City Considering "Do Not Knock List" to Keep Away Unwanted Solicitors

[ALAYMAN]

If that isn't the explicit meaning of evangelism, then we indeed are asking what the meaning of "is" is.

The explicit meaning of "evangelize" in Luke's time was "to proclaim good news" regardless of what that good news was.

Now word meanings have changed since then (with evangelize taking on a distinctly religious flavor), but when Luke wrote evangelize, this distinction would not have ever entered his mind.

No offense, but I have a good picture of your communication style, and though you may be well-meaning, generally speaking, I find your reasoning often the epitome of obtuse.

I just gave you the context of Acts 5, the entirety of which is the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ as the means to escape the coming judgment.  That, my argumentative obscurantist friend, *IS* the context of the way Luke is using the term in Acts (and numerous other Scriptural passages), regardless of how the Romans, Greeks, or Ghengis Khan used it.

 

[rsc2a]

If that isn't the explicit meaning of evangelism, then we indeed are asking what the meaning of "is" is.

The explicit meaning of "evangelize" in Luke's time was "to proclaim good news" regardless of what that good news was.

Now word meanings have changed since then (with evangelize taking on a distinctly religious flavor), but when Luke wrote evangelize, this distinction would not have ever entered his mind.

No offense, but I have a good picture of your communication style, and though you may be well-meaning, generally speaking, I find your reasoning often the epitome of obtuse.

I just gave you the context of Acts 5, the entirety of which is the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ as the means to escape the coming judgment.  That, my argumentative obscurantist friend, *IS* the context of the way Luke is using the term in Acts (and numerous other Scriptural passages), regardless of how the Romans, Greeks, or Ghengis Khan used it.

You do realize Luke was a Greek living in the Roman Empire, right?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
You do realize Luke was a Greek living in the Roman Empire, right?
[/quote]

You do realize that as debatable as that is, it is complete unrelated to comprehending what Acts 5 is talking about when it declares to unbelieving self-righteous Jews that they must....


Act 5:30  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31  Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]
You do realize Luke was a Greek living in the Roman Empire, right?

You do realize that as debatable as that is, it is complete unrelated to comprehending what Acts 5 is talking about when it declares to unbelieving self-righteous Jews that they must....


Act 5:30  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31  Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

?
[/quote]

The idea that a Greek-speaking individual (I got rid of the "debate-able" piece) living in Roman times would use the same definitions as other Greek-speaking individuals living in Roman times for the same words is odd to you?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]The idea that a Greek-speaking individual (I got rid of the "debate-able" piece)[/quote]

Well, that's part of your problem.  Taking wobbly traditions of men, and using them to assert some sketchy and superimposed meaning onto the text of Acts 5, which overthrows the plain meaning inherent to the context of the entirety of the surrounding chapter, well, tells me a lot about how far you'll go to avoid the obviousness of your wrongly held interprative scheme.  The preponderance of evidence of the meaning is taken from what Luke says about the heralding events occuring in and around Jersusalem, repentance and faith towards the rejected Messiah.  It's really pretty plain.  No need to resort to pretzel hermeneutics.

 

[rsc2a]

...and using them to assert some sketchy and superimposed meaning onto the text of Acts 5, which overthrows the plain meaning inherent to the context of the entirety of the surrounding chapter, well, tells me a lot about how far you'll go to avoid the obviousness of your wrongly held interprative scheme...

I'm not even discussing Acts 5. I'm discussing the definition of one word. That you would force an alternate definition onto a word, in spite of a broader common definition at the time of writing, in order to come to your interpretation smacks of eisegesis in the worst possible sense.

The preponderance of evidence of the meaning is taken from what Luke says about the heralding events occuring in and around Jersusalem, repentance and faith towards the rejected Messiah.

No...you are taking a general idea "proclaim good news" and making it a specific "proclaim Christ". Research "fallacy of composition".

It's really pretty plain.  No need to resort to pretzel hermeneutics.

I know. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

rsc2a, in the history of all my participation on internet forums, particularly the FFF, I've never had the occasion with such frequency as I've had with you to laugh, and shake my head in incredulous disbelief.  You win the grand prize.

[quote author=rsc2a]

No...you are taking a general idea "proclaim good news" and making it a specific "proclaim Christ". Research "fallacy of composition".
[/quote]

Please, for the love of Scripture, what was the content of the good news that Peter was "evangelizing" in Acts 5:42 (which is what is the very thing that is under current discussion)?

 

[rsc2a]

rsc2a, in the history of all my participation on internet forums, particularly the FFF, I've never had the occasion with such frequency as I've had with you to laugh, and shake my head in incredulous disbelief.  You win the grand prize.

[quote author=rsc2a]

No...you are taking a general idea "proclaim good news" and making it a specific "proclaim Christ". Research "fallacy of composition".

