Does not Ecclesiastes speak of the spirit of man that goes upwards and spirit of the beast that goes down? As well as in the same book speaking of the spirit that returns to God when one dies?
Since when is the spirit one has constitute the actual human being? The spirit is never called the life of man, and therefore doesn't necessarily constitute an alive being.
I guess to me, I see it more as just what it is. The spirit God gave, going back to God.. Just as the spirit God gave to Moses, then took and divided it among the 70 elders. Or the spirit of God that is poured upon those who believe. I don't think like TWI in that it is YOUR spirit to do with and it is yours. The scriptures (read Romans 8) speaks many times of that spirit still being GOD'S! You may have it, he may have given it, may even be the down payment of the fullness of the spirit to come, but.. Well, I dunno.. Whatever it is! hehe..
A better question is why is there a man with a Greek (a.k.a. gentile) name, risen to a leadership position, before the official bringing in of the gentiles in acts 10? Stephen = Setphanos = Crown.
In fact, all the names of the magnificent 7 listed in Acts 6:5 are Greek names.
They also happen to be names of friends of Paul....
I don't consider PFAL an authoritative source for much of anything, but even Vic made a big deal about Peter going into a Gentile house because he would be "called on the carpet in Jerusalem." The text of Acts does support this position though. Peter did have to answer for going to Cornelius. And the proof that God did indeed invite the Gentiles to their new religion was that Peter heard them speak in tongues. This all occurred in Acts 10 & 11 -- after Stephen was stoned.
Acts 6
2Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5And 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:
6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
Being chosen by the people, set before the apostles, prayed over and hands laid on is generally considered an ordination by most groups. Even TWI considers this section an ordination of the seven.
So how could someone with a Greek/Gentile name be in such a position well before they considered Gentiles anything other than dogs?
Andrew and Philip are also problem names. Even worse because they occur in the Gospels, before "Pentecost".
Philip -> Philippi? -> a Greek city? -> populated with Philippians? -> a.k.a Gentiles?
Given how much the Jews hated the Greeks from the time Alexander conquered them through to when the Romans took away their hard fought independence from Greece, I think it's a safe assumption they would not name their sons after them. Especially given their hard-corps monotheistic religious culture and the Greek and Roman's polytheistic one being pushed on them.
I also think that newborn sons were named after someone in their lineage. The account of John the Baptist is a good example of it -- when everyone got upset that he was named John and there was no one in the family with that name.
Andrew and Philip are also problem names. Even worse because they occur in the Gospels, before "Pentecost".
Philip -> Philippi? -> a Greek city? -> populated with Philippians? -> a.k.a Gentiles?
Given how much the Jews hated the Greeks from the time Alexander conquered them through to when the Romans took away their hard fought independence from Greece, I think it's a safe assumption they would not name their sons after them. Especially given their hard-corps monotheistic religious culture and the Greek and Roman's polytheistic one being pushed on them.
I also think that newborn sons were named after someone in their lineage. The account of John the Baptist is a good example of it -- when everyone got upset that he was named John and there was no one in the family with that name.
Some Jews hated them. Others were content to assimilate.
Well I'm not much on the history of the first century.
But if a Jew hated anyone then there was no love of God there.
Actually, hating the Gentile invaders of their country and wanting to kill them and drive them out is right in line with the Old Testament.
And I'd bet these names would be different in different texts.
Kjv new testament comes from greek texts. Therefore greek names.
People's names do not change in different languages. There is only one pronunciation of a person's name, no matter what language it is transliterated to. Eh Jose?
'Jesus' is a greek name.
That's funny!
There is no Jesus in Greek (well, at least until Christianity took over). When appearing in a Greek text, It is transliterated from the Hebrew word for Joshua.
Some Jews hated them. Others were content to assimilate.
About the only ones who chose the assimilate route were those who could take advantage of it -- namely the Sadducees. They were able to gain power by cooperating with the Romans.
