Soap
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
| Table of contents |
|
|
English
Noun
soap (uncountable and countable; plural soaps)
- (uncountable) A substance able to mix with both oil and water, used for cleaning, often in the form of a solid bar or in liquid form, derived from fats or made synthetically.
- I tried washing my hands with soap, but the stain wouldn't go away.
- (countable) (colloquial) A soap opera.
Translations
substance
|
|
|
soap opera See soap opera
Transitive verb
- To apply soap to in washing.
- Be sure to soap yourself well before rinsing.
- (colloquial) To cover with soap as a prank.
- Those kids soaped my windows!
Translations
apply soap to in washing
|
|
|
cover with soap as a prank
|
|
|
Acronym
SOAP
Etymology
- A standard Internet protocol for exchanging structured information in a distributed environment.
- The specified system will use SOAP for message exchange.
Related terms
- dish soap
- hand soap
- laundry soap
- liquid soap
- no soap
- soap dish
- soap opera
- soap ring
- soap suds
- soapy
- soft soap
See also
- Wikipedia article on soap
- Wikipedia article on SOAP
- W3 SOAP specifications (http://www.w3.org/TR/soap/)
Dutch
Noun
soap f
- soap opera, soap
French
Noun
soap m
- soap opera, soap
German
Noun
Soap f
- soap opera, soapfr:soap
Note: This post uses 2 Peter 3 as its reference. I had assumed this
was actually Peter's letter, but then found a discussion saying some
early authorities don't believe Peter wrote this. Having read that I
now tend to agree. It seems that the writer's purpose was to do war
against Paul's error, and may have assumed Peter's identity just for
that reason. Nevertheless, I agree with his reason, whether or not
Peter actually wrote it.
But if Peter didn't write it then Peter didn't call Paul "beloved,"
nor his writings as "scripture," (both appear with some sarcasm). And
so we may have no other recorded thought from the apostles concerning
Paul or his message, except for Revelation to John, chapters 2-3. And
there is James discussion. And there are the actual words of Christ.
-- Does Grace Mean 'Long-Suffering' ? --
Some of you know I've questioned the method by which Peter comments on
"our beloved Paul", in 2 Peter 3. This chapter (even his epistle) is
not about grace, nor overflowing with a graceful attitude. While
Paul, however, had often taught salvation by grace, and did this on
his own. The whole of Peter's chapter, which was written as to
include Paul, is fully about God's long-suffering patience with bad
behavior—instead of destroying it that very moment. Does this seem
like grace to you?
What does God's forbearance have to do with grace? If God is
'long-suffering' over me, and in the context Peter wrote, then, though
the hope of the gospel is available to me, I should surely be
concerned! Not hopeful! Unless I've repented.
My argument here is that Peter actually considers Paul's 'salvation by
grace' (the doctrine not overtly mentioned, though was mentioned) as
being the less complimentary and less effective 'salvation' by God's
long-suffering. (Meaning temporarily!) He used these very words in
reference to Paul! Yet it seems that no one questions them. Peter's
seeming compliment towards Paul is actually as sarcasm, yet hidden.
But Peter did include an overt warning concerning Paul's 'scripture'.
And there are other words which appear critical of Paul on their face,
such as "lawless men", and "lose stability".
A bit of history on this catfight, in which these 'apostles' smiled
with words of 'love', though only out of one side of their mouths.
[Both Paul and Peter have been near _openly_ deceptive!] Galations
chapter 2 by Paul, about Peter and James and others, is an also an
astonishing bit of couched rudeness, in which Paul essentially divided
everything in sight: the apostles, the gospel, and the definition of
acceptable behavior. It was Paul against the rest; those who are
named. So I must look to find a response from Peter back at Paul,
which is a fitting response to Paul's behavior. And found it.
Admittedly that it had to be searched for to see it, but it is there.
What I did not have to look for was Peter's overt warning concerning
Paul's 'scriptures' which are "hard to understand."
---\/
2 Peter 3 (RSV)
3:1 This is now the second letter that I have written to you,
beloved, and in both of them I have aroused your sincere mind by way
of reminder;
2: that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and
the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.
3: First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in
the last days with scoffing, following their own passions
4: and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the
fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the
beginning of creation."
5: They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens
existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of
water,
6: through which the world that then existed was deluged with water
and perished.
7: But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been
stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and
destruction of ungodly men.
8: But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one
day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9: The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but
is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that
all should reach repentance.
