bride, the tone of your posts say it... i don't live in a vacuum...
(i don't know how much of this i really want to get into... let me just say that i've read some of your posts on the "vp is essential" thread)
it's your comments and tone that gave me this impression...
you wrote:
bride i am aware of what the NASB and companion bibles are... i even own one of them; imagine that!the companion bible has MORE "commentary" on the page than it does the Word of God...
(btw, the companion bible IS the king james version)
so when you said that the NASB and bullinger "concurred" with you, just what were you referring to??...
this is what you wrote:
this is not what the bible states, so i am assuming that it is the "commentary" that "concurs" with you...
"commentary" is all those comments on the side of the page that are NOT the Living Word of God... i shouldn't have to spell this out for you, bride...
but you shouldn't back up your opinion with a "commentary" and then act like case closed, "thus says the Lord"...
i thought you were putting a lot of weight on "commentary" since you asked me to "cite my sources"
as in:
i don't need to find sources that agree with me... that is not the name of my game... i read (and study) the bible to know the Truth, not to find something that agrees with me!you wrote:
if this isn't condescending, i don't know what is...
you rebuke me without ever addressing the content of what i say!
bride, i am NOT inferior to you!
i know you think you are highly educated, but i have a couple of (three) college degrees myself, having graduated with a 4.0 each time...
however, i count my education but DUNG compared to what the Holy Spirit teaches me...
there IS a difference between being theologically educated and being taught by the Holy Spirit!
and i stand by what i said: i have need of no man to teach me because the Holy Spirit teaches me!
(and that IS in context, the context of deception (and there is a lot of deception in man's commentary)... every man is a liar, but the Holy Spirit cannot lie!)
now, concerning the content that you did address:
first you rebuke me, and then you agree with me that hellenist jews are not christian... (scratching my head)
let me just add: you make a distinction between "pagan hellenists" and "jewish hellenists"... i do NOT... in my opinion, a hellenist IS a pagan (whether they are of jewish lineage OR gentile background)
my whole point is that hellenists (pagans) are NOT christians...
i'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that...
and again, when you write:
i know they are of jewish lineage... i never disputed that!... and i never said they were "gentiles"..but they are christians of jewish lineage...
if you are a jew who accepts Jesus as Lord, then you are a christian and a member of the church of God, the one Body of Christ...
methinks that all of that "theological training" is getting in the way of the simplicity of the gospel!
and i think there is some confusion due to your definitions of jew, gentile, christian, and hellenist (which i define as a pagan)
here you say:
and this was my original point... we have different defintions for what a "christian" is... i do NOT agree with you that there is such a thing as "hellenistic christians"... to me, that is like saying there are "paganistic christians" or "christian pagans"... i am of the opinion that christians do NOT follow paganism (and hellenism IS a pagan culture)... but we have been bought with a price... we are citizens of heaven, and confess that we are strangers and pilgrims on this earth... we follow the Lord Jesus Christ, and NOT some paganistic culture of the world...
if you see someone that you think the label "hellenistic christian" applies to, then i would suggest to you that this is a "christian" in NAME ONLY (in other words, a non-christian)... and this is what i think is happening in the world today - that christianity is being watered down, and has become almost meaningless as people have applied the word to just about anything... in my opinion, this is part of the agenda of satan that he is using to set up a global religion which will usher in the reign of the anti-christ...
this is my opinion!... and i don't think you are going to change it no matter what you say about being trained to "systematically destroy your positions on the Word"
as noted in:
i'm just not sure that this is such a "godly" goal...
and in my case, it can't even be accomplished!
shalom,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
well, i sure hope that made you feel better, bride...
because i cannot follow that mixed up color-coded mess...
you, are the queen of the "nits," my dear!
i am NOT going to have a conversation in this manner!
it is ludicrous!!!
bride, i'm gonna let you have the last word...
so have at it!
p.s. when did i graduate to thinking raf was the weatherman... seems like only yesterday that i thought the coffee was too strong!... LOL
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
It's not a matter of feeling better or not. Your name is attached to your quotes and my name is attached to mine....why would you not be able to follow it? I took great
pains to make it clear by color coding it so that each one stood out.
What manner is that? Responding to each statement and the rebuttal of such?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Sorry if this duplicates what someone else posted regrading Grecians/Hellenists, but I too have trouble following the changing color schemmes within the quotes...but that's just me
From what I understand, Hellenists were Jews who lived within the Greek culture, spoke the Greek language, but still practiced the Jewish religion. Some of these Hellenists (who are by definition Jews) became Christians. Some remained Jews-by-religion and some of those opposed the Christian message preached by Paul and others. Each is a subset of the larger group: Greek speaking Jews who opposed Christianity and Greek speaking Jews who became Christians are both subsets of the larger group of Greek speaking Jews, who are in turn part of the still larger group of all Jews.
