Skip to comments.Re: Bible study, chronology question
Posted on 06/18/2013 2:17:31 AM PDT by dr.proctor
Which occurred first (in chronology)........and the reason you believe that?
[Acts 10:14-28] ....or......[Galatians 2:12]?
According to Gal. 2:1 it appears that Paul confronted Peter some 14 years after the events in Acts which occurred soon after Saul became Paul.
The passage about Cornelius in Acts is given to show how the Jewish Christians began to realize that the Gospel was intended for Gentiles as well as Jews.
In the Galatian passage, the church in Antioch already had Gentile believers. Peter’s problem there was that he submitted to peer pressure from Jewish believers and stopped eating with Gentile believers. So, even though he was the first of the apostles to take the Gospel to Gentiles, he had human weaknesses. The Jews who came from James were probably very persuasive. Yes, they probably said to him, the Gentiles can be Christians, but that doesn’t mean that Jews should eat with them.
May I reccomend a good study bible?
A good study Bible will have an introduction for each book introduction that helps to put everything in context.
The ESV Study Bible is very good. As a Reformed Christian I like the Reformation Study Bible (ESV) and the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible(NIV).
Don’t look for a themed one, such as the “Men’s Study Bible” or the Addict’s Study Bible.” While I suppose such Study Bibles are useful to some folks, they dont bring the scope of Scripture into focus.
May God richly bless you on your journey.
Might I humbly suggest getting a Strong’s Concordance to help with the translation of words found in the Bible?
Some Bible translations are very different—”air” and “breath”, for instance; two totally different translations that can be very confusing. (I am trying to study, as well, so will say no more. May God bless us all in our studies.)
(1) SPECIFIC HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Including the events of which you write)
(2) PROGRESSIVE REVELATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF N. T. BOOKS
For anyone interested in in-depth Bible study, here’s an incredible treasure trove of free, verse-by-verse Bible study resources that may be of interest:
Live-stream free classes on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays:
Under “Specific Highlights of the NT” it’s got these people:
Huh? Sounds like Swahili to me. Is this a foreign professor that compiles this list? Why is it he uses English elsewhere in his study, but not here?
Sounds like Swahili to me.
Nah, not Swahili. Koine Greek. Dr. Wittman is kind of a nut on correct pronunciation of proper nouns--names, places, religious divisions--and he likes to carry it into his writings. Most of these Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek names when Anglicized would sound strange to the ear tuned to studying these languages.
Personally (and I've been a student of his for many years) I've thought that often this is not particularly relevant to the issue or doctrine addressed, just a sort of idiosyncrasy. I've gotten over holding it against him, and have learned a lot of the flavor of the culture in Bible times.
Let me suggest that allowing this to develop into an adversarial block will not help us learn what we can from the details that were carefully and exhaustively researched and freely presented for our benefit.
But to give an example I find interesting, look at the OT name of the great prophet whose moniker the AV spells "Elijah." You and I would customarily pronounce that as "Eh- or Ee-lye-dzhyah." But that would not be the way a German (to whom J sounds like our Y) would say it, but as "Eh-lee-yah." And that IIRC would pretty much be the way a Hebrew-speaker would say it.
Similarly, if you read the Greek text about John the Baptizer, who was taken to be a herald of the Messiah, a first-century-revived Elijah--which is spelled in Greek in the nominative case--Ελιας; and pronounced, (beginning with a glottal stop) "Eh-lee-ah-ss." Not quite Hebrew, especially if the noun is declined into another case, eh?
So what Wittman insists is pretty much the Hellenized pronunciation of proper nouns. Definitely, a preference, not a requirement upon which one ought to insist (unless you want an A in the course, eh?).
However, if I was Κορνηλιος, and I was in Heaven, and an American from the 21st Century came there and net me, I'd expect to be introduced as "Kohr-NAY-lee-ohs," not "Kor-KNEEL-yuhs," wouldn't I? And, to be proper, the American would have to relearn my name and say it right, eh?
So, the underlying thought of this master teacher's use of these pronunciations is a thoughtful hint that if you and I learn them here under his tutelage, we won't have to relearn them in Heaven (making us think our earthly instructor was unlearned also), lest we appear to be rubes needing acculturation to the way things are done there.
You do know, don't you, that the languages of heaven will be Hebrew, Aramaic, and the precise Koine Greek (with a few borrowed words)? that we need to be able to communicate without having to learn a thousand languages, dialects, local nuances, and idioms? and that what we don't advantage ourselves of learning here about Bible doctrines will have to be learned there before we can progress? Hmmm?
