Question from Acts

  • Thread starter Thread starter endaman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

endaman

Guest
Chapter 6
7 The word of the Lord continued to spread: the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly increased, and a large group of priests made their submission to the faith.

Here is states the number of disciples and a large group of priests. Is this two separate groups, the disciples and the priests or does it mean the priests were the disciples. I’m guessing two separate groups but can anyone tell me.

-EM
 
Does this help?

thefreedictionary.com/disciple
dis·ci·ple (d-spl)
n.
1.
a. One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another.
b. An active adherent, as of a movement or philosophy.
2. often Disciple One of the original followers of Jesus.
3. Disciple A member of the Disciples of Christ.

A priest is also a disciple,
but a disciple is not always a priest.
You are a disciple of Jesus if you follow His teachings.
 
Thanks you,

I follow Christs teachings, well, as best as I can. So this means i’m a Disciple, don’t feel i’m worthy to be called that but if it matches the definition i’m glad to be called one.

-E
 
endaman said:
Chapter 6
7 The word of the Lord continued to spread: the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly increased, and a large group of priests made their submission to the faith.

Here is states the number of disciples and a large group of priests. Is this two separate groups, the disciples and the priests or does it mean the priests were the disciples. I’m guessing two separate groups but can anyone tell me.

-EM
Click to expand...
The writer is stating that the followers of Jesus from the “common people” increase as new Christians joined…and a group of Jewish priests also became disciples.
 
Publisher said:
The writer is stating that the followers of Jesus from the “common people” increase as new Christians joined…and a group of Jewish priests also became disciples.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m not certain that it’s the case that the writer is making a distinction between “common people” and “priests”. It would seem that this is a simple conjunction: Jews in Jerusalem were joining the faith in great numbers – among them, even some Jewish priests were becoming Christians!
 
Gorgias said:
Well, I’m not certain that it’s the case that the writer is making a distinction between “common people” and “priests”. It would seem that this is a simple conjunction: Jews in Jerusalem were joining the faith in great numbers – among them, even some Jewish priests were becoming Christians!
Click to expand...
I agree with you, I stated it very poorly, but you stated it much better friend.
 
As a convention, if the word disciple is spelled with a capital “D”, that should refer to the original twelve disciples, plus Matthias who replaced Judas.

If disciples is spelled with a small “d”, that should refer to any disciple who actually heard and saw Jesus preach, or saw him in the resurrected form. Luke said there were hundreds.

Paul would not be either a Disciple, or a disciple of Jesus’. He was an Apostle, however, and I am not sure what the strict definition of that is. Though I am sure the Church has one.

James, the brother of Jesus, was the head of the Christian Church in Jerusalem, but he also wore the Miter (headress) and so was a priest as well, and could enter and worship in the sanctuary building of the Second Temple.
 
The Greek word used here- hierus ἱερεύς I’d say refers to members of the Levitical priesthood.
 
"TriciaF:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disciple
dis·ci·ple (d-spl)
n.
1.
a. One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another.
b. An active adherent, as of a movement or philosophy.
2. often Disciple One of the original followers of Jesus.
3. Disciple A member of the Disciples of Christ.

A priest is also a disciple,
but a disciple is not always a priest.
You are a disciple of Jesus if you follow His teachings.
Click to expand...
steve53 said:
As a convention, if the word disciple is spelled with a capital “D”, that should refer to the original twelve disciples, plus Matthias who replaced Judas.
Click to expand...
Hmm… no, I don’t think so. I’d have to go back and do some research, but it’s my recollection that the people you’re referring to are referred to in Mark and Luke either as “The Twelve”, or “the apostles”, but never (strictly speaking) as “the Disciples” (with an upper-case ‘D’). In Matthew, the twelve are called “the disciples”, but not with a capital ‘D’; in only one case does Matthew call them “apostles”. In other words, most everywhere that the term ‘disciples’ are used, it’s meant to include followers of Jesus – and these references might include the Twelve Apostles, but doesn’t necessarily require them to be included, per se.

So, Tricia’s answer is a reasonable one, with one caveat. I think Tricia’s thinking “Catholic priest” when she writes “priest”. In this context, she’s right – all priests are disciples, but not all disciples are priests. However, in the passage of Scripture that was quoted, the reference to “priests” is to Jewish priests in Jerusalem. So, it’s not the case that “all (Jewish) priests are (Christian) disciples”…

I don’t think I would’ve used a dictionary definition, though – the Catholic Church uses words in a particular and precise way. So, I might go with the definition of disciple as it’s found in the glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Disciple: Those who accepted Jesus’ message to follow him are called his disciples. Jesus associated his disciples with his own life, revealed the mystery of the Kingdom to the disciples and gave them a share in his mission, his joy, and his sufferings.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks all, great reply’s just what I was looking for. If I am disciple I feel the Catholic catechism description matches my life even closer, regarding a share in Christs joy and suffering. Thanks for your educated and thoughtful responses. God be with you all.

