SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : concerning baptism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I have such difficulty with your defense of Westcott and Hort, and the rest of their ilk. My Interlinear Greek English New Testament –3rd Edition by Jay P. Green, Sr. that relies on the Textus Receptus only DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU AND YOUR "SLANT" ON WHAT THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ACTUALLY SAYS, IT REFUTES WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED (AGAIN).


Jay P Green based his interlinear on a text 'reconstructed by F H A Scrivener in 1894' (see introductory notes on page xii of Green's 3rd edition) Scrivener is my favourite editor, but do you understand what Scrivener was doing in his edition of 1894? He set out to 'construct' the text from which the KJV was translated. It is hardly surprising that his Greek text of 1894 supports the KJV when that is what he had set out to do. If you read the introductory notes you will discover that there are more than 250 differences between Scrivener's reconstructed text and that of the Stephen's text. (technically the phrase 'Received Text' was not used of Stephen's text but of that of Elzivir.) Green specifically draws attention to occasions when Scrivener has a version which is 'without any MSS support at all'.

I do not 'support' Westcott and Hort but neither do I believe them to be the Machiavellian conspirators portrayed by the KJV-only tribe. If you are ever able to get hold of the exegetical commentaries of Westcott you will find a man who exalted Christ and His work and who displays an intense personal loyalty to Orthodox faith.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/10 4:38Profile









 Re:

TO: PHILOGOS

FROM: STEVER

Again, I am in total disagreement that you even consider the works of Westcott and Hort. If I wanted to know about a major figure in history, I would not only read what they themselves put into print, I would also read what others both inside and outside of their sphere of influence had to say about them. And finally I would look at the fruit that their lives had brought forth. I have previously posted the comments of major players that knew both men (Westcott & Hort), as well as their own letters and notes to each other and other people, as well as a book written by the son of one of these men. I was challenged on that information, and when I posted the footnotes that backed up the information, I never heard one word from you.

Everything that I posted about these two men is enough for most people to walk away from them and their work and have nothing to do with either. By looking at the fruit of these two men, I see nothing but disaster. Now, when Christians read their Bible, they are all reading different versions, all spawned by Westcott and Hort, with different meanings. Their "fruit" has been confusion. Just go into any Church on a Sunday Morning and when the Pastor asks the congretation to read alound a specific verse, or group of verses, they are all reading something different. Their fruit has been the tower of babel.

Now, in regards to your illustration about washed and loosed I find it to be in error. Scriveners translation of Rev 1:5 & Stephens translation both have used the Greek word LOUSANTI (Washed) [not LUO, BUT LOU) that consists of:

Scrivener
1:5 kai apo ihsou cristou o martuv o pistov o prwtotokov
ek twn nekrwn kai o arcwn twn basilewn thv ghv tw agaphsanti
hmav kai LOUSANTI hmav apo twn amartiwn hmwn en tw aimati
autou

Compare that to Stephens
Stephens Textus Receptus
Rev 1:5
1:5 kai apo ihsou cristou o martuv o pistov o prwtotokov
ek twn nekrwn kai o arcwn twn basilewn thv ghv tw agaphsanti
hmav kai LOUSANTI hmav apo twn amartiwn hmwn en tw aimati
autou

Strong's Number: 3068
Transliterated: LOUO
Phonetic: loo'-o

Text: a primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas 3538 means to wet a part only, and 4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively): --wash.


Strong's Number: 3089
Transliterated: LUO
Phonetic: loo'-o

Text: a primary verb; to "loosen" (literally or figuratively): --break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-)loose, melt, put off. Compare 4486.




This is an analysis that goes into Burgon's analysis of the text, that supports the King James position:

From Jesus Christ --- who has washed us from our sins in His own blood."

Some of the modern translations follow the Critical Texts, Mde, Aleph, A, C, the Old Latin h and z; the Syrian Philoxenian and Harklean; the Armenian; Tyconius, Primasius, Cassiodorus, and Andrew's “a” commentary, and read, “having loosed or freed,” “lusanti,” the aorist active participle of “luo,” to loose, to release. However, though the Critical Texts read, “loosed us out of,” (“ek”), the majority of texts read, “washed us from,” (“apo”). Hodges and Farstad follow the A.V. and T.R., “washed,” “lousanti,” which occurs in the uncials P, 046, 94, and 1006; MOST MINUSCULES, i.e. Mac; the Old Latin, dem, div, gig, haf, and t; the Vulgate; the COPTIC BOHAIRIC, the Ethiopian; the bav and c commentaries of ANDREW OF CAESAREA, WHO DIED 614 A.D.(Arethas, Mb, and Andrew c, read “elousen;” the third person singular first aorist active indicative of “louo,” “to bathe.”)