Why would a Hellenistic Jew who converted to Christianity not be considered a Christian because they lived in a pagan culture? Are you saying that one can't be a Christian in officially atheistic China, or in Muslim Syria or in pagan (Hindu) India?
Why would you expect the bible to state facts (like whether "Grecians" refers to Hellenized Jews or true Gentiles) that would have been obvious to the reader 2000 years ago? The bible uses a word, "Grecians", but does not define what the word means, so what do we do? Look to extra-biblical sources to see how the word was used in that time and culture, or look to other uses within the bible to see how the word is used. Most, if not all sources will indicate that Hellēn is the word that is used for Greeks specifically and gentiles in general, hellenistēs is used for Greek-speaking Jews and is usually tranlsated "Greek" or "gentile". By taking the position that "Grecians" refers to gentiles, you indulge in the private interpretation that you accuse others of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
dear oak,
i have NEVER said that the hellenists were "gentiles"...
(but you wouldn't know it from trying to read the color-coded thingie)
i have repeatedly stated that the hellenists (in this verse) were jews!...
i have always maintained that they were of jewish lineage, and that they followed the hellenist culture (and the hellenist culture was a pagan culture)...
my point has always been that they were NOT christians...
because once a jew accepts Jesus as Lord, then they follow Christ (and not paganism)
i think that the term "greek-speaking jews" is a very poor translation...
but i accused no individual on this thread of "private interpretation"...
except i do accuse peterson of taking great liberties in his "paraphrase" version of "the message"...
and i believe that his use of the term "greek-speaking jews" is misleading... because a culture is MORE than a language...
i have explained all of this before, but maybe bride has set up a straw man argument to CONFUSE what i actually said!
living in a pagan culture is not the point... we ALL (and all christians) live in a pagan culture...
but following the pagan culture is the thing that i am concerned about...
and, imo, the "jewish hellenists" followed the pagan/hellenist culture... (i hold this opinion because of the context of the use of the word "hellenist" in acts 9:29 and acts 11:20)... and because these "jewish hellenists" were following the hellenist culture, i submit that they were NOT christians...
i agree with you that a hellenist jew who converted to christianity would NOT be considered a pagan (even though they lived in a pagan culture)
this has been my basic position all along...
(although bride has seen fit to twist my words, and accuse me of all kinds of things)... and i'm not sure quite why... except that she seems to enjoy picking a part every line of a post in her "systematical destruction" of anothers viewpoint (which she admits she has been trained to do, and seems quite pround of that)
i'm not sure what she thinks she "systemetically destroyed", but it wasn't my viewpoint or position... since it is clear that after this many posts, she has confused what i said to the point that you (oak) think that i have said the opposite of what i actually said...
anyway, oak, it sure is nice to have a normal converastion about this... :)
and i hope i cleared up my postion for you...
peace,
jen-o
p.s. now, i want to know how long am i gonna think that raf is the weatherman... i would much rather be driving around in the wow mobile (like you oak), or even examining the hairs in the soup... LOLOL :lol:
btw, my post #36 was really not about the grecians/hellenists... (although i did address a little bit of the content concerning this)
but the reason for my post was more due to the "tone" of bride's post to me, than anything else...
as in:
bride wrote:
and i responded:although bride missed this...
and attributed my remarkes about being condescending to a comment she picked out at random...
to wit,
she thought i was referring to this post of hers:
because she responded that this was my response to the above "quote"she, of course went on to respond to my comment referring to her "condescending" statements as if it was attributed to this random quote... when in fact i was referring to the above multiple statements...
this is but ONE example of things being "twisted"... and for this reason, i am not going to try to untangle the color-coded mess of errors, assumptions, accusations, and straw man arguements that bride posted...
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
An illustration might be a Christian living in India, a pagan culture. A Christian may choose to wear traditional Indian clothing and speak Hindi and respect local customs, but as long as they are not observing the Hindu religion then that person is still a Christian, albeit living in a pagan culture and following some of this cultures non-religious traditions.
It seems that you are equating culture with religion.
