Yes, there are ads

I have included advertisements on this page because I am extremely poor. If you would help me out by clicking an ad I would be grateful. I have limited the ads to the categories that I believe will interest my readers. I have blocked the smutty categories. I also know that there will be ads that neither you or I agree with.

About Comments

I have gotten rid of the Google+ requirement. What a fail it was.
I have reposted the comments that would have been lost.

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Bogeyman? You gotta be kidding me!

This post has moved to Weebly!

http://unknownpossibilitiesawait.weebly.com/blog/throwback-thursday-bogeyman-you-gotta-be-kidding-me

7 comments:

  1. I have gotten rid of the Google+ requirement. What a fail it was.
    I am reposting the comments that would have been lost

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thread 1
    George Donner
    Most people in the first century couldn't read and write...including the Jews. Very few could, which was the reason for scribes. Do some homework on this subject and you will be surprised at what you find. It will change your theology as well as your desire to teach before you know the facts. Be careful my friend.
    Manfred Nissley
    Sure, I am open to doing more research.
    polly jetix
    George, you may enjoy reading this:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1573658/posts

    George Donner
    I did enjoy reading it for sure. Thank you. Here is one admission from that article:
    "Not everyone could read and write. And some who could read were not necessarily able to write." To infer that the "vast majority" could do either or both, is quite a leap, IMO. The fact still remains that the passage being discussed in Acts 2, suggests that the crowd assembled was a mixed crowd and not all well-to-do Jews as you have implied in another posting.
    I appreciate the factual information supplied. Not everything in the article is fact though and that still needs to be separated from the conclusions of the author, who admittedly is challenged by other scholars in his assumptions.

    Manfred Nissley
    So, what does reading or writing have to do with hearing?

    George Donner
    You were the one who first brought up the fact that they could read and write in your original post, right? " Every one of those individuals could read and speak Hebrew because they were Hebrew." That is what we were responding to. OK?
    Manfred Nissley
    Hmmmm..... point taken. Still, I could you help me understand why it is important that they could not read the common language (Greek and/or Hebrew) since the main topic is about hearing other languages instead of the common language in Israel, which they did know linguistically?

    Manfred Nissley
    http://www.jewishmuseum.cz/en/avice7.htm
    Quote
    "The educational principles of the Hebrew Bible were later also applied within the context of Christian and Moslem society.
    In recent years, pedagogues have acknowledged that the methods of instruction in Ancient Israel indirectly anticipated many of the tenets of modern education. Compulsory attendance of elementary schools was required by Simeon ben Shetah as early as 75 B.C.E. and by Joshua ben Gamla in 64 C.E. The education of older boys and adults in a bet ha-midrash has its origin in the Second Temple period. The importance of education is repeatedly stressed in the Talmud (Pirkei avot): children are to start school at the age of six – which is in accordance with present-day requirements throughout the world; they are not to be beaten with a stick or cane, but should receive only mild punishment; older students should help out in the education of those who are younger; and children should not be kept away from their lessons by other duties. The number of pupils in a class should not exceed 25; larger classes require the engagement of a relief teacher while two teachers have to be appointed if there are over 40 pupils. According to Judah ben Tema, “At five years the age is reached for studying the Bible, at ten for studying the Mishnah, at thirteen for fulfilling the mitzvoth, at fifteen for studying the Talmud.” (Avot 5:21). Following this tradition – which has been partly maintained to this day – Jews taught their children in their own schools and with the help of private tutors until the end of the 18th century."
    Sorry George, you are wrong!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thread 1 continued part 1
      polly jetix
      Back to the main point: on the day of Pentecost, Peter did not have to preach in tongues.
      Everyone could speak Hebrew.
      Proof: Acts 22:2. And this was at the feast of Pentecost, in Jerusalem.

      George Donner
      +Manfred Nissley Up to Simeon's time there were no schools in Judea, and the instruction of children was, according to Biblical precepts, left to their fathers. Simeon ordered that yeshivot be established in the larger cities in which the young might receive instruction in the Holy Scriptures as well as in the traditional knowledge of the Law.[10]

      George Donner
      +polly jetix No one said he had to, surely not me. But I think you are mistaken that "everyone could speak Hebrew".

      George Donner
      +polly jetix Did you follow the context of the passage? Paul was no longer in the temple and had been accosted by the Jews, so this doesn't say anything about the multitude that were assembled on the day of Pentecost when Peter gave his great sermon after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
      Act 2:11 "...both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians--we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God."
      Quite clearly, they were NOT all Jews on that day, so they didn't ALL speak Hebrew. That is what the scripture says. Your argument is with scripture, not me.

      Manfred Nissley
      So, what does this lack of mutual linguistic understanding tell you George? Incidentally, can you tell me why any of these people, besides the Roman Soldiers and Jews would have been there if they could not understand a common language?

      George Donner
      +Manfred Nissley No doubt they did have a common language, but it wasn't Hebrew. That is my only point in this regard. The language of the day was Greek, just like English is today. And like today, there were many different languages present. Kinda like going into Times Square in NY at noon time.

      Manfred Nissley
      Ah, so you agree with me that Peter could have spoken a common language and everybody would have understood him!

      George Donner
      He probably did in his sermon, but it is likely that it wasn't Hebrew just so he could accommodate everyone there and not just the Jews, but including the proselytes. I don't think they were required to speak Hebrew like Mennonites and Amish require PA dutch...LOL

      Manfred Nissley
      +George Donner
      So, if everyone could understand him in a common language, what was the purpose of multiple individuals speaking tongues? Just saying.

      Delete
    2. Thread 1 continued part 2
      George Donner
      +Manfred Nissley To fulfill prophecy of scripture. I Cor 14:21 fulfilling Isaiah 28:11,12 and contrary to what pollyfix declares, I also believe that it was a reversal of the dividing of peoples at Babel, as God was now calling all peoples to repent, which is demonstrated by the bringing in of the Gentiles, not just proselytes.

      Manfred Nissley
      +George Donner
      Are you saying that Cornelius was not the first Gentile to be saved?

      George Donner
      I didn't say anything, but the passage in Acts 2 says there were proselytes present. They couldn't have been Jews... They were already converted to Judaism before becoming Christians, but they still couldn't attain to the status of pure "Jews". Kinda like NMBs today, who will never really be Mennonites because they don't have the ethnic heritage...

      Manfred Nissley
      According to numerous sources, like this one, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Conversion.html, They are considered Jews. This site also disagrees with you. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12391-proselyte

      George Donner
      That all depends on your definition of a "Jew". Are you talking ethnic in the first century or religious?
      Paul redefines "Jew" completely:
      Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
      Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
      Or a Jew can be defined as one whose birth mother was Jewish, but not necessarily his father. You can be a "Jew" and not speak Hebrew at all...
      I choose to accept that the passage differentiates the proselytes from the "Jews", which indicates the author did not consider them to really be Jews of ethnic heritage.
      The point you are making doesn't prove that they all spoke Hebrew, only that some Gentiles were already converted to Judaism, even as they are today. In neither case does it prove that they speak Hebrew.
      But, you can believe what you want.
      Blessings

      Manfred Nissley
      Context man! Context! He was telling the Jews in that passage that if their heart was not right then they were not Jews at all! By the context of chapters 2 and 3 he actually says the exact opposite of what you just said.

      George Donner
      You are missing my points entirely. I'll just move on, thank you.

      Manfred Nissley
      +George Donner I didn't miss your point. You were taking two verses out of context in order to twist them into saying what you wanted them to say. The surrounding verses make it clear that those verses say the exact opposite!

      George Donner
      If that is what you think...

      Delete
  3. Thread 2
    George Donner
    The folks gathered at Jerusalem didn't necessarily all speak Hebrew, in fact most of them probably spoke Aramaic or Greek. One of the reasons for speaking in other languages was to reverse the effects of the tower of Babel. Remember that these were not all "Jews", but many were proselytes, which the text tells us. In fact the list of places were not the origins of the Jewish people, because Jews are listed in the last phrase:
    "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes", as an addition to the commentary to clarify that these weren't just Jews living in other lands.
    Having premonitory dreams is not necessarily "your gift". You may be exercised with visions, but that doesn't make it your spiritual gift. You said the first one was when you were 3 or 3 years of age? Were you filled with the Spirit then, how about in 2007?
    Many assumptions going on here my friend. You are striving to teach, before you have been schooled by the Holy Spirit...be careful or you will be caught in your own errors. Just a friendly warning.

    Lester Bauman
    Amen!

    George Donner
    I thought of you today as the scripture was being read in church.
    ...What your eyes have seen
    Pro 25:8 do not hastily bring into court, for what will you do in the end, when your neighbor puts you to shame?
    Pro 25:9 Argue your case with your neighbor himself, and do not reveal another's secret,
    Pro 25:10 lest he who hears you bring shame upon you, and your ill repute have no end.

    Consider what you post long and hard before making it all public.

    Manfred Nissley
    Quite an assumption there George. Care to explain how you came to your conclusion about me?

    Manfred Nissley
    I stand corrected about everyone knowing Hebrew..
    The Romans and the Jews would have known Greek in order to function within the City.
    As for the proselytes, they would have had to have known at least a little of the languages from Israel.

    George Donner
    +Manfred Nissley You need to investigate the facts before you make assumptions. I think you will be surprised when you find out how things really were back then.

    George Donner
    +Manfred Nissley Regarding assumptions, all I had to do was read the post to realize that you are having a knee jerk reaction, without fully investigating all the facts. It is not an assumption, but what you have plainly demonstrated in your article above. Do your homework for your own benefit. I am not castigating you, but encouraging you to help yourself and preserve your testimony amongst both friends and enemies. Making statements without facts is harmful to you as well as others who may be impressed to listen to you and take your word at face value.
    I have been around that block already. Please learn from one who has been there and done that...

    Manfred Nissley
    Incidentally, how did the crowd discover everyone else was hearing the Apostles in their native tongue if they did not know a common language?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thread 2 continued part 1
      Manfred Nissley
      btw, I did investigate the facts before I made a conclusion and posted about it.
      Here is an interesting paper on the subject. http://www.jewishrootsofchristianity.org/pdfs/110608-feast-of-shavuot-pentecost.pdf

      polly jetix
      Acts 20:16, Paul hasted to arrive at Jerusalem for Pentecost.
      Acts 21: Paul arrives in Jerusalem and is arrested.
      Acts 22:1-2 Paul begins his defense from the stairs, to the Jewish people. A vast crowd. Again: the crowd of pilgrims to the feast of Pentecost.
      And when they heard he spoke in Hebrew to them, they kept a great silence. Why?
      Because male children of devout Jewish families ware taught to read Hebrew in the synagogues, especially of those families who had enough income to do so... and these would have been the families with enough income to be able to travel from other countries to Jerusalem for the feasts.

      Therefore, Peter needed only to speak in Hebrew, same as Paul did.
      The tongues of Pentecost were not needed to convey the message of salvation.
      Instead, those tongues were a sign to unbelievers, as I Cor 14:21 and 22 say.

      polly jetix
      The idea that tongues on Pentecost reversed the consequence of Babylon... well, that sounds poetic and lovely, but it does not originate in Scripture, but in someone's imagination.
      Tongues was never used to communicate the gospel, at least not in Scripture. Instead, we find that the ones who spoke in tongues were the new believers, throughout the book of Acts.
      Now, granted, tongues can be used by God to communicate the gospel, and it has happened. But it happens very rarely. And that usage of tongues is not even mentioned in I Cor 14, which details how the "public message" use of tongues is supposed to happen.

      George Donner
      Tongues were used to confirm the gospel.
      BTW, Polly jetix, can you document as fact that the male children of devout Jewish families were taught to read in the first century? Why would you imagine that only the rich went to Jerusalem for the feasts of the Lord, since they all were commanded to do so? Was Jesus' own family well to do as you imply? The vast majority of Jews in those days were not particularly prosperous, most of them still being agrarian or craftsmen. Which class was it that flocked to Jesus the most?

      Manfred Nissley
      What does reading or writing have to do with hearing?

      Manfred Nissley
      http://www.jewishmuseum.cz/en/avice7.htm

      polly jetix
      1 month ago
      Donner, it is easy to find out. I don't have time to do it today. perhaps in a few days...
      And please note that I spoke specifically of those who were traveling from other lands. The poorest Jews would not be able to do such traveling.
      Tongues is one of the signs that follow them that believe.
      I'm sorry they do not follow you.

      Manfred Nissley
      +polly jetix
      Take a look at the link I provided just above your last comment. ;)

      George Donner
      +Manfred Nissley Did you note that most of the cited article has to do with Mishnah? The Rabbinic teachings came considerably after the time of the destruction of the second temple in AD 70.
      George Donner
      +polly jetix
      How do you know they don't follow me? You have never met me and have no idea of my experience. The fact is that I was an ordained Pentecostal pastor. That should say something to you regarding tongues...

      Manfred Nissley
      +George Donner Compulsory attendance of elementary schools was required by Simeon ben Shetah as early as 75 B.C.E. and by Joshua ben Gamla in 64 C.E.

      Delete
    2. Thread 2 continued part 2
      Manfred Nissley
      +George Donner So, something had to be taught before the Mishnah came into being!

      George Donner
      +Manfred Nissley Because he required it (only in large cities) doesn't mean that it was a universal practice. Pentecost took place in CE 30, so Joshua ben Gamla is irrelevant. In either case, it was no guarantee that everyone could read and write. Many could read (not most), but few could write, and often the use of a scribe was necessary. We are talking about Israel, and not Egypt as was used to try to prove the literacy of those attending on that Pentecost of CE 30 (I still prefer AD)

      George Donner
      +Manfred Nissley The fact is that the father's were given the responsibility of educating their sons for most of Israelite history, but that didn't necessarily guarantee literacy. Why do you think it was necessary for Paul to write:
      Col_4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
      1Th_5:27 I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.
      Think about it!

      Manfred Nissley
      Um, let me think here. Paul was instructing the leaders to read something to the entire assembly because it would have taken longer for one person at a time to read it since it would have taken a long time to make copies for everyone. Paul wanted everyone to hear it as fast as possible, especially since the entire group had written to him and not just one person. We think that way nowadays because of the technology we have. Furthermore Colossi was a completely different city than Laodicea!

      George Donner
      Are you sure the "entire group" had written to him? You can believe that if you want...
      Manfred Nissley
      +George Donner
      That was typically why Paul wrote to various groups. Though, at times he did write on the "spur of the moment."

      polly jetix
      George, all it tells me is that you were given an incredible opportunity and responsibility. It tells me nothing of your current belief and practice. I can only read your comments and deduce from them that you have turned your back on the Pentecostal church. I agree that the Pentecostals are imperfect, but I have learned so much from them. I have seen God work through them incredibly, and have come to the conclusion that they are about the closest thing I can find in my community, to the experiences of the early church.

      George Donner
      +polly jetix I am still Pentecostal by experience and that is something that will never change. The theology that goes along with it doesn't fit in my understanding of many things however. I have many friends amongst them, just like I do amongst Amish, Mennonites, Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. I have been blessed to have met many wonderful people and experience fellowship in many different places as well as preaching in many different denominations. Lord willing I will be preaching in a Lutheran church this coming Sunday.

      Delete

There was an error in this gadget