Snoopy Approaches Acts

[unsafe]

Acts 24 --AMP-------So we see that after 5 days ---the high priest Ananias came down [from Jerusalem to Caesarea] with some elders and an attorney named Tertullus [acting as spokesman and counsel].


Info about this guy Tertulius ----Read all if interested

Tertullus - Lockyer's All the Men of the Bible - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

Tertullus
Tertullus [Tûrtŭl'lus]—derived from Tertius, and meaning, liar or impostor. A Roman advocate employed by the Jewish authorities to prosecute Paul before Felix, the Roman Governor or Procurator (Acts 24:1, 2; 25:8).

So the high priest Ananias brings the complaint against Paul to the governor --they get Paul and the Lawyer begins bringing the case to governor Felix ----

What do we know about this governor ---read all for yourselves ---

Who is Felix in the Bible?​

Who is Felix in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

Who is Felix in the Bible? What can we learn from what the Bible says about Felix?

www.gotquestions.org

So this lawyer says this to the governor -posting the scripture here -----

5 For we have found this man to be a public menace and one who instigates dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the [heretical] sect of the Nazarenes.

6 He even tried to desecrate the temple, but we took him into custody and we intended to judge him by our Law, But the commander took him and brought him here to you ----

So the Jews joined in on the attack of Paul and agreed that this was so -----

So the governor gets Paul to speak ---and he presents his case -----and says this

18 They found me in the temple presenting these offerings, after I had undergone [the rites of] purification, without any crowd or uproar. But there were some Jews from [the west coast province of] Asia [Minor],

19 who ought to have been here before you to present their charges, if they have anything against me.

20 Or else let these men tell what crime they found [me guilty of] when I stood before the Council (Sanhedrin, Jewish High Court),

21 other than for this one statement which I had shouted out as I stood among them, ‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.’”

I say ----So Paul was telling the truth here ---but in a court of law the truth doesn't always win out ---does it----

So what Paul says here --I think he presents a strong argument ---------

But there were some Jews from [the west coast province of] Asia [Minor],
who ought to have been here before you to present their charges, if they have anything against me.


So the governor ------Felix, having a rather accurate understanding about the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case.


Then he keeps Paul in custody giving him privileges ----he is allowed some freedom and his friends are able to give him what he needs -----so pretty lenient sentence I say----

So we see that after a few days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess.and wanted to hear from Paul about faith in Jesus Christ ---Now Felix coming to hear from Paul did not come with a good motive -----as he was actually looking for Paul to give him some money -----as a bribe and sent for Paul quite often to speak with him -----but after 2 years
Felix was succeeded [in office] by Porcius Festus; and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul imprisoned.

So Felix was not a great moral governor ----Hopefully this other guy will be morally better ?????????​

We will see Hopefully -----

 

[BetteTheRed]

Before I get into today's scripture this is some interesting information -----just in case some were not aware of this Jewish group ----

The Jews had an assassin group called The Sicarii

Read all if you wish -----

Topical Bible: Sicarii

Topical Encyclopedia
The Sicarii were a radical Jewish splinter group active during the first century AD, particularly known for their role in the Jewish resistance against Roman occupation. The name "Sicarii" is derived from the Latin word "sica," meaning "dagger," reflecting their use of concealed daggers to carry out assassinations. They are often associated with the Zealots, another Jewish group that opposed Roman rule, but the Sicarii were distinguished by their extreme tactics and willingness to employ violence against both Romans and Jewish collaborators.

New Testament scholar, Reza Aslan, wrote a biography of Jesus suggesting he may have been a Zealot, or incorporated some of their views. Very good book. Review from Goodreads below:

From the internationally bestselling author of No god but God comes a fascinating, provocative, and meticulously researched biography that challenges long-held assumptions about the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth.

Two thousand years ago, an itinerant Jewish preacher and miracle worker walked across the Galilee, gathering followers to establish what he called the “Kingdom of God.” The revolutionary movement he launched was so threatening to the established order that he was captured, tortured, and executed as a state criminal.

Within decades after his shameful death, his followers would call him God.

Sifting through centuries of mythmaking, Reza Aslan sheds new light on one of history’s most influential and enigmatic characters by examining Jesus through the lens of the tumultuous era in which he lived: first-century Palestine, an age awash in apocalyptic fervor. Scores of Jewish prophets, preachers, and would-be messiahs wandered through the Holy Land, bearing messages from God. This was the age of zealotry—a fervent nationalism that made resistance to the Roman occupation a sacred duty incumbent on all Jews. And few figures better exemplified this principle than the charismatic Galilean who defied both the imperial authorities and their allies in the Jewish religious hierarchy.