“Washed us,” “lousanti,” is the aorist active participle of “louo;” “to bathe and wash the whole body,” (see Jn.13v10. Tit.3v5.); as distinct from “nipto,” washing part of the body. See Jn.13v5,6,8., all the apostles, except Judas, were bathed and clean, and needed only to wash their feet, if they were defiled from their contact with an evil world. The aorist participle points to the point of time when we received the double blessing of justification, and release from guilt, through faith in Jesus, and the cleansing power of His precious redeeming blood. 1Pet.1v18,19. Rev.12v11. The Greek “en,” means “in,” in the phrase “in His blood,” “en toi haimati;” “washed in Thy blood,” makes much better sense than, “loosed in Thy blood.” This reading is confirmed by the fact that in Rev.5v9. and 7v14., saints are definitely said to wash their robes white in the blood of the Lamb.

On page b-29 of "unholy hands on the bible," a compilation of burgon's works, the following comment is made on rev.1v5. In favour of the authorised version reading “washed.” “the beautiful expression which has found its way into so many tender passages relating to christian devotion, 'who has washed us from our sins in his own blood' has been replaced in many critical editions by 'who has loosed us from our sins by his blood.' in early times a purist scribe, who had a dislike of anything that savoured of provincial retention of aeolian or dorian pronunciations, wrote from unconscious bias 'u' for 'ou', thereby transcribing 'lusanti' instead of the correct 'lousanti', unless he were not a greek scholar enough to understand the difference. And he was followed by others, especially those who, whether from their own prejudices or due to sympathy with the scruples of other people, but in any case under the influence of a slavish literalism, hesitated about a passage in which they did not rise to the precious meaning really conveyed in it. So we find the three uncials which are nearest the point of corruption adopt it, and they are followed by nine cursives, the harkleian syriac, and the armenian versions. On the other side are two uncials b/2 of the eighth century and p of the ninth, and the vulgate, bohairic, ethiopic versions - and what is most important, all the other cursives.” End of quote.



God bless,

Stever



 2005/7/11 1:34









 Re:

To: Philogos

From: Stever

Who exactly were Westcott & Hort? We all know about their "work", that created the NIV. What were they really like? What did their characters consist of? The following is from the book "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones:

AN ASSESSMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT - THEIR CHARACTERS

The naturalistic critics say that Erasmus could not have been providentially
guided in the editing of the Textus Receptus because he was a humanist and a
Roman Catholic. They purport that Westcott and Hort were epoch making
scholars directly guided by God'sprovidence to restore the New Testament,
having completed their assignment in 1881. However, if we compare the
character of Erasmus to those of Westcott and Hort, we shall see that such a
declaration is vacuous and specious. It thus becomes necessary to draw a
contrast between the lives of Messers B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort with
Erasmus in order to evaluate these charges and claims of the critics as well
as to grasp the full impact of this exposé.

Westcott, an Anglican Bishop and professor at Cambridge University, and
Hort - also an ordained Anglican priest and professor at Cambridge - came to
participate on the 1881 Revision Committee of the King James Bible under the
guise of being Protestant scholars. Actually, they were very Roman Catholic
in doctrine, belief, and practice. Both conservative and liberal branches of
Christendom hold Westcott and Hort in high esteem as if God had greatly used
these men to reestablish and restore the text of the Bible. However, it is
most difficult to believe that God would use two men to perform such a task
who did not believe that the Bible was the verbal Word of God.

Westcott and Hort maintained that they had raised New Testament textual
criticism to the level of an exact science. Thus when they concluded that
the Traditional Text was late and a composite reading resulting from
combining older text-types, they affirmed that this should be regarded as
the true explanation with the same degree of reliance as one would esteem a
Newtonian theorem. Indeed, they asserted that their work had been so
scientifically and carefully executed that there could never be more than
one change per thousand words. Nevertheless, today most liberal (or lost)
modern scholars say that they no longer agree completely with the
Westcott-Hort theory. Kurt Aland, a foremost leader of the modern school, is
representative when he admits to this in saying "We still live in the world
of Westcott and Hort with our conception of different recensions and
text-types although this conception has lost its raison d' être, or, it
needs at least to be newly and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase
of the documentary evidence and the entirely new areas of research which
wereopened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean the end of Westcott
and Hort's conception."

