Posted on 02/12/2003 8:35:27 PM PST by rwfromkansas
Do not ever post to me again.
Your continuing reference to male genitalia not only proves your unbelievable ignorance but it also constitutes harrasment of me.
Horace Walpole, the gothic novelist, was never prime minister. Your condescending tone has always impressed me as coming from one with authoritative knowlege. I'm beginning to have doubts.
By the way, The KJV Study Guide published by Zoverian(?)attributes,"kicking against the pricks" to a Greek proverb that means useless resistance. It goes on to explain that when an ox kicks against the pricks on a goad, that it causes itself pain.
I would take issue with "purely religious". Nothing in the the persecutions of the 16th and 17th centuries were purely religious. Much, if not all had a lot to do with social class, and political power. More on that later.
Thank you for inspiring me to read about the Great Awakening. It is very interesting and I look forward to reading more about and by Jonathan Edwards. Do you share my assessment that the Great Awakening was a departure from Calvinist doctrine?
Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield were two of the most vigorously Calvinistic preachers in history.
I'll acknowledge that's a possibility.
I should reserve that, IMHO, your suggested reading doesn't have nearly the same Moral Weight as accusing the Pharisee Saul of a Violation of the Levitical Law; a violation which would have been immediately referent to Saul from at least three different Old Testament Scriptures --
...and I would also reserve that, given that it is a colloquial expression, I don't think that you can rule out the possibility that both colloquial meanings were implied (both "futility" and "greivous wounding").
But, I'll admit your argument, and its support in the Zoverian (probably Zondervan, no?) Study Bible, as a legitimate alternative.
You don't stick to bible terminology. You created a convoluted maze, just so you could justify an earthy Jesus and your own inappropriate language.
Now that's just absurd. I admit that it is possible that my reading of Acts 26 is wrong, but given that virtually the exact same expression is used in Deuteronomy 25: 11-12, then why would it be "earthy" or "inappropriate" for Jesus to use such an expression in Acts 26?
I acknowledge that Jesus may not have been referring to Deuteronomy 25; but supposing that He were, it could hardly be "earthy" or "inappropriate" for God to communicate virtually the same idea which was communicated by God in Deuteronomy 25!!
Horace Walpole, the gothic novelist, was never prime minister.
Yes, I mixed up my Walpoles. Robert Walpole, Horace's father, was Britain's first and longest-serving Prime Minister. Mea culpa; it happens to even the best of historians (of whom I am not), but I appreciate the heads-up for my benefit.
Your condescending tone has always impressed me as coming from one with authoritative knowlege. I'm beginning to have doubts.
Over a one-generation mis-attribution?
I'll survive. ;-)
Best, OP
kentron, the word translated "pricks or goads":
Thayer Definition:
1) a sting, as that of bees, scorpions, locusts. Since animals wound by their sting and even cause death, Paul attributes death, personified as a sting, i.e. a deadly weapon
2) an iron goad, for urging on oxen, horses and other beasts of burden
2a) hence the proverb, “to kick against the goad”, i.e. to offer vain and perilous or ruinous resistance
The sense of the verse seems to be that God's will is much stronger than Pauls and Paul is only hurting himself like an ox kicking against the goad of the master.
Yes, I am already aware of that.
As St. Chuck said in his #782, The KJV Study Guide published by Zoverian(?)attributes,"kicking against the pricks" to a Greek proverb that means useless resistance
I understand that the Greek Proverb means "useless resistance". Sheesh, I feel like I am re-treading old grounds here. The issue is not (only) that the Greek Expression means "useless resistance", the issue is that Luke specifically tells us that Jesus was not speaking in Greek -- rather, Luke specifically states that he is providing us with a Greek translation of the original Hebrew.
Meaning no offense, y'all can insist till you are blue in the face that the Greek Expression means "useless resistance", and I have already admitted that the translated Greek expression, provided for us by Luke in infallible Scripture, certainly carries that Implication.
I'm not asking what the Greek Expression means. I already understand that it means "useless resistance". I'm asking, "what is the implication in the Hebrew?"
As far as I am concerned, it still looks to me as though the Hebrew implication of Jesus' imprecatory admonition against Paul (remember, Jesus was speaking in Hebrew) had the Moral Force of accusing him of a violation of Levitical Law against his own God. I am prepared to be wrong -- but I haven't YET seen any arguments germane to THAT point.
In short, don't just bombard me with the implication of the Greek Colloquial, I've already admitted the point. I'm talking about the fact that Luke specifically tells us that Jesus was speaking in Hebrew. And, as I said before, I would also reserve that, given that it is a colloquial expression, I don't think that you can rule out the possibility that both colloquial meanings (Greek "futility" and Hebrew "greivous wounding") were implied.
I'm charitably willing to be proved wrong; but until somebody addresses that point ("I heard a voice speaking to me in the Hebrew language,"), this whole argument is rapidly turning into Ships Passing in the Night.
Egads.
Best, OP
But now we are faced with yet another question. If it was Robert Walpole who said " Our American cousin has run off with a Presbyterian parson." then we can deduce that Walpole was not referring to the American revolution, because Robert Walpole died some 30 years before the revolution occurred.(1745)
Actually, looking back on the development of my article, I'm inclined to lay the blame at the feet of Loraine Boettner (sorry, Mr. Boettner).
Historians Donehoo, Stohlman, and Wills all attribute the quotation to Horace Walpole, on the news of the Declaration (of which Witherspoon was a Signatory) in 1776; Donehoo in particular does record Walpole as adressing the English Parliament (Horace was a "gothic novelist", but he also was in fact an active Member of the House of Commons from 1741 to 1768, although by 1776 he would have been offering Parliament his opinion as a Private Citizen, not speaking in any official capacity).
It is not until we get to Boettner's "Calvinism in America" that Mr. Boettner, either as a simple oversight (if we are charitable) or perhaps in an attempt to "juice up" the Authority of the quotation a bit, makes Horace out to be the Prime Minister -- thus confusing him with his illustrious father.
Unfortunately, Mr. Boettner's confusilation of Horace's position with that of his father Robert has been repeated by numerous writers ever since -- including, embarassingly, me.
Sorry for the confusion... a case of GIGO.
Best, OP
The Army Air Defense slogan was "Shoot 'em down and sort 'em on the ground." or "Shoot and Sort" for short.
I'll grant you that Luther must have had many changes of heart in his life. He should had recanted.
Of what, in particular?
The rest, as they say, is history.
Best, OP
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.