Please, for the love of Scripture, what was the content of the good news that Peter was "evangelizing" in Acts 5:42 (which is what is the very thing that is under current discussion)?[/quote]

No one is arguing that Peter wasn't telling people about Jesus. What we are saying is that your notion that any usage of "evangalize" must mean telling people about Jesus is wrong.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
No one is arguing that Peter wasn't telling people about Jesus. What we are saying is that your notion that any usage of "evangalize" must mean telling people about Jesus is wrong.
[/quote]

No, you pinhead, I've NEVER said that EVANGELIZE always means in every place in all writings "to proclaim Jesus".  That's a red herring, a lie that you cannot reproduce from ANYTHING I've written, either implied or explicitly stated.  I've said all along that the context of Biblical usage of the word, particularly in Acts 5:42, is to proclaim the good news that Christ saves.  More specifically, that if you look at the entirety of the context of Acts 5 you'll see that public and private proclamation in a confrontational manner is the key to understanding that Peter went throughout Jersualem (to the various houses) proclaiming this message.  He told the authorities in Acts 4:19 who forbade his preaching of the gospel to metaphorically "go fly a kite".  Their "boldness" (4:13) from being with Christ led them to not worry about the consequences or feelings of those around them regarding the spread of the gospel, so much so, that it is extremely plausible that such boldness was cause to go to ALL PEOPLE (Matt 28) as they'd been commanded, not just to those who would embrace them, and not just in public.

Quit making up arguments that you wished I was putting forth and acutally address the one(s) that I assert.

 

[rsc2a]

Without getting off point too much, it is helpful to know the transition of word meanings. Rsc2a rightly notes that euanggelion has its roots as a generic secular phrase used for all good news.

Luke uses the word a bit more particularly to refer to ALL the good news of God's providence including that of John the Baptist's birth to the eagerly awaited Kingdom.

Paul used it even more specifically.

The word took on a more distinctly Christian term.

Since we are looking at Luke's writings, it would be wrong to suggest that he was referring to a message for the unsaved as Alayman suggests. It was part of Luke's usage, but Luke used it far more broadly.

No offense, but it is absolutely utter rubbish to assume that Luke, the author of all of the book of Acts, had just written (ie, context, context, context, in the immediate sense)...

Act 5:19-41

and then wrote "evangelize" in Acts 5:42 only to mean he was merely speaking of "ALL the good news of God's providence including that of John the Baptist's birth to the eagerly awaited Kingdom".  What in the world was Luke referring to when he told of Peter's preaching of repentence and faith towards Jesus Christ?  If that isn't the explicit meaning of evangelism, then we indeed are asking what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]Here...
[/quote]

"Here..." what?

I said...

No offense, but it is absolutely utter rubbish to assume that Luke, the author of all of the book of Acts, had just written (ie, context, context, context, in the immediate sense)...

Act 5:19-41

and then wrote "evangelize" in Acts 5:42 only to mean he was merely speaking of "ALL the good news of God's providence including that of John the Baptist's birth to the eagerly awaited Kingdom".  What in the world was Luke referring to when he told of Peter's preaching of repentence and faith towards Jesus Christ?  If that isn't the explicit meaning of evangelism, then we indeed are asking what the meaning of "is" is.

How in the world do you read that and not understand me to explicitly be saying that the context of Acts 5:42 means "to proclaim the gospel of Christ" (as diametrically opposed to his usage meaning "proclaiming the power and dominion of the Roman empire")?

 

[rsc2a]

What in the world was Luke referring to when he told of Peter's preaching of repentence and faith towards Jesus Christ?  If that isn't the explicit meaning of evangelism, then we indeed are asking what the meaning of "is" is.

How in the world do you read that and not understand me to explicitly be saying that the context of Acts 5:42 means "to proclaim the gospel of Christ" (as diametrically opposed to his usage meaning "proclaiming the power and dominion of the Roman empire")?

Those underlined parts...they aren't the same thing.

 

[ALAYMAN]

What in the world was Luke referring to when he told of Peter's preaching of repentence and faith towards Jesus Christ?  If that isn't the explicit meaning of evangelism, then we indeed are asking what the meaning of "is" is.

How in the world do you read that and not understand me to explicitly be saying that the context of Acts 5:42 means "to proclaim the gospel of Christ" (as diametrically opposed to his usage meaning "proclaiming the power and dominion of the Roman empire")?

Those underlined parts...they aren't the same thing.

Yes, they are the same thing in relationship to the meaning of the word as it is used in context of Acts 5:42.  If you can demonstrate contextually otherwise then quit dancin' and start expositing.

 

[rsc2a]

What in the world was Luke referring to when he told of Peter's preaching of repentence and faith towards Jesus Christ?  If that isn't the explicit meaning of evangelism, then we indeed are asking what the meaning of "is" is.

How in the world do you read that and not understand me to explicitly be saying that the context of Acts 5:42 means "to proclaim the gospel of Christ" (as diametrically opposed to his usage meaning "proclaiming the power and dominion of the Roman empire")?

Those underlined parts...they aren't the same thing.