Still, these same liberals always begin their own investigations with the
acceptance of most of the basic W-H tenants. Sadly, most conservative scholars
have accepted the W-H theory of textual history - largely because most
Christian scholars fear scholastic and intellectual ridicule. To stand against
the tide carries with it the stigma of appearing uninformed and
non-progressive, resulting in the loss of credibility and status among one's
peers. The man of God should never allow his faith to be intimidated by
so-called "scholarship" - for God promised to preserve His Word.

From published letters written by Westcott and Hort, either to each other or
to family members, the following has been gleaned. On one occasion, Mr.
Westcott was near a monastery and, upon going into the chapel, found a
pieta. In writing from France to his fiancee in 1847 concerning the event he
wrote: "Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours." As he was not
alone, he had to refrain for to have so done would have revealed just how
Roman his beliefs actually were. On November 17, 1865 he wrote to Archbishop
Benson remarking, "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry
bears witness." He stated that the fall o fman was an allegory covering a long
succession of evolutions. He rejected Genesis 1-3 as a literal history and
also denied the fall of man. Westcott felt all women should be named "Mary" so
that his wife Sarah, at his request, added "Mary" to her name and he ever so
addressed her. Does that sound like a Protestant?

With regard to spiritual authority in general and especially the Bible's
being the final authority, Mr. Hort said: "Evangelicals seem to me perverted
rather than untrue." On October 17, 1865 Hort wrote "I have been persuaded
for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus-worship' have very much in
common in their causes and their results". Hort praised his "prayer boxes"
which he carried about with him. These contained statues (idols) to which he
prayed. Confessing in a 26 October, 1867 letter to Dr. Lightfoot that he was
a staunch sacerdotalist, Hort wrote to Westcott regarding the Protestant's
teaching of the "priesthood of the believer" as being a "crazy horror"! He
believed neither in a literal Garden of Eden nor that Adam's fall differed
in any degree from that of any of his descendents. In a March 4, 1890 letter
to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament Criticism, Westcott gave
his "amen" to Hort's last sentiment by penning: "No one now, I suppose,
holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal
history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes
could think they did."

Although not wishing to be under the dominion of the Pope, in writing to
Rev. John Ellerton on July 6, 1848, Hort said: "the pure Romanish view seems
to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the evangelical
view. ... We dare not for sake the sacraments or God will forsake us." In a
December 14, 1846 letter to his father, Hort wrote " ... Methodism ... is
worse than popery ...being more insidious", and in an 1864 correspondence to
Bishop Westcott he stated his conviction that "Protestantism is only
parenthetical and temporary". Indeed, Hort wrote Westcott (December 4, 1861)
of preferring Greek philosophy and "it's precious truth" to the Christian
revelation in which he said he found "... nothing, and should be very much
astonished and perplexed to find anything".

Both W&H came under the influence of J.H. Newman, an Anglican Bishop who
returned to the Roman church and was made Cardinal.Newman held a doctrine of
angelology in which he taught the gnostic view that there were many
intermediates between God and His creation. Westcott and Hort also fell
under the spell of Coleridge and Maurice, two Unitarians who were
pantheistic and metaphysical, holding low estimates of "inspiration of
Scripture". Coleridge said "Reason was the divine logos."

Frederick Maurice was the son of a Unitarian minister and a brilliant
student of Oxford and Cambridge. Having become a clergyman in the Church of
England, he was dismissed as principal of King's College, London, on charges
of heresy. Maurice had a commanding influence on many of the leaders of his
day, especially Dr. Hort who wrote of him November 8, 1871: "... Mr. Maurice
has been a dear friend of mine for twenty-three years, and I have been
deeply influenced by his books". Westcott also admitted he owed much to the
writings of Maurice, and Hort's son wrote of his father: "In undergraduate
days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge".

