tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post2087801839325823771..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Is It Scriptural To Stereotype Certain Cultures or Ethnicities?Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-74150374252058078182015-04-27T18:57:27.464-07:002015-04-27T18:57:27.464-07:00That is a good explanation. You are saying essent...That is a good explanation. You are saying essentially the leaders are the vain talkers and being Cretians share the traits of the Cretians. I will consider that. <br /><br />However, you did not answer my last question.What is the practical application? What will be your "The ____________ are always _______________." How will you prove that statement?Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-10901507455244699252015-04-27T12:50:27.828-07:002015-04-27T12:50:27.828-07:00Let me give it a better shot. I gave a couple of ...Let me give it a better shot. I gave a couple of grammatical points that you really haven't answered so far, but what about contextual, which you are treating as the major point here, with which I'm fine?<br /><br />It reads to me that the churches at Crete had leaders characterized by qualities distinctive to the Cretians. The churches were going the way of Crete because their leaders were that way, hence new leaders necessary. They needed to be more discriminatory and Paul gives the qualifications, then explaining the issue for those. Instead of being characterized by heaven, they were characterized by Crete. They had no qualms about telling lies that would bring monetary benefits, just like their culture. They were using faux authority from their own experience and tradition to do so, since that couldn't be supported from scripture. The professing believers in churches were not distinct from the world, because they were not converted.<br /><br />The false leaders there, having already infiltrated the churches, needed to be rebuked sharply and their influence removed. Their problem is one of conversion, so that they are taking on the traits of the Cretians, not of God.<br /><br />I think there are many groups that are stereotyped: Judges 21:25, every man did that which was right in his own eyes, the generation before the flood in Genesis 6, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Pharisees in Matthew 23 were all stereotyped by God. God does it all the time.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-17053919800290681172015-04-25T07:39:37.914-07:002015-04-25T07:39:37.914-07:00I cannot accept that "rebuke them sharply&quo...I cannot accept that "rebuke them sharply" refers to the Cretians in general and not to the vain talkers, and especially of the circumcision. They are the ones being addressed and rebuked. The "themselves" are not the Cretians, because they have yet to be introduced. The prophet is one of the vain talkers, and is they of the circumcision. They are the only "selves" thus far introduced.<br /><br />To understanding your way the prophet has to be a Cretian, and the of themselves are the Cretians, but that is grammatically very difficult. Much more likely that the prophet is one if the unruly vain talkers of the circumcision. He may also be Cretian, but Paul is not yet talking about the Cretians in general, but the troublemakers, especially those of the circumcision.<br /><br />The ones whose mouths he must stopped are the vain talkers especially of the circumcision. He is going to stop them by rebuking them sharply to make them sound in the faith. He is not going to make the Cretians in general strong in the faith, because the Cretians in general are not of the faith. The mouths (vs 11) being rebuked (vs 13) are the mouths of the vain talkers.<br /><br />The phrasing is awkward, but no more than a proper understanding of Romans 10:13 which relies on the surrounding verses.<br /><br />Regardless, if your understanding is correct, how will you practically apply it? What groups will you single out and what will you attribute to them? How will you prove the attributions? Will it be from a Biblical source or your own observations? Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-29316803644533759942015-04-23T23:42:48.835-07:002015-04-23T23:42:48.835-07:00Farmer,
I actually don't get your interpretat...Farmer,<br /><br />I actually don't get your interpretation, when I read Titus 1. I know you are saying that almost everything favors your position in the context, but what you've written does not compute with me.<br /><br />If someone says "The Cretians alway," does that mean they don't breath? Or they don't eat? Because alway means alway, and alway means every Cretian, you're saying. No. When Paul said what this person said was true, he wasn't saying that it was true that he said it, but that what he said was true. This is truly characteristic of the Cretians.<br /><br />You would be saying that the point of my post can't be supported by Titus 1, because that isn't what it is saying. I get that, but I'm convinced, still, that what I'm saying it means, is what it means.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12087224449950279622015-04-23T05:40:04.674-07:002015-04-23T05:40:04.674-07:00I agree he is not only talking about they of the c...I agree he is not only talking about they of the circumcision, but he does focus on them for the next few verses, ending with the exhortation the they (the vain talkers) not give heed to Jewish fables. Also, they of the circumcision is the only group specifically described, except for the quote. It is a greater leap to have him talking about the Cretians who are at that point unmentioned by Paul.<br /><br />The witness that is true is the witness that a Jewish prophet made this slanderous statement, not the content of the statement. For example, "A pastor in Florida, Peter Ruckman, has said, 'The IQ of blacks is ALWAYS lower than whites.' This witness is true" It is not true that the IQ's of "blacks" is always lower than the IQ of whites, but it is true Ruckman said that.<br /><br />I agree it is not ironclad, but I cannot get past they of the circumcision being the only described group and the battle Paul has fought against Jewish zealots who look down on other nationalities. He has to write an entire book combating this, as well as address it many other times.<br /><br />And what of the Cretian believers to whom Titus is being sent? They would be included in the "always". Always is always, so they have to be. To the Corinthian believers he says "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." This is the change and state of a believer. How then could the Cretian believer still fit the quote? "Such were" he said, not "such are".<br /><br />While it is not ironclad, the balance of evidence both in the passage (somewhat) and in the rest of scripture (strongly) favors my understanding.Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-27001391144954684162015-04-22T23:24:13.574-07:002015-04-22T23:24:13.574-07:00Farmer Brown,
There are a couple of problems that...Farmer Brown,<br /><br />There are a couple of problems that I see with this in light of the text. One is "especially" (malista), which would mean he's not talking about only the circumcision in his description. You can't have a comparative like this and have it be only Jews. So you've got to deal with that. And then second, you didn't say anything about Paul's follow-up about this witness or testimony or record being true. You are saying that it was a lie, since no one "always lies," but Paul is saying that what someone said was true. You didn't make note of that. <br /><br />Without going to the history of the interpretation of this verse, or to outside material period, you've got those two things that work against what you've written.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-36063214295116078902015-04-22T21:45:55.535-07:002015-04-22T21:45:55.535-07:00Kent, I do not think Paul is talking about the Cre...Kent, I do not think Paul is talking about the Cretian poet in that passage. I have often heard it taught the way you have explained it, but have some doubts. The antecedent to "one" (of themselves) is "They of the circumcision", isn't it? The "one" then would be a Jewish prophet.<br /><br />This makes the most sense in the passage without resorting to outside sources. It is further reinforced by Paul's continuing to talk about Jewish fables. The converted (perhaps) Jews are the problem here, not the Cretians.<br /><br />So the rebuke Paul is calling on Titus to deliver is a sharp rebuke to these unruly and vain talkers who are of the circumcision. Once of them even went so far as to slanderously say that the Cretians are <b>always</b> liars, a statement that cannot possibly be true. This is the most consistent understanding of this passage, and is in keeping with Paul's struggles.<br /><br />This jingoistic and nationalistic attack by converted Jews on gentile believers was an ongoing struggle in Paul's ministry. He even had to deliver a public rebuke to Peter for this same type of behavior. Now it is infecting the Cretian churches as these self-righteous Jewish teachers are probably refusing to eat with the lazy and dishonest (allegedly) Cretians, and once again this arrogance has to be rebuked.Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.com