Acts 16:31b
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 08:49 PM
RE: Acts 16:31b
(22-08-2012 08:34 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 08:19 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  If it was really meant only for the jailor, then perhaps God should've shown some discrimination and not included this in the bible. As I mentioned, I memorized this verse as a kid because the first half of this verse wasn't considered by my fellow Christians as directed at only the jailor -- we were told to learn it so we could quote it when someone asked us the same question that the jailor did ("What must I do to be saved?"). It's just when we come to the heretical second half of the verse that Christians feel the need to rationalize the context.

OR

maybe you were just told wrong?

I mean... read the context. What does it look like?

In similar contexts, similar conclusions have been drawn. For example, when Jesus rescued the adulteress from stoning, one could easily conclude that this was just a single case where he felt like intervening. The old testament law clearly stated that she should be stoned to death, and he stopped it. Does this mean that everyone who commits adultery should no longer have to die, or did Jesus feel she was an exception to the general rule? Should we ignore the implications just because he did it for one person once? Or should we take it as a sample case?

The jailor was not singled out as an exception. One could logically conclude that, if Paul answered that way to him, then that's the way he'd answer anyone who asked him that question. It sets a precedent.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 08:55 PM
RE: Acts 16:31b
(22-08-2012 08:49 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 08:34 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  OR

maybe you were just told wrong?

I mean... read the context. What does it look like?

In similar contexts, similar conclusions have been drawn. For example, when Jesus rescued the adulteress from stoning, one could easily conclude that this was just a single case where he felt like intervening. The old testament law clearly stated that she should be stoned to death, and he stopped it. Does this mean that everyone who commits adultery should no longer have to die, or did Jesus feel she was an exception to the general rule? Should we ignore the implications just because he did it for one person once? Or should we take it as a sample case?

The jailor was not singled out as an exception. One could logically conclude that, if Paul answered that way to him, then that's the way he'd answer anyone who asked him that question. It sets a precedent.

Ehhh... I don't know.

I tend to look at it in context and not as a precedent.

Jesus intervened that one time. It was more bout forgiveness and not being judgmental than anything else. It wasn't about the law. Jesus had an opportunity to teach in a poignant way, and He took advantage of it. Does that incident set a precedent? I would say no.

I think His teachings about why He came and the law define that.

But yeah, each incident has to be analyzed from context... that's my opinion, anyway.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 09:44 PM
RE: Acts 16:31b
So why does the jailor's whole household get saved yet everyone else only can save themselves?

It's like look at it from a church perspective. It doesn't matter how it's meant in the bible because all that matters is how it's taught in church or school or wherever. If all you are teaching kids is "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" then that is what they are gonna believe. I mean I never see people walking around preaching "have at least one person in your household believe in God and you'll be sweet as.". No, it's always personal, YOU must believe in God to save YOU.
But back to the church perspective. What is the churches original purpose? To control. Power over people. You feed them religion and they will obey. So what is more powerful? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and YOU will be saved" or "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you AND your household." It's obviously the first one because rather then having 1 or 2 people in the household feeling the need to believe you have the ENTIRE household believing they need to believe.
Power and control.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
23-08-2012, 04:57 AM
RE: Acts 16:31b
(22-08-2012 09:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  So why does the jailor's whole household get saved yet everyone else only can save themselves?

It's like look at it from a church perspective. It doesn't matter how it's meant in the bible because all that matters is how it's taught in church or school or wherever. If all you are teaching kids is "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" then that is what they are gonna believe. I mean I never see people walking around preaching "have at least one person in your household believe in God and you'll be sweet as.". No, it's always personal, YOU must believe in God to save YOU.
But back to the church perspective. What is the churches original purpose? To control. Power over people. You feed them religion and they will obey. So what is more powerful? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and YOU will be saved" or "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you AND your household." It's obviously the first one because rather then having 1 or 2 people in the household feeling the need to believe you have the ENTIRE household believing they need to believe.
Power and control.

I agree. I think the Christian church loses part of its congregation if it adopts this rule, which is why it won't.

Kingschosen, I imagine you are familiar with the roots of Calvinism. During its first few years, Calvin couldn't organize a church around his ideas because people thought "well, if I'm predestined for heaven or hell, why put in any effort?" The part about one's life reflecting one's destination came a bit later. I think that the church couldn't adopt this "...and your household" idea because you'd get very much the same thing. "Oh, don't worry about my soul... my wife believes, and that's good enough."

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
23-08-2012, 04:58 AM
RE: Acts 16:31b
My 2c worth...

Acts was written by we don't know who in the mid second century.

The whole book is a pathetically weak attempt to draw a link between Yeshua's Judaism and Paul's proto Christianity. In reality, there was no such link.

Who cares what some unknown dude trying to glue together two fucked up philosophies wrote? Answer....some (better informed) Christians...like KC...but they just don't see the big picture....so will reinterpret, translate, put in context etc etc ad infinitum.

Some day...soon...hopefully....most of them will wake up.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 05:05 AM
RE: Acts 16:31b
(23-08-2012 04:58 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  My 2c worth...

Acts was written by we don't know who in the mid second century.

The whole book is a pathetically weak attempt to draw a link between Yeshua's Judaism and Paul's proto Christianity. In reality, there was no such link.

Who cares what some unknown dude trying to glue together two fucked up philosophies wrote? Answer....some (better informed) Christians...like KC...but they just don't see the big picture....so will reinterpret, translate, put in context etc etc ad infinitum.

Some day...soon...hopefully....most of them will wake up.

Do you think someone would convince you that atheism is wrong if they called it a "fucked up philosophy"?

Mark, you gotta see things from your opponents' perspective. I wouldn't have lost my faith in the face of ridicule or generalization, but if only someone had pointed out the parts of the bible that made no sense, or the parts that the church cherry-picked and glossed over, or the parts that are scientifically inaccurate... I wouldn't have wasted such a large segment of my life.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 10:22 AM
RE: Acts 16:31b
This one could be explained away with something along the lines of - well, when you are converted you're going to convert your whole family so bazinga. I've seen a similar justification for punishments carrying through to the third and fourth generations. It gets explained as - that's how long it can take a family that has turned away from God to come back to him.

As for this verse just applying to one person - this is ENDEMIC in the Bible. It gets quote-mined more than any other text in the world. We quote a verse and feel like it applies to us, but if you read the story it's about Isiah or the whole of Israel or some other bastard who gets all the good blessings. Really the Bible says nothing anywhere about God's relationship to future humans. It's all about what's happening at the time, and gets extrapolated into feel-good sound bites for use in modern Christianity.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
23-08-2012, 11:12 PM
RE: Acts 16:31b
(23-08-2012 10:22 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  This one could be explained away with something along the lines of - well, when you are converted you're going to convert your whole family so bazinga.

I actually addressed this in my original post.

Quote:A theist might say that it means a Christian will preach to his or her household, saving them... but that would mean it only works sometimes (like in my personal case), and the bible doesn't give any such caveat.

The first part of the verse shall "shall" be saved or "will" be saved (depending on bible version), not "may" be saved or "possibly will" be saved. And that carries into the second half of the verse, because it doesn't say "and maybe" your household or any such thing. So one single contradiction would shoot that idea down, and I gave my own life as a contradiction.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 09:39 PM
RE: Acts 16:31b
But clearly the whole household will convert, otherwise they'll be ejected from the household. Ejected members don't count towards the tally do they?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 10:01 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2012 03:01 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Acts 16:31b
Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed

Awana

The mission of Awana is to help "churches and parents worldwide raise children and youth to know, love and serve Christ."
If any child were born a Christian then this place wouldn't exist.

I was in that thing too.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: