I could be wrong on this but, it was always my understanding that the word "pagan" referred to someone who was not Jewish, Christian or Muslim.(Simple as that.)
The Native American peoples, for example, had spiritual beliefs that were deeply seated but since they did not fit this criteria, they would be technically classified as Pagans.
It's a matter of semantics, really.
Many people use the term in a derogatory sense but I don't think that's an accurate usage of the word.
Broadly speaking "pagan" does refer to those outside the Abrahamic religions (Jews, Christians, Muslims). From a Christian perceptive calling someone a pagan could be considered derogatory. "Paganism" in the modern sense is an umbrella term for a many, many families of religions.
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...
This thread is not to discuss one version of the Bible but to discuss whether Peter and the other apostles really carried out the instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ in speaking the message, the good news, the gospel, the tidings of his resurrection and all that meant, in the way instructed - or whether they did what they thought was right and did in fact seem right - but a better way had been directed. The difference, perhaps, between sense-knowledge thinking ("Look at all these people! Let's stay here and teach them!") and following the instruction to get out into Judea, Samaria, and everywhere else known about.
i am aware of the topic of the thread... but if you go back and read my first post, it was not actually off topic...
the point i was trying to make was that reading "the message" paraphrase was a factor in leading you to make some inaccurate conclusions about the section of acts that you were referencing...
you said that the verse seemed a little "off" to you... and i was giving my opinion as to why it seemed "off"...
in your very first paragraph, you state:
So right from the beginning, the apostles didn’t want to get involved with the poor. Excuse me, hadn’t they spent enough time with Jesus, walking the streets, talking to all and sundry?
and i posted:
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"...
that is why i wanted to comment on "the message" paraphrase that you were quoting from...
i was not trying to hijack your thread and start talking about the value of the various versions of the bible that exist...
are you saying that i should not have given my opinion that "the message" bible was leading you to some faulty conclusions about the verses in acts that you thought were "off"?
i do agree with oak that paganism is an umbrella term... in the sense that it does not differentiate among the multitude of "pagan" religions and give any specifics about each one's practices and beliefs...
personally, i am following webster's definition, which defines paganism as the worship of idols or false gods...
so i would agree that the term does not apply to someone who holds christian or jewish beliefs (not heritage)
however, muslims worship a false god, allah (who is the moon god)
and paganism (and it's practices) are infiltrating christianity today as well...
(wide is the way to destruction)
anyway... since acts 6:1 makes a distinction between the "hellenists" and the "hebrews", i believe that a distinction is being made between those who follow after the grecian/hellenistic gods, and those who follow the hebrew God...
i know bride disagrees with me on this... but that is my thinking and train of thought on the "hellenists"...
The commonality that exists among "The Big Three" is that they are monotheistic and all consider their origin to be with Abraham. It's an academic point, not a subjective evaluation.
personally, i am following webster's definition, which defines paganism as the worship of idols or false gods...
Well that definition carries a bit of bias with it...
Pagans as a rule don't worship the idols, but the gods behind them...and who gets to decide which gods are false?
so i would agree that the term does not apply to someone who holds christian or jewish beliefs (not heritage)
however, muslims worship a false god, allah (who is the moon god)
Mulsims might disagree
and paganism (and it's practices) are infiltrating christianity today as well...
(wide is the way to destruction)
Christianity incorporated pagan beliefs and practices from very early on, including the slain god who redeems his people...
anyway... since acts 6:1 makes a distinction between the "hellenists" and the "hebrews", i believe that a distinction is being made between those who follow after the grecian/hellenistic gods, and those who follow the hebrew God...
While you are entitled to your opinion, you have not made a case as to why the distinction is what you say it is
i know bride disagrees with me on this... but that is my thinking and train of thought on the "hellenists"...
I think everyone on this thread disagrees with you! That doesn't by itself make you wrong, but your position is pretty much unsupported.
Edited by Oakspear
A little clarification on my opinion that you haven't made your case regarding the Hellenists:
It's possible that you are making your case and I'm not comprehending your argument, but on the face of it it looks like you're just stating your opinion without supporting it with anything. There are also several problems with the position that the Hellenists in the section of Acts in question that you have not really addressed. Like you said, there is a distinction between the Hellenists and "the Hebrews", but is the distinction one of believers vs. unbelievers? If so, why are they included in the "daily ministration" overseen by the apostles and later the seven?
