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

[ALAYMAN]

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- other historical documents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.

Can somebody help this putz make sense?

You are beyond a shadow of a doubt absolutely the MOST obtuse poster in the history of the forum, with the exception of TGL.

At least you finally agreed, most reluctantly, that the content and object of Peter's evangelization was the good news of the salvation wrought by Christ.  Now, where does the verse say that evangelization occurred? 

Hint: "in every house" might be the answer that the Bible gives.

 

[FSSL]

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?

Yes. Strongs should not be relied on for meanings. It is NOT a lexical tool.

You are missing a few things:

1) The word euanggelitzo is combined with didaskw. Have you missed the word "didaskw?" You have not mentioned it. Didaskw needs no defense as to the broadness of its meaning.
2) The word euanggelitzo as used by Luke means: (see the New Internationational Dictionary of New Testament Theology) "Thus Lk. can also describe the Baptist

 

[ALAYMAN]

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?

You are missing a few things:

1) The word euanggelitzo is combined with didaskw. Have you missed the word "didaskw?" You have not mentioned it. Didaskw needs no defense as to the broadness of its meaning.
2) The word euanggelitzo as used by Luke means: (see the New Internationational Dictionary of New Testament Theology) "Thus Lk. can also describe the Baptist

 

[FSSL]

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?

I answered this an you have no answer. Luke tells us CLEARLY that he is giving the good news of Christ the Messiah. It was the Kingdom Message. It included the message to BOTH believers AND unbelievers.

You are the one who limited this to the context of just unbelievers.

1) What consideration about teaching is antithetical to evangelization?

strawman

Why are you isolating the Luke 3:18 passage?  How is it the be all and end all of the conversation and definition?  Why do you resort to that passage for contextual help rather than the immediate context of Acts 5:42?

A proper study of languages and context involves a study of how people used words. That is why Luke 3:18 is part of the discussion. Luke's use of the word shows that euanggelitzo it is not limited to a message for just the unbeliever as you have stated above.

3) I agree that Peter would have preached the gospel to both believers and unbelievers.  The gospel is indeed effective for both groups, unto regeneration for one, and sanctification for the other.  The word used in Acts 5:42 is used in numerous other passages with the strict intent of meaning "witnessing to the lost".  Would you like me to provide examples?[/quote]

Then we agree. You did not say this above. You have asserted a number of times that this was a message for the unsaved.

4) This is mostly for onlookers, since you object to strongs, it provides a contextual framework for word usage.  Here is it's breakdown (of the 90 occurences, 72 of them pertain to preaching <the gospel>...

All it provides is all of the verses where the word appears. There is no contextual framework being projected here. Strongs is NOT a lexical tool.

Now that I have answered you...

I have been quite clear and have studied Acts 5:42 giving the exegetical support.

You have been very obnoxious throughout this thread. When I and rsc2a present material, you call it utter rubbish, dumb, putz, jackass and all kinds of silly adhominems. You have also accused us of not having exegeted this passage. The reason people use adhominems is because they are in a situation where they do not have the facts to bolster their own argument.

Well, we unearthed what was happenening...

1) You did not know didasko and euanggelitzo were used in combination in this passage and now you ask rambling questions about it.
2) You say you are dealing with the immediate context, yet you ignore the phrase in Acts 5:42 about their teaching being related to Christ as the Messiah (kingdom teaching) and continue your idea that it is just an evangelistic appeal.
3) You ignore the GRAMMATICAL context (Lukes's usage of euanggelitzo) and HISTORICAL context (practice of meeting in homes of believers) and BIBLICAL context (the phrase "Christ is Messiah").
4) Your resource is Strongs Concordance...

YOU have failed to do any expositional homework. All you are doing is foisting a modern concept of "door-to-door" on Acts 5:42 with ZERO regard for the grammatical/historical/biblical context.

 

[Mathew Ward]

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?

I answered this an you have no answer. Luke tells us CLEARLY that he is giving the good news of Christ the Messiah. It was the Kingdom Message. It included the message to BOTH believers AND unbelievers.