Balancing the Jesus of the Gospels against the historical sources, Aslan describes a man full of conviction and passion, yet rife with contradiction; a man of peace who exhorted his followers to arm themselves with swords; an exorcist and faith healer who urged his disciples to keep his identity a secret; and ultimately the seditious “King of the Jews” whose promise of liberation from Rome went unfulfilled in his brief lifetime. Aslan explores the reasons why the early Christian church preferred to promulgate an image of Jesus as a peaceful spiritual teacher rather than a politically conscious revolutionary. And he grapples with the riddle of how Jesus understood himself, the mystery that is at the heart of all subsequent claims about his divinity.

Zealot yields a fresh perspective on one of the greatest stories ever told even as it affirms the radical and transformative nature of Jesus of Nazareth’s life and mission. The result is a thought-provoking, elegantly written biography with the pulse of a fast-paced novel: a singularly brilliant portrait of a man, a time, and the birth of a religion.

 

[unsafe]

AI ----says that Jesus wasn't a zealot ---and of course I agree with AI

AI Overview

No, Jesus was not a Zealot, and this is a view largely rejected by biblical scholars and historians. While one of his disciples, Simon, is called a Zealot in the Bible, Jesus himself taught non-violence, obedience to earthly authorities ("Render unto Caesar"), and a spiritual rather than a political kingdom, which directly contradicted the violent revolutionary goals of the Zealots. His message of peace and love, and his association with tax collectors and "sinners," further separated him from the Zealot movement.

Evidence against Jesus being a Zealot:

• Emphasis on a spiritual kingdom:
  Jesus's teachings focused on the "Kingdom of God" through spiritual renewal, love, and forgiveness, not political revolution against Rome.
  
  
• Non-violent teachings:
  Jesus consistently denounced violence and promoted turning the other cheek, which was the opposite of Zealot action.
  
  
• Render to Caesar:
  Jesus's response to the question of taxes ("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's") indicated acceptance of Roman authority, a position contrary to Zealot views.
  
  
• Association with tax collectors:
  The presence of Matthew, a former tax collector, as one of Jesus's disciples would have been scandalous to Zealots, who viewed tax collectors as traitors to Israel.
  

The Zealot context:

• Zealots were revolutionaries:
  The Zealots were a Jewish revolutionary faction dedicated to overthrowing Roman rule through violent means.
  
  
• One disciple was a Zealot:
  The Gospels do mention a Simon among Jesus's twelve disciples who was called a "Zealot". However, this shows that the message of Jesus transformed even those who held extremist views, leading to a spiritual mission rather than a political one.
  
  
• Reza Aslan's thesis is not widely accepted:
  The idea that Jesus was a Zealot, popularized by author Reza Aslan, is seen by most scholars as historically flawed, ignoring the overwhelming evidence for Jesus's spiritual mission and teachings of peace, according to the Jewish Review of Books.

 

[paradox3]

Jesus as Zealot is an interesting idea. I have often thought that Jesus comes across as a bit of a hothead from time to time.

I am reminded that Jesus once famously asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?"

Indeed. Who do we say He is? We all grapple with this, don't we?

No surprise that AI doesn't go along with the idea of Jesus as a Zealot.

Others have certainly wondered if Jesus might have been as Essene or a Pharisee.

 

[unsafe]

here is the thing with the internet --Folks ------unbelievers who dislike God and His word can find material that will discredit God and His word who is Jesus --but then people who are believers that love God and does His Living Word who is Jesus by the way who does live today can always fine material to contradict what material unbelievers have found ---so it reverts back to what one wants to believe in their own minds -----

If you want to believe Jesus was a zealot than you will find all the material to support that belief on the internet ---same goes for the Believer who will find all the material that rejects that theory of Jesus being a Zealot and supports their belief -that he wasn't ---

And so it goes back and forth while really getting nowhere ---and solving nothing --because it only supports what one believes in their heart -----for out of the heart the mouth speaks -----

 

[BetteTheRed]

unsafe, just because you are not interested in academic research on Christianity doesn't mean that others aren't.

You come across as very dismissive of other ideas and opinions and very convinced of your own. Funny enough, in common English, that makes you something of a contemporary zealot...