Regarding the definition of pagans, I don't think that the word is used in the bible, but I would accept it's use to describe the non-Christian non-ewish religions native to the area.
When it comes to dictionary definitions, they abound; here's the Merriam Webster online definition:
Main Entry: pa·gan
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-gən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix — more at pact
Date: 14th century
1: heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
3: neo-pagan
— pagan adjective
— pa·gan·ish \-gə-nish\ adjective
Now #1 would seem to be the "neutral" definition; #2 I would guess grew out of the Judeo-Christian view that all pagan" religions were false and therefore its fpollowers irreligious; #3 refers to the "new" pagans of modern times.
personally, i am following webster's definition, which defines paganism as the worship of idols or false gods...
Well that definition carries a bit of bias with it...
Pagans as a rule don't worship the idols, but the gods behind them...and who gets to decide which gods are false?
Webster was a devout Christian, therefore, the definitions reflect his beliefs.
QUOTE
so i would agree that the term does not apply to someone who holds christian or jewish beliefs (not heritage)
however, muslims worship a false god, allah (who is the moon god)
Mulsims might disagree
Of course, but nevertheless it is true. though they claim common origins, i.e. Abraham...it was Sarah who booted out Hagar...to the victor go the spoils!
QUOTE
and paganism (and it's practices) are infiltrating christianity today as well...
(wide is the way to destruction)
Christianity incorporated pagan beliefs and practices from very early on, including the slain god who redeems his people...
Or perhaps satan hijacked God's prophetic utterances and incorporated them into false religions....always a bridesmaid and never a bride!
QUOTE
anyway... since acts 6:1 makes a distinction between the "hellenists" and the "hebrews", i believe that a distinction is being made between those who follow after the grecian/hellenistic gods, and those who follow the hebrew God...
While you are entitled to your opinion, you have not made a case as to why the distinction is what you say it is
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Oak.
QUOTE
i know bride disagrees with me on this... but that is my thinking and train of thought on the "hellenists"...
I think everyone on this thread disagrees with you! That doesn't by itself make you wrong, but your position is pretty much unsupported.
Broadly speaking "pagan" does refer to those outside the Abrahamic religions (Jews, Christians, Muslims). From a Christian perceptive calling someone a pagan could be considered derogatory. "Paganism" in the modern sense is an umbrella term for a many, many families of religions.
This thread is not to discuss one version of the Bible but to discuss whether Peter and the other apostles really carried out the instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ in speaking the message, the good news, the gospel, the tidings of his resurrection and all that meant, in the way instructed - or whether they did what they thought was right and did in fact seem right - but a better way had been directed. The difference, perhaps, between sense-knowledge thinking ("Look at all these people! Let's stay here and teach them!") and following the instruction to get out into Judea, Samaria, and everywhere else known about.
But the Lord Jesus did instruct to start at Jerusalem and there doesn't appear to have been a time frame as to when they were to move out. If there was it was not recorded and so we will never know. Whether they were right on time or late, the Lord Jesus doesn't inhabit time as we know it, and the fact remains if we are too slow....the Lord will raise up a tension in our lives until we deal with the situation.
Webster was a devout Christian, therefore, the definitions reflect his beliefs.
There ya go!
Of course, but nevertheless it is true. though they claim common origins, i.e. Abraham...it was Sarah who booted out Hagar...to the victor go the spoils!
And the victors write the history (or holy) books
Or perhaps satan hijacked God's prophetic utterances and incorporated them into false religions....always a bridesmaid and never a bride!
From a Christian point of view, that's a good explanation, from a pagan point of view the Christians took all the good myths and grafted them onto Jesus.
A little clarification on my opinion that you haven't made your case regarding the Hellenists:
It's possible that you are making your case and I'm not comprehending your argument, but on the face of it it looks like you're just stating your opinion without supporting it with anything. There are also several problems with the position that the Hellenists in the section of Acts in question that you have not really addressed. Like you said, there is a distinction between the Hellenists and "the Hebrews", but is the distinction one of believers vs. unbelievers? If so, why are they included in the "daily ministration" overseen by the apostles and later the seven?