You are the one who limited this to the context of just unbelievers.

1) What consideration about teaching is antithetical to evangelization?

strawman

Why are you isolating the Luke 3:18 passage?  How is it the be all and end all of the conversation and definition?  Why do you resort to that passage for contextual help rather than the immediate context of Acts 5:42?

A proper study of languages and context involves a study of how people used words. That is why Luke 3:18 is part of the discussion. Luke's use of the word shows that euanggelitzo it is not limited to a message for just the unbeliever as you have stated above.

3) I agree that Peter would have preached the gospel to both believers and unbelievers.  The gospel is indeed effective for both groups, unto regeneration for one, and sanctification for the other.  The word used in Acts 5:42 is used in numerous other passages with the strict intent of meaning "witnessing to the lost".  Would you like me to provide examples?

Then we agree. You did not say this above. You have asserted a number of times that this was a message for the unsaved.

4) This is mostly for onlookers, since you object to strongs, it provides a contextual framework for word usage.  Here is it's breakdown (of the 90 occurences, 72 of them pertain to preaching <the gospel>...

All it provides is all of the verses where the word appears. There is no contextual framework being projected here. Strongs is NOT a lexical tool.

Now that I have answered you...

I have been quite clear and have studied Acts 5:42 giving the exegetical support.

You have been very obnoxious throughout this thread. When I and rsc2a present material, you call it utter rubbish, dumb, putz, jackass and all kinds of silly adhominems. You have also accused us of not having exegeted this passage. The reason people use adhominems is because they are in a situation where they do not have the facts to bolster their own argument.

Well, we unearthed what was happenening...

1) You did not know didasko and euanggelitzo were used in combination in this passage and now you ask rambling questions about it.
2) You say you are dealing with the immediate context, yet you ignore the phrase in Acts 5:42 about their teaching being related to Christ as the Messiah (kingdom teaching) and continue your idea that it is just an evangelistic appeal.
3) You ignore the GRAMMATICAL context (Lukes's usage of euanggelitzo) and HISTORICAL context (practice of meeting in homes of believers) and BIBLICAL context (the phrase "Christ is Messiah").
4) Your resource is Strongs Concordance...

YOU have failed to do any expositional homework. All you are doing is foisting a modern concept of "door-to-door" on Acts 5:42 with ZERO regard for the grammatical/historical/biblical context.
[/quote]

You mean that the salesman approach to salvation giving folks a get out of hell free card is not evangelism?  Say it so...sarcasm off.

Great post and study...FSSL

 

[ALAYMAN]

I answered this an you have no answer. Luke tells us CLEARLY that he is giving the good news of Christ the Messiah. It was the Kingdom Message. It included the message to BOTH believers AND unbelievers.

You claim I am devoid of proper Scriptural interprative schemes/exegesis, but the first thing you do is avoid the immediate context and overthrow it with a broader contextual apparatus.  Is this a proper method in the fundamental rules of interpretation?  I've never claimed that evangelization would only fall on the ears of the lost, or that was Peter's sole and exclusive intent.  In the process of evangelism undoubtedly there would be believers who would hear it.  I even said so in my recent post to you (which you snipped out) when I said in point#1....

In other words, of course as they go about the great commission and evangelizing they are also going to make disciples (teach).  I do the same when I "evangelize".  If somebody claims to have been saved but not baptized, I go about instructing them in the importance and meaning of believer's baptism. 

That happened to me recently going door to door.  I even told of it here in the forum as a praise to the Lord.  A grandma who answered the door was saved, but her granddaughter was lost, so I evangelized her.  In the process of speaking specifically to the young girl her grandmother was subjected to the gospel proclamation.  That is the sense of the usage in Acts 5:42, which is in keeping with the totality of the context that preceeds v42, where Peter preached in the Temple to unbelieving Jews and was jailed for it.

You are the one who limited this to the context of just unbelievers.

What I said is that kerusso is to preach, and didaskolos is to teach, but when euanggelidzo is used throughout the book of Acts (particularly when the context is those who aren't in the assembly) then the meaning is that Peter is heralding the saving gospel of Christ in such a was so as to urge the hearer to repent and receive Christ.