I guess I'm just not seeing where you have drawn the line. Could you expand upon why you think that these Jews were following pagan religion? And why it makes sense that non-Christians would be complaining to Christian leaders about being shortchanged?I apologize for misrepresenting your position, I missed a few things in the give and take. I find others' quotes within the tagged quotes and the psoters own thoughts outside the quote boxes to be much easier to follow. But again, that's just me :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
The only reason that I changed the color, was to offset the multiple posts that were within the post. When you reply to the original post, this board has a box that the quote is placed within, but if you reply to a post that contains these boxes, the boxes are deleted and if you do not transfer the words to the second reply, then the reader will not know what you are resonding to et al. That is why I took the time to not only color code it, but to write in "Jen writes....or....BOJC writes....."
This is now my edit: As you can see, Oakspear....the box above does not contain the boxes that you responded to in Jen's posts. This is what I mean and so if you read the box above, the average reader will not fully understand what you are replying to because this board has deleted them.
Edited by brideofjcLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I had a large response to Jen's post, but it got lost in cyber space....I won't retype it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Sometimes what I do is open GSC in two windows. In the first window I hit the "reply" button at the bottom of the post, this gives me the post that I am replying to, but as you said, it does not include the post that that post is replying to. In the second window I find the post that the post I am replying to is replying to. I hit the reply button, then copy what pops up to the first window. Now I have the original post, the reply by a second poster, and now I can add my reply to the reply.
I'm not saying that you should do it, just that I do. That's how I got the post that you replied to in there.
I see what you're trying to accomplish with your colors and "So-and-so said" intros, but it just doesn't work for me.
Your mileage may vary!
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hey oak,
i, too, usually open up a second window so that i can refer back to what has been said in previous posts..
i have a real hard time following posts within posts within posts... but, hey, that's just me... :~D
however, now i am on webtv, and cannot open up a second window (nor do i have access to the icons)... so i'll be brief... :~)
my original motivation for posting on this thread was to comment on "the message" paraphrase... (and no, i'm not picking on twinky)... but somehow i got entangled in this discussion about the hellenists...
i'm trying to look at a much bigger picture... no, i do not think that culture and religion are synonyms... but i do think that they are intrinsically linked to the degree that it is difficult to separate one from the other... culture influences one's worldview... and religion (and its practices) also influences one's worldview... culture influences and shapes religion and vice versa...
for example, culture has influenced peterson as he wrote his paraphrase "the message"... and those who believe that "the message" is an inspired version of God's Word (and read it with that mindset), will therefore have their religious views shaped by peterson's worldview...
here is a link to an interesting article about "the message"...
www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html
i do make a distinction between a biblical worldview... and a cultural and/or religious worldview...
all christians live in pagan cultures - china, india, syria, america (yep, america), etc. etc.
so, of course, it is possible for a christian to live in a pagan culture... in fact, we all do...
so when i read about the "hellenists" in acts, it is my understanding that they were jews (of jewish lineage) who were following a mixture of hellenistic/pagan practices and jewish religious practices (with the mixture more heavily weighted towards the hellenistic culture)
this does not seem so unusual to me... i see people everywhere who mix paganism with religion... indeed, who mix paganism with christianity... and there are plenty of people who call themselves "christian" who just go thru the religious motions, but their heart is far from God...
anyway, my main point about the hellenists were that they were NOT christans... (not christians as described in the book of acts)
but i am really more concerned with the direction "christianity" is headed in... because many false teachers and prophets have crept in and are introducing all kinds of pagan ideas and practices into christianity...
hope that helps a little...
btw, i don't fault you for misunderstanding my position... it kinda got a little tangled up in here...
:~)
shalom,
jen-o
p.s. well, i thought it was gonna be brief... LOL
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ya know
One of the reasons I went into Fellow Laborers is because we were supposed to spend two years studying The Book Of Acts and then return to our hometowns, as better equipped leaders, to handle God's Word.
But I gotta tell ya, I don't really know squat about The Book Of Acts.
That might just be one of my biggest disappointments in how the program evolved.
But, hey-------I'm just sayin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
They wouldn't have Oak....These were the daily food handouts that were going on....the fellowships amongst the Christians....you can make a sure bet they did not include pagans, Hellenists or otherwise, at least not in these....these were the love feasts.
I opened up two windows, still couldn't get the actual boxes to reprint....
Never mind, I now know what you're doing....when you reply to multiple posters, SOMETIMES this board puts them within the same post....but the only time I've ever seen that is when you post immediately after each other....if you wait this board puts it into two posts.
This is now my edit: just like it did here....
The only ONE that will fully equip you to handle God's Word is the Holy Spirit.
Edited by brideofjcLink to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
Jen-O: Sorry to be so late, but please. Tell me what the Jews were doing that was considered "PAGAN" What exactly is pagan?
I need a refresher, so please. Refresh me so I amy respond.
What do you consider Pagan?
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.