Regarding the definition of pagans, I don't think that the word is used in the bible, but I would accept it's use to describe the non-Christian non-ewish religions native to the area.
The Jews called them "Goyims" which I already posted before I got to this post.
When it comes to dictionary definitions, they abound; here's the Merriam Webster online definition:
QUOTE
Main Entry: pa·gan
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-gən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix — more at pact
Date: 14th century
1: heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
3: neo-pagan
— pagan adjective
— pa·gan·ish \-gə-nish\ adjective
Now #1 would seem to be the "neutral" definition; #2 I would guess grew out of the Judeo-Christian view that all pagan" religions were false and therefore its fpollowers irreligious; #3 refers to the "new" pagans of modern times.
#1 - Romans and Greeks (ethnic) considered Christians to be atheists during their time simply because they didn't worship the same pantheon.
#2 - This is a mixture of total non-religious peoples to semi-religious and then includes what the bible refers to as the Epicureans.
#3 - This is merely a continuation of #2 into modern times.
The dictionary cited seems to contradict itself.
Definition #1 suggests that polytheists are pagan whereas definition #2 excludes the theistic requirements, either partially or in total.
Hellenism is characterized by polytheism and the exclusion of a connection to Abraham.
Unless you were a Jewish person caught up in the Diaspora and transported to a Hellenized country and adopted their language and other customs minus the polytheistic tendencies.
From a Christian point of view, that's a good explanation, from a pagan point of view the Christians took all the good myths and grafted them onto Jesus.
They just think they did. Even as the pagans of old also have myths regarding creation out of chaos and the primordial waters....hmmmm...do you think the oral traditions of Genesis 1 kept flowing outward as people groups moved outward? Me thinks it did.
You know I'm a pagan, right?
Yup, I kinda figgered!
Especially, after I saw you driving that "Wacky Old Way Mobile"
#2 - This is a mixture of total non-religious peoples to semi-religious and then includes what the bible refers to as the Epicureans.
#3 - This is merely a continuation of #2 into modern times
Christian, Abrahamic, or Epicurian??
No modern neo pagan/pagans have discipline? Really? Care to back that up?
They are individuals, hmmm, just like Christians.
A rather judgemental sweep, there.
But then there are those Christians who believe all outside their "fold" are evil. Shrug. But even I'm smart enough to know that all Christians are not that way.
#2 - This is a mixture of total non-religious peoples to semi-religious and then includes what the bible refers to as the Epicureans.
#3 - This is merely a continuation of #2 into modern times
Christian, Abrahamic, or Epicurian??
No modern neo pagan/pagans have discipline? Really? Care to back that up?
They are individuals, hmmm, just like Christians.
A rather judgemental sweep, there.
But then there are those Christians who believe all outside their "fold" are evil. Shrug. But even I'm smart enough to know that all Christians are not that way.
Hey Bramble,
You need to re-read the post that you got my words from. I'm commenting on the dictionary entries, not people per se. If you reading the darker blue, those
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...
The thing is, jen-o, that in all versions you will see that the twelve declined to do the food distribution. Here's just a few, but you can look on Crosswalk.com and plug this scripture reference and read it in any of a score of translations.
KJV
Then 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.
New KJV
Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.
NSB
So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
RSV
And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
Weymouth NT
So the Twelve called together the general body of the disciples and said, "It does not seem fitting that we Apostles should neglect the delivery of God's Message and minister at tables.
Young's literal translation
and the twelve, having called near the multitude of the disciples, said, `It is not pleasing that we, having left the word of God, do minister at tables;
NIV
So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.
The longer these guys stayed in Jerusalem, the more they got sucked into the legalism of the Pharisees and returned to their old ways, like not eating with Gentiles and other ritual behavior. Their homes were in Galilee, for goodness sake, which was a fair way from Jerusalem. Galilee was not subject to the same Pharisaical legalism that had hamstrung Jerusalem (according to Josephus there were no Pharisees there until about AD70). True there were synagogues and establishments of religious learning but the area was far from the legalism and control aspects of worship based nearer Jerusalem.
