I never said there were just twelve, you twit. I said the word "disciples" was often used to just refer to the twelve, and that the disciples were referred to as the twelve disciples. They weren't always called apostles.

"Doncha just love it when an anti-Christian regurgitates something that proves he is so wrong. Hahahahahahahahahahaha"

I wasn't wrong. You're a buffoon. I pointed out where the twelve were referred to as disciples, which was my point. You said the twelve weren't disciples, they were apostles, which is clearly stupid.

But continue to project your own gaffe onto me, please. It is amusing.

Seriously, you're a walking projector. Every single logical fallacy you commit you like to pretend everyone else is committing. Falsely attributing statements to people? You're the master of it. Twisting people's words? Again nobody compares to you. Making nasty personal attacks? Nobody gets as personal as you. Superiority complex? My god, you can't go a day without bragging about yourself.

Just shut up.

All Apostles are disciples, but not all disciples are Apostles. If I work at a company with thousands of employees, I might refer to anyone in that company as my coworker, but usually when I say coworker I mean the people in my department. This occasionally causes confusion, but if you follow along with what I'm saying enough, you'll know what I mean on any given occasion.

@Putin - "I'm not denying that, what I'm saying is "the disciples" often simply refers to the twelve. In other cases it refers to more than just the twelve. Apostles and Disciples were used interchangeably with reference to the twelve. I was asking what Leif was referring to since the word is used in many ways."

But what you actually said was "Or are we equivocating with the word disciple now, since in Jesus's context it usually refers to "The Twelve"?" when in fact it only ocassionally refers to the Twelve and that only in the early times before his ministry grew and he appointed the twelve as his apostles. And the way in which you worded your question to Leif was down right fucking rude. Equivocate means to use ambiguous language to either hide the truth or to avoid committing oneself to a course of reason. You were implying some intentional misdirection through ambiguity on his part, not simply asking a question. So stop being a fucktard and talk to him politely. You can be rude as fuck to me if you like. I know you're an athie-asshole. and I'm rude to you as well becuas eyou've earned nothing but scorn and derision from me and many others here. But Leif was nothing but polite and open with you and you treated him with your usual disdain athie-assholish attitude.

I agree with you. My whole point was I was wondering who Leif was referring to when he said disciples. I wouldn't have asked that if it was clear-cut that he was referring to the twelve. But often the Bible does simply talk about the twelve as the disciples.

I'd say it's pretty clear because you can't take some from every tribe and end up with twelve. Some implies more than one more than disciples implies the Twelve.

"You were implying some intentional misdirection through ambiguity on his part, not simply asking a question"

Yes I was implying that, because his comment "Jesus did not make every Jew his disciple" only makes sense as a counterpoint if he's engaging in equivocation. Jesus tried to convert lots of people. That he failed is not evidence that somehow Christianity doesn't aim to convert everyone. It just means that Jesus was not very good at it despite his constant threats of hellfire. He often expressed frustration that the lack of belief of his "generation". However if he's changing "disciple" to mean that he only picked twelve to follow him and thus was very selective about who he taught (and he only taught people who were eager to learn), then that's a different point. However the word disciple is referring to something else in such a context.

But Putin - equivocating is intentionallly using ambiguity as a means of avoiding something head on. You accused Leif of just that instead of simply asking for clarification. I'm rude. I expect rudeness back. Fuck, I can take it. But I don't give it unless someone is just as good at dishing it out. It's my new approach over the last several months (hence no more trashing cheating accusations and shit). so rip into me, I don't give a fuck. But *don't* accuse perfectly polite people like Leif of being deceptive and underhanded.

If you reread what Leif wrote, it was clear he was not referring to the 12. How you could read otherwise into it, unless English is a second language for you, is beyond me.

"I'd say it's pretty clear because you can't take some from every tribe and end up with twelve. Some implies more than one more than disciples implies the Twelve."

1- No where in that Greek translation offered by Leif did the word "some" come up. That's his midrashing.

2 - It was a separate point, not referring to the original passage we were discussing. His point was that Jesus didn't make every Jew his disciple in his lifetime. I was asking what he meant by disciple in that context.

Fine, I don't really care if he's not referring to the 12. If he's not then his point is rather weak. That Jesus failed to convert the Jews is not evidence that Jesus didn't want to convert everyone.

And again, how could you assume that he meant to turn every Jew into one of twelve people? I mean, you acknowledge that there's two forms of disciple in the Bible, it's pretty clear which he would mean unless you just want to fight to fight.

"And again, how could you assume that he meant to turn every Jew into one of twelve people?"

Huh? I wasn't making such an assumption. I was asking if Leif was suggesting that because Jesus only made twelve people his disciples, this reveals that Jesus did not aim to convert all the Jews.

You continue to misinterpret what I meant and then claim I'm just picking a fight. This was a rather small point, blown out of proportion by you and Draugnar. It's not that hard to understand. I'm asking if Jesus's selectivity in picking disciples is being used as proof that converting everyone is not the goal of Christianity.

But you acknowledge that it's used to mean two different groups, one of which is larger than the other which is in turn a subset of the larger group. Why would you assume it's the smaller group?

Again, I reiterate, Jesus was selective in picking apostles. Anyone who followed him could be a disciple. The fact that the apostles were part of the larger group of disciples and therefore the terms could be used interchangeably when referring specifically to the 12 in know ways indicates a selectivity in choosing who would be disciples.

