✪ ". . . In his introduction, [Curtis] would make the candid comment that "Chastity, genuine, self-sacrificing friendship, even the inviolability of a guest . . . are unknown. It is scarcely exaggeration to say that no single noble trait redeems the Kwakiutl character."" Ref-1407, p. 83.
✪ "I'm using the term “pagan” in a technical sense for non-Biblical thinking… non-Biblical thinking, it is a technical term, it is not a pejorative term, anyone who is thinking in a non-Biblical way is guilty of pagan thinking, and we are all guilty of that at some point or another when we operate on human viewpoint thinking." Ref-1368, p. 18.212.
✪ "Occasional attempts have been made by scholars in recent years to suggest that the paganism of the late empire was marked by a kind of "philanthropy" comparable in kind, or even in scope, to the charity practiced by the Christians, but nothing could be further from the truth (as I discuss below). Pagan cult was never more tolerant than in its tolerance-without any qualms of conscience-of poverty, disease, starvation, and homelessness; of gladiatorial spectacle, crucifixion, the exposure of unwanted infants, or the public slaughter of war captives or criminals on festive occasions; of, indeed, almost every imaginable form of tyranny, injustice, depravity, or cruelty." Ref-1290, p. 121. "one finds nothing in pagan society remotely comparable in magnitude to the Christian willingness to provide continuously for persons in need, male and female, young and old, free and bound alike." Ref-1290, p. 163.
✪ ". . . . sin brought punishment, from which the British Columbia and plains’ indicates saw no way of escape unless the supernatural powers mercifully yielded to entreaty and consented to overlook the transgression. But in eastern and northern Canada many natives believed that public confession would blot out the offence, and the Iroquoians sometimes made a white dog their scapegoat, casting their sins upon this victim after strangling it in sacrifice to the unseen powers." Ref-1396, p. 174 "Their Druidic religion, however, did involve ritual torture and killing." Ref-1509, p. 11.
✪ "Europeans, realizing the brevity of man’s earthly career, regard it as a training-school for another life to come, and seek in religion a preparation for hereafter. Christianity teaches them to weigh all earthly gains and losses, all seeming good and ill, in the balance of eternity, and to forego many things that appear desirable here and how for a greater good beyond the grave. The Indians pinned little hope to the uncertain hereafter. They sought from religion help and guidance in the present life alone, . . ." Ref-1396, p. 167 "The supernatural spirits of the Indians, like the mysterious forces which they personified, might be either helpful or harmful, but they were not ethical forces in any sense. Indian thinkers hardly attacked the problem of evil in the world. The tribes on the plains considered that their All-Father was the ultimate source of both good and evil, and attempted by rituals and prayer to gain only the blessings." Ref-1396, p. 171 "Although the Indians had innumerable aetiological myths explaining, for example, how daylight began, why winter and summer alternate, why the raven is black and the sea-gull white, and why the chipmunk has stripes along its back, yet there were no true creation stories, no myths attributing to the will of a creator the genesis of stars and planets, earth and water, day and night, the seasons, animals and plants." Ref-1396, p. 188 "The deities of the various tribes were most often attached to the sun, moon and the sea." Ref-1407, p. 132. "Although the Haida prayed to the sun, unlike most Aboriginal groups, they rarely claimed any personal experience with spirits." Ref-1407, p. 140.
✪ "The very notion that polytheism is inherently more tolerant of religious differences than is "monotheism" is, as a historical claim, utterly incredible. Proof to the contrary, in fact, is so plentiful that any selection of particular examples is necessarily somewhat arbitrary." Ref-1290, p. 119.