It would perhaps be a bit like churches nowadays, the further from the seat of government the less stringently applied was the church's doctrine (as opposed to the basic elements of Christianity). So Mother Theresa gave out contraception to Indian women though the RC Church is dead against contraception. Churches and chapels in smaller towns and villages often have a looser and less ritualistic church service than the great Cathedrals in cities.
So perhaps the apostles should have gone back to Galilee if they for whatever reason didn't want to set off straight away for the uttemost parts of the earth, and if they wanted a base, establish it in Galilee, and not lying down with the temple dogs in Jerusalem and catching their fleas.
In Acts 19 we read (NIV as jen-o does not like The Message):
8 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. 9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way.
So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. 10 This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord. 11 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
Things only moved when Paul and the disciples with him got out from the legalistic environment. Paul had tried to take the gospel to the Jews first. It simply would not take off whilst he preached only in the synagogue. And that was without a huge contingent of Pharisees present in Ephesus. But when he moved to a neutral environment - all the Jews and Greeks heard the word of the Lord.
But the Lord Jesus did instruct to start at Jerusalem and there doesn't appear to have been a time frame as to when they were to move out. If there was it was not recorded and so we will never know. Whether they were right on time or late, the Lord Jesus doesn't inhabit time as we know it, and the fact remains if we are too slow....the Lord will raise up a tension in our lives until we deal with the situation.
I covered this right in the first post starting this thread but The Message is a little different from the more familiar KJV:
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
or in Young's Literal Translation:
4 And being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he,] `Ye did hear of me;
The implication to me is clear: they were to wait until a specific event, then do something.
(along the lines of, "Go to Wal-Mart, the drugstore and the cafe - but wait for Susie to join you, as I told you she'd be coming" - or, "...but wait till pay day, which you know is due tomorrow."
They certainly were witnesses straight away in Jerusalem and Acts 2 records not only the arrival of holy spirit but the first great Christian sermon. It's closely followed by many new converts, and wonders and signs. It must have been a thrillingly heady time. I can so understand why they would want to stay around.
But by Acts 3 they are already having altercations with the religious hierarchy. Acts 6 shows the "murmurings" of the "Grecians" against the "Hebrews" which has been discussed above in this thread. So already there is division beginning in the new Christian church. If they had moved off soon after Pentecost, the sermon and the conversion of the 3,000, would this division have occurred? These 3,000 didn't all live in Jersualem, they were there for the Festival (Feast of Weeks) and would have to return to their homes and livelihoods. The Samaritans we know from the gospels were also ready to receive and they definitely would not have been at the Feast of Weeks. (I don't know that they ever got the opportunity to hear the good news - a revisit to the village where JC spoke with the woman at the well? Not recorded) Maybe in some parts of Galilee they would not have been received ("a prophet is not without honour except in his own country") - but some people would have received. From there out to all points north, west and east?
In fact - if they are to witness in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the uttermost part of the earth - Jerusalem, Judea and the uttermost part got to hear - but we really don't know a lot about how much Samaria heard!
The thing is, jen-o, that in all versions you will see that the twelve declined to do the food distribution. Here's just a few, but you can look on Crosswalk.com and plug this scripture reference and read it in any of a score of translations.
So perhaps the apostles should have gone back to Galilee if they for whatever reason didn't want to set off straight away for the uttemost parts of the earth, and if they wanted a base, establish it in Galilee, and not lying down with the temple dogs in Jerusalem and catching their fleas.
Twinky, do you know what "temple dogs" were?
In Acts 19 we read (NIV as jen-o does not like The Message):
A matter of personal preference I'm sure! <_< BUT I DON'T LIKE THE NIV!!!
I covered this right in the first post starting this thread but The Message is a little different from the more familiar KJV:
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
or in Young's Literal Translation:
4 And being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he,] `Ye did hear of me;
The implication to me is clear: they were to wait until a specific event, then do something.
(along the lines of, "Go to Wal-Mart, the drugstore and the cafe - but wait for Susie to join you, as I told you she'd be coming" - or, "...but wait till pay day, which you know is due tomorrow."