-E
 
Gorgias said:
Well, I’m not certain that it’s the case that the writer is making a distinction between “common people” and “priests”. It would seem that this is a simple conjunction: Jews in Jerusalem were joining the faith in great numbers – among them, even some Jewish priests were becoming Christians!
Click to expand...
I would just add this.

We often think of Christianity as a separate religion from that of Judaism, but it originally wouldn’t have been that way. In the original context, ‘conversion’ wasn’t so much about switching from one belief system to something else that is totally different. The disciples and the other first-generation Christians wouldn’t have seen themselves as belonging to a different religion other than Judaism (as the later ones would); on the contrary, they would have seen themselves as perfected Jews because of their belief in Jesus as Messiah.
 
patrick457 said:
I would just add this.

We often think of Christianity as a separate religion from that of Judaism, but it originally wouldn’t have been that way. In the original context, ‘conversion’ wasn’t so much about switching from one belief system to something else that is totally different. The disciples and the other first-generation Christians wouldn’t have seen themselves as belonging to a different religion other than Judaism (as the later ones would); on the contrary, they would have seen themselves as perfected Jews because of their belief in Jesus as Messiah.
Click to expand...
This is important for people to undersand Patrick, and is actually the Jewish understanding of what it means to convert. It is not a rejection of one thing and an adoption of something completely different, but a reordering of the inner man to his true calling. Paul writes of his own “Conversion” to the Galatians:

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood…, (Galatians 1:13-16)

Paul’s focus was narrow - his tribe and nation - but his intentions were pure. He loved God and the religion God had esablished, Judaism, and truly thought the Christians were a corruption of God’s religion. Paul describes his conversion as a cooperation with grace, and a reordering of his actions to what God had created him to be “Before I was born”, after which his focus was much wider - preahching to the Gentiles of the whole world.

Paul still offered gifts at the temple and took a Nazarite vow after his conversion. Paul prayed all the Jewish prayers that a faithful Jew would pray and continued to go to the “Place of prayer” as a Jew would.

People don’t realize that Christianity worshipped side by side with Judaism unil the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, at which point rabinnic judaism and Christianity began to seperate. But Christian believers in Jesus would have still be faithful Jews at least until that time. Even then it wasn’t a one time split that we can point to, but more of the beginning of a process of seperation.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
This is important for people to undersand Patrick, and is actually the Jewish understanding of what it means to convert. It is not a rejection of one thing and an adoption of something completely different, but a reordering of the inner man to his true calling. Paul writes of his own “Conversion” to the Galatians:

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood…, (Galatians 1:13-16)

Paul’s focus was narrow - his tribe and nation - but his intentions were pure. He loved God and the religion God had esablished, Judaism, and truly thought the Christians were a corruption of God’s religion. Paul describes his conversion as a cooperation with grace, and a reordering of his actions to what God had created him to be “Before I was born”, after which his focus was much wider - preahching to the Gentiles of the whole world.

Paul still offered gifts at the temple and took a Nazarite vow after his conversion. Paul prayed all the Jewish prayers that a faithful Jew would pray and continued to go to the “Place of prayer” as a Jew would.

People don’t realize that Christianity worshipped side by side with Judaism unil the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, at which point rabinnic judaism and Christianity began to seperate. But Christian believers in Jesus would have still be faithful Jews at least until that time. Even then it wasn’t a one time split that we can point to, but more of the beginning of a process of seperation.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Beg to differ.
Even Paul the Apostle admits to shedding the blood of Christians. Most of them were hounded out of Jerusalem. Their ceremonies were though cannibalistic and evil. The High Priesthood was out to get them, finally getting James the Just in A.D. 62, and were likely behind the Nero persecutions later.
There was NOT peaceful coexistence with the High Priesthood and the Christians. More like a forced tolerance due to the fact that Rome was looking over their shoulder.
 
steve53 said:
Beg to differ.
Even Paul the Apostle admits to shedding the blood of Christians. Most of them were hounded out of Jerusalem. Their ceremonies were though cannibalistic and evil. The High Priesthood was out to get them, finally getting James the Just in A.D. 62, and were likely behind the Nero persecutions later.
There was NOT peaceful coexistence with the High Priesthood and the Christians. More like a forced tolerance due to the fact that Rome was looking over their shoulder.
Click to expand...
Let me guess. Mr. the guy who we’ll never name for now, right? 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top