 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 OTCP, |
maqqebet |
So, there you go!
_________________
The Hammer
Mi kamocah ba'elim Adonai
"Who is like you, Adonai, among the mighty?" (Exodus 15:11, CJB) |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1771
3/24/16 6:15 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
In reading my Bible this morning, I happened to run across this scripture I'd never really noticed before. I wonder if this could be the origin of Jesus' valuable robe?
"And Herod with his men of war set him at nought , and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." Luke 23:11
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
3/26/16 10:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
DrDuck |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | In reading my Bible this morning, I happened to run across this scripture I'd never really noticed before. I wonder if this could be the origin of Jesus' valuable robe?
"And Herod with his men of war set him at nought , and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." Luke 23:11 |
Not according to Mark
Mark 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 755
3/26/16 11:43 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| DrDuck wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: | In reading my Bible this morning, I happened to run across this scripture I'd never really noticed before. I wonder if this could be the origin of Jesus' valuable robe?
"And Herod with his men of war set him at nought , and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." Luke 23:11 |
Not according to Mark
Mark 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. |
DrDuck, I am sure you know a lot more about the scripture than I do. But in looking through the gospels, it appears that Luke is the only one to speak of Jesus' going before Herod. So if Herod's soldiers put a gorgeous robe on Him and sent him again to Pilate, the gorgeous robe would have been the only the clothes they had to put back on him after he was scourged. Unless they sent His original clothes back with him from Herod, which doesn't seem likely.
Just following a logical train of thought...
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
3/26/16 1:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
renewal |
| Which is correct? |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1021
3/26/16 2:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
DrDuck |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | | DrDuck wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: | In reading my Bible this morning, I happened to run across this scripture I'd never really noticed before. I wonder if this could be the origin of Jesus' valuable robe?
"And Herod with his men of war set him at nought , and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." Luke 23:11 |
Not according to Mark
Mark 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. |
DrDuck, I am sure you know a lot more about the scripture than I do. But in looking through the gospels, it appears that Luke is the only one to speak of Jesus' going before Herod. So if Herod's soldiers put a gorgeous robe on Him and sent him again to Pilate, the gorgeous robe would have been the only the clothes they had to put back on him after he was scourged. Unless they sent His original clothes back with him from Herod, which doesn't seem likely.
Just following a logical train of thought... |
Carolyn, this is the type logical thought OTCP and I were discussing earlier in this thread. It is called eisegesis. That is forming an idea that seems plausible and supporting it with supposition, imagination or human reason but with no real hard evidence or when the idea runs contrary to clear evidence indicating otherwise. Many preachers do this to make scripture support their personal notions when it makes for a rousing sermon.
In this case Mark is clear that they removed the robe they put on him and his own clothes would be just that; his own clothes. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 755
3/26/16 2:36 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| DrDuck wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: | | DrDuck wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: | In reading my Bible this morning, I happened to run across this scripture I'd never really noticed before. I wonder if this could be the origin of Jesus' valuable robe?
"And Herod with his men of war set him at nought , and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." Luke 23:11 |
Not according to Mark
Mark 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. |
DrDuck, I am sure you know a lot more about the scripture than I do. But in looking through the gospels, it appears that Luke is the only one to speak of Jesus' going before Herod. So if Herod's soldiers put a gorgeous robe on Him and sent him again to Pilate, the gorgeous robe would have been the only the clothes they had to put back on him after he was scourged. Unless they sent His original clothes back with him from Herod, which doesn't seem likely.
Just following a logical train of thought... |
Carolyn, this is the type logical thought OTCP and I were discussing in another thread. It is called eisegesis. That is forming an idea that seems plausible and supporting it with supposition, imagination or human reason but with no real hard evidence or when the idea runs contrary to clear evidence indicating otherwise. Many preachers do this to make scripture support their personal notions when it makes for a rousing sermon.
In this case Mark is clear that they removed the robe they put on him and his own clothes would be just that; his own clothes. |
Thanks for the explanation. I did not know what eisegesis meant. It is kind of discouraging your saying this because using common sense seems logical for the common man to understand the Word of God. Not all of us are trained to take apart the scriptures in depth.
I am not trying to be argumentative or sensational here. I probably never would have even noticed this scripture today if I hadn't read part of this thread earlier.
But assuming both Mark and Luke are inspired scriptures, it seems each only shows part of the story. But per your interpretation, Mark's explanation is more logical and widely accepted.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
3/26/16 2:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
DrDuck |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | | DrDuck wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: | | DrDuck wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: | In reading my Bible this morning, I happened to run across this scripture I'd never really noticed before. I wonder if this could be the origin of Jesus' valuable robe?