 

[unsafe]

Funny enough, in common English, that makes you something of a contemporary zealot...

then that is just your belief and your entitled to it----what is in your heart your mouth is speaking ---you see I am way passed in my Spiritual journey being in People bondage --what people think of me or say about me rolls off like water on a ducks back -----

I am living such a great life with what I believe cause I don't just read the Word --I do what the word says to have a great life ----and this is such a great piece of scripture to get rooted in ----so powerful to believe in and allow to take root in your very being ---and I am there with this Scripture ---so freeing when you can put this scripture into action in your life -----

 

[paradox3]

It's not only the Internet @unsafe

Believers of all kinds and non-believers alike can find plenty in the Bible to support their point of view.

 

[paradox3]

About Jesus and turning the other cheek.

The gospel account is often used to promote the idea of Jesus as the ultimate peacemaker.

An alternative point of view suggests it is really all about non-violent resistance. Which is not exactly the same thing as making peace.

And some materials we used once for a RL bible study presented the idea that Jesus was actually talking about forgiveness.

Will hold the next installment of Acts until tomorrow in case anyone wants to discuss this further.

 

[unsafe]

Believers of all kinds and non-believers alike can find plenty in the Bible to support their point of vie

Ya the unbelieving can by only being able to read the Logos and interpreting with their intellectual thinking find all kinds of scripture to support their view ------that I agree with

Like saying God's word promotes anti semitism when it really does not ----and the unbelieving finding Scripture to support that ---but then the Believer can Spiritually debunk that through proper Spiritual understanding -----

Taking scripture like an eye for an eye and using it to say Jesus promotes violence ---when that is not what Jesus is saying at all ---in spiritual terms -----

About Jesus and turning the other cheek.

The gospel account is often used to promote the idea of Jesus as the ultimate peacemaker.

An alternative point of view suggests it is really all about non-violent resistance. Which is not exactly the same thing as making peace.

And some materials we used once for a RL bible study presented the idea that Jesus was actually talking about forgiveness.

So here is a good examples of how the unbelieving intellectual mind can interpretate this -----

So this that Paradox3 mentions here is the closes to what is really being said here -----

An alternative point of view suggests it is really all about non-violent resistance.

I say ------it is about the person being able to absorb -the offense or insult ---instead of lashing out ---this is all about keeping your emotions in check so you don't fall into sin yourself -----keeping your righteous stance in place -----

Spiritually Jesus is Teaching his disciples here ---on how not to take offenceor be insulted when one slaps you on the cheek ----He is actually teaching the way of Kingdom Righteousness ---to his Disciples ---He is building their Character to absorb any offense or insult that they may encounter -let is roll off their backs and carry on ----using the Slap on the cheek as an example ------

The word slap----- here needs to be understood --------as to how it was portrayed in Jesus' time to get the real Spiritual meaning -----Research is needed ----for proper true understanding ----

-from Bible hub
Topical Lexicon
Cultural Background
In the first-century Mediterranean world, a slap to the face was more than a momentary act of violence; it was a public gesture of contempt meant to shame and dishonor. Jewish legal sources treat the slap as a humiliating offense,Such an insult challenged a person’s honor--

Building Christ like Character on Self Control over emotions ----

and believe me this is a very hard thing to accomplish ----so much practice ---practice and more practice as well a strong willpower to want to accomplish this is needed to be successful ----- I got a lot of Practice about absorbing the insults right here on this sight --and that is the truth

 

[paradox3]

Thanks for another reasonable explanation of "turning the other cheek" @unsafe.

I love these questions that have several good answers.

 

[GordW]

About Jesus and turning the other cheek.

The gospel account is often used to promote the idea of Jesus as the ultimate peacemaker.

An alternative point of view suggests it is really all about non-violent resistance. Which is not exactly the same thing as making peace.

And some materials we used once for a RL bible study presented the idea that Jesus was actually talking about forgiveness.

Will hold the next installment of Acts until tomorrow in case anyone wants to discuss this further.

Just this year I saw a video clip from a Biblical Scholar who pushes his viewers to take what it says seriously (Data over Dogma is a common thread) even if it challenges tradition. He comes from the POV that while it is tempting to see the "turn other cheek" "go the extra mile" and "give your cloak also" teachings from Matthew 5 (parallell is in Luke 6) as non-violent resistance, acts to bring shame to the persecutor there is little data to back up the conceptions of ROman law and custom that the argument is based on. [He may have most directly been addressing the go the extra mile part]

 

[unsafe]

Matthew 5:41
AMP
And whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

So was there a Law that the Romans had that they could make a person carry a load for ! mile ----there seems to be a debate over this among Scholars -----

So I found this ----from guess who ??