10: But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the
heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be
dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will
be burned up.
11: Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of
persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
12: waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of
which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will
melt with fire!
13: But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new
earth in which righteousness dwells.
14: Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be
found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
15: And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation..."
---/\
"... count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation." Meaning, 'The
world has that fire coming right now, but God's forbearance
(patience/tolerance/long-suffering) is salvation to you.' ? It could
be, for some. On this 'salvation' I'd say Peter is stretching it.
But maybe he has other motives. The rest of Peter's writings do not
indicate he would be so patient. "Hastening the day of the Lord,"
(v12) is what Peter's intentions are.
Note that (and in both books), what apparently irritates Peter the
most are passions of the flesh gone mad, to the point of calling them
"accursed children!" in 2 Peter 2:14. Some Bible interpretations will
change this wording. But the RSV puts the '!' in, and I believe
appropriate to letter's intentions.
Anyway, the subject of this passage is God's delay = God's
long-suffering (God's willingness to put up with what He hates, and do
so for a long time). And we can, according to Peter, count this
patience with bad behavior as "salvation." (?) Then he immediately
begins to discuss Paul. He hasn't mentioned him before.
---\/
"... So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the
wisdom given him,
16 (a): speaking of this as he does in all his letters."
---/\
(I split verse 16, part of which seems to belong more with the
previous verse. I think it wasn't split here by the original
interpreters in politeness to beloved Paul.)
"So also Paul wrote..."
The samed stuff as Peter wrote here. He did?
"according to the wisdom given him"
Him only, and not to others? And by whom? Do we see Paul's
teachings anywhere else? I believe that Paul's singularity on the
teaching of grace is accepted partly _because_ of this verse by Peter,
rather than being questioned even more for it. That is an odd thing
for so many to have done.
"speaking of this in all his letters."
Again I ask, did Paul cover this material in ALL his letters?
God's delay = God's long-suffering = Salvation? In a manner of
speaking, grace might be thought as not responding in judgment to bad
behavior; at least, at this very moment. But later on, then what will
happen?
The _POINT_ I'm trying to make is that Peter has made a strong effort
to redefined Paul's grace as God's long-suffering, and that is
something to worry about, not to be hopeful for.
---\/
16 (b):There are some things in them hard to understand, which the
ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the
other scriptures.
17: You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you
be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own
stability.
18: But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
---/\
"other scriptures"
Proof that Peter has called Paul's letters as scriptures? Maybe
so, or maybe he expected they would be accepted as such. Wouldn't
you? But at least he points out that there are other scriptures.
"... the error of lawless men and lose your own stability."
But "lawless men" according to Paul, may be those who depend on
grace! As for "stability," I've never thought Paul as one who was
settled in Christ. So likely this writer has a similar opinion. And
I've also believed many were drawn to him because of his dynamic
nature; whether for its entertainment value (seriously), or because
they felt also unsettled as Paul. He is their hero, out for battle,
of some sort. While Peter's epistles are comparatively dull and
worrisome.
Peter's comments on Paul are written as a summary, as if no more word
should be expected from Peter. And it is in the last part of his last
letter. Many are content to see that the apostle Peter summarized him
as "our beloved Paul" and let it go at that. But it is apparent there
is more to it.
But I believe Peter made a mistake. What Peter did was deceive the
reader, but only if the reader wants to be decieved. Peter put in a
few complimentary words, but the gist of the passage is anything but
complimentary towards a brother's teaching. In this chapter (I am
convinced), Peter essentially said to Paul's loyal followers, "to hell
with you." And in doing so, since it is out of deception, he did not
contend properly for the Faith. But if this is not Peter's writing,
then it would explain the actual writer's refusal to pull rank—but
then doesn't explain why Peter was silent in the first place.
I believe Paul had lied about his conversion from the start.
Galations 2 is my strongest proof. (And Acts is so gaudy on Paul's
behalf that I often can't take it seriously; and Paul lied about the
Gospel, for it is not Christ's Gospel; and Christ sent Paul that
thorn.) But apparent to me, Paul then did actually repent and write
some lovely books. Therefore, if Peter wrote this book in his latter
days, he could say, and without lie, "our beloved Paul."
If Peter did not write 2 Peter, and someone else did later (it is
thought in the middle part of second century), then that someone sent
out a strong complaint, and sublty blamed Paul's grace (God's
forebearance) for allowing such bad behavior.
--
Mike
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
