Godfather

In Acts 2:5 we are told that "there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven." Now my Bible teacher says that somehow there were representatives from every nation on earth present to hear the gospel preached. This is how he would explains that God can send people to hell who don't believe in His son. He says that all the nations knew of Him,and they just turned away. This seems like a relatively simple explanation when you don't put any thought into it, but how do we account for the native americans? Or even the many Island dwelling peoples of this planet? Is there any historical evidence at all that would clarify this? The verse actually says "every nation under heaven." Any help with this would be appreciated.

Heathen Dawn

It was easy for the gospel to have been preached to the whole world, as the whole world then known to the Christians was the Roman Empire. The Native Americans were unknown so they didn’t exist. Though, the Book of Mormon corrects this.

Chris Weimer

listen people, we can't take the bible literally. Like every nation really means that it's a bunch of nations, literally tribes (nation = tribe) and the same the Jesus being resurrected, it's a metaphor for the keeping the spirit alive in our minds. The Bible isn't actually real...

Heathen Dawn

Ah, but that’s clear already from Page One.

Angrillori

Heh. That's actually kind of funny.

God teleported some Incas, Olmecs, Aztecs, Dakota, Lakota, Nakota over to Jerusalem, then beamed them back when the sermon was finished, eh?*

ROFL. I'll try to remember this next time I'm chatting up a literalist.

How can people still be literalists/fundies today?

*I can aniticipate the standard apologetic: "Well, it doesn't say he DIDN'T teleport people, so he must have!"

Godfather

I appreciate the reply's but they are not exactly what I was looking for. Honestly I had hoped that someone would quote some Ravi Zacharias/Josh Mcdowell literature and put me in my place. They seem to be able to explain away any apparent contradictions and inconsistencies, even the difficult ones. However when it comes to a few issues, such as this one, they don't even try.

It is interesting that mormonism was brought up. When I brought up the home page there was a link to an article on the said religion. It even talked about native americans. I have respect for many Christians and their apologists, but the mormons seem to be on the lowest level of the "believe in stupid things for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever caste." It is just a bit sad, but maybe they have contributed some astounding scientific discovery, who knows.

Back to the task at hand; can anyone at all think of any way that apologists try to rationalize this rather clear section of scripture? There are no hidden concepts here. Any legends of cave art depicting a crucifix? Anything?

lulay

yes it is a business and wants a large clientelle, and wants to crush all opposotion or convert it.

Toto

There are so many more problems with Acts 2 than "all nations under heaven" that I suspect the apologists have not got around to that yet. I suspect if pressed, that the apologists would claim that the reference is to all nations that contained diaspora Jews who had returned to Jerusalem - a figure of speech for all nations in the known world at the time, such as those listed in later verses 9-11. Your Bible teacher's claim, that this passage justifies sending heathens to hell because the entire world had heard of Jesus, is not actually supported by the text.

But first you have to explain the "tongues of fire" and the "noise from heaven." There is the supernatural quality of people hearing the apostles preach, each in his own language, as if each was equipped with a babelfish in his ear.

And then it seems that Peter explained that this was because they were in the "last days" - but that was ~2000 years ago already, and we're still waiting.

Shameless Hussy

Did your bible teacher read the rest of that passage? It's pretty clear that the "nations" were relatively local. Parthians, Medes, Elamites, residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia [Minor], Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, Cretans and Arabs. So okay, I guess your teacher could say that these people heard the word and turned away. But note that these were visitors and residents - how would all the people from their respective areas be held accountable for not accepting the word that was told to someone in another place? How did these "nations" hear about it? Some guy goes on a trip and comes back and doesn't tell you about the time he got drunk on wine and heard a guy talking about a saviour, and it's your fault for not being psychic? What?

Maimonides

Godfather,
A brief query for your teacher, if I might... if God teleported random Bantu, Polynesian, Mesoamerican, etc. etc. to Jerusalem and back, and then all those nations rejected the message, why send missionaries (nowadays)? Not to be fascetious, but I am greatly annoyed by absurd claims like this and would certainly appreciate an answer.
Perhaps an examination of the original Greek would prove (somewhat) enlightening on the topic.