✪ "while it is correct to deplore Christians whose behavior betrayed the morality of the faith they professed, it is also worth noting that one cannot do the same where the pagans devoted to the temple cults are concerned, since their religions had practically no morality to betray." Ref-1290, p. 45. "The European conquest of the Americans, like the conquest of other civilizations, was indeed accompanied by great cruelty. But that is to say nothing more than that the European conquest of America was, in this way, much like the rise of Islam, the Norman conquest of Britain and the widespread American Indian tradition of raiding, depopulating and appropriating neighboring lands. The real question is, What eventually grew on this bloodied soil? The answer is, the great modern civilizations of the Americas--a new world of individual rights, an ever-expanding circle of liberty and, twice in this century, a saviour of the world from totalitarian barbarism." Ref-1414, p. 32. "The European conquest of the Americans, like the conquest of other civilizations, was indeed accompanied by great cruelty. But that is to say nothing more than that the European conquest of America was, in this way, much like the rise of Islam, the Norman conquest of Britain and the widespread American Indian tradition of raiding, depopulating and appropriating neighboring lands. The real question is, What eventually grew on this bloodied soil? The answer is, the great modern civilizations of the Americas--a new world of individual rights, an ever-expanding circle of liberty and, twice in this century, a saviour of the world from totalitarian barbarism. . . . No doubt, some Indian tribes--the Hopis, for example--were tree-hugging pacifists. But the notation that pre-Columbian America was a hemisphere of noble savages is an adolescent fantasy . . ." Ref-1414, p. 32. "The worst episode in British decolonization was the “Mau-Mau” uprising in Kenya, mainly between 1951 and 1957. Mau-Mau was a highly violent movement of young Kikuyu, both landless farm labourers and men from the Nairobi shanty towns, some of whom had fought for Britain in Burma. It was directed against landowners, both Kikuyu and white. It practised intimidation, murder, mutilation, and secret oath-taking with traditional magic—believed to include bestiality and the consumption of menstrual blood, fresh semen and human flesh." Ref-1509, p. 782.
✪ "While it is true that the Jews as we know them today did not establish their independence until the twentieth century, that's also true about many of the nations in the Arab League: Saudi Arabia (1913), Lebanon (1920), Iraq (1932), Syria (1941), Jordan (1946), and Kuwait (1961). None of these nations can make a historical claim to certain borders on the basis of antiquity -- and certainly neither can the Palestinians." Ref-0160, p. 155. "Furthermore, granted that successive possession of the land of Israel was by Roman, Byzantium, Islam, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman, and British invasion, this in no way invalidated the covenanted bestowal of this territory on the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Ref-1263, p. 109
✪ Palestine - name given by Roman emperor Hadrian after the second Jewish revolt under Bar Cochba (A.D. 132-135) for the purpose of erasing any Jewish remembrance of the land as part of his policy to de-judaize the land. Not so named in scripture. "The Romans called the new province Judaea because the Jews were the majority of the population. Its official Roman name would not be Palaestina until the reign of Hadrian in the second century, though that name was often used in the first century by Greek writers and by Jews like the philosopher Philo and the historian Josephus, both of whom wrote in Greek." Ref-0150, p. 266. "[After the Bar Kochba revolt] [t]he Romans banned the name ‘Judea,’ which was derived from the Latin word for ‘Jewish’; henceforth, the province was to be known as ‘Syria-Palaestina,’ the second word being a reference to the Philistines who had once inhabited the coastal strip but had long since disappeared. The name Palaestina, or Palestine, has lasted until the twentieth century - a name that is, in itself, a negation of the Jewish right to the Holy Land." Ref-0152, p. 51. "At this time [1947] the term Palestine (the Anglicized form of the Latin name of Israel's ancient enemies, the Philistines), was applied equally to both the Jewish and Arab populations. For example, the well-known English language newspaper The Jerusalem Post was then called The Palestine Post." Ref-0160, p. 109. "The term Palestinian(s) does not appear in the foundational documents related to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflicts of the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War (Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338). Such an omission tells us that at that time, the Arabs described in these resolutions were not thought of as Palestinians." Ref-0160, p. 138. "in interviews with the Arab press in 1981 and 1984, the late King Hussein. . .stated, ‘The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.’ Yasser Arafat has stated the same thing: ‘What you call Jordan is actually Palestine.’" Ref-0160, p. 142. See also: Ref-0160, pp. 132-143. "Although Emperor Hadrian renamed Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and the land of Israel as Syria Palestina, or Palestine in A.D. 135, I generally prefer the more historic “land of Israel,” and related Hebrew titles. This is more than a matter of ancient semantics. Contrary to widespread misunderstanding, as Bernard Lewis has explained, "From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries; it was a group of provincial subdivisions, by no means always the same, within a larger entity With the British conquest in 1917-18 and the subsequent establishment of a mandated territory in the conquered areas, Palestine became the official name of a definite territory for the first time since the Middle Ages. To begin with, this designation was acceptable neither to Jews nor to Arabs. From the Jewish point of view . . . the very associations . . . were hateful. . . . For Arabs, . . . there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole. For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous at this point." James Parkes made the same point even more comprehensively: "During all this period of two thousand years, Palestine was not even a name on the political map of the world. It was a portion of a larger province, whether Roman, Byzantine, Arab or Turkish; and its people were never conscious of themselves as a national unit, nor did they ever attempt, as they had done in early and later Israelite days, to form an independent kingdom. During the long period of Islamic rule, with its kaleidoscopic changes of dynasty, no claimant to the throne fo the caliphs, or even to a separate identity, ever merged from the Palestinian population. It was the alternative prey of dynasties ruling from Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo or Istanbul. Only in the twentieth century has it resumed a separate identity, and that by the will of outsiders rather than of the majority of its own population; and the result has been conflict, uncertainty and one of the most delicate and difficult problems of modern international politics."" Ref-1263, p. 108 "The name Palestine derives from Hebrew pelištîm, translated in the Old Testament as philistines, appearing for the first time in Genesis 21:32 in the time of Abraham (ca. 2060 B.C.). It is a name used for peoples originating from Crete (=Caphtor in the OT; Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7). In early 12th century B.C. Egyptian texts the name pelset is applied to one of the groups of Sea Peoples who migrated from the Aegean to the eastern Mediterranean coast. At that time the pelištîm/pelset group settled in the southwest coastal area of Canaan, thus the region became known as pelešeṯ, Philistia (Ps. 60:8; 87:4; 108:9). The Assyrian king Sargon II (721-705 B.C.) referred to the area as Palasshtu or Pilistu in his annals. In the fifth century B.C. the Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a “district of Syria called Palaistinê,” from which came the names Palaestina and Palestine. Following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt in the second century A.D., the Romans replaced the name Provincia Judea for the region with Syria Palaestina, which was shortened to Palaestina/Palestine. The name continued in use through the Byzantine (A.D. 324-638) and Arab (A.D. 638-1516) periods, then fell out of use in the Ottoman period (A.D. 1516-1917), when the Turks named the province after various ruling capitals. The name was revived by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and applied to the territory placed under British Mandate between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Since the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948, the term Palestinian has been employed for Arab-speaking peoples of the area, including Muslims, Christians, Druze and Samaritans. Modern Palestinians descend from a mixture of the ancient inhabitants and those who have settled in the region since." Bryant G. Wood, We Hear You!, Ref-0066, Vol. 23 No. 4 (2010), 86-87, pp. 86-87. "The name “Palestine” derives from the Hebrew pelištîm, translated in the Old Testament as Philistines, appearing for the first time in Genesis 21:32 in the time of Abraham (ca. 2060 BC). It is a name used for peoples originating from Create (=Caphtor in the OT; Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7). In early 12th century BC Egyptian texts, the name pelset is applied to one of the groups of Sea Peoples who migrated from the Aegean to the eastern Mediterranean coast. At that time the pelištîm/pelset group settled in the southwest coastal area of Canaan, thus the region became known as pelešeṯ. Philistia (Ps. 60:8; 87:4; 108:9). The Assyrian king Sargon II (721-705 BC) referred to the area as Palasshtu or Plistu in his annals. In the fifth century BC the Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a “district of Syria called Palaistinē,” from which came the names Palaestina and Palestine. Following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt in the second century AD, the Romans replaced the name Provincia Judea for the region with Syria Palaestina, which was shortened to Palaestina/Palestine. The name continued in use through the Byzantine (AD 324-638) and Arab (AD 638-1516) periods, then fell out of use in the Ottoman period (AD 1516-1917), when the Turks named the province after various ruling capitals. The name was revived by the british after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and applied to the territory placed under British Mandate between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Since the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948, the term Palestinian has been employed for Arab-speaking peoples of the area, including Muslims, Christians, Druze and Samaritans. Modern Palestinians descend from a mixture of the ancient inhabitants and those who have settled in the region since." We Hear You, Ref-0066, Vol. 25 No. 2 Spring 2012, p. 31. "For years most of us have been taught that the term “Palestinian” comes from the old Hebrew word for the Philistines, but that's not true. I have a friend, Randy Price, he's done some remarkable work on this and in the Greek Septuagint, when the Jewish rabbis translated the term Philistine into Greek they did not use the Greek word that's the root of Palestine, they used a transliteration, it's still basically the same, Philistino, and what happen is that the Greeks who loved word games . . . loved puns and word plays, used a word, Palesteuo, which means to wrestle. . . . Remember Jacob got his name, Israel, because he wrestled with God at Peniel, so they chose a name, “wrestler,” in order to describe the land of Israel and that term not only described Israel but they chose it because it sounded like Philistine, but it was used by people like Josephus and other Jews throughout the period from the 1st-century BC on into the 1st-century AD, to describe the land that belonged to Israel. So the term “Palestine” itself does not belong to anybody other than the Jews. In fact, in recent history there was a Palestinian brigade that fought for the British during World War II and it was all Jewish. And the term “Palestinian” was used by the U.N. to describe Jews up until the mid 1960s." Ref-1368, p. 31.367.
