Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
LDS get re-baptised, and from what I understand the recent switch in certain Presbyterian and Episcopalian quarters to "Creator, Sanctifier, and Redeemer", "Mother, Child & Womb", or "Rock, Scissors, Paper" has caused problems.
Rom 1:13-16 -- Paul seems to say he'd like to work with ALL the Christians in Rome, not just the gentile ones. Things moved quickly in the decades after the Resurrection.
Sorry, I am not going to work that way with you.
You have put a unique and controversial proposition under examination. You claim that your research and study show that the vast majority of Christians are just as wrong as can be about the early church, and that MY church especially is actually made up of followers of a bogus Apostle who was actually a gnostic magician or somesuch, and is wrong aboute nearly everything, from t he day of the week on which we worship on down.
As just ONE example, to support your argument you make a claim about the word Ethnos, which seems to involve an unexplicable misreading of what Strong says, and for which I can find no other scholarly confirmation.
Your interpretation of Strong's entry on Ethnos calls into question everything you say. I, personally, feel suckered because I hobbled over to THIS bookcase for my Youngs, to THAT one for my Bauer Arndt and Gingrich, to yet another to find Kittel. Then I pushed a temporary bookcase over to where I can reach it from my bed of alleged pain, and made sure I could get a couple of translations of Scripture and had my Greek Testament nearby.
Then I hacked my way through the research and find that there just isn't support in my materials for what you assert. It was a wild goose chase!
All that work to learnI was right all along! What a PAIN! And now you want me to go research something else?
I think that the Great Commission is still plausibly understood as a commission to go to the Gentiles and that the construction of it as a commissioning to the Diaspora only is not born out linguistically nor any other way. The rules of the game have changed radically. I think Acts portrays Paul as going to the diaspora and going first to Synagogues and then to Gentiles. I think the writings of Paul indicate that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, (and so forth)", that, in other words as the meaning of the Resurrection sunk in, and as the situation changed (and lots and lots of Jews converted), the Church distinguished less and less between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.
To say that the church's interpretation is invalid, you have to make a positive argument that the Church is invalid. But to make that argument you have to chip at the Church's interpretation. That's circular. You tried to break the circle with the ethnos word study, but that just couldn't make the case.
I'd suggest making your case in a straight-forward manner.
Your definition agrees with your own peculiar construction of Scripture. You adduced the definition to support your interpretation. You appealed to strong to justify translating ethnos one way, to support your account of things. Now you are appealing to your account of things to support your translation of ethnos.
No sale. It's simply not credible, and it's not a credible way of making the argument.
Like Independent Baptist congregations, I guess it depends entirely on what your local unit is up to.
[Romans 1:13-16] Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Yes, you are correct. Christianity spread like wildfire after Pentecost and Churches sprang up all over the civilized world as the Gospel spread from brother to uncle to grandmother to niece to neighbor to friend to acquaintance to employee to stranger to child....all without the benefit of clergy or Apostleship.
Paul wrote these words (Romans 1) about 56 A.D., probably from Corinth. He had not yet been to Rome and he speaks of his disappointment in not being able to visit. He does not address Peter nor make mention of him.
In [Acts 28:21-22] Paul is speaking to the assembled Jewish leaders of Rome. He is under house arrest after being forcefully brought to Rome from Jerusalem. It is now about 61/62 A.D. (five or six years later) and the Jewish leaders say "And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against."
On the surface....wouldn't you consider this train of events odd if Peter, commissioned as the Jewish Evangelizer [Galatians 2:7], had been in and about Rome for the last 20/25 years or so....according to your tradition? Paul, being an Evangelizer to both Gentile and Jew, was able to deal with these folks as well as the Gentile Population.
As just ONE example, to support your argument you make a claim about the word Ethnos, which seems to involve an unexplicable misreading of what Strong says, and for which I can find no other scholarly confirmation.
Are you saying that the word "Ethnos" cannot mean Tribe, Nation or People? Are you saying that it must in all cases mean Gentile?
I, personally, feel suckered because I hobbled over to THIS bookcase for my Youngs, to THAT one for my Bauer Arndt and Gingrich, to yet another to find Kittel. Then I pushed a temporary bookcase over to where I can reach it from my bed of alleged pain, and made sure I could get a couple of translations of Scripture and had my Greek Testament nearby.