Any cursory reading of the dead sea scrolls, which are 1st century source documents unaltered through the last 2,000 years, shows that these people despised, hated, and wanted either dead or gone everyone Roman or Jew who cooperated with them.
The fact that the whole region exploded in the late 60's C.E. in a bloody revolt that lasted years should speak loudly enough as to how the Jews felt about the Romans. Even after being trapped within Jerusalem for 3 years, cut off from any supply of food, people starving to death, reports of cannibalism, and threat of destruction of the temple they refused to surrender and give Jerusalem back to the Romans. So they were slaughtered and the temple destroyed.
Even if a few wanted to assimilate, they would never name their kids with Gentile names. The poor kids would be ostricized in that society.
Greasy, you want to teach Jewish history to me? Really?
Yes, there were Jews who hated them. Yes there were those who thought it politically more expedient to assimilate, some of whom also may have hated them. There were also many many shades in between. You can read a story in the Bible - or a story from some other source. You will get A story - the story of whomever the characters are. They may be Jewish, but that doesn't mean they represent all or even a majority of the Jews. They may be Irish, but that doesn't mean they represent all or even a majority of the Irish.
The dead sea scrolls are believed to have been written by the Essenes - they are one subgroup of many subgroups of Jews. Yes, they would have hated the Romans. Yes, they would have hated all who assimilated. They were very much an anti-assimilation group. There were similar groups in Eastern Europe too. Likewise there were groups who thought assimilation was the answer in Eastern Europe.
Yes, the rebellion did eventually take place. But again, that does not mean there weren't plenty of people who were willing to assimilate. BTW, the only reason the rebellion finally occured was because the Jews were no longer allowed to practice their religion freely. Prior to that, a large number of Jews were content to leave things be.
And finally, yes, pronunciation of names does become transliterated. Some names get changed altogether.
Andrew and Philip are also problem names. Even worse because they occur in the Gospels, before "Pentecost".
Philip -> Philippi? -> a Greek city? -> populated with Philippians? -> a.k.a Gentiles?
Phillip meams "horse-lover" in Greek (phil - hippos.
Given how much the Jews hated the Greeks from the time Alexander conquered them through to when the Romans took away their hard fought independence from Greece, I think it's a safe assumption they would not name their sons after them.
Some families did collaborate with the Romans though. Josephus is one example. His full name was Flavius Josephus I believe.
Could some of these names be Hellenized versions of Hebrew names?
Greasy, you want to teach Jewish history to me? Really?
You already know it all, like me?
Yes names can change through translations. Best example of that is the name of God himself, Jehovah. Jehovah is the slaughtered form of Yahweh. It came into English from the Septuagint, which came from Hebrew. But it doesn't change the fact that the word Jehovah is Hebrew in origin. And Stephen is Greek.
Can any of our Jewish history experts honestly say, given the black and white, hard-corps, monotheistic theocracy of the Jewish society in the first half of the first century:
a) That a father would give his son a Gentile name.
b) A large group of Jews would select such a person to be a leader over them.
It would be like an Islam father naming his son George. It just ain't going to happen.
Josephus was an Essene, or a group close to them. When the fighting broke out, he decided he'd rather live than fight to the death. He dumped his religion and joined the Romans. Flavius is a title. He worked closely with Titus, a.k.a Flavius Titus, as he destroyed Jerusalem. He would have been considered a traitor by his former kin.
Yes names can change through translations. Best example of that is the name of God himself, Jehovah. Jehovah is the slaughtered form of Yahweh. It came into English from the Septuagint, which came from Hebrew. But it doesn't change the fact that the word Jehovah is Hebrew in origin. And Stephen is Greek.
One interesting theory for the different names for God, is that the passages were written by different authors. This theory refers to the author who calls God Jehovah or more properly JWJH as "J" - and it is believed "J" was a woman. The author who refers to God as Elohim was a man, now referred to as "E".