AI

Jesus's instruction for his followers to "go with him two" miles refers to a known Roman practice of forced labor (known as angaria), and his teaching encouraged a radical, counter-cultural response by willingly going beyond the legally mandated distance, not through breaking the law, but by transforming its oppressive power with love and service.

The Law of Angaria

• Roman law allowed soldiers and officials to compel civilians to carry their equipment for up to one mile.
  
  
• This was a common practice called "angaria" and was designed to help burdened soldiers.
  
  
• While it was an oppressive burden on citizens, it was a legal means of service to the Roman state.

So I say-----this makes sense to me -- that there had to be some kind of a Law like this because Jesus only talked about things that His Jewish Nation would be familiar with and could relate to and so they certainly would have been familiar with a Rome law like this --and Jesus telling them to go 2 miles would certainly be a challenge -----

 

[GordW]

But was there actually a penalty if the person went beyond the mile? That is where the non-violent resistance argument hinges. THe law may allow compelled carry of a mile, it may not have really cared if the carrying went further either through volunteering or added compulsion.

 

[unsafe]

But was there actually a penalty if the person went beyond the mile? That is where the non-violent resistance argument hinges. THe law may allow compelled carry of a mile, it may not have really cared if the carrying went further either through volunteering or added compulsion.

So I Googled this question

was there consequences for the Romans making the people carry a load for more than 1 mile

and this is what came up ----and this makes sense ---cause the citizen would have legal right to complain if forced to go more than the 1 mile law limit ----and then the Soldier would have to explain his actions --and may be punished for breaking the Law -----

AI

While a Roman soldier forcing someone to carry a load for more than one mile was illegal, consequences for the soldier were unlikely unless reported and pursued by the citizen. The practice of impressment, known as aggareuein in Greek, was a legal but resented symbol of Roman occupation.

The law and its limit
Roman law permitted a soldier to compel a citizen in a conquered territory to carry military gear for a maximum of one Roman mile (approximately 0.92 modern miles).

• Legal obligation: The citizen was legally required to obey for that first mile, dropping their own work or possessions if necessary.
• A resented practice: Forcing a person to serve as a "mule" for a foreign soldier was a humiliating and deeply resented burden, especially in occupied areas like Judea.
• Jesus's reference: This law provides the historical context for Jesus's teaching in Matthew 5:41: "If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two." The suggestion was to disarm the soldier's power by voluntarily exceeding the legal requirement.

Why consequences were rare
Despite the one-mile limit, consequences for a soldier forcing a citizen to go further were rare in practice.

• Unequal power dynamics: The imbalance of power between a Roman soldier and a local citizen made it highly risky for a civilian to confront or report an abuse of authority.
• Citizen's recourse: A civilian would have to actively seek out and report the transgression to a Roman officer. This would have been a significant inconvenience and could have backfired on the citizen.
• Embarrassing the soldier: As some biblical scholars suggest, Jesus's teaching of going the extra mile put the soldier in a bind. Allowing the citizen to continue would be admitting to a violation of the law in front of a Roman officer.

Consequences for soldiers
Roman soldiers who were caught breaking their own laws or neglecting their duties could face severe consequences from their superiors. Punishments ranged from mild to extreme depending on the infraction.

• Minor offenses: Lesser discipline problems, such as insubordination, could result in a beating with a staff by a centurion or pay deductions.
• Severe offenses: Serious crimes like desertion or cowardice could lead to flogging, execution, or decimation (the killing of every tenth man in a unit).
• Abuse of power: While difficult to enforce, an officer could punish a soldier for overstepping his authority. This would have helped enforce discipline and maintain order, though it was likely reserved for more blatant violations

 

[GordW]

Key word...citizen. IN the Roman EMpire that had a very specific meaning (as we have seen with Paul's story in Acts). Even if it applied to the common everdya conquered riff raff it may never get enforced. SO in the end we don't know for sure if Jesus was counselling some form of resistance or counselling his followers to have a servant attitude. It may well be a bit of both. Which requires us to hold both possibiilites in our minds as we read the texts.

Also. Just saying you got it from AI is not actually citing sources. How do any of us know that AI has used good sources (this is one of the big problems with AI in general).

 

[unsafe]

Just saying you got it from AI is not actually citing sources. How do any of us know that AI has used good sources (this is one of the big problems with AI in general).