*in no way, not in know way.

I don't know how many times I can repeat myself. Kinda hard to claim I'm picking a fight at this point when you keep asking me to explain what I explained half a dozen times.

But he...didn't make only twelve people his disciples...you even threw up a quote that showed that...

Well, then just quite referring to the 12 disciples and saying Jesus was somehow selective or that someone was arguing Jesus was selective when it came ot the disciples. He was selective of the apostles from the disciples and the argument was that if Jesus told his disciples to brush the dust off their feet from any house or town they visited who would not accpet them in, then he was clearly only concerned with making disciples of the willing and open, and not forcibly cajoling those who turned them away. If he was interested in scaring the piss out of the non-believers, he would have ordered his disciples to stand outside the door or the wall and rebuke those within with threats of eternal damnation. But he didn't. He essentially said "Just walk away. I and your Father in heaven will deal with them later." Hardly a threat to thos ewithin when they never heard any of that. All they got was someone came knocking with "good news from our Lord Jesus Christ" and they said "Go away! We don't want any!" and the person went away.

"But he...didn't make only twelve people his disciples...you even threw up a quote that showed that..."

I was demonstrating that disciples can refer to different things. Disciples has often been used simply to refer to the twelve. My quotes were mainly to show that the twelve were often referred to as disciples, not just apostles. I really don't get why you keep harping on this.

I get what your saying, Putin. But when used in the context of the quotes you rprovided, the twelve disciples is like saying the two hamburgers (I ate) from amongst the 20 or so I cooked over Memorial Day weekend. It refers to a select few who were specifically "numbered" as it were. I believe, if you check, every reference to the disciples that refers to the twelve says His twelve disciples or something to that effect to designate the reference as being the smaller select group, but references to the larger gorup of all Christ's followers just say "His disciples". Perhaps that would help clarify it for you as well.

And I just checked those quotes you provided. In each of the cases you quoted where the writer refers to the apostles as disciples, it is prefixed with "His twelve" providing the clarification that the reference is to the smaller sub group also called the apostles. If not prefixed, it is reasonably safe to assert that "disciples" refers to the multitude of Christ's followers.

I guess I should step in here and clarify what I was referring to. This back and forth is getting out of hand.

"Jesus himself did not make every jew his disciple" I was referring to disciple in the sense of follower, not Apostle.

You've reduced yourself to ranting at my wording rather than considering the substance of what I said.

On your objections to my interpretation: Is what I presented an unreasonable interpretation, based on the actual possible usages of the original greek? If your read other passages where "pas" is used, "pas" can't mean each and every, and the wording "some of every" is the only possible interpretation. But I guess that doesn't make it a candidate interpetation here..

On the subject of "to make disciples": I understand a disciple to be a person who chooses to follow of an idea or philosophy or person who teaches an idea or philosophy, and to make one would have to be done by convincing a person to subscribe to that idea. The very idea of disciple doesn't fit the picture you seem to paint of forced converts. If you read the next verse by the way, it says "teaching them" (you seem to say "them" refers to "nations", but it could as easily refer to "disciples") "to obey whatsoever I have commanded you." There's that word "teach" that Draug supposedly pulled out of thin air and misapplied to this passage.

Now, If Jesus simply wanted every Jew to follow Himself because he wanted followers, why did he present an unpopular idea, own no possessions and seek no wealth or position of authority, and why did he not seek to lead a rebellion against Rome? That last action was afterall what the Jews were waiting for their Messiah to do was it not?

As popular as he was with what he did preach, would he not have won the support of practiacally the entire nation if he sought to fight the Romans, and had paid the proper respect to the religious authorities (whom he spoke out against most often and with the harshest words, while speaking mercifully to the outcasts and "sinners")?

Again, your belief on hell and consequences worse that Sodom and Gomorrah is part of what you choose to believe. If you believe there is no hell what's the threat to you? On the other hand, the fact that human kind is pretty messed up is about as empirical as it gets. I call this sin, and believe scripture when is says that everyone is infected by it and punishment is coming. Have you met a 2 year old that doesn't test his parents, and disobey for the sake of disobeying?

If everyone were perfect, and God enacted punishment for each individual the first time they disobeyed him:

A. He wouldn't have free will in His Creation.
B. There would be no mercy for those that disobeyed.

Alternatively, with all of mankind begining in rebellion, each person has many chances to accept mercy, and by their free will. God wins their trust and devotion, rather than enforcing it. And the one responsible for rebellion, Satan, gets his consequence in hell, while those he decieved, mankind, get a second chance.

And on that subject, it would be reasonable to expect God's archenemy to twist the words of His scripture if possible and to use people parading in the guise as "servants of God" to do the worst evil in the world, and in God's name. I don't condone it, I don't support it, I speak out agaisnt it, I acknowldege it happened, I seek to right the wrongs where I can, and I pray against it happening again, but I guess it is still my repsonsibility because I hold to a belief system to which enemies of that belief system attributed their actions.

And to be fair, I'll stop the "redbaiting" and drop the captialism vs marxism/leninism argument. I believe neither system will or even can fix anything, and the main reason I subscribe to capitalism is that it also includes the free flow of ideas, including teaching about Jesus Christ, who I believe will right all wrongs and fix this world.