Why did the Ethiopian require "explanation" of scripture in Acts 8?

by sabastious 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Ummmm... one thing, dear BOTR (peace to you!), as the others aren't worth going into here: the Ethiopian was not a Gentile - he was a Jew. I could say that I know this because my Lord told me (which is true), but it is corroborated by the fact that the first "Gentile" was Cornelius, an uncircumcised Israelite Samaritan (whose early ancestors were circumcised, but whose later fathers left off that practice when Jeroboam instituted false worship at Bethel (the capital of Samaria)). Prior to Cornelius' conversion, the Apostles, et al.... including Paul... took the good-news to JEWS... in Judea and Samaria (indeed Philip was a Samarian JEW).

    It was when PETER told them that it was okay to speak to/enter the houses of the uncircumcised (starting with Cornelius)... that the rest did so. Of course, right after, some tried to force the new converts to underGO circumcision... which Peter disagreed with. They gave in to Peter, for a while, but out of his presence, tried to push it again. When Paul heard about he... he called for a meeting with the Apostles and older men... which prompted a "council" in Jerusalem on the matter. The verdict? Fleshly circumcision was/is not required (although, one can still CHOOSE to undergo it, for the sake of others who might be stumbled).

    Acts 10:15, 28, 44-45; 11:1-18; 15:1-29; 16:3; 21:8, 15-26; 1 Kings 12:25-13:2

    I realize you put a lot of store in your scholars... and that is your prerogative, truly. But the truth is that unless their assertions are the result of direct leading through holy spirit... which none apparently claim... they're as subject to error, and their opinions, theories, and positions to flaws... as those of the WTBTS.

    Again, peace to you... truly.

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    What's funny about that account is that this guy was baptized while still serving in high political office. I believe the description places him as the Minister of Finance to the queen of Ethiopia. By JW standards, he would have to quit that job and start washing windows in order to get the "privilege" of being an unbaptized publisher.

    Same with Cornelius. He received holy spirit and was baptized while still serving as top military brass. That wouldn't work by Watchtower standards. They'd have to baptize him and disfellowship him... all in the first meeting.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    The Ethiopian was NOT A JEW! Many pagans attended synogagues and maybe even socialized with Jews. Perhaps you live in some rural area but after living in Manhattan for more than forty years, Jews do not proslytize outsiders. They hardly proslytize other Jews. Hasidim are a very visible exception. The price to be fully a Jew was very exacting: adult circumcision. A few became circumcized. Most just hung around the proceedings. They were more acceptable than normal Gentiles. I doubt if common meals were exchanged. No, recalling Crossan's emphasis on Paul's view of the agape meals and show down with Peter and James. THEY WERE NOT JEWS!

    God-fearer is not my invention. It is the academic and terms that both the Gentiles and Jews used for this phenomenon. Paul's preference for god-fearers as his first audience makes obvious sense. These Gentiles were familiar with Old Testament scriptures. Something in their individual temperaments led them to Judaism. A person who already made the leap from pagan culture to Judaism would be much more likely to make the leap to Christianity than your run of the mill paganism.

    You consistently show a completely lack of knowledge of Judaism, let alone first century Judaism. Again, I did not invent this concept.

    For anyone trouble by the apostle Paul, Saint Paul to me, I highly recommend John Dominic Crossan,In Search of Paul, (2004). I studied New Testament with Elaine Pagels at Columbia. I've continued a loose association with her. There are certainly scholars who take issue with some of Crossan's findings. Crossan's subtitle is "How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom." Before this book, I reviled Paul. I read individual commentaries on the authentic Pauline epistles and studied in Bible Class but I was angry from the Witnesses. Crossan radically altered my thinking. One of the problems I find with NT scholarship is that we have no existing knowledge as we do with English or the sciences. Public schools do not encourage this scholarship.

    God-Fear=theosebeis.,xi;398 (Acts of the Apostles), etc. There are about fifty references to God-fearers.

    If I say something, one solitary posters always corrects me and not politely. No scholars are cited. Also, there is no basis as to why her facts are correct and mine are incorrect. It would be interesting if we viewed certain matters differently based on our backgrounds, etc. Such a discourse would be fun.