Thanks for explaining. As to languages, it was God who confounded speech at the tower of Babel, remember. If he hadn’t we would have the one world globalism the leftists want a long time ago. Better diversity with its problems than one world language, one world religion, etc., the way I see it.
As to a common language in heaven, don’t know about all that. I am Historic Premillennialist, which believes this earth is the destiny of the saints (Rev. 20), not heaven...floating around on clouds, playing harps, as some artists have pictured it.
Paul's confrontation with Peter seems to have happened much later in Antioch. Paul was based in Damascus early on after his conversion. No mention of Antioch. He was smuggled out in a basket from Damasus shortly after conversion, went to Arabia, back to Damascus , then to Jerusalam and then home to Tarsus.
He is not spoken of as going to Antioch until Barnabas goes to Tarsus and gets him later on. That is when he likely has the confrontation with Peter.
It's odd that Peter would revert to not wanting to eat with Gentiles after his vision, but remember the vision was more about the conversion of Gentiles than literally eating non-Kosher food.
I was checking out your links. Good information. You know... I always assumed The Book of James was written after Paul wrote his letter to the Romans?
The implicit question is, "What was that one language?"
I see no reason that it was anything different than the language which The God imparted to Adam for their precise, unambiguous exchange of information. I have every reason to believe that, for this discussion and without further qualification, that language was the pristine, original, uncorrupted Hebrew; and that it was recorded exactly as spoken, according to the command of The God to Moses.
Moreover, Jesus orally taught the Devil,"It stands written,'Not only upon bread shall mankind live, but (also?) upon every utterance issuing out of the God's mouth.'"
This is a very convincing instance of proper literal hermeneutic being applied to translate His Own Very Words, each one, from the original God-breathed Saying in Hebrew as written down, into Koine Greek--nothing added, nothing lost, and nothing changed from the original; and itself put into both Semitic and Greek records by Levi, guided exactly by the Holy Ghost.
To me, that is very, very impressive.
As to a common language in heaven, dont know about all that.
I think you should know that. Though He is omniscient and could have rendered his thoughts clearly and exactly in any language He wished (and did) (God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke unto the fathers by the prophets), The Holy Ghost only caused His Words to be declared in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek through the mouth of His Anointed One, Jesus Lord (hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son); which was written down verbatim by Levi, Luke, Paul, John Mark, and Beloved John the Theologian, as well as doctrines imparted to his own brethren Jacob and Jude, being guided by the Spirit.
It is hard to imagine that His Will can be expressed as well or better in any other languages (with only a few borrowed words , names, and placenames) than those He chose and limited to exactly transmit His Will between the covers of The Holy Scriptures as set down and copied by human hand, for our complete instruction in this life and in the one to come.
Remember, this is an opinion, but a calculated one, based on Scripture as supported by the discermnment of other, very godly, Bible students and commentators.
Thank you. I’m not sure this definitively answers the question but it’s the obvious place to start.
This question was put to me, without context, and presented to you. Your reply suggests familiarity with the debate in which this question is relevant, yet does not begin to answer the question.
Thank you for the recommendation and blessings on your journey.
Thanks for the links.
If it helps. Researching a question is always enjoyable so thanks to you.
After going to Cornelius he explained that, "Our law says it is forbidden for a Jew to associate or visit a Gentile but Yahweh has told me not to call any man impure or unclean" [Acts 10:28]. Folks..........this is at least a decade after the resurrection (40 A.D.????) And....again....you do not find this instruction in Torah (the Old Testament). It is Talmudic.....straight out of Babylon and the Rabbinical Councils.
The headquarters church at that time was Jerusalem and Paul had not yet begun his own ministry.....probably still in Arabia sorting things out [Galatians 1:15-17]. We find that Jewish companions were absolutely dumbfounded that Peter had actually called down the Holy Spirit [Acts 11:44-47] upon mere Gentiles and when they returned to Jerusalem the members of the Jerusalem Christian community indeed......even criticized him for doing so [Acts 11:1-3].
This was the mental state of the early church and Gentiles had not yet figured into the Church's plan of salvation [Acts 11:19]....contrary to the misinterpreted words of [Matthew 28:19].
Paul had been selected by Yeshua and appointed as the Apostle to the Gentiles.....(as well as the Israelites) [Acts 9:15].....but at the time of Cornelius's conversion he had not yet started his ministry. It would begin shortly.