Yes, they are the same thing in relationship to the meaning of the word as it is used in context of Acts 5:42.  If you can demonstrate contextually otherwise then quit dancin' and start expositing.

Of course the idea in Acts 5:42 is the same as the idea in Acts 5:42.

What the idea is not is a blanket definition (i.e. "explicit meaning")  for "evangelize"...you know, that assertion you made in the first quote?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]Of course the idea in Acts 5:42 is the same as the idea in Acts 5:42.

What the idea is not is a blanket definition (i.e. "explicit meaning")  for "evangelize"...you know, that assertion you made in the first quote?
[/quote]

I wonder how old you are, because you remind me of a kid who is just starting to spread their wings.  You're speaking in circles.

The concept under consideration, for those who have short attention spans, is the usage of the word euaggelizō in Acts 5:42, which has the meaning of "evangelize".  It has that seem meaning in numerous Scriptures, and in those numerous places it refers to the heralding of the good news of Jesus Christ.  Specifically as relating to our discussion of door-to-door and "house to house" this verse, taken in context, seems to support the notion of evangelizing in people's houses (not merely house churches as has been asserted).  I've made my self very clear to anybody with one ounce of common sense.  If you have something to say about the subject and context of Acts 5:42 being something other than evangelizing in people's houses then spit it out and quit dancin' round the maypole.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]Of course the idea in Acts 5:42 is the same as the idea in Acts 5:42.

What the idea is not is a blanket definition (i.e. "explicit meaning")  for "evangelize"...you know, that assertion you made in the first quote?

I wonder how old you are, because you remind me of a kid who is just starting to spread their wings.  You're speaking in circles.

The concept under consideration, for those who have short attention spans, is the usage of the word euaggelizō in Acts 5:42, which has the meaning of "evangelize".  It has that seem meaning in numerous Scriptures, and in those numerous places it refers to the heralding of the good news of Jesus Christ.  Specifically as relating to our discussion of door-to-door and "house to house" this verse, taken in context, seems to support the notion of evangelizing in people's houses (not merely house churches as has been asserted).  I've made my self very clear to anybody with one ounce of common sense.  If you have something to say about the subject and context of Acts 5:42 being something other than evangelizing in people's houses then spit it out and quit dancin' round the maypole.
[/quote]

So you quoted the part where FSSL referred to the angel "evangelizing" the birth of John the Baptist and when replying to that quote, you made a dumb statement, yet we weren't supposed to know that it's not a dumb statement because you weren't actually talking about the Scripture cited in the quote you were replying to?

 

[FSSL]

Utter rubish? I will source my statements tomorrow. Why not consult some language sources and good commentaries?

I am at the beach again and visiting the very cool city of St Augustine.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]So you quoted the part where FSSL referred to the angel "evangelizing" the birth of John the Baptist and when replying to that quote, you made a dumb statement, yet we weren't supposed to know that it's not a dumb statement because you weren't actually talking about the Scripture cited in the quote you were replying to?
[/quote]

Last chance to stop your obfuscation.  The passage and word under consideration is Acts 5:42.  Do you want to address that Scripture?  If not, we're done chasin' your foolish rambling rabbits.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Utter rubish? I will source my statements tomorrow. Why not consult some language sources and good commentaries?

I am at the beach again and visiting the very cool city of St Augustine.

It's really simple.  What does Luke mean by euaggelizō in Acts 5:42.  I have a strongs.  Is there something wrong with Strongs definition and meaning?  Is the sense in which Strongs defines the word at odds with the entirety of  the context of Acts 5?  How so?

 

[rsc2a]

Do you want to address that Scripture?  If not, we're done chasin' your foolish rambling rabbits.

Happily.

And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus. Acts 5:42

If Luke's use of euangelizomenoi inherently referred to "heralding of the good news of Jesus Christ" by its very definition, then Luke wouldn't have felt the need to add the part that says "that the Christ is Jesus". Since the actual meaning of euangelizomenoi is "proclaim the good news", Luke felt it was necessary to clarify by explaining what that "good news" was, the fact the Christ is Jesus. In other words, euangelizomenoi simply means "proclaim good news".

It's really simple.  What does Luke mean by euaggelizō in Acts 5:42.  I have a strongs.  Is there something wrong with Strongs definition and meaning?  Is the sense in which Strongs defines the word at odds with the entirety of  the context of Acts 5?  How so?

2097. euaggelizo yoo-ang-ghel-id'-zo from 2095 and 32; to announce good news ("evangelize") especially the gospel:--declare, bring (declare, show) glad (good) tidings, preach (the gospel).

In other words, the meaning of "evangelize" is "to proclaim good news", any good news. Strong's would definitely agree that, in Acts 5:42, the world means "to proclaim good news". Let's see what support I have:

- Strong's (et al)
- other Scriptural occurrences
- the fact that Luke felt the need to clarify (that immediate context you want to look at)
- other historical documents

What support do you have:

- Your own personal thoughts

....not hard to see which one I'm going to go with.