T
tweetymom
Guest
That would be a novel Idea and sure to get Blessings from God.
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
The Berean Christians were a sizeable portion of the population of Berea - ‘many of’ the Bereans converted, remember. By contrast, Pilate and Jesus’ supporters in Jerusalem were a tiny minority.
And the Berean Christians certainly had much more authority to stop Paul’s expulsion than the Thessalonican Jews had to order or force it, since the Thessalonican Jews had none whatsoever.
Finally, scripture says it was “THE BRETHREN” (in other words the Christian converts) who were in fact the ones who made Paul leave, not the Jews or other non-Christians. So it wasn’t some outside non-Christian authority figure who expelled Paul, but rather his very own Christian brothers. So you can’t say they had no part in the matter, and you can’t say they didn’t order (or tell) Paul to leave.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
But the Jews throughout Asia Minor were a minority in each town. There were far more pagan worshippers who could fuel a riot than Christian Beroeans.
The early Christians were a peaceful lot. Let me ask you, Lily. How do you peacefully stop a riot?
The Brethren expelled Paul to protect him, not to antagonize him. The answer to my above question, “You peacefully stop a riot by removing the person who is inciting the riot”. Inadvertently, Paul was the source of the riot, so the brothers squelched it by removing the source of the fire from the area.
L
LilyM
Guest
‘Many’ is not the equivalent of a tiny minority in this case. Berea never was a big city, and you can’t have ‘many’ citizens of a tiny town being Christian without it being a sizeable percentage. And Jews are not pagans. There is no indication that the pagans were concerned by Paul.
How do you peacefully stop a riot? Well, sometimes it’s neither possible nor advisable. Jesus didn’t stop Peter fighting with the High Priest’s servant. Equally, he neither ran away from the confrontation nor advised anyone else to either. Sometimes peace is just not possible - even He recognised that His teachings would inevitably bring about division between those who accepted them and those who didn’t.
The main point is that since the riot was instigated by foreigners, it’d be the easiest thing in the world for the Bereans to go to their own city leaders and say ‘these Thessalonicans are causing trouble - get rid of them!’ You think the Berean authorities wouldn’t be happy to get rid of rioting Thessalonians who came to their town expressly to stir up trouble? If a bunch of Iranians came to Washington to protest against Billy Graham do you really think the US would send him out of the country instead of the Iranians?
I totally agree that the right thing to do is get rid of the ones inciting the riot. Paul never incited a riot in his life, by the way, nor was he ever the source of a riot in his life. The ONLY ones who were the source of the riot were the Thessalonians. You stop a riot by asking THEM to leave.
By asking Paul to leave they were turning their back on God and His teaching for the sake of what they thought was peace, clearly not understanding that He and His teachings are the only true source of peace. If they understood scripture they would’ve known that teaching and kept Paul among them even with the attendant risk.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
We saw pagans start a riot in Corinth against Paul. We saw Jews start a riot against Paul in Thessalonica. I think the Boroean Jews felt they were
Jews first.
Beroeans second.
Hence, these Thessalonian Jews were not foreigners to them. As a matter of fact, Thessalonica and Beroa were not very far apart (100 miles?). I would assume your analogy would be better than people from New York started a riot in Washington DC, not Iranians. We’ve seen this happen with the riots caused by various anarchists today.
Would the Beroean Jewish - Christians turn the authorities on their own Jewish brothers? I don’t know. Again, Iranians is a bad example. This was the same region of Asia Minor. The ultimate foreigners were the Roman authorities that you think the Beroeans should have gone to.
I did say Paul inadvertently was the source of the riot. If Paul wasn’t the evangelist that he was, then those who rejected Christ wouldn’t have started the riots. It was their fault, but the riots were started because they didn’t like the way Paul preached. Remove Paul, remove the probability of the outbreak of riots.
Hmmm… Silas and Timothy stayed behind. Did they turn their backs on God? It would seem that they were the leaders of the New Church of Beroea (Paul, Silas, and Timothy). They preached the truth as did Paul. They just weren’t quite so polarizing as Paul was.
N
NHInsider
Guest
Actually much more important than his having been a companion of Jesus was his ordination, by which he received the apostolic promise of teaching authority.
If authoritative interpretation had ended with the death of the Apostle John (because he was the last surviving eyewitness) then we would be in deep trouble!
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Philip and others heard the Word. We have it written, and that is why even better in some cases.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I wouldn’t say that. If that were true, the first things the Apostles would have done would have been to pen their memoirs.
The written word allows someone to read the words and make their judgments without taking in the culture and traditions of the time. You can lose out when you do that. Its like looking at Sacred Tradition without studying the Bible, or like studying the Bible without looking at Sacred Tradition.
L
LilyM
Guest
Get your grasp of ancient history right. There was no such thing as a country of Greece, a country of Turkey or the like. There were only independent (entirely) city-states which had a common official language of Greek. Unofficially, they spoke dialects that to this day are as different from each other as French, Spanish and Italian.
To say they were one country is as ridiculous as saying Canada, the US, the UK and Australia are all one country today because we officially speak English.
Now if anyone was in power it would’ve been Greek or perhaps Roman Beroeans. We know that numbers of these Greek/Roman Beroeans, themselves were Christian and thus would’ve supported their fellow Christians. The remainder, being pagans, didn’t have a dog in the fight between Judaism and Christianity, but who certainly could’ve and would’ve sided with their fellow Beroeans, albeit they were Christian, if they were being unjustly put upon by foreign (Thessalonican) Jews.
They wouldn’t favour anyone who was inciting riots under the influence of foreign (Thessalonican) Jews over peacable Beroean Christians. Let’s ditch the Iranian example, which isn’t the best, I agree.
Imagine instead a situation where US citizens were rioting in some city of the US, but were clearly being provoked to do so by (for arguments’ sake) Canadians who were in that city for the purpose. Surely such riots could provide an excuse for Canada to seize control of that city, if Canadians were allowed that much power over the affairs of that US city, no? So no way would US authorities permit Canadian agents to influence affairs in that city, but would crush such riots and expel the Canadian provocateurs who started them.
Firstly, as I’ve said, the authorities in Beroea would’ve been Greek or Roman, and either pagan or Christian. So neither they nor the Jewish converts to Christianity would’ve had particuar love for the Thessalonican Jews.
Second, Christian converts in general wouldn’t have had any particularly brotherly feelings towards Jews who hadn’t converted - remember in Jerusalem the Jews (including Saul himself) were persecuting the Church from day one, and very quickly executed James. Whereas the great Roman persecutions hadn’t yet started, they didn’t start until the 60s AD under Nero.
Thirdly, we also know that the Jews went to Pilate to have Christ crucified. At that stage they certainly don’t appear to have seen Him or His followers as anything other than Jews, albeit heretical Jews. So it seems that Jews, if sufficiently provoked, had no problems turning foreign authorities on fellow Jews who were disturbing them.
From Jesus’ example they knew, as we know, that they would be persecuted merely for proclaiming His name, however loudly or softly they did so. Jesus promised as much, and indeed called those who were persecuted for His name’s sake blessed. If their reading of scripture led them to expect anything else, led them to reject that blessing that was promised them, then it led them astray.
P
PJM
Guest
FIGHT? NO:blush:
SHARE THEE TRUTH? YES [an a God given mandate] Mt.28:1920.
WWJD?
Matt.2313 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. [15] Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. [23] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. [25] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. [27] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. [29] “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,”
One does NOT defeat lies by ignoring them.
Love and prayers, always in and with Charity!
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Lily? Would you relax? There was one Empire. Rome. All these city-states were a part of the Roman empire. Period.
One Roman Empire. Just because you an I disagree doesn’t mean we need to get an attitude with one another.
In Rome, at the time, Christians and Jews were all lumped into the same category. That’s why they were all expelled at the same time from Rome some time around 49-51 AD (circa the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15).
I’m no expert on riots, but it doesn’t take too much wine to incite some people to stir up trouble against someone. Sadly, people are like that. How quickly do you see anyone who is elevated in today’s culture to be taking down just as quickly. It certainly didn’t take long for the Jews of Jerusalem to turn against Jesus during Passover week (what was it 4 or 5 days?)
In these much traveled parts of (what is now) Greece, I don’t know how easy it would be to spot someone who is from 100 miles up the road. How did these cities make a living? By Trade. Hence, there would always be travelers coming and going.
And I’m telling you that a Boroean Jew would be more cordial to a Thessalonian Jew than to a fellow Boroean who just converted from Judaism to Christianity. How often do you see people family members ostracized simply by changing religions?
You can’t compare the status between Jews and Christian in Jerusalem with anywhere else in the Empire. Jews lacked the authority, so they wouldn’t be threatened by the Christian converts as they did in Jersualem. Christian threatened the entire power base to the Jews in Jerusalem.
But not so throughout Asia Minor. They would have felt hurt by the abandonment of their faith, but no loss of power.
So, do you still feel that Timothy and Silas were part of the Brethren that turned away from the cause and sent Paul packing?
L
LilyM
Guest
There was one Empire, but it didn’t have a cookie cutter attitude towards all its subjects. Nor were all parts of the Empire alike.
I am Australian - part (still, we sadly still have the Queen of England as our head of state) of what was the British Empire. I know the Brits DIDN’T treat their Aboriginal Australian subjects the same as they did their English-descended Australian subjects, or the same as they treated their Indian or Canadian or Ghanaian or Kenyan subjects.
They didn’t use the same governing insitutions in all parts of their Empire, nor have the same level of military or other official presence in all parts of their Empire. Some countries they left relatively alone and adopted a policy more of co-operation with local authorities rather than outright conquest, others the complete opposite. And their colonies, the parts of their empire, for the most part remained VERY separate identities, as India, Canada and Australia, Ghana and Kenya, have always had.
Same with the Romans - they had a great deal of respect for Greek identity and culture, adopted a lot of facets of Greek religion among other aspects of their culture. Learning Greek (Attic Greek, spoken in Athens, of course, not the dialects) was an important sign of sophistication for a Roman citizen. They left the Greek states more intact and unmolested than other parts of the Empire like Judaea.
How easy is it for someone raised in midtown Manhattan to spot someone from New Jersey? Or even the Bronx, a matter of a few miles away, not 100? Incredibly easy - people just have to open their mouths and the difference is obvious even to non-Americans. And aren’t these parts of the world infinitely more travelled and mobile than ancient Greece could ever have been?
I’ve travelled, I know that even today in parts of the former Roman empire - in Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, France - there are incredible local variations in dialect and accent, even within distances of 100 miles, not to mention much shorter distances.
Ah, but the Jews weren’t the ones in power. The Greeks and/or Romans who were, many of whose number had converted to Christianity, would be more sympathetic to peaceful fellow Christians than rowdy Jewish troublemakers.
And Christianity also, obviously, threatened the entirety of whatever power base the Jews had in Thessalonica - otherwise they wouldn’t have been willing to follow Paul to Berea and cause trouble there. So how is the situation different in any way that makes Jews less likely to seek Roman protection against fellow Jews than they were in Jerusalem?
What power did the Jews realistically have in Jerusalem? If they’d had real power they wouldn’t have had to riotously demand Pilate to put Jesus to death on their behalf. To me that speaks of a small amount of power jealously guarded, as a child will stick no enter signs all over the door to their bedroom, not real power.
I never suggested that EVERY Berean Christian turned against Paul, nothing like. But if a majority of them, especially the ‘many’ pagan converts, had stood firm, what sway could the Thessalonians possibly have had???
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Lily, the Jewish Pharisees had overwhelming power in Jerusalem. Not secular authority, but religious authority, in a single religion region. They could ostracize any Jew they wanted to.
Outside of Jerusalem, this authority wasn’t so complete. The religiously austere Pharisees weren’t as prevalent in other areas. If you notice, in Acts, all the Jewish Christians that fought for the Mosaic Laws to be binding on all Christians came from Jerusalem.
The Jews throughout the rest of the Roman empire had to be more accommodating to the Gentiles. Whereas in Jerusalem, the Jews were the majority, throughout the rest of the realm, they were the minority. For instance, when Paul met Lydia and the others at a river, why was that? Because there weren’t the 10 families in that city that were necessary to build a synagogue. Note: either 10 or 50 families were necessary before you could build a synagogue. I can’t remember which one it was, but I think it was 10.
Outside of Jerusalem, this authority wasn’t so complete. The religiously austere Pharisees weren’t as prevalent in other areas. If you notice, in Acts, all the Jewish Christians that fought for the Mosaic Laws to be binding on all Christians came from Jerusalem.
The Jews throughout the rest of the Roman empire had to be more accommodating to the Gentiles. Whereas in Jerusalem, the Jews were the majority, throughout the rest of the realm, they were the minority. For instance, when Paul met Lydia and the others at a river, why was that? Because there weren’t the 10 families in that city that were necessary to build a synagogue. Note: either 10 or 50 families were necessary before you could build a synagogue. I can’t remember which one it was, but I think it was 10.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Lily,
I’m also of the opinion that the Greeks didn’t care a whit whether one was Christian or Jew. They were all the same to them… Monotheistic idiots.
This is how the Romans treated the two groups - as one - to the best of my knowledge.
I’m also of the opinion that the Greeks didn’t care a whit whether one was Christian or Jew. They were all the same to them… Monotheistic idiots.
This is how the Romans treated the two groups - as one - to the best of my knowledge.
L
LilyM
Guest
Except that Romans weren’t convertinng to Judaism, whereas numbers of them WERE converting to Christianity. Reflecting on that fact, they’d have to be more aware of the differences than you seem to think.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
The Romans in Rome WERE converting to Christianity. Who did St. Paul write to under their name if not the Romans?!?
And, unless one was tempted to convert, the new Christians were simply another version of that monotheistic cult to the typical Greek. What made them different from the typical Roman citizen?
Appended: I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that I could have been a little clearer. I meant the Romans in Rome lumped the Christians and Jews together. If you recall, they shared the same neighborhood (would you call it a burrough, such as Queens, New York?) in Rome when it burned under Nero.
L
LilyM
Guest
I totally agree! So were Romans and Greeks in Berea, which is why they’d be aware of the difference between Judaism and Christianity, as well as more sympathetic to the Christian Bereans.
I have to disagree here. Nero knew the difference well enough that he specifically targeted the Christians (be they Roman or Jewish or Greek or whatever), and didn’t persecute Jewish converts alone, nor did he target those Jews who hadn’t converted to Christianity.
I think this shows that they really weren’t completely lumped together.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Nero could not care a whit. He had a scape-goat and that’s all that mattered.
In circa 50AD, what is thought to be around the time of the Jerusalem Council, there was a banishment of all Jews from Rome. Consequently, the Jews and Christians were booted out. It is thought that Peter had to leave Rome at this time.
To a pagan’s eyes, you see one monotheist, you’ve seen them all.
- Status