Peter had visited Paul in Antioch some time after the event with Cornelius because he was, indeed now associating with Gentiles [Galatians 2:11-12] who were part of Paul's new ministry. Peter would never had eaten with Gentiles prior to receiving the vision of [Acts 10:9-15] but was still under the authority of James and the Jerusalem Church which was controlled by the Pharisee faction [Acts 15:5] and therefore shied away from the Gentiles whenever they (certain men from James) were present. For this apparent cowardice he was thoroughly scolded by Paul [Galatians 2:14-15]. The Law referred to by Paul was the oral law.....the Talmud, not Torah.
These incidents (which were occurring with frequency) caused Paul and Barnabas to decide to finally have it out with James [Acts 15:2] and the Jerusalem Church. The Council was held in 49 A.D. and followed the events of [Galatians 2].
Paul, after being appointed an Apostle to the Gentiles (attested to by Ananias [Acts 9:15]) was constantly doing battle with James over this issue.....adult male circumcision of Gentile converts. He was exasperated to the point of even wishing they (the circumcision patrols sent out by James [Galatians 2:11-12]) would castrate themselves with their own circumcision knives:
God's Word Translation: [Galatians 5:12] I wish those troublemakers would castrate themselves.
NASB [Galatians 5:12] I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.
Paul had his day in court in Jerusalem.....after the events in Antioch.
I don’t know what to make of this non-sequitur of a reply. You didn’t address the question; you still haven’t addressed the question; what point, if any, are you trying to make regarding the OP?
No response is fine, and we’ll just pretend we didn’t waste our time here. Cyberspace is limitless- hallelujah.
Doesn't this fly in the face of "Mainstream Christianity's" declaration about [Matthew 28:19]?
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
This event (in Galilee) shortly after the resurrection..... occurred sometime before the event at Caesarea with Cornelius. If the disciples were informed about preaching to the Gentiles at Galilee....then why are they so surprised when Peter (at the insistence of the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:19-20]) does exactly that [Acts 10:45]?
In fact, Peter was chastised by the Church in Jerusalem upon his return:
[Acts 11:1-3] 1And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, 3Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
Can't you just hear the tones of their voices as they sneer at him for daring to eat with Gentiles?
Later on....they all seem to come to an agreement that maybe Yahweh, indeed wants salvation taken to the Gentiles:
Acts 11:18] When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
But..........because of their Talmudic teachings (from early childhood) the early Christians (all Jews) reverted back to their separatism:
[Acts 11:19]Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
I guess the real question is.........Did Yeshua really direct the disciples to go out and preach the gospel to the world? It appears not.....on the surface, because of the subsequent actions of the very early church.
I think the early disciples were hardheaded, much as people today. They had to be told more than once. Peter had to be given a special revelation (the vision of the descending blanket with forbidden animals). And even then, he was pressured into eating with the Jewish Christians separately from the Gentile Christians until Paul confronted him.
These were real human beings. They weren’t perfect, and they weren’t always consistent.
Well....thanks Rocky but I don't think that's the case. I don't think they were told to go out and evangelize the world in [Matthew 28:19]. I don't believe they were given the same "Great Commission" that most of "Main Stream" Christianity believes was given. I think the commission was much different.
Stop and think. If they had been told in Galilee to evangelize the Gentiles then why in the world was Paul selected to do the same thing.....at a much later date?
[Acts 9:15]But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel
Don't you think the original Apostles would be getting in Paul's way......if they were doing the same thing? And....we're not even touching on the astonishment factor that the early church displayed when told about Peter going to Cornelius [Acts 10:45][Acts 11:1-3][Acts 11:18].
No....I don't think they were hardheaded at all. I just think they were ignorant about Gentiles being available to receive salvation.....just like them. They hadn't been told yet!
OK, what commission were they given? If they weren’t give the Great Commission, then was that a fabrication by Matthew?
[Matthew 10:5]These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not
Can you tell me where this command was ever rescinded? It definitely was not rescinded by [Matthew 28:19] because....as we have noticed.....everyone in the early church, as much as 5/10 years later.... were completely dumbfounded by the visit to Cornelius by Peter....and its aftermath [Acts 10:45][Acts 11:1-3] and [Acts 11:18].
In His original commission He tells the disciples NOT to go among the Gentiles (some did anyway) and go to the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel". He later selects Paul to go to the Gentiles [Acts 9:15].
[Matthew 10:6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
The Gentiles were not the Lost Sheep. He even reiterates later just who His personal commission is to:
[Matthew 15:24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
So....the question still is (to main stream Christianity) when did this commission change....to include Gentiles? It wasn't mentioned in Galilee.......that's for sure.
Let's look at the Greek: [Matthew 28:19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
The word "nations" is "ETHOS" in the Greek and it means a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan)
The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel were not Jews, they were thought to be living among the Gentiles [John 7:35] and they were tribal in nature. Ten of the original twelve tribes were considered lost.....both to Yahweh and to history. But.....during the first century everyone knew who they were....and where they were.
