brilliant

696 reputation

111

bio	website
	location	Taiwan
	age
visits	member for	1 year, 5 months
	seen	7 hours ago
stats	profile views	4

	696 reputation	bio	website		visits	member for	1 year, 5 months
111 badges		location	Taiwan		seen	7 hours ago

summary answers questions tags badges favorites bounties reputation activity

85 Comments

suggestions reviews revisions comments badges posts accepts all

Jul 13	comment	“A believers' virginity” or “a believer's daughter's virginity” in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38? So, if the virgin is a daughter, then it looks like Paul supports the idea of a daughter not being free to choose between a marriage or non-marriage life, but rather being supposed to follow the will of her father in this regard. Am I correct?
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? @swasheck - "To be sure, Galilean was not a different language, but a distinct dialect within a language. Much like "Southern English" vs. "Queen's English" vs. "American English"" - But we still often have different names for different things even today between different dialects, isn't it? Another argument that makes the Luke-redaction theory less likely is that "τουτέστιν" ("that is to say"), which follows the word "Aceldama" is never used by Luke in his Gospel. It is used by him only one more time in Acts 19:4 and even there it is not used for interpreting the meaning of a Hebrew word.
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? "Additionally, the distinction that you refer to depends on whether or not Peter is actually speaking in 1:19, which is the source of debate" - I don't think it is a problem as the phrase "in their own tongue" in verses 19 shows clearly that the native dwellers of Jerusalem are meant.
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? "So visitors are excluded from the knowledge of these events?" - No, of course, they are not excluded from the knowledge of the events. However, they might've been excluded from the knowledge of the name of the 'field of blood' Aceldama. Note that the phrase "it became known to all the dwellers of Jerusalem" is not related to the 'field of blood'. Visitors might've well been aware of all the events taking place in Jerusalem (Luke 24:18), but not with all the names around there and their meanings (since it was not their native tongue and not their native place of living)
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? @swasheck - "It is said that it was known to all who were in Jerusalem" - Well, to be correct, it says "to all the dwellers (κατοικέω) of Jerusalem", not "to all who were in Jerusalem". Peter makes a clear distinction in Acts 2:14 between those who dwell in Jerusalem and those Jews who merely came to Jerusalem for celebrating the feast, among whom the 120 were, too. Plus, the phrase "in their own tongue" in Acts 1:19 indicates further that it is a reference to those who were born and grew up in Jerusalem - not those who came there with their other tongues.
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? @swasheck - "What benefit does it do to speak to those in Jerusalem about those in Jerusalem" - I am sorry, but you can only be sure that in Acts 1:19 among those 120 some were of "those in Jerusalem" if you believe in the Luke's redaction theory. But if you look at it from the perspective of "no-Luke's-redaction" theory, then you wouldn't be sure that among those 120 some were "those in Jerusalem". In fact, you would be sure that all of the 120 were Galileans, who might've been able to speak the tongue of the Jerusalem dwellers (with accent), but might've not known about the 'field of blood'
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? @Mike - I honestly don't see how swsasheck's point is a strong argument here. Perhaps, I don't see something here. Please, read my reply to his answer in my comments below.
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? No, no, no. Please, don't delete it. I am not emotionally connected to either view either. While I was asking this question I was indeed more lining toward the bracket theory, too. But now, having discovered Acts 2:7, I am more in favor of no brackets. I just want to collect here all possible arguments in this matter - both those supporting the brackets, and those rejecting them - just to get as much objective view on this whole issue as possible.
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? "maybe some in the crowd where not totally familiar with Aramaic" - I don't quite understand how whether or not they were familiar with Aramaic is the point here. It seems to me that the main point is that, as Acts 2:7 shows, none of them was a dweller of (born and grew up in) Jerusalem. Thus, the dialect spoken in Jerusalem was not their native. So, it looks quite logical (to me) that Peter spoke to them about the dwellers of Jerusalem and their dialect in the 3rd person. It's quite possible that they all could speak Aramaic, however, not all of them were familiar with the 'Akeldamach' thing.
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? "BTW need to change question to refer to Chapter 1"- Oh my! How did I notice it! Am going to change it right now.
Jul 12	comment	Matthew 27:62: “the day that followed the day of the preparation” - Why not call Sabbath a Sabbath? I see. Very interesting. Thank you.
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? "Peter was addressing a crowd in Jerusalem" - Mike, I have some uneasiness with this argument. I mean the fact that those 120 were at that moment in Jerusalem doesn't automatically mean that they were the dwellers of Jerusalem. Acts 2:7 gives us quite a strong basis to think not only that all of the 120 were not the dwellers of Jerusalem, but even to suppose that it was evident (perhaps, from their physical appearance) that they were all from Galilee ("they were ... marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? ") and thus spoke the same dialect as Peter.
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? "this seems just to be a mistake not knowing the meaning of it in Aramaic" - You mean it's a mistake by Luke?
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? "I do not think you will scrape much up because of the Aramaic match" - Can you, please, explain what you mean here? I don't understand.
Jul 12	comment	Matthew 27:62: “the day that followed the day of the preparation” - Why not call Sabbath a Sabbath? Very interesting, Mike, and quite along with what I guessed, but do we have any proof for that explanation?
Jul 12	comment	Acts 1:19: “that field is called in their proper tongue” - spoken by Peter or by Luke? "The other view is that Luke added to the words..." - but that's exactly the view # 2 in my question!
Jul 10	comment	“Jesus said to them ”I am" (John 18:6) - Did Jesus break a taboo here? My question here is did He say exactly that Hebrew word that no one of the Jews would say aloud?
Jul 9	comment	2 Cor 5:20: “be reconciled to God” translation "... a different question altogether than the initial one that you asked" - if read it again, you can notice that while I was asking it I had a hard time recollecting the stated view exactly. I was asking it in general terms, so the object of the command, I think, still lies within the limits of my question.
Jul 9	comment	2 Cor 5:20: “be reconciled to God” translation Verse 19 also seems to point to the third party, rather than to the Corinthians: "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation"
Jul 9	comment	2 Cor 5:20: “be reconciled to God” translation To me it looks like the context is more on the side of the command's being issued to those who, unlike Corinthians, haven't yet heard the gospel, haven't yet believed in it, and, therefore, haven't yet been reconciled to God. In the whole chapter 5 there is no reference to any problem on the Corinthians' part, but it does indicate a problem on other people's part in verse 11: "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" . The problems on the Corinthians' part start being touched upon by the apostle in the following chapter.