Posted on 04/20/2009 5:26:00 PM PDT by DouglasKC
They are not interchangeable, at least biblically.
Every time that a specific tribe of Israel or a specific reference to tribes of Israel is made in the nt a specific word, "phylē" is used. Every time, at least that I can find. When the context is perfectly clear that it's a tribe of Israel being referred to, the word used is "phyle". Every time. Or Israel or iouda or any other specific tribe name.
In other words, when the context is perfectly clear that it's a tribe of Israel, the phyle is used, never ethnos.
"Ethnos" CAN be used to refer to a nation in general. For example:
Jhn 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
Jhn 11:48 If we let him thus alone, all [men] will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
Nation is "ethnos". The Pharisees were not referring to a tribe of Israel specifically, but to the concept of Judea as a nation state.
It's like the United States is a nation, but it's made up of ethnic groups. A tribe would be an ethnic group. The nation would be the country as a whole.
And also In the time of Christ when "nations" is used it's almost always referring to nations other than Judea.
Again, Christ specifically taught to avoid gentiles and Samaritans. Matthew 28:19 is a contradiction of his specific mission purpose and instructions given to his disciples (which they violated almost immediately after the Penetecost when they went to Samaria, probably out of desperation).
How about they went because Jesus told them to in Matthew 28:19?? Why do you have to ascribe "desperation" when the text plainly tells you?
Any other interpretation makes no sense vis-a-vis Jesus and the OT. It makes perfect sense in the context of the religion created by Paul, which was precisely his agenda: to spread this Jewish sect and "sell" it to the pagan Greeks and Romans. In doing so, Paul saved Christianity from certain extinction in Israel. He repackaged it and sold it as a universal product.
Again, it was always God's intention for gentiles to worship him:
Isa 56:1 KJV - Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation [is] near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
Isa 56:2 KJV - Blessed [is] the man [that] doeth this, and the son of man [that] layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
Isa 56:3 KJV - Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I [am] a dry tree.
Isa 56:4 KJV - For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose [the things] that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
God never excluded anyone from his promises.
After Christ returns, then not only will gentiles worship, but it will be forced worship:
Zec 14:16 KJV - And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:17 KJV - And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
Zec 14:18 KJV - And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that [have] no [rain]; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:19 KJV - This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
All nations. Not just tribes of Israel, are expected to join themselves to God and worship him.
Paul wasn't doing anything that Jesus Christ himself didn't teach.
So they were what? Jews in race only? Jews that had turned to paganism?
Well, I have yet to find any instance where all 10 Words are set out, and/or without the addition of OTHER words, laws, commandments. I did, however find the following (the first one is repeated in other Gospels:
Matthew 19
17And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but (Q)if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "(R)YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;
19(S)HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and (T)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
20The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"
21Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and (U)sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have (V)treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
Romans 13
8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for (J)he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9For this, "(K)YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "(L)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
10Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore (M)love is the fulfillment of the law.
Maybe THAT is what is meant by “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”
DG
Fair enough.
Your rejection of quotes from ANF on basis of the date of the oldest extant copy without showing that they are disputed in any other way is disturbing to me and runs counter to what I have learned of textural criticism
Textual criticism is not the panacea of all biblical controversies. It is a system that has its merits. It is a tool. What one does with it is a different story.
There is enough evidence (again, we will not settle it here because there is probably not enough bandwidth) to suggest that variant versions existed and that variant versions did not agree with the "official truth." Also there are distinct pattern, that seem to follow the development of official doctrine, etc. There is plenty of material to raise doubt. But doubt can be dismissed if someone wants to believe otherwise.
Many scholars I've studied do consider the text now used for bible translation to be reliable
So what? Many scholars agreed that the earth must be at the center of the universe and that everything rotated around us. They even had mathematical "proof" (Ptolemaic navigational system). Well, they were dead wrong! Logic and objectivity prevailed over wishes and mysticism.
The absence of that passage in older extant copies is not suprising - Mt 28 is the last chapter and would be found on the last page(s) of codex and subject to being lost the easiest,from normal wear and tear, so there is no need for a sinister excuse for the absence
Plausible hypothesis, but far from an established fact. Certainly not enough to allow us to close the inquiry and call the issue "solved."
While you may consider the statement uncharacteristic of the Jewish Jesus...consider that this was the post-resurrected Jesus, no longer constrained by cultural norms launching the disciples forward as part of the New Covenant.
The post-resurrected Jesus did not teach the disciples anything new in the days between the Crucifixion and the Pentecost. Matthew 28:19 still stands out as uncharacteristic of anything Jesus taught. besides, Mark's version differs significantly from Matthew's. It certainly has no Trinitarian anything in it.
***Why are you being so mean to her?***
Her? Paved Paradise is a her? Oh, I see.