Here is what Josephus (first century historian) has to say about them:
Josephus: [Antiquities XI; V; II] snip: "but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers."
Needless to say....the two tribes subject to the Romans were Judah and Benjamin....the Jews [I Kings 12:20-24]. The rest of the Israelites were beyond the Euphrates and the disciples had been commissioned to go to them.
It was to these ten tribes that the disciples had been commissioned to evangelize and told to stay away from the Gentiles. This is exactly where we find Peter after he left James and the Jerusalem Church [I Peter 1:1-2][I Peter 5:13].....beyond the Euphrates.
Sorry...........meant to ping you to my last post.....
[I Peter 1:1-2]1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
These people who Peter had been commissioned to evangelize were not Gentiles. They had a "foreknowledge" of Yahweh. The Greek words for "strangers scattered" are defined thus.........
Strangers: PARAPIDEMOS....an alien alongside...i.e, a resident foreigner.
Scattered: DIASPORA....Israelite residents in Gentile countries.
Peter was in Babylon writing to folks who were descended from the ten tribes of Israel and were now living on the southern shores of the Black Sea. He was precisely where Yeshua had told him to go.......seek out and evangelize the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel [Matthew 10:5-6]. By writing from Babylon he was also among the largest congregation of Israelite descendents anywhere in the known world at that time. Reference my earlier post on the historical location of these folks from the pages of Josephus.
I've pinged a couple of earlier posters who seem to have a good grasp of biblical history. Since you've posted some other areas have been covered........and they may interest you.
Thus the Scriptures offer no evidence Peter was ever in Rome.
>> “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” <<
Even the early Greek texts don’t have quite that wording, calling only for baptising in the name of Yeshua. Those in the original Hebrew are in agreement.
Yes....and indeed, stipulate otherwise. He is found in Galilee, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Antioch....and finally in Babylon.
It's quite remarkable that a whole theology has developed around where he.....was not!
Now....I'm curious. Do you have a copy of any original Hebrew texts....i.e. "Shem Tov" (or a link)?
I don’t need a copy, I rely on scholars like Nehemia Gordon whose creds are unassailable.
He has demolished the errors promoted by the sloppy Greek translations of Matthew in his “Greek Jesus vs. Hebrew Yeshua” based not just on Shem Tov, but also several others.
>> “It’s quite remarkable that a whole theology has developed around where he.....was not!” <<
The theologies of all of the major recognized “churches” are based not only on what was not, but also a total rejection of “what is.”
How can one claim to love and believe in Yeshua, when they reject all that he commanded and did?
Almost all conflate Hell, and the “Lake that burns with brimstone.”
And in so doing negate the resurrection of the dead fron the memorial tombs. Hell is simply the English word for sheol/hades not the Dante and Milton picture of the abode of Satan who was never described in Scripture as being in hell at all.
Why do you suppose the "Church" went along with this Fairy Tale? They obviously could read the Greek and know that this was never found in scripture. Was it just to keep the folks on their toes (afraid of their shadows).....in line so to speak..... and to keep the collection plates full at Mass?
After all....during the "Dark Ages" only the clergy and the royalty were literate.........the rest would probably believe anything they were told.
Thus Yeshua’s proclamation in his Revelation that he hated the Nicolaitanes. (those that insert themselves between Yeshua and his sheep)
>> “Satan who was never described in Scripture as being in hell at all.” <<
Actually, he currently resides in the throne room of Yehova, and when he is cast out, the tribulation begins with his Antichrist standing on the mercy seat of the Arc of the Covenant.
Belief in an after life where souls were punished or rewarded was part of many religions around the Mediterranean, particularly the Greeks.
How can the New Testament be a Greek “translation”, when it was written in Greek originally?
Do you know where I could find that info on the Greek texts re: the baptism? I have heard that, but never been able to locate it. Thank you!
There are folks who say "some" gospels were originally written in Hebrew......early church fathers among them. The gospel of Matthew in particular.
"For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."
And........there are many other writings from early church history suggesting the same.
There is no logical reason to believe that any NT book was originally written in Greek.
They all were written to jews, some of which were in other countries, but all of whom primarily spoke Hebrew, and Hebrew is the only language by which Yehova ever communicated with men. It was once the only language on Earth.
They were all written TO Jews and only Jews??
My first contact with it was Nehemiah Gordon’s writing, but there are an almost endless list of places where the subject is discussed.
If you do a search though, you’ll find that most of the sites are owned by nut cases with some other agenda on the side.