Search results

Well, here is a pretty nuanced study from a largely Baptist perspective for you to consider. On further study, there is an earlier use of qahal=ekklesia in the LXX: Gen 28:1-4 "....and I will make you into an ekklesia of peoples..." [cp with TS]

I said 'sound exegesis', not 'sound hermeneutics'; there is a difference between the two. Do try to keep up...

Are you saying you accept the LXX as the only inspired version of the OT over the MT or other Hebrew versions???

I would have thought that conservatives would be against a minimum wage - they certainly are over here - as that's a prime example of interventionist government.

Yeah, well, it takes one to know one and all that...and at least I can spell, even if I can't get my code right! [ETA - the first use of ekklesia in the LXX is in Deut. 4:10, where it refers to the whole nation of Israel. Care to reconsider about whether the LXX supports your theory?]

Sorry, completely messed up my code in my penultimate post: the statements after "I hope there won't be the need for a fourth..." are Walter's.

The word Jesus would have spoken would have been adta, directly derived from qahal and having the same universalist meaning since, contrary to yor earlier rather absurd suggestion, the disciples and Jesus would have conversed in Aramaic since (a) that was the common speech of the Jews at the...

No failure on my part at all. Sound exegesis demands that we look at the context in which the HS through Matthew and John uses the word: in Matthew's case it was to a principally Jewish audience, who would have understood ekklesia to have the same meaning as the Aramaic adta and the Hebrew...

Dickens was a socialist? :laugh:Now I've heard it all! Dickens only wrote about what he observed. But, if you want fact as opposed to fiction, then I would recommend you read the Rowntree Report into poverty of 1901 for further enlightenment.

<Sigh> I already set out that explanation a couple of posts of mine back but I'll restate it here again in the interests of clarity: the primary addressees of Matthew's Gospel were Jewish Christians who, whilst they knew some Greek, were indeed Jewish in background and so would have understood...

But like I said, per Charles Dickens, the sola charitas method has been tried and found wanting.

Not all are able to. What about them? For the record, I'm not advocating that an employer should pay 'more than someone's labour is worth' (to use your phrase_; what I am saying is that where circumstances - for whatever reason - result in that 'worth' being less than that needed for the...

Then you misunderstand: I fully accept that Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek; what I am saying is however two further things: 1. That Jesus and the apostles would have conversed in Aramaic, not Greek, as the former was their first language and that therefore Jesus Himself would not have...

Yep, David, another Pond Difference I guess! I dread to think what would happen if they came across the term 'Christian Socialist'; I suppose they would think that was an oxymoron! Whose entitlement attitude are we talking about: that of the employer as outlined by you above or the employee's...

And if there is nowhere else?

And in one paragraph you've just summed up the evils of capitalism.

It's not a 'better work ethic' to work for less than you need to adequately live on! Where I come from, that's called wage slavery.

So you're saying that Jesus and the disciples spoke Greek to each other???!!!

Er...I've explained all that above. I'm not going to repeat myself!

Again, you're performing eisegesis. No disrespect was offered by me. I simply believe that it says what it says and means what it says. Why don't you?