✪ Questionable: Zec. 14:16 (?);
✪ "As early as Papias, Mark is said to have set down in writing Peter's account of the sayings and doings of the Lord." Ref-0073, p. 257.
✪ "One may deem it as somewhat ironic that the parable which Jesus took time to interpret for his disciples has debated interpretations today. Jesus said, “Do you not understand this parable, and how will you understand all the parables?” (Mark 4:13)." Marcia Hornok, Excavating the Parable of the Sower: Discerning Jesus’ Ministry, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), pp. 185-204, p. 194. "Many Bible commentaries assert that Jesus depicted the responses [Mat. 13:3-9,18-23] that four different categories of people will have to the gospel, concluding, “The gospel will be rejected by most people.” Some claim that only the last soil portrays a believer because it produces fruit. Others assert that only the first soil type represents an unbeliever because the seed germinates in the other three. Therefore, the parable is used as a turning point for evaluating whether people are saved, unsaved, carnal, persevering, or even not saved, but think they are. The conflicting interpretations result from classifying the four soils as unbelievers and the seed as the message of the gospel. Is that what Jesus intended?" Marcia Hornok, Excavating the Parable of the Sower: Discerning Jesus’ Ministry, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), pp. 185-204, p. 185. "Mark Bailey demonstrated that one must understand the setting of a parable, uncover the need that prompted it, and discern the central truth of the parable in its relationship to the kingdom. He wrote, “The central truth can be identified by understanding what question, occasion, problem, or need is portrayed in the historical setting. This question or problem will usually relate to Jesus’ disciples or to His opponents, and therefore is related to the revealing and concealing purposes of the parables.”" Marcia Hornok, Excavating the Parable of the Sower: Discerning Jesus’ Ministry, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), pp. 185-204, p. 186. "Many claim that only the people represented by the good soil are saved because they say that fruit is the necessary result of true conversion. The interpretation would be the position most Reformed theologians affirm and has also been called “Lordship Salvation.” Others say only the people represented by the hard soil are not saved because in the other three soils the seed germinates, producing life. Bible teachers affirming this interpretation have been designated as having a “Free-Grace” Soteriology. The purpose of this article is not to join that debate but to argue that the parable has a much larger purpose than to classify individuals as to their eternal destiny." Marcia Hornok, Excavating the Parable of the Sower: Discerning Jesus’ Ministry, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), pp. 185-204, p. 187. "Although the previously identified scholars are well respected, and deservedly so, they limit the meaning that Jesus gave to the seed. When Jesus interpreted the parable, He stated that the seed is the “word of the kingdom” (Matt. 13:19) the “word” (Mark 4:14), and (by direct statement in Luke 8:11) “the seed is the word [Gr. logos] of God.” If Jesus had been talking only with regard to becoming a believer in Him, then He could have said that the seed was the “gospel” (Gr. euanggelion). He had previously claimed to preach the gospel to the poor when He quoted from Isaiah in Matthew 11:5 and Luke 7:22. As a result of the terminology in the Synoptics, one can conclude that the seed refers to God’s word, which includes all truth from God. Sometimes the seed contains the gospel, which is part of God’s truth, but the seed should not be viewed as only the gospel of salvation." Marcia Hornok, Excavating the Parable of the Sower: Discerning Jesus’ Ministry, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), pp. 185-204, p. 189. "Finally, in Jesus’ conclusion to the parable, He could not have been referring to salvation or the gospel. Each Synoptic account of the parable included his admonition: “For whoever has [truth from God, not salvation], to him shall more [truth, not salvation] be given, and he shall have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him” (Matt 13:12; cf. Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18). Mark added, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given” (Mark 4:24, NKJV). Jesus was not speaking with regard to getting more salvation or of having salvation taken. He was referring, in a broad sense, to the truth one either receives or refuses." Marcia Hornok, Excavating the Parable of the Sower: Discerning Jesus’ Ministry, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), pp. 185-204, p. 191. "The concept of using or losing the truth God gives is an important doctrine that Jesus presented in other contexts: the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30), the parable of the faithful and wise steward (Luke 12:42-48), and the parable of the minas (Luke 19:12-27). The three parables, in addition to the parable of the sower, contain the same principle: if one uses what God gives, He will give more; if one does not use what God gives, it will be taken (Matt 13:12; 25:28-29; Mark 4:24-25; Luke 8:18; 12:48; 19:24-26)." Marcia Hornok, Excavating the Parable of the Sower: Discerning Jesus’ Ministry, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), pp. 185-204, p. 191. "Jesus’ interpretation demonstrates that the seed that germinates cannot equal merely the epiphany of salvation (although at times it does). In context, the seed germinating has the broader meaning of a light being illuminated; it does not limit itself to the spiritual birth of salvation. Likewise, the fruit produced cannot equal a believer’s works, thus proving his or her salvation. In context, the fruit results from responding positively to the light (God’s revealed truth) so that God illumines more truth." Marcia Hornok, Excavating the Parable of the Sower: Discerning Jesus’ Ministry, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), pp. 185-204, pp. 191-192. "Responding to God’s truth and being saved is a one-time experience. The parable deals with every experience of hearing, not merely the one that results in salvation. Each time God’s truth is disseminated, all who hear it have a choice to respond, with various intensity, or not to respond." Marcia Hornok, Excavating the Parable of the Sower: Discerning Jesus’ Ministry, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), pp. 185-204, p. 194.