Thus we have two Anglican priests whose stated beliefs were strongly Roman.
Both accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. Writing to Rev. John Ellerton,
April 3, 1860, Hort declared: "But the book that has engaged me most is
Darwin. ... it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. ... My
feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."

Denying that the death of Christ Jesus made the once for all vicarious
atonement for the sinner, W&H choose instead to emphasize atonement through
the incarnation rather than through the crucifixion. This view was an
attempt to exalt Mary's position as, of course, she was prominent at the
conception and birth of Jesus. Such posture upholds the Roman Catholic Mass.
So their view was that of atonement through Jesus' conception and birth
father than his shed blood!

Further, Westcott doubted the Biblical account of miracles. Writing in his
diary, August 11, 1847, Bishop Westcott penned "I never read an account of a
miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover
some want of evidence in the account of it."

Indeed, Westcott and Hort did not even believe the original autographs of
the Scriptures were God inspired! Writing in their"Introduction", they
impiously stated "Little is gained by speculating as to the precise point at
which such corruptions came in.They may be due to the original writer, or to
his amanuensis if he wrote from dictation, or they may be due to one of the
earliest transcribers." (emphasis author's)

WESTCOTT AND HORT'S INVOLVEMENT IN SPIRITISM

Westcott and Hort belonged to what Westcott's son referred to as "The
Ghostly Guild." Westcott took a leading role in this society and its
proceedings, the purpose of which was the investigation of ghosts and other
supernatural appearances. They believed that such things existed. Concerning
this society, Hort wrote to Rev. John Ellerton on December 29, 1851
"Westcott,Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Lauard, etc., and I have
started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural
appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things
really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective
disillusions."

Such is spiritism and is absolutely forbidden by Scripture.

Westcott's son wrote of his father's communing with "saints" especially at a
great cathedral at Petersburg where "there was much company." On that same
page he wrote that his father said, in speaking of the chapel at Auckland
Castle, it was "full" and that he was "not alone" in the darkness. He was,
of course, communing with demonic spirits supposing that they were ghosts
(the souls of men who had lived formerly). However, the Word of God clearly
teaches that "familiar spirits" are demons impersonating people. They are
not the spirits and/or souls of people who have lived previously.

Both of these men denied the deity of Christ Jesus and they denied the
verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Moreover, Hort spent the last eight
years of his life working with Westcott in translating the Books of Wisdom
and Maccabees, two uninspired writings.

In closing, Stever says:

I contend that the King James Bible is the only Bible to read and study. All of the thees and thous were archaic 200 years ago. Did people discontinue to use it? NO. It was used until about 1950 in this country. The decline of this Country (America) parallels the decline in use of the King James Bible.


God bless,

Stever

 2005/7/11 1:43









 Re:

Philogos said:

Jay P Green based his interlinear on a text 'reconstructed by F H A Scrivener in 1894' (see introductory notes on page xii of Green's 3rd edition) Scrivener is my favourite editor, but do you understand what Scrivener was doing in his edition of 1894? He set out to 'construct' the text from which the KJV was translated. It is hardly surprising that his Greek text of 1894 supports the KJV when that is what he had set out to do. If you read the introductory notes you will discover that there are more than 250 differences between Scrivener's reconstructed text and that of the Stephen's text. (technically the phrase 'Received Text' was not used of Stephen's text but of that of Elzivir.) Green specifically draws attention to occasions when Scrivener has a version which is 'without any MSS support at all'.


Philogos further said:
I do not 'support' Westcott and Hort but neither do I believe them to be the Machiavellian conspirators portrayed by the KJV-only tribe. If you are ever able to get hold of the exegetical commentaries of Westcott you will find a man who exalted Christ and His work and who displays an intense personal loyalty to Orthodox faith.

Stever’s reply to the above:

I contend that you do indeed support Westcott and Hort. Your mention above about 250 differences between Scrivener and Stephens translations. That specific statement then infers that the Louo (Washed) and Luo (Loosed) are a part of those differences. That is not the truth in this instance. The differences between the 2 translations are very minor, and do not relate to doctrine.