They certainly were witnesses straight away in Jerusalem and Acts 2 records not only the arrival of holy spirit but the first great Christian sermon. It's closely followed by many new converts, and wonders and signs. It must have been a thrillingly heady time. I can so understand why they would want to stay around.
You still need a base, at least imo, you do. Jesus said to start there and this is what they did. Philip did go to Samaria and he was traveling around. You assume that all 12 stayed in Jerusalem because it isn't recorded. But just because it isn't recorded doesn't mean that they didn't make short evangelistic type visits to neighboring villages, towns, etc. You need to remember that the book of Acts is not a blow by blow account and up to the minute news reporting of the first century church. There is a lot missing that they did accomplish. When it isn't recorded, this is when you have to trust God or just leave it alone and realize that we may never know.
But by Acts 3 they are already having altercations with the religious hierarchy. Acts 6 shows the "murmurings" of the "Grecians" against the "Hebrews" which has been discussed above in this thread. So already there is division beginning in the new Christian church. If they had moved off soon after Pentecost, the sermon and the conversion of the 3,000, would this division have occurred?
YES! People are people, no matter what millenia they are found in. :unsure:
These 3,000 didn't all live in Jersualem, they were there for the Festival (Feast of Weeks) and would have to return to their homes and livelihoods. The Samaritans we know from the gospels were also ready to receive and they definitely would not have been at the Feast of Weeks. (I don't know that they ever got the opportunity to hear the good news - a revisit to the village where JC spoke with the woman at the well? Not recorded) Maybe in some parts of Galilee they would not have been received ("a prophet is not without honour except in his own country") - but some people would have received. From there out to all points north, west and east?
In fact - if they are to witness in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the uttermost part of the earth - Jerusalem, Judea and the uttermost part got to hear - but we really don't know a lot about how much Samaria heard!
We also don't really know how much the other places got to hear either, Twinky, we still see only glimpses...
gee, i thought the "temple dogs with fleas" remark was funny... LOL
but bride put a no-no face next to it... maybe she knows something i don't...
anyway, twinky, i wanted to thank you again for turning me on to "freecycle"... i was able to get a dining room table with chairs for the apartment for the homeless family (that is no longer homeless) :~)
i know this is totally off-topic, but i have no idea where that thread is (LOL) and i wanted to thank you for the info!
Well, BoJ, you've obviously got your view and don't wish to consider any other. I only floated it to see what people might think - for a bit of a discussion. Don't think this is going anywhere so this is my parting shot.
Jen-o, Freecycle is good, yes, glad you found it helpful. Think I'll start a topic in Open so perhaps see you there.
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
waysider
I could be wrong on this but, it was always my understanding that the word "pagan" referred to someone who was not Jewish, Christian or Muslim.(Simple as that.)
The Native American peoples, for example, had spiritual beliefs that were deeply seated but since they did not fit this criteria, they would be technically classified as Pagans.
It's a matter of semantics, really.
Many people use the term in a derogatory sense but I don't think that's an accurate usage of the word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Broadly speaking "pagan" does refer to those outside the Abrahamic religions (Jews, Christians, Muslims). From a Christian perceptive calling someone a pagan could be considered derogatory. "Paganism" in the modern sense is an umbrella term for a many, many families of religions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
This thread is not to discuss one version of the Bible but to discuss whether Peter and the other apostles really carried out the instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ in speaking the message, the good news, the gospel, the tidings of his resurrection and all that meant, in the way instructed - or whether they did what they thought was right and did in fact seem right - but a better way had been directed. The difference, perhaps, between sense-knowledge thinking ("Look at all these people! Let's stay here and teach them!") and following the instruction to get out into Judea, Samaria, and everywhere else known about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
dear twinky,
i am aware of the topic of the thread... but if you go back and read my first post, it was not actually off topic...
the point i was trying to make was that reading "the message" paraphrase was a factor in leading you to make some inaccurate conclusions about the section of acts that you were referencing...
you said that the verse seemed a little "off" to you... and i was giving my opinion as to why it seemed "off"...
in your very first paragraph, you state:
and i posted:that is why i wanted to comment on "the message" paraphrase that you were quoting from...
i was not trying to hijack your thread and start talking about the value of the various versions of the bible that exist...
are you saying that i should not have given my opinion that "the message" bible was leading you to some faulty conclusions about the verses in acts that you thought were "off"?
