A Confusing Message of Salvation?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You said "us and them"..and I said I was not using the word "Western" in the modern use of the term.

As I said before I was using it as the difference between Roman/Greek backgrounds and Semitic backgrounds. Western and Eastern.

Not all Jews were Hellenized. Arabia and other Semitic cultures were not Hellenized.

In any case I think your idea that "western culture" can only refer to modern cultures does not make sense. European states have always been considered "Western culture" regardless of the date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

Hellenism is the spread of Greek culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_civilization

And being specific here, what we are really referring to is Middle eastern culture not merely eastern culture

Prax, before I get into one of those "I didn't really say that" cat and mouse games, I'll just interact more with what I intend.

Western culture is used broadly and specifically. Scholars who discuss biblical audience would never suggest a Western influence in the biblical times (even NT Wright). As we call it today, The West really identified itself during the Enlightenment, Renaissance, and both pre and post-colonialism.

Some of these differences are highlighted in Ravi Zacharias' Jesus Among Other Gods. Western Christendom was shaped in the 3rd and 4th Century, really taking a cultural shape post-Constantine.

It is generally understood what one means when they refer to "East" and "West" differences. In actuality, "Eastern" would include, in a broad way, including:
Far Eastern, Indian, Middle East and Judiac religions.

When you say certain groups were not "hellenized" you miss the point that the majority of the Jesus Movement was shaped and influences by Hellenism. I'd again defer to NT Wright as more an expert, or someone who has examined this in much more detail than I. In particular, I'd recommend the book "Paul" by NT Wright.

Bottom line: the Western culture and world we know today is a polar opposite in many ways from the Eastern culture and world that was the setting for our 1st Century fathers.

This is emphasized repeatedly by students who are studying or taking classes on interpretation. It's the most obvious interpretive wall to get over.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

Why do we give more weight to Peter's words in Acts 2:38 than his other declarations in the same book?

I'm not trying to tear down Apostolic doctrine, as I believe baptism in water and Spirit were normative Christian experiences in the early church. I'm just trying to connect some dots.

Well get to connecting, if that's what you want to do

I prefer to read the story as it is, and not feel obligated to "connect dots."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Western culture is used broadly and specifically. Scholars who discuss biblical audience would never suggest a Western influence in the biblical times (even NT Wright). As we call it today, The West really identified itself during the Enlightenment, Renaissance, and both pre and post-colonialism.

According to the links I've already provided to substantiate my point, "Western" is not exclusive to modern times. The "West" was very much an influence. Hellenism was is the influence of Greek culture. You keep trying to peg this into a "Western culture today" and I keep pointing out by Western Im referring to influences from Greek and Roman culture.

And by Eastern I specified specifically Judean and Semitic society.

Some of these differences are highlighted in Ravi Zacharias' Jesus Among Other Gods. Western Christendom was shaped in the 3rd and 4th Century, really taking a cultural shape post-Constantine.

It seems like we are talking past each other. We are discussing the bible, when it was written, by who and to whom.

I pointed out it was written to those of both an eastern and western background. Not to a modern Western Civilization or culture

It is generally understood what one means when they refer to "East" and "West" differences. In actuality, "Eastern" would include, in a broad way, including:
Far Eastern, Indian, Middle East and Judiac religions.

I said the bible was written to those of Eastern and Western backgrounds. I later clarified Easter to refer to Judean and Semitic culture

When you say certain groups were not "hellenized" you miss the point that the majority of the Jesus Movement was shaped and influences by Hellenism. I'd again defer to NT Wright as more an expert, or someone who has examined this in much more detail than I. In particular, I'd recommend the book "Paul" by NT Wright.

So by "eastern" you mean the NT was only written to people of a greek culture?