No source that you get from the internet about Scripture is going to be 100% reliable ----there is only one Source that is Truly Reliable when it comes to Interpretation of Scripture and that is the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit---and not many people have that source ------

 

[BetteTheRed]

No source that you get from the internet about Scripture is going to be 100% reliable ----there is only one Source that is Truly Reliable when it comes to Interpretation of Scripture and that is the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit---and not many people have that source ------

Sources matter, unsafe, and we've discussed this before.

Sites associated with educational institutions, ending in .edu, are more reliable than random .com's. And when it comes to basic theology resources, I much prefer relatively neutral sites like biblegateway.com (for translations) and blueletterbible.org for original language translation (the commentary therein is decidedly orthodox).

Finally, the answers you get from AI depend on what question you ask, and how you phrase it.

It's arrogant of you to think you know who has an "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" and who does not. In my belief system, the Spirit of Godde is nowhere absent.

 

[unsafe]

we don't know for sure if Jesus was counselling some form of resistance or counselling his followers to have a servant attitude. It may well be a bit of both. Which requires us to hold both possibiilites in our minds as we read the texts.

But there are not 2 truths ---there is only one truth the other interpretation is false ----

so Matthew 5:41 comes under the heading of

Law of retaliation CEB​

41 When they force you to go one mile, go with them two.

I say ------So This tells us what this scripture is about ----not to Retaliate-----

So this is my view on this

So the 1 mile is done under obligation --it is forced upon the person ---they have no will to stop it ---your a slave to the evil master who inflicts you ----but you are not to retaliate with angry words or outbursts ----don't evade it ---do it without complaint and a yielding temper

This comes to mind ----Matthew 22:32 where Jesus says Give Cesar what is Cesar's ----to do with the forced Tax -----don't begrudge it or complain about it ---just give it under obligation

True Christians are the salt and light of the world ----which is described in Matthew 5 right under the Sermon on the Mount -----so going the 2nd mile is setting an example for others to see -and gives God the Glory ---

-The 2nd mile is done with freedom of will ---the yoke has been removed ---the captive has been set free ----and shows true Christian Character in action ---that is willing to go beyond the obligation and is showing a willingness to surrender personal rights for Christian values to please God and it shows the person's humility --and gratitude for God's mercy and grace that He has shown to His children

 

[unsafe]

Sources matter, unsafe, and we've discussed this before.

There is but one True source BetteTheRed ----according to scripture NOT ME --

1 Corinthians 2:13
​

13 We also speak of these things, not in words taught or supplied by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining and interpreting spiritual thoughts with spiritual words [for those being guided by the Holy Spirit].

Romans 8:9 the Spirit dwells in those who belong to Christ,

So ---BetteThieRed ---here is the Scripture ----you don't have to believe this --but that won't change what it says -----

1 Corinthians 6:19, the believer's body as a temple of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:13
​

13 We also speak of these things, not in words taught or supplied by human wisdom,

but in those taught by the Spirit, combining and interpreting spiritual thoughts with spiritual words [for those being guided by the Holy Spirit].

ites associated with educational institutions, ending in .edu, are more reliable than random .com's. And when it comes to basic theology resources, I much prefer relatively neutral sites like biblegateway.com (for translations) and blueletterbible.org for original language translation (the commentary therein is decidedly orthodox).

That is your opinion --it is not mine --

Finally, the answers you get from AI depend on what question you ask, and how you phrase it

You don't like AI and that is your choice ---I like AI ---and that is my choice ---

It's arrogant of you to think you know who has an "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" and who does not. In my belief system, the Spirit of Godde is nowhere absent.

If you think I am arrogant that is your right -----think what you want ---your not hurting my feelings one bit ----

As far as the Holy Spirit goes God says this

Don't Read this cause you won't like it ------This is God's Word who is Jesus ----NOT MINE ---

Romans 8:9
​

9 However, you are not [living] in the flesh [controlled by the sinful nature] but in the Spirit,

if in fact the Spirit of God lives in you [directing and guiding you].

But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,
he does not belong to Him [and is not a child of God].


Your Quote here

In my belief system, the Spirit of Godde is nowhere absent.


I say -----While godde for you ---I hate to burst your bubble but ----that is not what it says above ---and just because you believe what you believe doesn't make it true ------the actual scripture is the truth -----not what You believe -----

So---- here is a perfect example of how you tell if the person has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or not ----

your comment goes against what the Scripture says ----and the Holy Spirit is God and would never go against what He says Himself-----

just my view ---