✪ "The Jewish ritual of the wedding ceremony gives the proper background for understanding the parable. First, the parents arranged the marriage. Second, the betrothal period took place to test whether the marital parties would maintain their virginity. Third, the groom and his friends would travel to the bride's home. Fourth, the marriage ceremony would transpire at the bride's home. Fifth, the bridesmaids would travel to the bridegroom's home to await the return of the couple. Thus, the bridesmaids prepared in advance by bringing sufficient oil for their lamps to await this event. Sixth, the marriage festival would last seven days. Seventh, the marriage would be consummated." Andy Woods, "The Purpose of Matthew's Gospel, Part II", Ref-0785, Volume 11 Number 34 December 2007, 5:42, p. 35n76.
✪ "This marriage feast is an illustration of the kingdom (cf. Mat. 8:11; Isa. 25:6) prophesied in the Old Testament. . . . When the feast was almost prepared, the call to those who had been invited was issued (Mat. 22:3) This call probably portrays the ministries of John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus. But Israel was “unwilling to come” (v. 3).The next invitation to the nation (v. 9) was given by the apostles both before and after the Lord's crucifixion, and their invitation too was rejected by many. The call to go to the “main highways” refers to the message going to the Gentiles." Stanley D. Toussaint and Jay Q. Quine, No, Not Yet: The Contingency of God's Promised Kingdom, Ref-0200, Vol. 164 No. 654 April-June 2007, 131:147, pp. 140-141.
✪ Determine the one central truth the parable is attempting to teach. This might be called the golden rule of parabolic interpretation for practically all writers on the subject mention it with stress. ‘The typical parable presents one single point of comparison,’ writes Dodd. ‘The details are not intended to have independent significance.’ Others have put the rule this way: Don't make a parable walk on all fours. Ref-0015, p. 283. See also Ref-0117, pp. 549-551.
✪ In 1Th. 4:14, Paul states that God ‘will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.’ Evidently they are already with Him prior to the rapture.
✪ "it is a term describing the abode of the righteous ones, no matter where that above may be at any point in time. . . . from Adam until the Ascension of Jesus, Paradise was in Abraham's Bosom. From the Ascension of Jesus until the end of the the Millennium, Paradise is in Heaven. Then, after the Millennium and for all eternity, Paradise will be in the New Jerusalem on the new earth." Ref-0219, pp. 755-756.
✪ See pastor - terms. "Knox himself did not absolutely reject episcopacy . . . A new champion of presbyterianism arose, whose opposition to all prelacy was uncompromising. This was Andrew Melville, who returned to Scotland from studies in Geneva in 1574, was exiled by James VI (James I of England) in 1607, and died at Sedan in 1622. At his prompting the General Assembly stated in 1576: ‘The name of bishop is common to all who are appointed to take charge of a particular flock.’" Ref-1096, p. 305.
✪ See pastor - terms.
✪ See pastor - terms.
✪ See pastor - terms.
✪ See pastor - terms.
✪ See pastor - elder (presbuteros), pastor - bishop or overseer (episkopos), pastor - shepherd (poimen), pastor - teacher (didaskalos). "Scripture is quite clear that these descriptive titles relate to the same pastoral office. The terms elder and bishop are synonymous in Acts 20:17,28 and Tit. 1:5-7. The terms elder, bishop, and shepherd are synonymous in 1Pe. 5:1-2. The leadership role of elders is also evident in the shepherdly activity of Jas. 5:14. As clearly noted by Lightfoot, in biblical times elder and bishop were synonymous terms." Ref-0052, p. 39. The elders of Acts 20:17 are called bishops in Acts 20:28 and are to shepherd the church of God. "Overseers and deacons are called to lead the church. As is clear from Acts 20:17, 28 and Titus 1:5,7, overseer is another term for elder, the most common New Testament name for the office (cf. Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 23; James 5:14). Elders are also referred to as pastors (or shepherds; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-2), pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11), and bishops (cf. Acts 20:28, marg.; 1 Tim. 3:2, marg.)." Ref-0188, p. 14. "Paul provides another line of Scriptural evidence that the position of elder, overseer, and pastor are one and the same. In 1 Timothy Paul disclosed the qualifications of the “overseer” (1Ti. 3:1-7). In introducting the qualifications of the “overseer” he uses the Greek word episkopos in verse 2. However in 1Ti. 5:17 Paul uses the word presbuteros when he speaks of those who rule the church. Thus he alternates from episkopos in chapter 3 to presbuteros in chapter 5, demonstrating once again the correlation of the term elder and overseer. Paul also utilizes thee words in a similar fashion in his epistle to Titus. Once again the context is the qualifications of “elders” (Tit. 1:5-16). Paul says in verse 5, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders [presbuterous] in every city as I directed you.” In verse 7 thought, Paul switches to the term episkopos when he writes, “For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward.” Again, Paul is equating the position of elder and overseer. Paul is not alone in equating these terms. Peter does likewise. In his first epistle Peter talks about the duty of an “elder.” He writes, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you” (1Pe. 5:1). The word “elder” here is presbuteros. In continuing his exhortation Peter tells the elders to “shepherd the flock of God.” “Shepherd” is poimaino. Thus Peter equates “elder” with the one who pastors. Further, in 1 Peter. 2:25 Peter refers to Christ as “the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.” “Shepherd” is ποιμεν and “Guardian” is Overseer." Joshua Bailey, Ref-1217, pp. 8-9.
✪ "More and more do I see that our supreme duty is to submit ourselves unreservedly unto Him. He will make His way plain and clear, and to attempt to anticipate or to be over-concerned about it all or even to think too much about it is lack of faith. How glad we should be that we are in God's hands and that He determines our ways. What foolish mistakes and blunders we would often make. How kind and good He is to restrain us and to order our circumstances as He knows best. Nothing is better or gives greater joy and happiness than to be able to say, He knows the way He taketh and I will walk with Him." Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Ref-0935, p. 181.
✪ "father who rules" Ref-0025, p. 89.
✪ Questionable: Acts 23:11 (?);
✪ See Paul - vs. Peter in Acts.
✪ ". . .tradition suggests that he was born in the second year after the birth of Christ. Picirilli cites a tradition based on an inference in a sermon attributed to Chrysostom, that Paul died in the year 66 at the age of sixty-eight. That would place his birth in 2 BC." Ref-0105, p. 103. "A Vatican archeaologist believes he has rediscovered the tomb of St. Paul, buried deep beneath the main altar of the Rome basilica dedicated to the apostle. The sarcophagus, which lay hidden for centuries, had a hole into which the faithful could stick pieces of cloth to make secondary relics, said Giorgio Filippi, the archaeologist and inscriptions expert at the atican Museums who carried out the studies. The tombe lies directly beneath a historic inscription that reads: “Paul Apostle Martyr.” The marble sarcophagus was apparently first placed there during reconstruction of the basilica in A.D. 390. . . . Tradition holds that St. Paul suffered martyrdom by beheading in the first century, and that his body was buried in a cemetary along the Via Ostiense, where the basilica was built. A church was first erected there in A.D. 320, and a larger basilica was constructed in 390; it was remodeled several times over the centuries and almost totally destroyed by fire in 1823." - John Thavis, Archaeologist Says He Has Found St. Paul's Tomb, Ref-0066, Vol. 18 No. 3 (2005), p. 95.