"And Herod with his men of war set him at nought , and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." Luke 23:11 |
Not according to Mark
Mark 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. |
DrDuck, I am sure you know a lot more about the scripture than I do. But in looking through the gospels, it appears that Luke is the only one to speak of Jesus' going before Herod. So if Herod's soldiers put a gorgeous robe on Him and sent him again to Pilate, the gorgeous robe would have been the only the clothes they had to put back on him after he was scourged. Unless they sent His original clothes back with him from Herod, which doesn't seem likely.
Just following a logical train of thought... |
Carolyn, this is the type logical thought OTCP and I were discussing in another thread. It is called eisegesis. That is forming an idea that seems plausible and supporting it with supposition, imagination or human reason but with no real hard evidence or when the idea runs contrary to clear evidence indicating otherwise. Many preachers do this to make scripture support their personal notions when it makes for a rousing sermon.
In this case Mark is clear that they removed the robe they put on him and his own clothes would be just that; his own clothes. |
Thanks for the explanation. I did not know what eisegesis meant. It is kind of discouraging your saying this because using common sense seems logical for the common man to understand the Word of God. Not all of us are trained to take apart the scriptures in depth.
I am not trying to be argumentative or sensational here. I probably never would have even noticed this scripture today if I hadn't read part of this thread earlier.
But assuming both Mark and Luke are inspired scriptures, it seems each only shows part of the story. But per your interpretation, Mark's explanation is more logical and widely accepted. |
I am not suggesting that it is wrong to use logical, sound, common sense reasoning to comprehend scriptures. In fact, I think these are essential to properly rightly divide the scripture. The problem arises when any attempt is made to inject into or project upon scripture some notion that is not there just because we want it to say what we want it to say or think it ought to say. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 755
3/26/16 3:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| DrDuck wrote: | | Carolyn, this is the type logical thought OTCP and I were discussing earlier in this thread. It is called eisegesis. That is forming an idea that seems plausible and supporting it with supposition, imagination or human reason but with no real hard evidence or when the idea runs contrary to clear evidence indicating otherwise. Many preachers do this to make scripture support their personal notions when it makes for a rousing sermon. |
Well stated, DD.
Carolyn, one need not be trained in linguistics to interpret the text. Certainly, the more training/experience one has, the more adept one is at doing so, however, the Bible is its own best interpreter. As DD stated, eisegesis is reading into the text something that isn't there. Likewise, exegesis (defined as the science of interpretation) is drawing from the text only what is there. Case in point, when the early COG pioneers read in Deut 22:5 that it is an abomination for a woman to wear a man's apparel, they took the cultural norms of their time (men wear pants/women wear dresses) and read them into that text. In so doing they deduced that women should not wear pants. This is eisegesis. When Deut 22:5 was written, men did not wear pants, nor women dresses. And of course, for the New Covenant believer, Deut 22:5 was null and void anyway, i.e., in terms of lifestyle requirements. Substantive exegesis could/would have avoided such a position. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/26/16 6:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | And of course, for the New Covenant believer, Deut 22:5 was null and void anyway, i.e., in terms of lifestyle requirements. |
Just remember, Ole Timer, all things might be lawful, but at don't mean they convenient. Try ta stay outta ya wife's high heel shoes. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/26/16 7:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | And of course, for the New Covenant believer, Deut 22:5 was null and void anyway, i.e., in terms of lifestyle requirements. |
Just remember, Ole Timer, all things might be lawful, but at don't mean they convenient. Try ta stay outta ya wife's high heel shoes. |
In the words of a Pink Floyd classic, Miss Bonnie, the ole timer had a "Momentary Lapse of Reason" at day. I watched momma walkin in em things an could not imagine how she balanced on at little heel the size of a pencil eraser. So, when nobody was lookin, I tried to slip one on an see how hard it would be. BIG MISTAKE. After destroyin bout $2,500 worth of electronics an some furniture from fallin all over the place, hey, the ole timer finally got up outta the floor with a mighty bruised body and ego. From at time on I been sangin, "Never Again." |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/26/16 8:12 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| It does matter... |
renewal |
Let me understand something..
You are saying that the culture had nothing to do with anything at all?
If so, the way things worked in those times are not important to what is taking place?
Then how does one explain certain actions taken by the people involved?
For example. when Mary was with child Joseph wanted to put her away privily.
Matt 1:19 relates that fact..Without knowing the way things worked in those days, a person would not know what that means.