Not mean. Let us look at some of the more ridiculous of the statements.
***Read my profile. Now go away. Please.***
Unless I’m totally misreading the post of the other dude on here, that guy does not believe the Trinity. What can I say? I can’t argue with a person who won’t even accept that. I just don’t have the time. *** She is talking about a guy that understands and believes in the Trinity far better than most Christians by a long shot.
***Satan knows the Bible inside/outside and backwards/forwards and I’m sure he can speak every language on earth fluently and understand them as well, so your expertise does not impress me, nor does your friend’s confidence in your expertise impress me either.*** Whereas generalized theological ignorance is considered good?
I have run into many people in real life as well as on various boards who are specifically and generally theologically ignorant except for a particular packaged and wrapped doctrine. Some of them parrot one doctrine; most combine a teaspoon of one, a tablespoon of another, and a dollop of a third, with gravy made from the fourth - and voila, we have the net effect of Luther’s every milkmaid. Except that Luther (as with many other things) didn’t realize that most people aren’t creative enough to come up with their own - they simply follow the loudest or the shiniest or the ones that smell the best.
I'll agree with most of that, you could probably put three critics in a room and come out with five different opinions.
So what? Many scholars agreed that the earth must be at the center of the universe and that everything rotated around us. They even had mathematical "proof" (Ptolemaic navigational system). Well, they were dead wrong! Logic and objectivity prevailed over wishes and mysticism.
This to me is an apples to oranges comparison. Flat earth lacked data, biblical textural criticical studies have a lot of mss in multiple languages. I see very little wishes or mysticism in critical discussions and writings - that may work with some cultic fringes but I do not find valid here.
Plausible hypothesis, but far from an established fact. Certainly not enough to allow us to close the inquiry and call the issue "solved."
Nor can it be determined as an established fact that there was a systematic redaction of Matthew. If this was the case, why wasn't there a systematic redaction of the other gospels at the same time. And this only works if the ANF references are dismissed as inaccurate (although their content and origins have not been disputed to my knowledge). At some point occam's razor comes into play.
The post-resurrected Jesus did not teach the disciples anything new in the days between the Crucifixion and the Pentecost. Matthew 28:19 still stands out as uncharacteristic of anything Jesus taught. besides, Mark's version differs significantly from Matthew's. It certainly has no Trinitarian anything in it.
In comparison to the rest of the gospels, the amount of post resurrection teachings are sparce. Secondly, the gospels themselves state that they do not contain everything that was taught. That Mark's post resurrection commission is significant because it does include with it the order to baptize - and finds a parallel with Matthew. Interesting that context where Eusebius 'citation' of Matthew fails to make mention of baptism at all in those works. I'll admit my follow up research is incomplete at this stage to confirm that though. After all there are 24 citations out of 29 that omit the trinity reference.
The eternal surely lets us know that his commandments are ALL about love!
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
ALL the law and all the prophets, HANG, depend on these two great commands, to be upheld.
Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
Love
|
Love God Love Neighbor
| |
Commandments 1-5 Commandments 5-10
| |
All other commandments in the law and prophets
Indeed everything DOES hang on those two great laws clarified by our Lord.
Sure they are. KJV uses "nations" and NAB uses "tribes."
Every time that a specific tribe of Israel or a specific reference to tribes of Israel is made in the nt a specific word, "phylē" is used
yes, and if you look up the Hebrew equivalent you will find that it means a clan. A clan is not a tribe. Anyone familiar with American Indians will know that each tribe has many clans (I.e. spider clan, bear clan, eagle clan, etc.). Tribes, on the other hand, a nations. The Navajo are a sovereign nation (tribe). So is Israel. The word ehtnos, just as equivalent Hebrew word mean gathering of people (or live animals), a herd of the same kind, of related living beings.
Jewish phyle (clans) are all Jewish ethnos (tribe, nation).
Nation is "ethnos". The Pharisees were not referring to a tribe of Israel specifically, but to the concept of Judea as a nation state.
Judea was not a nation, but a region. The nation was Israel.
It's like the United States is a nation, but it's made up of ethnic groups. A tribe would be an ethnic group
No comparison. The phyle of the ethnos of Israel were all Jewish, speaking Hebrew, believing in the same God. American ethnic groups are a mish-mash of different religions, languages and races.
How about they went because Jesus told them to in Matthew 28:19??
He defined what "lost sheep of Israel" meant, and said he was sent ONLY for them. If Matthew 28:19 is true, Christ is contradicting himself, retracting an absolute statement. But including it in the manuscript (written about 70 AD, some 40 years after Christ) was convenient and very much necessary. And by all accounts, even then it wasn't there in the form claimed by the post-Nicene Church.
Again, it was always God's intention for gentiles to worship him
Worshiping him because there will be no rain? That's a joke. But I am sure it makes the Jews feel good.
Isa 56:4 KJV - For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose [the things] that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Eunuchs can be Jewish too. No reason why eunuchs could not take God's covenant.
Judaism teaches that all nations will know the power of and will have respect for the God of Abraham, not that all nations will convert and become Jewish.
Zec 14:18 The family of Egypt
here again we have an interchangeable word mishpachah which means family, clan, tribe, nation. This passage basically says the defeated nations will have to come to bow down before the God of those who defeated them. That's not worship. This verse is one of those that fueled all sorts of accusations against the Jews in the centuries that followed, and up to this day.
Paul wasn't doing anything that Jesus Christ himself didn't teach To the contrary: Jesus never taught what Paul taught in his name. Jesus never taught that Gentiles should be included, that the Law should be abrogated because we are under grace, or that the Gentile and Jew were saved by faith alone.
I am not sure what you mean by "race only" unless you are saying those who are Abraham's "legitimate" descendent's (as opposed to "bastard" Ishmaelites). Obviously, Jewishnes sis not limited to race or ethnicity, although it is predominantly Semitic. Jewish tribes were Semites. But Jewishness is defined by being observant and circumcised.
And, since “all the law and the prophets” depend therefrom, we must meticulously keep every “jot or tittle” of the law and the prophets, scrupulously, until...
Matthew 5
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the (V)Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18"For truly I say to you, (W)until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least (X)in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 16:17
17"(A)But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
Matthew 24:
35"(A)Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
Heaven and earth pass away..?
DG
Old Testament word for Jew: 3064. Yhuwdiy (yeh-hoo-dee') a Jehudite (i.e. Judaite or Jew), or descendant of Jehudah (i.e. Judah)
New Testament word for Jew: 2453. Ioudaios (ee-oo-dah'-yos) as a country) ; Judaean, i.e. belonging to Jehudah
The Jews were only one tribe of the twelve of Israel. Jacob was not a Jew, Isaac was not a Jew, Abraham was not a Jew. Their great grandson, grand son and son, Judah was the progenitor of the Jews. The tribes of Benjamin and Levi joined Judah before the captivities and by their close association with Judah.....also became known as Jews.
Judea was not a nation, but a region. The nation was Israel.
Judea was the New Testament word for Judah which was what the southern kingdom called itself after Israel had divided [I Kings 12:19-20].
Judea was a conquered province of what used to be Israel. It was not a nation, as East Germany was not a separate "nation" even though it was a separate state. Both Germanies (East and West), just as both Vietnams, and both Koreas were part of their one and the same nation, regardless of the artificial boundaries imposed.
You have a limited point. However, there were promises given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and then to singularly each of these tribes. There is even a specific promise given to Rachel while pregnant with Esau and Jacob.
It may not be important to the majority of Christians what was promised, but it is being fulfilled even in these days. And according to Scripture the two Houses of Jacob would NOT be rejoined unto Christ until He Himself does the rejoining.
Do you think that Christ was not written about and taught to the children of the promise?
Ephesians 2
11Therefore remember that (AE)formerly (AF)you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "(AG)Uncircumcision" by the so-called "(AH)Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands--
12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, (AI)excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to (AJ)the covenants of promise, having (AK)no hope and (AL)without God in the world.
13But now in (AM)Christ Jesus you who (AN)formerly were (AO)far off have (AP)been brought near (AQ)by the blood of Christ.
14For He Himself is (AR)our peace, (AS)who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15by (AT)abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is (AU)the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might (AV)make the two into (AW)one new man, thus establishing (AX)peace,
16and might (AY)reconcile them both in (AZ)one body to God through the cross, by it having (BA)put to death the enmity.
You, yourself said in post #141 that clans were not the same as tribes. C'mon.....do you really believe that the Children of Israel were all Jews....especially when that contradicts clear scripture?
There were twelve tribes!
Gentiles in Christ are grafted into the ‘family’.. HOWEVER the promises made from Genesis onward still apply and are still in effect. And remember the punishment for the idol worshiping, harlot playing, stiff-necked, forgetful House of Israel was that they would not know/remember who they were and where they came from. That promise has in fact been kept because the majority of the Ten tribes, those that Christ called the ‘lost sheep’ do not have a clue who they are and the majority call themselves Gentiles. And others call them a few other choice names, knowing full well who they are.
NOW there is nothing wrong with being Gentile, as they were given the opportunity for salvation if they would as anyone else. But is it short sighted to ignore what promises were given from the beginning as they are well under way to the times of the Gentiles and Jacob's trouble.
Our Heavenly Father is in control and He will let who will or He will put earthly or heavenly brakes when things get moving in the opposite direction He sees fit.
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.