Can any of our Jewish history experts honestly say, given the black and white, hard-corps, monotheistic theocracy of the Jewish society in the first half of the first century:
a) That a father would give his son a Gentile name.
b) A large group of Jews would select such a person to be a leader over them.
Yes, one can. Judaism wasn't always so hard-core monotheistic. In fact, you may recall that Rachel stole her father's idol. That is just one of many many instances within the Bible where Jews worshipped other Gods. You may still be seeing the OT and gospels through a TWI shaded lens - or at least a fundamentalist one. Not intended as a "way brain" slam - just posing something for you to consider. Even today, there are groups of Judaism that aren't strictly monotheistic.
Also, a Jewish son could have a gentile father, so yes, a gentile name could be given. Equally likely, if a family is trying to assimilate, a gentile name would be given. When my mother's family immigrated to the U.S., several of my great grandmother's sister's names were changed. Likewise, my father's parents changed their last names upon arriving in the U.S. Why is it so hard to imagine that similar things could have taken place during biblical times?
I was more focusing on the 1st century post-maccabean Jews and before the reorganization done by the pharasies after the Jewish war (of which I know little, except that the book of Daniel was almost not included in the canon because it was thought too hard-corps for the Romans to let them keep).
As far as earlier Jewish history, everything I've studied points to Israel being a confederation of polytheistic tribes up until the time of King Josiah -- who "found the book of the law" and the book of Deuteronomy was born, to be followed by the other books at the beginning of the Bible -- haphazardly transforming a polytheistic history into a monotheistic one. It's a fascinating study but it's way off topic.
I'm not sure a son with a Gentile name, born from a Gentile father and a Jewish mother would be considered a Jew (in the 1st century). From what I understand, the father's religion was the religion of the house and thus the son's religion. If the Gentile father converted to Judaism, then it seems more likely the son would get a Hebrew name so that he could assimilate into the new religion more readily. I'm sure there are exceptions. But seven people promoted by the people with Gentile names?
Reading Acts 6 and 7 is like reading a book on U.S. history about the revolutionary war. You come on a section that talks about Chief Running Bull defeating the British at Gettysburg. If this is the only book you had, you would pretty much have to take it at its word. But given other history sources, reading this jumps out as something not being right.
Has anyone had the thought that the text in Acts might be corrupt?
Reading Acts 6 and 7 is like reading a book on U.S. history about the revolutionary war. You come on a section that talks about Chief Running Bull defeating the British at Gettysburg. If this is the only book you had, you would pretty much have to take it at its word. But given other history sources, reading this jumps out as something not being right.
Has anyone had the thought that the text in Acts might be corrupt?
Standard, boring and dry higher-critical textbooks in colleges place the writing of Acts in the second century.
Here's a link to a more recent work which explains why Acts is a product of the second century.
Recommended Posts
polar bear
I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you referring to what Stephen said about "receive my spirit". I believe that would just be figurative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Why would it be figurative?
Why not really 'receive my spirit'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Does not Ecclesiastes speak of the spirit of man that goes upwards and spirit of the beast that goes down? As well as in the same book speaking of the spirit that returns to God when one dies?
Since when is the spirit one has constitute the actual human being? The spirit is never called the life of man, and therefore doesn't necessarily constitute an alive being.
I guess to me, I see it more as just what it is. The spirit God gave, going back to God.. Just as the spirit God gave to Moses, then took and divided it among the 70 elders. Or the spirit of God that is poured upon those who believe. I don't think like TWI in that it is YOUR spirit to do with and it is yours. The scriptures (read Romans 8) speaks many times of that spirit still being GOD'S! You may have it, he may have given it, may even be the down payment of the fullness of the spirit to come, but.. Well, I dunno.. Whatever it is! hehe..
And your thoughts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Cman
God loves you my dear friend
I do not see one "supposed return of Christ" but many
I see the last trump as our last breath
but this is me
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Thanks Roy, I understand.