I am sorry for your discomfort and pain. I shall refrain from posting to you regarding these questions until you have recuperated.
Depends on the version of Christianity you come from.
Baptism is the one Sacrament that a lay person can perform in time of dire need.
I am in fact now. However before that I was a Baptist. Again, I meant no disrespect to your beliefs, just pointing out that to me however Communion is taken, it is the heart that matters. Thanks for the reply.
Exactly. As somebody said in my daughter's Confirmation class -- all you need is a Christian, a baby, and some water!
The whole question of Apostolicae Curae and Saepius Officio is another kettle of fish, dealing with the validity of the Apostolic Succession in the Anglican/Episcopal church.
Of course when we swam the Tiber I switched from the latter to the former (as I told our choirmaster on Guy Fawkes Day -- "Hey! I get to cheer for the other side now!")
**[1 Corinthians 1:12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. There is no indication by this verse that Peter was ever in Corinth. Paul is only speaking of divisions with in the Church itself.**
I believe that was a carnal 'bragging rights' matter that needed addressed by Paul. Maybe some had gone to Judea, and were baptized by Peter there.
**[Matthew 10:5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.**
I would say that that was in compliance with the Lord's ministry to the 'lost sheep of Israel', prior to Calvary.
After the birth of the church, the Light unto Gentiles was available. Philip went down to the city of Samaria in Acts 8, preached the gospel, and baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus. Peter and John were sent to them, prayed and laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Peter entered into a Gentile house, that of Cornelius.
But I feel you've presented a good case about Peter not dying in Rome.
Yeah. They have to provide plausible evidence of baptism with water and in the name of the Trinity. The person I'm sponsoring was Baptized in a Baptist Church which used a Trinitarian formula, so the language we're using is like "entering into the FULL communion" . To me that implies a pre-existing but partial or "imperfect" communion.
But my sneaky thought is that if I buried them all facing west, in the year 5050 when they have a dig around here, there will be papers published on the central Virginia solar sheep cult.
heh heh heh.
Don't tell anybody, okay?
Hi Zuriel. Then.....why the need for Paul? Judas had been replaced by Matthias and the contingent was back to twelve. Why the need for Barnabas, Luke , Mark, Timothy.....the list goes on.
After the birth of the church, the Light unto Gentiles was available. Philip went down to the city of Samaria in Acts 8, preached the gospel, and baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus. Peter and John were sent to them, prayed and laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
This particular Phillip was the Phillip you see in [Acts 6:5] And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch. This Philip was not one of the Twelve.....and you can see the problems that ensued when he called for help from Peter and John [Acts 8:17 who had been instructed not to go there [Matthew 10:5].
Peter entered into a Gentile house, that of Cornelius.
Peter was not called to evangelize Cornelius as Cornelius was already a God fearing man [Acts 10:2] Peter was sent to Cornelius by the Holy Spirit for a special reason. To show that the way was open for the Gentiles also....to believe and receive eternal life. [Acts 10:45] Paul had not yet been chosen to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.
I have never said that the Gentiles were not worthy of salvation. My only claim is that the original twelve and then eleven were instructed not to go there. Stop and think. Why would our Lord choose Twelve? Why would he instruct them not to go among the Gentiles.....and then all of a sudden it was O.K.? He wanted them to go to the Twelve tribes of Israel....and in fact He says it on more than one occasion. He makes sure they all understand that the Gentiles are to receive salvation also.....and then he selects Paul!
I thought "nobody" ever converted to RC.
Good to see you back.
What caused me initially to provide the definition of ethnos was as the result of what you'd said earlier:
Not quite....the Greek word translated Nations in this verse has a preferred meaning....Tribes. Gentile nations is a secondary meaning.
I provided the definition to show that 'tribes' is not necessarily the definition of 'ethnos.' Yes it could be, but it is not at all a 'preferred' definition.
I provided the definition to show that 'tribes' is not necessarily the definition of 'ethnos.' Yes it could be, but it is not at all a 'preferred' definition.
The reason I say it is preferred is that it agrees with scripture [Matthew 10:5-6][Matthew 15:24][John 21:15-17][Galatians 2:7][James 1:1][1 Peter 1:12]
That should read 1 Peter 1:1-2 not 1:12
**So which is it? Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or baptized in the name of the Lord?**
As long as Jesus verbally gets the credit, I don't care if someone is baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ from Nazareth of Galilee. At a baptismal, we use "baptise you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins" (Acts 2:38)
Is 'Lord' a name? IMO, 'Lord' is a title. They knew that they were to speak the name of the Lord, which is Jesus. I believe they did. I presume you are head (lord) of your household, but that's not your name.
I do appreciate not being attacked. I also appreciate not being the subject of covert operations. [;-D
The argument was of the "good for the goose -- good for the gander" variety. You're adducing a text which shows Peter had a ministry to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. I'm arguing that Paul expressed an interest in both the Jews and the Gentiles in Rome. I don't need an explicit mention of Peter to say that maybe the division to which you and Galatians refer was NOT a permanent thing.
On the surface....wouldn't you consider this train of events odd if Peter, commissioned as the Jewish Evangelizer [Galatians 2:7], had been in and about Rome for the last 20/25 years or so....according to your tradition?
Because
(a)we not only lack knowledge of how long that commission of Peter to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles was intended to be in effect;
(2)we do have evidence that under some circumstances Paul went to the Jews, so the commission was either impermanent or flexibly interpreted
Therefore no, I don't find it odd.
Are you saying that the word "Ethnos" cannot mean Tribe, Nation or People? Are you saying that it must in all cases mean Gentile?
You repeatedly said that "tribe" was the preferred meaning, and on the basis of that asserted preferred meaning said the great commission was about evangelizing the diaspora, and that therefore other interpretations of other passages must be changed. It is an entirely different proposition whether the word could sometimes mean "Tribe, nation, or people". There's a long distance between "could be" and "must be".
It's the whole problem of "proving" things from Scripture. If we assume certain unusual (not impossible, just unusual) uses of "ethnos", if we interpret the "Greeks" in John 12:20 as the Jews of the diaspora rather than proselytes, if we imagine that the sending of the 12 before the Passion was a mission to which they fixedly adhered for the rest of their natural lives, and if we're comfortable with our using more or less the same data as that available to a lot of people for a long time to come up with a radically different conclusion, if "as many as a million" is insignificantly different from "millions", if we can accept the morphing of Petros, Pater, and Pator into one another, and a lot of other ifs, why then we can present an argument that the Catholic Church is bogus and led by successors of Simon Magus and that there is a more authentic and radically original group of Christians who rightly worship on Saturday.
All the conjectures have their rough spots and their smooth spots. My gang has the fabulously embarrassing Donations of Constantine, for example. You appeal to Strong to say what Strong does not appear to say, then base an argument on that, and then somehow seem to wean the argument from Strong. It's like saying we must read other parts of scripture in the light of what Strong says and the effect what he says has on the great commission. Then it turns out Strong does not say that. So now we have to read the Great Commission in light of our new interpretation of the other scriptures - but the new interpretation was derived from the reading allegedly given by Strong.
I try to maintain some openness to other hypotheses. When I find that many of the supporting assertions are difficult to verify, and that the one that I pursue with intensity turns out to be mistaken, well, it's off-putting.
Actually now that I've seen the doc, and he re-bandaged me the pain is considerably greater, and the punishment for moving furniture and searching for books more severe -- and that's BEFORE my wife finds out! I don't mind it if it's not on a wild goose chase. The assertion that "tribe" was a preferred meaning for ethnos was a wild goose chase. But now the venerable Barco-lounger is almost buried in piles of books. If things get really bad, I'll have a friend come over tomorrow and move my entire Kittel nearby.
And, as one friend to another, if you don't know Kittel and if you do like dictionaries, make sure you get to spend some time with this puppy. It is the most entertaining piece of scholarship I have ever spent any time with.
Well, yeah, I must be wrong, The writer of the article talked about the thousands who are leaving the RC church every year. SO My candidate is not converting,. I didn't convert. my best friend didnt' convert. It is all a fig newton of the imagination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.