If the context of Acts 5:42 is the teaching of the gospel to believers in house churches, why didn't Luke use the term dialegomai as he did in Acts 20:7?

20:7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

1) What consideration about teaching is antithetical to evangelization?

strawman

How so?

Then we agree. You did not say this above. You have asserted a number of times that this was a message for the unsaved.

The evangel is the gospel.  They are virtually synonymous.  The content of the "good news" is what matters.  It's the power of God to save, and sanctify.  Context determines the meaning, and in this case, the immediate context of Acts 5 was Peter's spreading of the good news to unbelievers.

1) You did not know didasko and euanggelitzo were used in combination in this passage and now you ask rambling questions about it.

Could you support or corroborate your claim that I never knew that teach and preach were used in this passage? 
I think you may be confused.  Teaching and preaching in and of themselves aren't mutually exclusive activities.  Peter very well could have taught and preached to unbelievers, and he very well could have done both to believers.  Or, he could have taught believers, and preached to unbelievers.  Pitting one concept versus the other does not help you exegetically, nor does it clear up who the audience and object of the two activities were just by virtue of lexical analysis.  Context is king in helping understand who the audience was.

2) You say you are dealing with the immediate context, yet you ignore the phrase in Acts 5:42 about their teaching being related to Christ as the Messiah (kingdom teaching) and continue your idea that it is just an evangelistic appeal.

No, again, you misunderstand what was being said.  The two activities are not necessarily tied to one event, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  He did both, wherever he went.  Unboubtedly teaching/discipling those who were converts, and evangelizing those he came into contact with that were unbelievers.

3) You ignore the GRAMMATICAL context (Lukes's usage of euanggelitzo)

No, I don't.  I just don't attribute the sense in which he used it in the passage you cited to the Acts passage.  What you seem to be doing is insisting that the sense that Luke uses it in the Gospel of Luke MUST BE the same way it is used throughout, and that is demonstrably false by numerous Scriptures where "evangelize" is used in the context of exclusively lost people.

and HISTORICAL context (practice of meeting in homes of believers)

So, historically, evangelism only occurred in the homes of believers???

 

[FSSL]

There is so much misquoting and twisting going on here that I will make a few salient points and let you have the last word. I'd rather spend my time sightseeing.

...the first thing you do is avoid the immediate context and overthrow it with a broader contextual apparatus.  Is this a proper method in the fundamental rules of interpretation?

Since I dealt with the immediate context, your point is moot.

You are the one who limited this to the context of just unbelievers.

The evangel is the gospel.  They are virtually synonymous.  The content of the "good news" is what matters.  It's the power of God to save, and sanctify.  Context determines the meaning, and in this case, the immediate context of Acts 5 was Peter's spreading of the good news to unbelievers.

Since the message given in Acts 5:42 was obviously more broad than simply "giving the good news to unbelievers," we are not the ones having issues with the context.

Could you support or corroborate your claim that I never knew that teach and preach were used in this passage? 
I think you may be confused.

Since you never mentioned it, I chalked that up to an oversight. I thought it was better to treat it as an oversight than to accuse you that you knew it was there and did not want it to mess up your narrow view of euanggelitzw. Corroborated.

So, historically, evangelism only occurred in the homes of believers???

Strawman... I never said "only." Since Acts 2 gives us a detailed look at how they were ministering to all of the believers in Jerusalem by meeting in their homes, I have no problem with this as another house church. However, did the apostles get invited to the unbeliever's homes? On occasions.

We have a description of their activities in Acts 2. It would be absurd to believe that the apostles were invited by every unbeliever into their homes to have the apostles didaskw and euanggelitzo. I don't foist a modern day concept of "door-to-door" on the apostles' methods.

All you have given us, and continue to give us, is YOUR opinion with ZERO exegesis and ZERO source material.

 

[subllibrm]

I read this entire thread.  8)

 

[ALAYMAN]

I read this entire thread.  8)

One word....

















ambien