Thanks for that story there, sestir. I unfortunately couldn't find much about it on the old interweb. Would you be able to provide us with a quick webpage source?
It’s probably against my better judgement to reply to this of yours, Heph, but what the hey. Hopefully it might aid others who would bring up these “statements” to think again. I doubt it'll do anything to help you.
Is Allah, the same God we serve, only called by another name??? What about Budda, or maybe Zues???
Seeing as though no one is arguing such a point at all, this needn’t’ve been asked
This is an important question, that we all need to take some time to consider. Have you heard it before? I have.
Good for you. See above comment.
Acts 17:22,23 [snip]
Who is Sha'ul proclaiming to them
Yahuweh. Quite obvious.
I know that most people believe Sha'ul was simply trying to reach these people at their own level, in light of his statement that he "becomes all things to all people. But because we are searching for the false apostle that Yeshua warned about, I thougth this deserved some further research.
“False apostle” that “Yeshua warned about”… where, exactly? The Greek term αποστολος, in the singular, is never found on the lips of the Messiah. Ever. If your words above are a reference to Revelation 2:2, the word is αποστολους, the plural, and it says that the Ephesians found these people (not ‘this person’) whom λεγοντας εαυτους αποστολους (“say they are emissaries”) ‘to be false’. Contrast this to Acts 20:17-38, where the Ephesian Ekklesia members weep in grief over Paul, whom they’d never see again. They didn’t consider him anything other than a friend and a bringer of the good news.
Not surprisingly, Paul here (20:29-30) warns the Ephesian Ekklesia that λυκοι βαρεις (‘fierce wolves’) will come into the Ekklesia μετα την αφιξιν μου (‘after [his] departure’) – perhaps these ‘fierce wolves’ that came to be are those persons whom said they were emissaries that the Ephesians “found to be false”, that the Messiah is now confirming? Looks to me that Revelation 2:2 confirms Paul’s words (or perhaps, ‘prophecy’?), not the Messiah speaking against him.
Acts 17:28 For in Him we live and move and have our being, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring'.
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever, For in thee we live and move and have our being. (Epimenides' Cretica)
Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken. For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity. Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus. For we are indeed his offspring... (Phaenomena 1-5).
Here we see that Sha'ul is in Athens and he comes to a pagan alter that has an inscription to an unknown god. These people were immersed in Greek culture, and philosophy. So when Sha'ul tells the people that he knows the unknown god, and is going to reveal him, and then quotes a famous Greek Poem about Zeus, who does it sound like he is worshipping?
Seeing as though Paul doesn’t say that the people were “already worshipping [Yahuweh] in ignorance” (as whatever-the-hell translation you’re using has the words in Acts 17:23 saying, a complete bastardisation of the Greek), his quote of two poems was to show evidence of the fact that all people “seek God”, to “feel their way towards Him” and “find Him”, with even polytheistic persons proving such a thing (even if they get it massively wrong), with Paul bringing forth something they all would know, and would even agree with him on.
It should be noted that we don’t have definite proof that Paul is quoting from Epimenides' Cretica, as the only source for it is a 9th Century CE Syriac
translation, ironically from a commentary on Acts by Ishodad of Merv! Even then, the hypothetical Greek text disagrees with the Acts 17 Greek, so the association is quite tenuous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides#Cretica
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).
Philo of Alexandria (a Hellenistic Jew before and contemporary to the time of Paul and the Messiah) went as far as to say that all the Greek philosophers and poets were just copying from Scripture, and so they spoke the truth as well. Yet, I don’t hear anyone denouncing Philo of Alexandria and his ideas. However, when Paul quotes barely 20 words from Greek poets (and I do mean in total
throughout the whole of the NT), he’s apparently the most evil man to have existed!
Paul does not say that Zeus is the “unknown God”, and in fact preaches against the Athenians current practices (Acts 17:24-25: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Sovereign Master of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands
), something which in the period of Roman rule would get you in severe trouble (and it did in Ephesus (Acts 19:23-41)), especially as it would’ve been considered a direct front and attack on the hugely popular imperial cult worship of the time. Paul was combating their polytheism by trying to focus their attention on the one and true God.
Could the alter that they were sacrificing on belong to YHWH?
No, and Paul gives absolutely no indication that this was what he thought. Again, he preaches against
their practices in Athens – he doesn’t condone or promote them.
Why, out of all the beautiful scriptures and patriarchs that he could quote from to teach the people about YHWH, does he continuously quote Greek poets and playwrights about Zeus?
You’ve provided two
quotes – two
! Plus one isn’t even known exactly which playwright is being quoted! What would be the point of quoting Scripture to a bunch of Greeks on the Areopagus? It would be as pointless as quoting Scripture to educate an Atheist – he isn’t going to give you the time of day. Not surprisingly, as soon as Paul started talking about the resurrection of the dead (a belief that was considered completely ludicrous by the Greeks), that is exactly when their interest in Paul started to wane (Acts 17:32). Paul didn’t have nearly enough time to start quoting Scripture to them for their education: this wasn’t a synagogue; there weren’t people there whom would’ve known who Moses or Isaiah were, so to start quoting from them immediately wouldn’t have helped any, as is obvious from the listeners mocking once the resurrection of the dead was mentioned.