Below I have quoted both translations of Rev1:5-- Please note that both versions (Scrivener & Stephens) use the same word LOUSANTI, not LUSANTI!!!!! IN REVELATION 1:5

Stephens Textus Receptus
Rev 1:5
1:5 kai apo ihsou cristou o martuv o pistov o prwtotokov
ek twn nekrwn kai o arcwn twn basilewn thv ghv tw agaphsanti
hmav kai LOUSANTI hmav apo twn amartiwn hmwn en tw aimati
autou
1:6 kai epoihsen hmav basileiv kai iereiv tw yew kai
patri autou autw h doxa kai to kratov eiv touv aiwnav twn
aiwnwn amhn

Scrivener
1:5 kai apo ihsou cristou o martuv o pistov o prwtotokov
ek twn nekrwn kai o arcwn twn basilewn thv ghv tw agaphsanti
hmav kai LOUSANTI hmav apo twn amartiwn hmwn en tw aimati
autou
1:6 kai epoihsen hmav basileiv kai iereiv tw yew kai
patri autou autw h doxa kai to kratov eiv touv aiwnav twn
aiwnwn amhn


LOUSANTI/ LOUO=. However, though the Critical Texts (Modern Versions, spawned by Westcott & Hort) read, “loosed us out of,” (“ek”), THE MAJORITY TEXTS (TEXTUS RECEPTUS) READ, “WASHED US FROM,” (“apo” Hodges and Farstad follow the A.V. and T.R., “washed,” “lousanti,” which occurs in the uncials P, 046, 94, and 1006; most minuscules, i.e. Mac; the Old Latin, dem, div, gig, haf, and t; the Vulgate; the Coptic Bohairic, the Ethiopian; the bav and c commentaries of Andrew of Caesarea, who died 614 A.D. (Arethas, Mb, and Andrew c, read “elousen;” the third person singular first aorist active indicative of “louo,” “TO BATHE.”)

“Washed us,” “lousanti,” is the aorist active participle of “louo;” “to bathe and wash the whole body,” (see Jn.13v10. Tit.3v5.); as distinct from “nipto,” washing part of the body. See Jn.13v5,6,8., all the apostles, except Judas, were bathed and clean, and needed only to wash their feet, if they were defiled from their contact with an evil world. The aorist participle points to the point of time when we received the double blessing of justification, and release from guilt, through faith in Jesus, and the cleansing power of His precious redeeming blood. 1Pet.1v18,19. Rev.12v11. The Greek “en,” means “in,” in the phrase “in His blood,” “en toi haimati;” “washed in Thy blood,” makes much better sense than, “loosed in Thy blood.” This reading is confirmed by the fact that in Rev.5v9. and 7v14., saints are definitely said to wash their robes white in the blood of the Lamb.

LUSANTI/ LUO = Some of the modern translations follow the Critical Texts, Mde, Aleph, A, C, the Old Latin h and z; the Syrian Philoxenian and Harklean; the Armenian; Tyconius, Primasius, Cassiodorus, and Andrew's “a” commentary, and read, “having loosed or freed,” “lusanti,” the aorist active participle of “luo,” to loose, to release.


Strong's Number: 3068
Transliterated: louo
Phonetic: loo'-o

Text: a primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas 3538 means to wet a part only, and 4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively): --wash.


Strong's Number: 3089
Transliterated: luo
Phonetic: loo'-o

Text: a primary verb; to "loosen" (literally or figuratively): --break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-)loose, melt, put off. Compare 4486.


If it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, and has feathers, and looks like a Duck, then, it is indeed a Duck.


God bless,

Stever

 2005/7/11 2:32
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I contend that the King James Bible is the only Bible to read and study. All of the thees and thous were archaic 200 years ago. Did people discontinue to use it? NO. It was used until about 1950 in this country. The decline of this Country (America) parallels the decline in use of the King James Bible.


This last statement is just nonsense. The decline in British morals through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries also paralled the use of the King James version. Our weather has also been more erratic!

Have you actually read anything by Westcott?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/11 3:15Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Your mention above about 250 differences between Scrivener and Stephens translations. That specific statement then infers that the Louo (Washed) and Luo (Loosed) are a part of those differences.


Your logic chip needs attention. It is because you constantly jump to these illogical conclusions that I am contending with you in these forums.