T&O,
I believe Stephen said lord receive 'my' spirit.
So who's spirit is it? Stephen's.
Same thing Jesus said too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
A better question is why is there a man with a Greek (a.k.a. gentile) name, risen to a leadership position, before the official bringing in of the gentiles in acts 10? Stephen = Setphanos = Crown.
In fact, all the names of the magnificent 7 listed in Acts 6:5 are Greek names.
They also happen to be names of friends of Paul....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
leadership position?
i thought they were serving like servants
the gentiles? not sure i understand the question
according to pfal, there was a bringing in of the gentiles
as i understand things, they were never excluded
but that's a long story.....from me
a twinkling of an eye from the Lord
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I don't consider PFAL an authoritative source for much of anything, but even Vic made a big deal about Peter going into a Gentile house because he would be "called on the carpet in Jerusalem." The text of Acts does support this position though. Peter did have to answer for going to Cornelius. And the proof that God did indeed invite the Gentiles to their new religion was that Peter heard them speak in tongues. This all occurred in Acts 10 & 11 -- after Stephen was stoned.
Acts 6
Being chosen by the people, set before the apostles, prayed over and hands laid on is generally considered an ordination by most groups. Even TWI considers this section an ordination of the seven.
So how could someone with a Greek/Gentile name be in such a position well before they considered Gentiles anything other than dogs?
Edited by GreasyTechLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Could Jews have had gentile (i.e. Greek) names? I believe that Andrew is a Greek name, as is Phillip.
Well, you did ask how it could be reconciled with the future return of Christ...that's one way.Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Andrew and Philip are also problem names. Even worse because they occur in the Gospels, before "Pentecost".
Philip -> Philippi? -> a Greek city? -> populated with Philippians? -> a.k.a Gentiles?
Given how much the Jews hated the Greeks from the time Alexander conquered them through to when the Romans took away their hard fought independence from Greece, I think it's a safe assumption they would not name their sons after them. Especially given their hard-corps monotheistic religious culture and the Greek and Roman's polytheistic one being pushed on them.
I also think that newborn sons were named after someone in their lineage. The account of John the Baptist is a good example of it -- when everyone got upset that he was named John and there was no one in the family with that name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Well I'm not much on the history of the first century.
But if a Jew hated anyone then there was no love of God there.
And I'd bet these names would be different in different texts.
Kjv new testament comes from greek texts. Therefore greek names.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
'Jesus' is a greek name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Some Jews hated them. Others were content to assimilate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Actually, hating the Gentile invaders of their country and wanting to kill them and drive them out is right in line with the Old Testament.
People's names do not change in different languages. There is only one pronunciation of a person's name, no matter what language it is transliterated to. Eh Jose?
That's funny!
There is no Jesus in Greek (well, at least until Christianity took over). When appearing in a Greek text, It is transliterated from the Hebrew word for Joshua.
About the only ones who chose the assimilate route were those who could take advantage of it -- namely the Sadducees. They were able to gain power by cooperating with the Romans.
Any cursory reading of the dead sea scrolls, which are 1st century source documents unaltered through the last 2,000 years, shows that these people despised, hated, and wanted either dead or gone everyone Roman or Jew who cooperated with them.
The fact that the whole region exploded in the late 60's C.E. in a bloody revolt that lasted years should speak loudly enough as to how the Jews felt about the Romans. Even after being trapped within Jerusalem for 3 years, cut off from any supply of food, people starving to death, reports of cannibalism, and threat of destruction of the temple they refused to surrender and give Jerusalem back to the Romans. So they were slaughtered and the temple destroyed.
Even if a few wanted to assimilate, they would never name their kids with Gentile names. The poor kids would be ostricized in that society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Well I guess you just know everything GreasyTech.
No need for others to add info for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Too blunt?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Greasy, you want to teach Jewish history to me? Really?