Contrast this to Paul’s speech at the Synagogue in Acts 13, where not only does he give an overview of the history of Israel (v17-22), including a quote from 1 Sam 13:14, but also a summary of the events surrounding the Messiah Himself (v23-34), where Paul quotes John the Immersers own words (v25), followed by a quotation of Psalm 2 (v33) and Isaiah 55 (v34) and Psalm 16 (), to which Paul tops his entire speech off with a quotation from Habakkuk (v41). There isn’t a single word of Paul’s, throughout the entirety of his speech in the Synagogue recorded in these 26 verses, that isn’t based on Scripture or the History regarding the Messiah. People should concentrate on this instead.
In Acts 9:5 and 26:14 he quotes Euripides play Bacchae, about the divine son of Zeus.
Firstly, Acts 9:5 wasn’t written or spoken by Paul, so Paul couldn’t’ve “quoted” anything (Luke wrote Acts, for the record).
Secondly, the oldest manuscripts don’t contain the “Kick against the goads” in Acts 9:5 – this is a later interpolation from Acts 26:14 (See either the NA or UBS Greek NT’s apparatus for confirmation). Either way, it isn’t Paul quoting anything in Acts 9:5, but the Messiah speaking.
The quote is about kicking against the goads, and can be found on line 790. It can also be found in Pindar's odes, Pythian 2 line 94, and Aeschylus's Agamemnon line 1904.
I could find no place to back up these line numbers given - it’s line 795 in the Bacchae
; line 1624 in the Agamemnon
(original Greek – the Harvard Classics
English publication actually has it down as line 1909 (http://www.bartleby.com/8/1/4.html
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)); and lines 94-95 in Pythian 2
Regardless, I have to ask: so what? So what if these plays contain the words “kicking against the goad(s)”? It’s a proverb
, one employed by numerous authors over the centuries, and one which must’ve been around long before Pindar used it in Pythian 2
in order for the listeners to it to understand its meaning.
Nevertheless, the Greek used in Acts 26:14 is the following: σκληρον σοι προς κεντρα λακτιζειν
Contrast this to the Greek of the following three plays mentioned:
Bacchae: προς κεντρα λακτιζοιμι θνητος ων θεω.
Agamemnon: προς κεντρα μη λακτιζε, μη παισας μογης.
Pythian 2: ποτι κεντρον δε τοι λακτιζεμεν τελεθει ολισθηρος οιμος.
As can be seen, there’s no direct “quoting” going on.
However, there is one more thing we should note about Acts 26:14: Paul specifically says that the Messiah spoke to him in the Hebrew
language – not the Greek language! The words therefore would’ve been קשה לך לבעט בדרבנות, and so the proverb had also made its way into cultures other than Greek. So whether it’s a “Greek” saying or not is irrelevant, nor whether there’s some supposed “literary” dependence on Euripides (which there isn’t anyway): the phrase was spoken in Hebrew (קשה לך לבעט בדרבנות), and is preceded by “It is hard for you,” which isn’t found in any citation that includes “kick against the goads”.
Titus 1:12 Even one of the Cretans’ own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons” — 13 and it’s true! Here we have the very reason that the word cretan is synonymous with liar. Besides the obvious problems with this verse, we have another example of Sha'ul quoting a greek poem by Epimenides about Zeus being eternal.
Again, so what? Does Scripture have anything to say about the people of Crete? No, it doesn’t, and Epimendes’ description of the people of Crete was pertinent to show the fact that they were indeed “rebellious, idle talkers and deceivers”.
Also, refer to the comment regarding the fact that the only source for Epimendes’ words are from a 9th Century CE Syriac text
In Corinthians 15:33 he quotes Menander of Athens when he says "bad company corrupts good character".
He quotes a phrase which had become a proverb. It’s also very true – Bad company does corrupt good character – and it doesn’t matter who it was that said it.
In Philippians 2:12 he quotes the Mahaparinibbana-sutta 2.33; 6:10; from the Pali Canon, with "work out your own salvation".
I couldn’t find a single place that could back up this statement. I did however find a place that confirms that this is a made up Budda quote
- http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/work-ou ... on-others/
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; You can also check the translation of Mahaparinibbana-sutta at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sutta.html
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, where again you can confirm that Budda said nothing remotely similar to Paul’s words in Philippians 2:12 (I also couldn’t find the term “salvation” in the translation; go figure).
1 Timothy 5:4 was taken from Publius Terentius Afer (Terence) (Latin comedy writer) 190 BC: "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home." Andria Act IV
Here is a link to an English translation of Andria
Acts 4: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Ascene%3D1
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Do you know what’s never
mentioned in Act 4 (or in any place in the book)? Widow
; effectively making the idea that Paul is quoting from Andria
completely and utterly false
what can be said about this?
The only thing that should be said is that out of all the words written by Paul, and those that record several of his speeches, he only quotes “pagan” authors a grand total of five times
, and two of these five were common proverbs and so not “quotes”, bringing the total to three
. How people can accuse Paul of “continuously quoting” from plays “about Zeus” is quite simply baffling and beggers belief. Paul quotes the Tanakh nearly 200 times – it is the Tanakh that Paul “continuously quotes”, not “Greek poets and playwrights”.
Please provide some sources for the statements made in the post.