    If John Dominic Crossan is not a good source, please do Google scholar or EBSCO Host. Some neutral NT study organizations not affiliated with a hard line position must also exist on the Internet. I come here for interest and enjoyment. If a dissertion is needed, I am capable. There are other passions in my life.

    Jerry Falwell or someone would heartily disagree with me. I state Pagels, Armstrong, N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg and others are the scholars I respect. After reading their books for many decades now, I retain some off the cuff knowledge. My intention is not to say I am right, Rah Rah but to have a respectful dialogue. Statistically, it is impossible for me to be as wrong as a Guest believes I am. For some unknown reason, I would relish hearing her sources.

    Trust me b/c I said so--I fled that at fourteen and am still running. If A Guest wants to believe her content, I am cool with that.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Once more I write personal observations.

    The Ethiopian was riding in a carriage/chariot; he possessed a Hebrew scroll; he was able to read Greek. (Given the description of him, it is reasonable to assume he could also write in some language.) He was reading the Isaiah scroll after going to worship at Jerusalem. (Since he was not aware of Jesus, I assume he was a Jew.) These are in line with the description that he was a person of high position and learning.

    To me, the key point being addressed by the writer is at verse 34: "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" (NIV)

    The Christians were attempting to convince Jews that their own Scriptures predicted this person Jesus/Yeshua, and this story at Acts was a vehicle employed as part of the Christians' strategy. In this case, the Christians were trying to reapply Isa 53:7, 8 to their dead leader, while the Jews were telling them it was referring to the time of Isaiah (the Jews were correct, of course).

    The rest of the story, such as the Spirit angel having a chat with Philip, are padding which was added to give authenticity to the story.

    --------------

    While thinking about this black man I was reminded about my beef that the artists of the Middle Ages and those employed by the WTS show the faces of Jesus, his disciples, the early church, and others as pale-faced Europeans/Americans. Sure they place loose cloths garbed around the heads and bodies of their subjects, but the artists clearly make the vasiages unmistakeably Occidental.

    Those people are of the Middle East, darker, swarthy, wrinkled by the sun and the sand. They are not namby pamby people from the courts of Italy or from the health studios of Western culture.

    Just thinking aloud.

    Doug

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    I bring a gift of pizza...while I read this thread...thanks all

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    If I say something, one solitary posters always corrects me and not politely.

    My sincere apologies if you think my comments to you weren’t polite, dear BOTR (again, peace to you!). It could be, however, that you are reading “something”… perhaps a tone… into them that really isn’t there. (It could also be, perhaps, that you are actually “hearing” how YOU speak to/feel about others in MY words. I dunno.)

    I think you exaggerate, though, when you say I (because you referring to me, yes?) “always” correct you. Actually, I rarely comment as to your comments. Even so, it’s an religion-related Internet board and so dissention is to be expected. I mean, that’s what most of the adults understand.

    But I must say that it is interesting that you say I alone do so. I’d say that, if out of all the people here, I am the one solitary poster that corrects you… you should feel pretty good about that. I don’t think anyone else can boast such a record (that only ONE person on the entire board “corrects” them). Keep in mind, though, that I wouldn’t even bother… if what I was responding TO was accurate.

    No scholars are cited.

    Okay, let me think: cite a scholar… cite Christ, the Holy Spirit… cite a scholar… cite Christ, the Holy Spirit…cite a scholar… cite…

    Hmmmm… Well, I gotta say, since none of the scholars I COULD cite were THERE… and none of THEM sent an angel to direct Philip… and none of THEM compelled Philip to hook up WITH the Ethiopian… and the Ethiopian wasn’t asking about any of THEM… yeah, I’m gonna go with Christ, the Holy Spirit. ‘Cause he’s NEVER lied to… or misled me. If that’s okay with you, I mean… because apparently you believe I need your academic “permission”…

    Also, there is no basis as to why her facts are correct and mine are incorrect.

    This isn’t a competition, BOTR. We’re not engaged in Moot Court and Mock Debate. I disagree with what you've shared as true... and you disagree with what I've shared as true . That you take offense at THAT is… interesting…

    It would be interesting if we viewed certain matters differently based on our backgrounds, etc. Such a discourse would be fun.