✪ In the Acts of Paul, Paul is described as a short, bald man with a large nose and bowlegged. Ref-0075. 311. "One of the apocryphal ‘Acts’, however, the ‘Acts of Paul’, while admittedly a romance of the second century, is interesting because of a pen-portrait of Paul which it conains, and which, because of its vigorous and unconventional character, was thought by Sir William Ramsay to embody a tradition of the apostle's appearance preserved in Asia Minor. Paul is described as ‘a man small in size, with meeting eyebrows, with a rather large nose, baldheaded, bow-legged, strongly built, full of grace, for at times he looked like a man, and at times he had the face of an angel’." Ref-0239, p. 24.
✪ Although Paul and Barnabas separated over the issue of John Mark, they maintained fellowship afterward as shown by 1Cor. 9:6 (written during the 3rd missionary journey) and Col. 4:10
✪ After the separation of Acts 15:39, Paul was later reconciled to Mark (Col. 4:10; 2Ti. 4:11; Phm. 1:24)
✪ Some postulate that his thorn may have been related to his vision -- possibly related to his experience on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:8,18). Questionable: Rom. 16:22 (?);
✪ "Here is a brief chronology of Paul’s letters. The first letter he wrote was the Book of Galatians, about a.d. 49. The next two letters he wrote around the same period and in very close proximity to one another are First and Second Thessalonians around a.d. 51. Then later came the two Corinthian letters and Romans (a.d. 56–57). These letters were then followed by his “prison letters” (Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians) written from a.d. 60–62. Finally, late in his ministry, Paul wrote letters to pastors, such as First Timothy and Titus (a.d. 62) and 2 Timothy (a.d. 67)." Andy Woods, 2 Thess. 2:3: Spiritual or Physical Departure?, Ref-1403, pp. 3-4.
✪ Some events in the Pauline epistles cannot be fitted into the record of Acts: (1) Paul left Trophimus sick in Miletus (2Ti. 4:20) (2) Paul left some things in Troaz (2Ti. 4:13) (3) Paul had a ministry in Crete (Tit. 1:5) (3) Prison situation differs between early imprisonment and later: (a) conditions were very harsh (2Ti. 2:9) (b) by the time of the second imprisonment Paul was forsaken by Demos (2Ti. 4:10) (c) instead of expecting release, he was now expecting martyrdom (2Ti. 4:6-8) Ref-0100, Tape 23:B.
✪ Possible fourth missionary Journey included stops at (1) Colossi (Phm. 1:22), Macedonia (Php. 2:24; 1Ti. 1:3); Ephesus (1Ti. 3:14), Spain (Rom. 15:24,28), Crete (Tit. 1:5), Corinth (2Ti. 4:20), Miletus (2Ti. 4:20), Troas (2Ti. 4:13), Decapolis (Tit. 3:12). Ref-0100, Tape 23:B.
✪ From Greek Pauo (to become small) and Doulos (bond slave).
✪ According to Num. 6:18, a Nazirite vow required the hair to be cut at the door of the tabernacle of meeting, which would have corresponded to the location of the Temple at the time of Paul. This would seem to infer his vow of Acts 18:18 was not a formal Nazirite vow. Questionable: Acts 18:18 (?); Acts 21:24 (?);
✪ "The exact rights of Roman citizens are not fully known. It seems that at least they (1) field preferential positions in the army, (2) may have been taxed at lower rates than were non-citizens, (3) could not, if arrested, be beaten or otherwise tortured, (4) had the right to appeal legal cases to the imperial court, and (5) could not be executed by crucifixion, except in the case of desertion from the army. See A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), and Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 144-85." Ref-1200, p. 90n21.
✪ Paul was not renamed as some teach, but being a Jew of the dispursion, had both a Hebrew-Jewish name (Saul) and a Latin-Gentile name (Paul). He begins using his Gentile name when he begins his Gentile ministry. Ref-0100, Tape 12:B.
✪ It is unclear whether Paul actually died (2Cor. 11:25) and was restored after his stoning (Acts 14:19).
✪ A 40 mile trip the day following Paul's stoning. Ref-0100, Tape 13:B.
✪ a) observance of feasts regulated by the temple, Acts 20:6 b) religious Nazirite vow, Acts 18:18 c) purification rites, sponsored four proselytes, Acts 21:22-26; 24:16 d) offering sacrifices at the temple, Acts 21:26; 24:17 e) prayer and worship at the temple, Acts 22:17; 24:11 f) regard for the priesthood, Acts 23:5 g) paid temple tax, Acts 24:17 h) professed ceremonial purity, Acts 24:18 i) did not violate customs of ‘our fathers’, Acts 28:17 "John Townsend stated in his Harvard dissertation on this point: ‘Since Paul sets the desecration of the Temple beside the ultimate blasphemy of proclaiming oneself to be God [2Th. 2:4] and since he regards these acts as the climax of the evil which is to precede the parousia [Christ's second coming], there can be no doubt of Paul's veneration for this Temple.’" Ref-0146, p. 491. "Paul observed the feasts according to the temple calendar (Acts 20:6). He made religious vows (a Nazirite vow) (Acts 18:18). He participated in ritual purification rites--in one case involving four other proselytes (Acts 21:23-26; 24:18). He made payment of ceremonial expenses, which accounted as a mitzvah, “a legally obligated good deed” (Acts 21:24). He offered sacrifices at the temple (Acts 21:26; 24:17). He prayed and worshiped at the temple (Acts 22:17; 24:11). He had regard for the priesthood (Acts 23:5). He paid the temple tax (Acts 24:17). He sought to prove to the elders in the Jerusalem church that he was as devout as any Jew toward the temple; he assisted others in performing their temple obligations (Acts 21:23-26). He insisted on regulating his life by the temple calendar (the feast days), even interrupting his own missionary work (Acts 20:16; 1 Corinthians 16:8). When he was tried before the Jewish authorities, he defended himself by affirming his ceremonial purity in relation to the temple (Acts 25:8; 28:17). When he uses the analogy of the temple in his letters, he does so on the basis of the temple’s sanctity, relating it with the sanctification of the individual believer’s body, and the collective body of believers (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16-17; Ephesians 2:21-22)." Ref-1326, p. 97.
✪ Although in Actso 20:25,37 Paul did not expect to return to Ephesus, it appears from 1Ti. 1:3; 3:14; 4:13 that he did so. Ref-0100, Tape 18:B.
✪ (1) Both healed a man born lame, Peter (Acts 3:6-7), Paul (Acts 14:8-10). (2) Both heal through indirect media, Peter via a shadow (Acts 5:15), Paul via handkerchiefs (Acts 19:11-12). (3) Both impart the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, Peter (Acts 8:14-17), Paul (Acts 19:6). (4) Both oppose a sorcerer, Peter (Acts 8:20), Paul (Acts 13:6-12). (5) Both were worshiped, Peter (Acts 10:25), Paul (Acts 14:11-13). (6) Both miraculously released from prison, Peter (Acts 12:7-11), Paul (Acts 16:26-29). (7) Both raised the dead, Peter (Acts 9:36-42), Paul (Acts 20:9-12). (8) Both rendered swift judgment, Peter (Acts 5:4-5,9-10), Paul (Acts 13:11). (9) Both have one complete sermon recorded by Luke, Peter (Acts 2:14-40), Paul (Acts 13:16-41) (10) Both entrusted with gospel to people groups, Peter to Jews (Gal. 2:7-8), Paul to Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Gal. 2:7-8). What Peter did by apostolic authority so did Paul -- this authenticates his apostolic authority (2Cor. 11:5; 12:11-12). Ref-0100, Tape 1:A/B. See also Stanley Toussaint's chart in Ref-0038, p. 2:349b.
✪ ". . . some today base their views concerning acceptance of the sign gifts on the idea that the authors of Scripture did not know that they were writing Scripture. A good example of this is Daniel Wallace, author of the fine Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. When writing on the grammar of 1 Corinthians 13:10, Wallace stated: ‘Although there can be no objection to the τέλειον referring to the completion of the canon grammatically (for the adj. would naturally be neuter if it referred to a thing, even if the inferred noun were feminine, such as γραφή), it is difficult to see such a notion in this passage, for this view presupposes that (1) both Paul and the Corinthians knew that he was writing scripture, and (2) the apostle foresaw the completion of the NT before the Lord’s return.’ . . . The first point is easily refuted by simply looking a little later in 2 Peter to chapter 3 verses 15-16 where Peter plainly said that Paul was writing Scripture. Therefore, it seems clear that they did know that Scripture was being written and that it was just as authoritative as were the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul also certainly knew that he and the other apostles were mortal, which would mean that at one point the revelatory process would end by necessity. Therefore, both of the charges against what Wallace himself claimed to be grammatically acceptable can be easily understood and explained . . ." Cliff Allcorn, On the Futility of Accepting the Charismatic Sign Gifts for Current Use, Ref-0066, Vol. 24 No. 3, Summer 2011, 61-79, pp. 75-76.