This is not for just good preaching it is vital to clear understanding...
You can disregard these things and miss much..
Your choice of course.. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1021
3/26/16 8:14 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: It does matter... |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| renewal wrote: | Let me understand something..
You are saying that the culture had nothing to do with anything at all?
|
If you're asking me this, renewal, proper exegesis always takes into consideration the culture/context of a passage. I was referencing how eisegesis often takes the norms of a different culture (e.g., 21st century USA) and reads them into the culture/context of the passage. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/26/16 8:31 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Jesus' Seamless Robe Proof that He was RICH? Ludicrous!!!!!!! |
Link |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | More than a few woffies cite the seamless robe of Jesus, that the soldiers cast lots for, was a sign that Jesus was rich. They say he had to be rich to wear such a robe. This is absolutely false and ludicrous.
Chrysostom wrote that the detail is added to shew “the poorness of the Lord’s garments, and that in dress, as in all other things, He followed a simple fashion.”
Westcott, B. F., & Westcott, A. (Eds.). (1908). The Gospel according to St. John Introduction and notes on the Authorized version (p. 275). London: J. Murray.
This type of garment could be made by an ordinary weaver, so it need not have been expensive.
Newman, B. M., & Nida, E. A. (1993). A handbook on the Gospel of John (p. 587). New York: United Bible Societies. |
You left out the other piece of evidence that He was rich I've heard in a WOF sermon. He also had a pillow on the boat. So, there you have it.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/28/16 1:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: It does matter... |
Link |
| renewal wrote: | Let me understand something..
You are saying that the culture had nothing to do with anything at all?
If so, the way things worked in those times are not important to what is taking place?
Then how does one explain certain actions taken by the people involved?
For example. when Mary was with child Joseph wanted to put her away privily.
Matt 1:19 relates that fact..Without knowing the way things worked in those days, a person would not know what that means.
This is not for just good preaching it is vital to clear understanding...
You can disregard these things and miss much..
Your choice of course.. |
Good post.
We do need to understand culture. To understand the verse you mention, we'd need to understand that a man who wants to put away his betrothed in Jewish culture/law would have to give her a certificate of divorce, even if they hadn't yet had the wedding party or had sex yet.
What constitutes men's clothes and women's clothes is dependent on culture. If fashion changed a lot between 1300 BC and 1 AD, then culture would have been an issue in interpreting the law. If white make-up was a female thing in the 1st century, but not when Moses gave the law, then Jews could have applied the law to their culture and taught against men wearing white make-up.
But it would have been totally different to do away with the commandment and say, "The Lord just gave that commandment for a cultural reason in 1300 BC. Worshippers of Baal would probably dress like women back then. And they don't do that anymore, so all the guys can wear white make-up and lip stick and be drag queens now."
That's the 'culture' excuse approach to the New Testament I object to. One of the contemporary arguments is that wives had to submit to their husbands in the first century because women were treated like chattle. But they aren't now, and so, the argument goes, they don't have to submit. I haven't read that specific argument on here, but that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. That's the sort of approach to 'culture' as an excuse to do away with the word of God that concerns me.
Homosexual apologists will argue that in the time of Moses, gay prostitutes were involved in idolatry, and that therefore the commands only apply to idolatrous prostitution. They will claim that in Paul's culture, Paul was only familiar with child molestation and idolatry, not the type of gay lifestyles they live, and argue that the scriptures no longer apply because the culture has changed. That's the sort of approach to 'culture' as an excuse to do away with the word of God that concerns me.
One could argue that 'Thou shalt not kill' does not apply to school shootings. After all, in the culture of 1300 BC, killing was done with stones, fists, arrows, blunt instruments, sharp instruments, poison, rocks, drowning, and pushing people off of cliffs. But firearms had not been invented yet. So in that culture, killing wasn't done with firearms. Therefore, the culture was different. So does that make it okay to shoot someone to death? They didn't have bombs or airplanes they could fly into buildings back then. If we applied the liberal cultural-excuse reasoning to murder, we could try to justify that as well.
I've taken a bit of flack for considering 'culture' as an excuse to do away with the teaching of scripture. I appreciate different cultures. I've studied Cross-Cultural Psychology and I'll probably do some academic publishing that makes use of these theories.
As far as the Bible and our faith is concerned, I agree with you that we need to understand culture to understand scripture in context. Understanding the differences between culture in Biblical times and now to understand how to apply scripture.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/28/16 1:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
Mark 4:38
And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow.
I wonder if at pillow implies at Jesus was rich? |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/30/16 9:02 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