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hi rachel,
i do agree with oak that paganism is an umbrella term... in the sense that it does not differentiate among the multitude of "pagan" religions and give any specifics about each one's practices and beliefs...
personally, i am following webster's definition, which defines paganism as the worship of idols or false gods...
so i would agree that the term does not apply to someone who holds christian or jewish beliefs (not heritage)
however, muslims worship a false god, allah (who is the moon god)
and paganism (and it's practices) are infiltrating christianity today as well...
(wide is the way to destruction)
anyway... since acts 6:1 makes a distinction between the "hellenists" and the "hebrews", i believe that a distinction is being made between those who follow after the grecian/hellenistic gods, and those who follow the hebrew God...
i know bride disagrees with me on this... but that is my thinking and train of thought on the "hellenists"...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The commonality that exists among "The Big Three" is that they are monotheistic and all consider their origin to be with Abraham. It's an academic point, not a subjective evaluation.
Here is a "Wiki" that explains some of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion
Sorry, I know that strays from the larger topic but it addresses the sub-topic at hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Pagans as a rule don't worship the idols, but the gods behind them...and who gets to decide which gods are false?
Mulsims might disagreeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
A little clarification on my opinion that you haven't made your case regarding the Hellenists:
It's possible that you are making your case and I'm not comprehending your argument, but on the face of it it looks like you're just stating your opinion without supporting it with anything. There are also several problems with the position that the Hellenists in the section of Acts in question that you have not really addressed. Like you said, there is a distinction between the Hellenists and "the Hebrews", but is the distinction one of believers vs. unbelievers? If so, why are they included in the "daily ministration" overseen by the apostles and later the seven?
Regarding the definition of pagans, I don't think that the word is used in the bible, but I would accept it's use to describe the non-Christian non-ewish religions native to the area.
When it comes to dictionary definitions, they abound; here's the Merriam Webster online definition:
Now #1 would seem to be the "neutral" definition; #2 I would guess grew out of the Judeo-Christian view that all pagan" religions were false and therefore its fpollowers irreligious; #3 refers to the "new" pagans of modern times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The dictionary cited seems to contradict itself.
Definition #1 suggests that polytheists are pagan whereas definition #2 excludes the theistic requirements, either partially or in total.
Hellenism is characterized by polytheism and the exclusion of a connection to Abraham.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
According to the Jews, they are "Goyim" Oy Vey!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
But the Lord Jesus did instruct to start at Jerusalem and there doesn't appear to have been a time frame as to when they were to move out. If there was it was not recorded and so we will never know. Whether they were right on time or late, the Lord Jesus doesn't inhabit time as we know it, and the fact remains if we are too slow....the Lord will raise up a tension in our lives until we deal with the situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
You know I'm a pagan, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Unless you were a Jewish person caught up in the Diaspora and transported to a Hellenized country and adopted their language and other customs minus the polytheistic tendencies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
#2 - This is a mixture of total non-religious peoples to semi-religious and then includes what the bible refers to as the Epicureans.
#3 - This is merely a continuation of #2 into modern times
Christian, Abrahamic, or Epicurian??
No modern neo pagan/pagans have discipline? Really? Care to back that up?
They are individuals, hmmm, just like Christians.
A rather judgemental sweep, there.
But then there are those Christians who believe all outside their "fold" are evil. Shrug. But even I'm smart enough to know that all Christians are not that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
wow... when this thread is hot, it's hot!... LOL
i haven't read all the posts on this thread, but i just wanted to comment on this one line:
LOLOL, oak, it wouldn't be the first time! :lol:
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Hey Bramble,
You need to re-read the post that you got my words from. I'm commenting on the dictionary entries, not people per se. If you reading the darker blue, those
words are from Oakspear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
The thing is, jen-o, that in all versions you will see that the twelve declined to do the food distribution. Here's just a few, but you can look on Crosswalk.com and plug this scripture reference and read it in any of a score of translations.
KJV
Then 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.
New KJV
Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.
NSB
So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
RSV
And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
Weymouth NT
So the Twelve called together the general body of the disciples and said, "It does not seem fitting that we Apostles should neglect the delivery of God's Message and minister at tables.
Young's literal translation
and the twelve, having called near the multitude of the disciples, said, `It is not pleasing that we, having left the word of God, do minister at tables;
NIV
So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.
The longer these guys stayed in Jerusalem, the more they got sucked into the legalism of the Pharisees and returned to their old ways, like not eating with Gentiles and other ritual behavior. Their homes were in Galilee, for goodness sake, which was a fair way from Jerusalem. Galilee was not subject to the same Pharisaical legalism that had hamstrung Jerusalem (according to Josephus there were no Pharisees there until about AD70). True there were synagogues and establishments of religious learning but the area was far from the legalism and control aspects of worship based nearer Jerusalem.
It would perhaps be a bit like churches nowadays, the further from the seat of government the less stringently applied was the church's doctrine (as opposed to the basic elements of Christianity). So Mother Theresa gave out contraception to Indian women though the RC Church is dead against contraception. Churches and chapels in smaller towns and villages often have a looser and less ritualistic church service than the great Cathedrals in cities.
So perhaps the apostles should have gone back to Galilee if they for whatever reason didn't want to set off straight away for the uttemost parts of the earth, and if they wanted a base, establish it in Galilee, and not lying down with the temple dogs in Jerusalem and catching their fleas.
In Acts 19 we read (NIV as jen-o does not like The Message):
8 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. 9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way.
So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. 10 This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord. 11 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
Things only moved when Paul and the disciples with him got out from the legalistic environment. Paul had tried to take the gospel to the Jews first. It simply would not take off whilst he preached only in the synagogue. And that was without a huge contingent of Pharisees present in Ephesus. But when he moved to a neutral environment - all the Jews and Greeks heard the word of the Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I covered this right in the first post starting this thread but The Message is a little different from the more familiar KJV:
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
or in Young's Literal Translation:
4 And being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he,] `Ye did hear of me;
The implication to me is clear: they were to wait until a specific event, then do something.
(along the lines of, "Go to Wal-Mart, the drugstore and the cafe - but wait for Susie to join you, as I told you she'd be coming" - or, "...but wait till pay day, which you know is due tomorrow."
They certainly were witnesses straight away in Jerusalem and Acts 2 records not only the arrival of holy spirit but the first great Christian sermon. It's closely followed by many new converts, and wonders and signs. It must have been a thrillingly heady time. I can so understand why they would want to stay around.
But by Acts 3 they are already having altercations with the religious hierarchy. Acts 6 shows the "murmurings" of the "Grecians" against the "Hebrews" which has been discussed above in this thread. So already there is division beginning in the new Christian church. If they had moved off soon after Pentecost, the sermon and the conversion of the 3,000, would this division have occurred? These 3,000 didn't all live in Jersualem, they were there for the Festival (Feast of Weeks) and would have to return to their homes and livelihoods. The Samaritans we know from the gospels were also ready to receive and they definitely would not have been at the Feast of Weeks. (I don't know that they ever got the opportunity to hear the good news - a revisit to the village where JC spoke with the woman at the well? Not recorded) Maybe in some parts of Galilee they would not have been received ("a prophet is not without honour except in his own country") - but some people would have received. From there out to all points north, west and east?
In fact - if they are to witness in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the uttermost part of the earth - Jerusalem, Judea and the uttermost part got to hear - but we really don't know a lot about how much Samaria heard!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hi twinky!
gee, i thought the "temple dogs with fleas" remark was funny... LOL
but bride put a no-no face next to it... maybe she knows something i don't...
anyway, twinky, i wanted to thank you again for turning me on to "freecycle"... i was able to get a dining room table with chairs for the apartment for the homeless family (that is no longer homeless) :~)
i know this is totally off-topic, but i have no idea where that thread is (LOL) and i wanted to thank you for the info!
God Bless,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Well, BoJ, you've obviously got your view and don't wish to consider any other. I only floated it to see what people might think - for a bit of a discussion. Don't think this is going anywhere so this is my parting shot.
Jen-o, Freecycle is good, yes, glad you found it helpful.
Think I'll start a topic in Open so perhaps see you there.
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.