You said :"Just the opposite, it was written with an Eastern mindset set about 0-100 AD, to an Eastern audience"

When I said I thought it was written by Hebrews to both Western and Eastern backgrounds you disagreed with me and brought up Hellenization. And here by "eastern" you seem to have in mind "Far Eastern, Indian, Middle East and Judiac religions."...So Im finding your line of reasoning a little confusing at this point

Bottom line: the Western culture and world we know today is a polar opposite in many ways from the Eastern culture and world that was the setting for our 1st Century fathers.

I don't even know why "the Western culture and world we know today" is something you keep bringing up since Im not talking about it and the issue is who wrote the bible and to whom

This is emphasized repeatedly by students who are studying or taking classes on interpretation. It's the most obvious interpretive wall to get over.

That the bible was written by Hellenists to Hellenists?

This is all just a little confusing and contradictory. Hellenism comes from the Greek culture. Greece is "Western"...Eastern according to you is :Far Eastern, Indian, Middle East and Judiac religions" but by Eastern I clarified what I was speaking of.

Western culture and civilization have been around for centuries. Hellenism is the influence of Greek culture and ideas. Greece is not "Eastern", again which according to you is "Far Eastern, Indian, Middle East and Judiac religions."

[Socialite]

No one said Hellenism was an exclusive influence. NT Wright does not assert that either. But Jesus, his Disciples and the early Church come from an Eastern paradigm and culture. This was later influenced by Hellenization -- which is still hardly distinguishable from how historians classify "The Western World," at least how it's used today.

I keep bringing up "modern times," because the shape and influence of the West is still relatively new. You are correct to identify Westernization it's most earliest times, and this is why the term is so broad. But the usual "East vs. West" differences don't require as much hashing out.

The bible was written by people with an "eastern mindset" (as opposed the the western mindset of America, Europe, parts of Asia, and much of the world today). We see this difference in thinking in their writing. For example, they say phrases like 'God is my shepherd' and we say things like 'God is omnipotent'. Or, in eastern thought (and the bible) they say 'the 4 corners of the earth' and we say 'north, south, east, and west'. Eastern thought thinks visually and western thought thinks conceptually.

This is just one of the many differences -- but an example so we don't keep "talking past each other."

NT talks about the unique Pauline influences, which he describes as a triad. Paul as the exception, but still primarily shaped by Eastern thought (with his Judaic beginnings and learning).

We can chat more about it later. But this is an easy one to confuse each other's points because of the way "West" and "East" are and have been used.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

No one said Hellenism was an exclusive influence. NT Wright does not assert that either.

I don't really care about what Wright says or did not say. This all started when you disagreed with me saying the bible was written by Hebrews to those with a Western and Eastern background. You disagreed with me saying "Western background" and brought up Hellenists. So it sounds like you are saying those of an Eastern Background were Hellenistic

But Jesus, his Disciples and the early Church come from an Eastern paradigm and culture.

Yeah? What does that have to do with what I said though? I said the bible was written by Hebrews to those from both Western and Eastern backgrounds. Western referring to Greek/Roman background and Eastern referring to Judaistic/Semitic

This was later influenced by Hellenization -- which is still hardly distinguishable from how historians classify "The Western World," at least how it's used today.

I still don't see how this relates to my post

I keep bringing up "modern times," because the shape and influence of the West is still relatively new.

OK, but again what does this have to do with what I said? This is getting confusing

You are correct to identify Westernization it's most earliest times, and this is why the term is so broad. But the usual "East vs. West" differences don't require as much hashing out.

The bible was written by people with an "eastern mindset" (as opposed the the western mindset of America, Europe, parts of Asia, and much of the world today).

Yes? Again I said it was written by Hebrews which Im sure would qualify as "Eastern Mindset" but that was not what you disagreed with. You disagreed with me that it was written to those of both Western and Eastern backgrounds and by "Western" You have to know by now that I was not saying it was written 2000 years ago to "western mindset of America, Europe, parts of Asia, and much of the world today"..right?

We see this difference in thinking in their writing. For example, they say phrases like 'God is my shepherd' and we say things like 'God is omnipotent'. Or, in eastern thought (and the bible) they say 'the 4 corners of the earth' and we say 'north, south, east, and west'. Eastern thought thinks visually and western thought thinks conceptually.

Again Im confused...I never said Eastern and Western thought were the same. I said the bible was written to people from both Eastern (Judaistic/Semitic) and Western (Greek/Roman) back grounds, clearly NOT the same and you disagreed with me including those of a Western background.

This is just one of the many differences -- but an example so we don't keep "talking past each other."

But I never even said there were no differences. lol

NT talks about the unique Pauline influences, which he describes as a triad. Paul as the exception, but still primarily shaped by Eastern thought (with his Judaic beginnings and learning).

Again I said it was written BY Hebrews..But your disagreement was not with me saying that but with me speaking of to whom it was written to.

We can chat more about it later. But this is an easy one to confuse each other's points because of the way "West" and "East" are and have been used.

Ok do you understand how I used the words "western background" and "eastern background"?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

... I believe baptism in water and Spirit were normative Christian experiences in the early church. I'm just trying to connect some dots.

In my opinion they are normative Christian experiences but not part of a "plan" of salvation.

In the 20 some references to salvation or conversion or coming into the Church in the Book of Acts, water and/or Spirit baptism are only referenced a few times.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Brad Murphy

No surprise, but I agree with your thoughts here. that is one of the things that led to my current "crisis of faith"... take what you said above, and compound it by each of the various books being copied over and over again, each time creating more potential error (think of the telephone game), and then on top of that, interpreting it into other languages and trying to retain the exact same meaning. These letters were written by the authors, and were written to a specific audience, then 300 years later (or thereabouts) a group of men (Catholics) chose which copies of which texts should appear in the canon of the Bible based on what suited their purposes and views.... and these men didn't even have the Holy Ghost (at least as far as any of us know)...

and that's not even counting the millions of people doomed to spend eternity in hell just because the Bible wasn't translated to their language yet (especially before the 1600s or so).

If....and I say "If" because I'm willing to be wrong about anything....the Christian concept of heaven and hell is correct, I'm convinced that both places will contain people who shock us all. Regardless of all the "Ifs", I think Christians are in for quite a shock on "That day."

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Brad Murphy

...and that's not even counting the millions of people doomed to spend eternity in hell just because the Bible wasn't translated to their language yet (especially before the 1600s or so).

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him
Acts 10:34-35


13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel.
Romans 2:13-16

The Second Resurrection.
According to the inspired word of God the resurrection of the
"blessed and Holy" is completed a thousand years before the second resurrection. It is from this point that we are obliged to note the difference between partakers of the two resurrections.

After the thousand years expire "the rest of the dead" (those who
did not come forth in the first resurrection) both righteous and
wicked, live again and are made to stand before God. It is then that Jesus separates them as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goat according to Matt. 25:31-46.

In this resurrection is included all the righteous men of all
ages who walked in all the light that they were given. It is my candid opinion that all heathen, Israelites, Christian professors who have never heard the true gospel of Christ and those who die during the millennium, walking in the light of their times will be given eternal life at the last resurrection.

Many righteous people have died without the Holy Ghost and
the question has been asked: "Where will they come in?" They shall be given eternal life in the last day. They shall inherit the New
Earth where life eternal reigns because "there shall be no more death.
from Bishop G.T. Haywood's book on The Resurrection

[Socialite]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialite View Post
No one said Hellenism was an exclusive influence. NT Wright does not assert that either.


Prax: I don't really care about what Wright says or did not say. This all started when you disagreed with me saying the bible was written by Hebrews to those with a Western and Eastern background. You disagreed with me saying "Western background" and brought up Hellenists. So it sounds like you are saying those of an Eastern Background were Hellenistic

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

The Bible, and the Early Church, both have a ethos primarily of Easternism. This goes back to the Hebrews, and on through the Jews after the Diaspora. Jesus himself was a Jew.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

[Chateau d'If]

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