In his Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, 1874, Scrivener comments on Rev 21:6 adding that the common text is 'preserved by Cod A, whose excellency is very conspicuous in the Apocalypse.' For those unfamiliar with the terminology Cod A is the Codex Alexandrinus ( a 5th cent. MSS currently in British Museum;) and the Apocalypse is the book of Revelation. I quote this to show that although Scrivener was a strong advocate for the Byzantine textform he did not 'rubbish' other textforms; in this instance he refers to the 'excellence' of the Alexandrian Codex. It is possible to conduct a reasoned discussion about the textforms without recourse to character assassination and over simplistic dununciation of other MSS.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/11 3:17Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Stever quotes Burgon

Quote:
The Greek “en,” means “in,” in the phrase “in His blood,” “en toi haimati;” “washed in Thy blood,” makes much better sense than, “loosed in Thy blood.” This reading is confirmed by the fact that in Rev.5v9. and 7v14., saints are definitely said to wash their robes white in the blood of the Lamb.



Burgon, of course, was an embarassment even to his friends with his outrageous statements. The Greek word 'en' does not only mean 'in' but is constantly used of the instrument by which a thing is achieved. We have touched on this in the phrase 'Baptism in/by the Holy Spirit'. A classic example in the Revelation is
Rev. 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them [u]with the sword[/u] of my mouth.
Rev. 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill [u]with sword[/u], and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
Rev. 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed [u]with the sword[/u]. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Rev. 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth [u]a sharp sword, that with it[/u] he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev. 19:21 And the remnant were slain [u]with the sword[/u] of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. This feature of 'en' could be illustrated in scores of places in the NT. In other words the phrase 'in his blood' means 'by his blood' whatever verb 'wash' or 'loose' you associate with it. The notion of a 'baptism in blood', which is why I engaged you here, has no Biblical basis.

Secondly,
Rev. 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have [u]washed[/u] their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. does not use either 'luO' or 'louO' but an entirely different word 'plunO' which is only used here in the scriptures but which is used in Classical Greek of the laundering of clothes. If John had wanted to link the idea of Rev 7:14 with that of Rev 1:5 he would surely have used the same word, rather than one which is specifically distinguishable from 'louO' which means to bathe.

The mystery religions of the 1st century did have a 'baptism of blood' called the taurobolium. This was the sacrifice of a bull; a the priest stood in pit covered by a platform of wooden planks bored through with several small holes. A bull was slaughtered and the blood trickled through the platform on to the priest below, who received it on his face, and even on his tongue and palate. After this 'baptism' the priest presented himself before his fellow-worshippers purified and regenerated. Or so they held.

Certainly 'plunO' has the sense of a plunge 'into' but even in Rev 7:14 there is no sense that the 'saints' were wearing these clothes when they were so laundered. The consistent view of blood in the Bible is that it is 'life poured out in death' which brings a benefit to the one associated/identified with the sacrifice. Superstitious notions of 'covering with the blood' are prevalent in modern evangelicalism but are absent from the scriptures.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/11 4:37Profile









 Re: an interest in ghosts

Quote:
'..a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective disillusions."

Such is spiritism and is absolutely forbidden by Scripture.

Stever, you may not care to follow up this line of investigation (that is, why there may have been interest in these things by Christians) but, though it may have been misguided, they were no way the first. Joseph Glanvill, a founding member of the Royal Society (1650) was a delightful Anglican priest, who was thoroughly convinced of the gospel, well-grounded in the New Testament and of keen mind. He also got side tracked by this subject, except he interviewed witches. Why? Because he recognised that 'SADDUCEEISM' denied any resurrection - central to the Christian faith and Biblical record. In the 'new' atmosphere of scientifica sceptica, against classical education and some Greek philosophy which suggested there was nothing after death, he wanted to show there is indeed eternal life in Christ. Maybe this was not the motivation of those you quote but I thought you may be interested in one rationale.

 2005/7/11 8:23
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

dorcas
one of the dangers of judging another age by our own is illustrated here. It is well known that John Wesley had a fascination with ghosts. The widow of Fletcher of Madeley claimed that on more that one occasion her husband returned to comfort her after his death. In our own age and understanding, as Christians, we would counsel absolute avoidance of this kind of curiosity but, as you say, other ages were not so clear in their discernment.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/11 10:56Profile









 Re: concerning baptism

Point taken and I do agree. :-)

I am never quite sure what to say to those thinking of themselves as Christians, who are used to 'seeing' a family member long dead, appear in certain circumstances, especially if an older family member was comfortable about it. How does one break into this sort of history with a word in season, when this is disclosed?

 2005/7/11 17:18





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy