A Confusing Message of Salvation?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

Fellas, this thread was not intended to be a debate about the definition of "western."

I guess the point went back to the challenges of interpreting and knowing how to read the biblical letters. Including, Acts, which was more of a story/narrative, than a letter.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Sigh... another he said she said Prax bout. I really get sick of these...

Here we go again. You like to make things a personal fight don't you Socialite? If you get sick of them why tell me Im talking about something Im not? Good grief

We got into this more and I brought up Hellenization, which surely was sprinkled into the story --- even a little influential. However, the ethos of the Church is based in the East, not the West.

No you brought up Hellenization when you claimed to disagree with me saying the bible was written to both Western (Roman/Greek) and Eastern (Jewish/Semitic) back grounds. Before that you claimed it was written just to the Eastern. As far as the "Ethos of the church" being based on the East not the West, that again has nothing to do with what I have been saying.

Here is how it started, so you can see it's not a he said/she said (Im hoping you are the she) issue.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Id say it was written by those from a Hebrew background to those who are from both an Eastern and Western background

Originally Posted by Socialite

That's not factually correct, Prax.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Which part?

Jewish Apostles not from a Hebrew background or

the audience they wrote to did not include both eastern and western backgrounds?

Originally Posted by Socialite

That one.

When we say "Western," this goes beyond geography and is more cultural. It is clear, and factual, that the biblical audience, those who the writers could've had in mind, were Westerners -- especially since Western culture did not exist.

And clearly you have in mind by "Western Background" something entirely different and yet you continued this same line over and over obfuscating what my point really was

You attempted to use the terms "East" and "West" more inclusively and broad.

I used the term Eastern background and Western Background as the difference between those of the Greek/Roman society and culture vs those of the Judean/Semitic culture

[quote]That's fine. My use of Westernism is much more modern, including probably just before the Enlightenment. Surely, the beginnings of this cultural revolution were during the Greco-Roman times. However, the Palestinian Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and His stories are soaked in Eastern now that we FINALLY get to the point I've been making all along...why are we still going back and forth?

BTW I did not say "Westernism". I said "of a western background".

This gulf is a translators biggest challenge. Why is who your father is more important than what you do? What customs about households inform us when we hear this story or that story? I've sat in 5-hour classes where they did nothing but articulate these differences --- not to say a Western audience could never "get it," but so that we'd respect the bridge in-between us and them.

The bible was written to those of different audiences, from Western Backgrounds and Eastern Backgrounds and sometimes it's helpful to understand to whom things are being addressed to.

The Biblical audience was mostly Jews. The Pauline epistles started including places like Corinth, Ephesus, even Rome into the mix. Still, the cultural framework, even during this time, is far from what we know of "the West" today. To the extent of trying to make that point, is perhaps why this back-and-forth has gone on as long as it has.

The bible audience was probably mostly Hellenized Jews as well as greek speaking Gentiles. Those places you mentioned were very Western in terms of what we knew about Greek/Roman society and culture at the time THEN.

This back and forth thing seems to be for an unknown reason where you keep telling me about "The west TODAY" and I keep telling you Im not talking about "the west today". It's not a point that needed to be made over and over since it wasn't an issue.

More and more of Paul's audience began to be Gentile converts.

As it relates to this thread, consideration of who wrote it and who it was written to is one of our most difficult challenges. We always underestimate that.

That is and has been my point. Which is why I disagree the bible was written to just those of an Eastern Background but to both Eastern and Western Backgrounds. You can't just assume one or the other or mixed. You have to look at who wrote it and to whom.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

Fellas, this thread was not intended to be a debate about the definition of "western."

Unfortunately I think Socialite is glossing over an important point while actually making the point.

The bible was written to a diverse group that includes Hellenized Jews and Greek speaking Gentiles as well as Judean/Aramaic speaking Jews, which is the difference between the Western background and the Eastern background

[Socialite]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialite View Post
Sigh... another he said she said Prax bout. I really get sick of these...
Here we go again. You like to make things a personal fight don't you "Socialite"

[Socialite]

Quote:
The Bible, and the Early Church, both have a ethos primarily of Easternism.
Duh, now post something that we don't all already know

[Socialite]

Quote:
This goes back to the Hebrews, and on through the Jews after the Diaspora. Jesus himself was a Jew.
Oh Jesus was jew, gee Im sure nobody knew that

[Socialite]

The ethos of the Church was Eastern.

The audience was varied. (Consolation for Prax) But our faith comes from the teachings of Jesus (Eastern ethos) to his disciples (Eastern Ethos). The Rabbinical, Palestinian, Messiah-themed Gospel is of an Eastern Ethos.

This back and forth thing seems to be for an unknown reason where you keep telling me about "The west TODAY" and I keep telling you Im not talking about "the west today". It's not a point that needed to be made over and over since it wasn't an issue.

Because you are using the term "Western" in a way much more broad than I've ever heard it, as it relates to 1st Century Christianity. The point wasn't to teach you something new, (because obviously you know it all! ), it was to properly express my point and help define what I mean with the word "Western." I'm sorry my repetition frustrated you and ruffled your feathers.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

The ethos of the Church was Eastern.

The audience was varied. (Consolation for Prax) But our faith comes from the teachings of Jesus (Eastern ethos) to his disciples (Eastern Ethos). The Rabbinical, Palestinian, Messiah-themed Gospel is of an Eastern Ethos.

Agreed

Because you are using the term "Western" in a way much more broad than I've ever heard it, as it relates to 1st Century Christianity. The point wasn't to teach you something new, (because obviously you know it all! ), it was to properly express my point and help define what I mean with the word "Western." I'm sorry my repetition frustrated you and ruffled your feathers

Ok.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Agreed


Ok.

When someone says, "I'm sorry", it's good to say, "Apology accepted", or, "I forgive you", rather than just, "Ok." It kind of leaves the person hanging. Could we get a Forum rule like that added to the list?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by notofworks

When someone says, "I'm sorry", it's good to say, "Apology accepted", or, "I forgive you", rather than just, "Ok." It kind of leaves the person hanging. Could we get a Forum rule like that added to the list?

How about

"When someone says "I'm sorry my repetition frustrated you and ruffled your feathers " it's good to ask "Was that supposed to be an apology?"