Yes, there were Jews who hated them. Yes there were those who thought it politically more expedient to assimilate, some of whom also may have hated them. There were also many many shades in between. You can read a story in the Bible - or a story from some other source. You will get A story - the story of whomever the characters are. They may be Jewish, but that doesn't mean they represent all or even a majority of the Jews. They may be Irish, but that doesn't mean they represent all or even a majority of the Irish.
The dead sea scrolls are believed to have been written by the Essenes - they are one subgroup of many subgroups of Jews. Yes, they would have hated the Romans. Yes, they would have hated all who assimilated. They were very much an anti-assimilation group. There were similar groups in Eastern Europe too. Likewise there were groups who thought assimilation was the answer in Eastern Europe.
Yes, the rebellion did eventually take place. But again, that does not mean there weren't plenty of people who were willing to assimilate. BTW, the only reason the rebellion finally occured was because the Jews were no longer allowed to practice their religion freely. Prior to that, a large number of Jews were content to leave things be.
And finally, yes, pronunciation of names does become transliterated. Some names get changed altogether.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Could some of these names be Hellenized versions of Hebrew names?
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
GT
You already know it all, like me?
Yes names can change through translations. Best example of that is the name of God himself, Jehovah. Jehovah is the slaughtered form of Yahweh. It came into English from the Septuagint, which came from Hebrew. But it doesn't change the fact that the word Jehovah is Hebrew in origin. And Stephen is Greek.
Can any of our Jewish history experts honestly say, given the black and white, hard-corps, monotheistic theocracy of the Jewish society in the first half of the first century:
a) That a father would give his son a Gentile name.
b) A large group of Jews would select such a person to be a leader over them.
It would be like an Islam father naming his son George. It just ain't going to happen.
Josephus was an Essene, or a group close to them. When the fighting broke out, he decided he'd rather live than fight to the death. He dumped his religion and joined the Romans. Flavius is a title. He worked closely with Titus, a.k.a Flavius Titus, as he destroyed Jerusalem. He would have been considered a traitor by his former kin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I was more focusing on the 1st century post-maccabean Jews and before the reorganization done by the pharasies after the Jewish war (of which I know little, except that the book of Daniel was almost not included in the canon because it was thought too hard-corps for the Romans to let them keep).
As far as earlier Jewish history, everything I've studied points to Israel being a confederation of polytheistic tribes up until the time of King Josiah -- who "found the book of the law" and the book of Deuteronomy was born, to be followed by the other books at the beginning of the Bible -- haphazardly transforming a polytheistic history into a monotheistic one. It's a fascinating study but it's way off topic.
I'm not sure a son with a Gentile name, born from a Gentile father and a Jewish mother would be considered a Jew (in the 1st century). From what I understand, the father's religion was the religion of the house and thus the son's religion. If the Gentile father converted to Judaism, then it seems more likely the son would get a Hebrew name so that he could assimilate into the new religion more readily. I'm sure there are exceptions. But seven people promoted by the people with Gentile names?
Reading Acts 6 and 7 is like reading a book on U.S. history about the revolutionary war. You come on a section that talks about Chief Running Bull defeating the British at Gettysburg. If this is the only book you had, you would pretty much have to take it at its word. But given other history sources, reading this jumps out as something not being right.
Has anyone had the thought that the text in Acts might be corrupt?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
All of it is corrupted to some extent.
That's why I question a 'return of Christ'.
Which phrase is not even in the text.
The subject of this thread.
And though many believe this,
I won't force anything upon them.
But will put out things to consider.
Consider that right after we die then the judgement.
And we are in heaven.
And judgement has nothing to do with punishment
but we shall be changed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Standard, boring and dry higher-critical textbooks in colleges place the writing of Acts in the second century.
Here's a link to a more recent work which explains why Acts is a product of the second century.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Hey Danny,
Got any history and background for Thessolonians you want to share?
-----------
And btw folks, this is why the living can contribute to spiritual growth more then letters from men who are not here.
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.