    Yet, you’ve chosen to take this tack… ridicule, sarcasm, even a touch or ire. Can’t see you trying to HAVE fun in that. Rather, I see someone who’s insecure about having someone disagree with what they believe.

    If John Dominic Crossan is not a good source, please do Google scholar or EBSCO Host. Some neutral NT study organizations not affiliated with a hard line position must also exist on the Internet. I come here for interest and enjoyment. If a dissertion is needed, I am capable. There are other passions in my life.

    I am not an academic, sorry, dear BOTR. I am just one of those “god-fearers” you mentioned. The only source for me is Christ. Who I can’t Google (but I can hear, by means of holy spirit). There are also a couple/few verses that might at least give you reason to pause and consider whether Crossan (whose theories someone’s going to debunk at some point or another… after which someone will debunk that one’s theories… and so on and so on…). But I get that those aren’t sufficient for you, truly. I wouldn’t necessarily go on those, alone, either, so I get it. But my apologies if I am too… ummmmm… under-edu-macated for you. I would wager, however, if I were a wagering woman… that my Source, Christ, is a WHOLE lot simpler to understand… than either you OR Crossan. And… there is absolutely NO conflict in HIS words. Just truth. “The facts, ma’am.”

    Jerry Falwell or someone would heartily disagree with me. I state Pagels, Armstrong, N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg and others are the scholars I respect.

    I can respect that. I don’t think, however, that YOU respect My “source.” That you even can. But that doesn’t give me cause to take offense when you disagree… or to be sarcastic or ridicule you. But you know how it is: out of the abundance of one’s heart. You strike me as have quite an abundance of… ummmm… insecurity about your… ummmm… “expertise”… because you seem to have a hard time dealing when someone challenges that. Even if what you say doesn’t make much sense, scholarly or otherwise.

    After reading their books for many decades now, I retain some off the cuff knowledge.

    For some reason I am reminded of “Lionel Logue’s” response to “King George VI of England”, when the latter tried to emphasize how learned… and recognized… his advisors were. Something along the lines of, “Well, that makes it official, doesn’t it?” For more specific detail, you should check out that film, if you haven’t already.

    My intention is not to say I am right

    Isn't it?

    Rah Rah but to have a respectful dialogue.

    Really. I not only addressed you MOST respectfully (as I always do), with a greeting for peace (which I always offer)… but even by “name” (as I always do). You not only did not address me (you rarely do), but are talking ABOUT me as if I’m not here (which you usually do)… or as if others have no clue as to who you mean. “Respectful”? Really?

    Look... you took offense… although absolutely none was intended… and got, well, snide and catty, actually. No worries, though – I realize that you don’t SEE that, so I choose to take no offense. Hey, we’re all human…

    Statistically, it is impossible for me to be as wrong as a Guest believes I am.

    Well, then, okay. Again, “it’s official.”

    For some unknown reason, I would relish hearing her sources.

    See what I mean? Exactly who are you addressing? Me? T he board? The FSM? Are you asking them to ask me FOR you? No worries: they don’t have to ask nor do you, as I will gladly tell you. My Source is the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH… who is the Son and Christ of the MOST Holy One of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob… whose name is JAH… of Armies (JaHVeH).

    Trust me b/c I said so--I fled that at fourteen and am still running.

    Please excuse THIS bit of sarcasm, but I NEVER asked/told/said to you… or ANYONE… to trust me… nor to do so “because I said so.” I didn’t even go there with my kids. Rather, I EXPLAINED “why”. I don’t take the easy way out, BOTR – I give it my all. However, just like me YOU can go to the SAME source that I do… Christ… and listen to HIM. Just like I do. And you don’t have to trust me that this is true: you are more than free to put it to the test. Surely, you have the faith (and COURAGE) to do so?

    If A Guest wants to believe her content, I am cool with that.

    Obviously, you’re not "cool" with it. At least, you weren’t. I’m glad you’ve allowed yourself to talk it out, though… and perhaps get there. If indeed you have. If so, thank you! But, I do have to ask: where is your “who are you to disagree with me and my sources” commentary to dear Doug Mason (peace to you!), who apparently believes the Eunuch to have been a Jew, as well? Perhaps you missed that…

    Again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Thick or thin crust... Chicago or Brooklyn... pepperoni or combination... or perhaps just cheese, dear ST (peace to you!)? 'Cause I only like thin crust, Brooklyn style, pepperoni...

    Peace to you!

    SA, on her own... rubbing hands together and smackin' her lips...

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    No scholar. No scripture. Just as I expected from past experience. We are all subject to the Holy Spirit. Humility may be a factor.

    The comment about Jesus portrayed as a pale, emaciated, blue eyed white man with sparkly eyes as often been cited. Jung wrote that Jesus is universal b/c we make him in our image. Rembrant's portrait of the Holy Family as a middle class Dutch bourgeois family is a classic example. Travel was not as easy as now. The Crusaders, though, were displaced from Europe. They had to see Moors and Jews in the Holy Land.

    When I think of Jesus, I picture a Willem Defoe as in The Last Temptation of Christ or Franco Zefferelli's Jesus of Nazareth. It is emotionally important to me to have a Royal Shakespearean actor. Some cable show, prob. the History Channel, reconstructed Jesus' face and body build using old bones from the period. He would be squat and short by our standards. The gospels never mention his appearance. I don't think the Gnostics do, either.

    Most of the couture models now could not get any job when I was young. Indeed, I personally know a super model, currently on TV, who was sent to Europe, because her looks were not considered good enough for Americans. She ended up all over the place in the US - mags, tv, films. Cultural imperialism exists. I know Jesus was swarthy and strong but my culture has always portrayed him as anemic and weak. He is not even European but mostly English in looks.

    A lot has been written on this topic. Medieval Art is not my favorite. What is amusing is to see this very ugly, fat women and read how they were so beautiful in their culture.

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    No scholar.

    None from me, no, dear BOTR (again, peace to you!)…

    No scripture.

    Now, wait, THAT’S not completely accurate, is it? I posted the following:

    “Acts 10:15 , 28, 44-45; 11:1-18; 15:1-29; 16:3; 21:8, 15-26; 1 Kings 12:25 -13:2”

    Okay, true, none of it is "scripture" (Moses, the Prophets, Psalms, Revelation)... but the account is not contained in the "scriptures", so...

    Just as I expected from past experience. We are all subject to the Holy Spirit.

    Not all of us, dear one…

    Humility may be a factor.

    True. Although a LACK of humility is probably more of an issue... and an apparently obstacle... along with fear (i.e., lack of courage)... and lack of faith. Doesn't have to be that way, though...

    As for the rest of your comments, I can only respond in the vernacular that seems to be gaining MUCH ground around here, lately:

    WTF??*

    Peace… and let’s move on, shall we?

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

    *“What the frick!”

  • Awen
    Awen

    Commenting on whether the Ethiopian Eunuch was in fact a Jew or more likely a Proselyte.

    First, Luke never indicated in Acts 8 that the treasurer from Ethiopia was a "Gentile." On the contrary, he implied that this eunuch was either a Jew or a proselyte when he stated that he had "come to Jerusalem to worship" (8:27). At this point in time, the eunuch was not yet a Christian; he had not yet heard and obeyed the Gospel. Thus, while he had in fact gone "to Jerusalem to worship," such worship was not with the church in Jerusalem. It seems obvious that the reason he was reading from the Old Testament book of Isaiah when Philip approached him, and the reason he already had traveled hundreds of miles from Ethiopia "to Jerusalem to worship," was because he was either a Jew or (more likely) a proselyte. On the possibility of the eunuch being a Jew, respected biblical scholar J.W. McGarvey stated

    "It was not uncommon for Jews born and reared in foreign lands to attain to eminent positions, such as this man enjoyed, and especially in the department of finance.."

    McGarvey, J.W. (1892), New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_McGarvey

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1488

    If the Eunuch wasn't a Jewish convert or even born into Judaism, then explain how he came to have in his hands a copy of the scroll of Isaiah, which non-Jews were forbidden from having according to Jewish Law? It's obvious, he was either a Jew by birth or by conversion.

    How's that BoTR?

    Peace,

    Awen

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit