- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Martian said:
Quote The Hebrew word for faith is hnwma (emunah – Strong's #530) and is an action oriented word meaning “support”.
To all,
Strong's does NOT say that faith is an action oriented word meaning “support”. Martian concocted this definition from his own mind and it is altogether horse hockey. The Bible does not teach that faith is “supporting God”. Martian is suggesting that God is so weak that He needs our “support.” Paul said that faith does not come from ourselves.Quote For by grace you have been saved through faith, this is not out of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph. 2:8-9) Please observe the following principles:
1. Paul said that we are saved by grace.
2. He said that faith is the gift of GodMartian's post is just another example of how he exegetes the original languages to fit his own presuppositions.
Again, Strong's does NOT say that faith is giving God support.
Martian said:
Quote Now some might think I am speaking of works. You're darn tootin your speaking of works. And you imply that Christ died in vain!
thinker
Hi TT,
You say
“Please observe the following principles:
1. Paul said that we are saved by grace.TRUE BUT PERHAPS NOT ALL ARE SAVED WHO THINK THEY ARE?
2. He said that faith is the gift of God
TRUE. EVERYONE IS GIVEN A MEASURE OF FAITH.
Faith without action is DEAD[JAS]
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 08 2009,06:13) Martian said: Quote The Hebrew word for faith is hnwma (emunah – Strong's #530) and is an action oriented word meaning “support”.
To all,
Strong's does NOT say that faith is an action oriented word meaning “support”. Martian concocted this definition from his own mind and it is altogether horse hockey. The Bible does not teach that faith is “supporting God”. Martian is suggesting that God is so weak that He needs our “support.” Paul said that faith does not come from ourselves.Quote For by grace you have been saved through faith, this is not out of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph. 2:8-9) Please observe the following principles:
1. Paul said that we are saved by grace.
2. He said that faith is the gift of GodMartian's post is just another example of how he exegetes the original languages to fit his own presuppositions.
Again, Strong's does NOT say that faith is giving God support.
Martian said:
Quote Now some might think I am speaking of works. You're darn tootin your speaking of works. And you imply that Christ died in vain!
thinker
You say
To all,
Strong's does NOT say that faith is an action oriented word meaning “support”.Reply –
I did not say that Strong’s says that. Anyone who knows anything about reference works knows that most reference works are keyed to Strongs. The Strong’s reference number only indicates that.
I would not use Strongs to find the meaning of Hebrew words. Strongs was published in 1890. Long before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and many other archeological finds that have revolutionized the understanding of ancient Hebrew pictographs and culture.You say-
Martian concocted this definition from his own mind and it is altogether horse hockey. The Bible does not teach that faith is “supporting God”.Reply –
I am a little tired of the constant attacks by you. I thought you were taking time off to cool down. It evidently did not work.1. It is not my “concoction” as you accuse me of making. It is an article from the E-magazine from The Ancient Hebrew Research Center. One of the leading research centers for the study of ancient Hebrew. This same definition is found in The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon. “Something that grabs hold or supports something else”.The Hebrew root aman means firm, something that is supported or secure. This word is used in Isaiah 22:23 for a nail that is fastened to a “secure” place. Derived from this root is the word emun meaning a craftsman. A craftsman is one who is firm and secure in his talent. Also derived from aman is the word emunah meaning firmness, something or someone that is firm in their actions. When the Hebrew word emunah is translated as faith misconceptions of its meaning occur. Faith is usually perceived as a knowing while the Hebrew emunah is a firm action. To have faith in God is not knowing that God exists or knowing that he will act, rather it is that the one with emunah will act with firmness toward God's will. ?
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_faith.htmlYou say –
Martian is suggesting that God is so weak that He needs our “support.” Paul said that faith does not come from ourselves.Reply –
Thank you for telling me what I am suggesting. Can you conjure up the lottery results for me?
I was not suggesting anything. I am simply quoting the words and work of a real Hebrew scholar. I am quoting the etomology of the word.
If I were to suggest something I would say that taking action toward God’s will is a good thing. Let’s say I am a smoker. Smoking is a sin since it is destroying the Temple of the Holy Spirit. That is not God’s will. However according to your faith only scheme, should I just wait for God to come do a miracle and make me stop buying cigarettes? Perhaps He will send locusts to consume all the tobacco plants in the world. Should I expect a pillar of fire to block the doors of the 7-11 when I go to buy a pack.
Does it not seem more reasonable that I work with God and support His will to see me quit smoking. Maybe I need to buy nicotine gum, go to a non-smoking clinic or get the patches. Whatever I can do to facilitate God’s will performed in my life.
God wants mature children that will work with him and be a support to whatever He deems is important. That is much better then remaining “baby’hueys” that need everything done for them with no output of their own.You say –
Martian's post is just another example of how he exegetes the original languages to fit his own presuppositions.Again, Strong's does NOT say that faith is giving God support.
Reply –
Perhaps you should try reading my post before you jump on me as if I were your whipping dog. AS I said before I never quoted strongs or said that the definition I quoted came from strongs.Thethinker, I think you need a chill pill or a nap or something. If you are going to get that upset over a silly web site then you have a lot more problems then what sources I quote. At the very least get over yourself.
Some of this stuff reminds me of the story of the man living next to the river. One spring the river floods and as the water rises people are wading out of the flood and a neighbor calls out to him to walk out with him. The man says “No, I have prayed and God is going to save me!”
Soon the water covers the first floor. Rescuers come buy in a boat and try to get the man to get in the boat. He refuses and says. “No thanks, I have prayed and God is going to save me!”
Finally He is trapped on the roof by the flood. A helicopter comes overhead and drops a ladder to him. He refuses and yells to them. “I know that my God will save me! He told me so.”
A few hours later the man drowns. When He reaches heaven He complains to God and asks “Why did you let me drown? You said you would save me!”
God answers “What did you want son? I sent your neighbor, a boat, and a helicopter for you.”
Our Father wants sons and daughters that will work with Him. Everyone is so afraid of making a mistake “A SIN” that they do little or nothing. Christ already paid for all of our sins. Even our future ones! We need to get off our sin complex and discover His will for His creation. Then, as good children, that care about His will, we should work with Him to see it accomplished. We need to have faith. (work to support His will)Martian said:
Quote I did not say that Strong’s says that. Anyone who knows anything about reference works knows that most reference works are keyed to Strongs. The Strong’s reference number only indicates that. Martian,
Oh really? Here is what you said:Quote The Hebrew word for faith is hnwma (emunah – Strong's #530) and is an action oriented word meaning “support”. This is important because the Western concept of faith places the action on the one you have faith in, such as “faith in God”. But, the Hebrew word hnwma places the action on the one who “supports God”. It is not knowing that God will act, but rather I will do what I can to support God. This idea of support for the word emunah can be seen in Exodus 17:12. So you did say that that Strong's says that “emunah” means “to support God”. You've been caught. So let's move on. Words must be defined in the context inwhich they are used. When YHWH made the covenant with Abraham He said this:
Quote And behold, the word of YHWH came to him saying, 'This one shall not be your heir, but one who shall come from your own body shall be your heir' Then He brought him outside and said. 'Look toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them'. And He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be' And he believed in YHWH and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:4-6) The word here is also “emunah” and it cannot mean that Abraham “supported” God in any way. It necessarily means that Abraham took YHWH at His word. The context demands it. Furthermore, this is how Paul understood Abraham's faith (or enumah). Paul defined faith in such a way that support-works is altogether excluded
Quote Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith…. (27-28). Then Paul recounted the incident from Genesis 15 when YHWH came to Abraham with the promise. I ask you this: How could Paul define faith as altogether apart from works and then illustrate that principle from the faith of Abraham if Abraham “supported” YHWH? And it gets worse for you. Paul went on to say.
Quote Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace (4:16) Did you get that! Faith is according to grace. If faith is according to grace then it can have nothing to do with our “supporting” God.
You really have a small God Martian. You have imposed limitations on God by your rejection that He can change and now you're saying that we must “support” Him. God said, “I will become what I will become”. But you say, “No He can't do that.” Now you're saying that He is so weak that He needs our “support” to carry out His promises. But God said, “I change not” in reference to His promises.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 08 2009,12:33) Hi TT,
Faith without works is dead.
Nick,
You're quoting the epistle of James which was written while the church was still under the old covenant. There is no reference at all to the death of Christ in the book of James. Therefore, the church was still under the old covenant.Under the new covenant a man is justified by faith without works,
Quote But to him who does NOT WORK but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, HIS FAITH is counted for righteousness (Rom. 4:5) You have said that “inference has no place with the sacred”. Yet you infer that James' faith plus works principle is new covenant. What is the basis for your inference?
thinker
thethinker
You said
So you did say that that Strong's says that “emunah” means “to support God”. You've been caught. So let's move on.
Reply –
I love the twisted way in which you take a few sentences out of the context of a obvious quote of someone else and accuse me of saying them. Not only that you twist the words themselves. Is this also indicative of the way you study scripture?
Let me point out several things.
I did not personally say any of those words. That was a quote from an E magazine from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center, written by Jeff Benner. In fact I posted in the beginning the title of the magazine, the issue number and the date.Biblical Hebrew E-Magazine
April, 2005 Issue #014Unlike others on here I actually use sources and quote them. Sources that are experts in their field. I do not spout off opinions. I know that concept is foreign as verified by the fact that you have yet to produce any sources yourself but only opinions and guesses. The use of the Strong’s number may have been worded funny but, I am not going to change someone elses words. Having read many of his works, I know exactly why he puts the Strongs number after the words in question. He does it as a help in identifying the words being discussed. All of his books and articles use this approach as a study aid. You see thethinker, some are actually interested in studying the word as apposed to making guesses.
I realize that this is nothing more then a bible computer game and we need to have bad guys, but must you play that role so well?
Although you have the role of accuser of the brethren down very well, I think the job is taken already. I would appreciate if you would stop accusing me of something I did not do.Oh dear, I’m afraid I might lose Yoshi here! LOL
Thethinker –
You know I was going to answer the remainder of your post, but thought better of it.
Several of your words and actions have made me pause.
You falsely accuse the brethren and expect others to listen to your opinions on scripture.You claim to have a library of sources yet (to my knowledge) have never posted any, relying instead on your opinions.
You post opinion and discount any legitimate sources. Yet I have not heard of any books you have published or any part you have taken in researching the Dead Sea Scrolls or founded expert foundations dedicated to the furtherance of Hebrew research.
You claim to want to emulate Christ, yet your post are argumentative, aggressive and accusatory. Tell me, Are these character traits a product of your doctrines?
Other then playing this computer game, why would anyone take seriously any post you offer.
Maybe I’ll win Yoshi back again and just ride over your posts from now on. LOL
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 08 2009,21:05) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 08 2009,12:33) Hi TT,
Faith without works is dead.
Nick,
You're quoting the epistle of James which was written while the church was still under the old covenant. There is no reference at all to the death of Christ in the book of James. Therefore, the church was still under the old covenant.Under the new covenant a man is justified by faith without works,
Quote But to him who does NOT WORK but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, HIS FAITH is counted for righteousness (Rom. 4:5) You have said that “inference has no place with the sacred”. Yet you infer that James' faith plus works principle is new covenant. What is the basis for your inference?
thinker
Hi TT,
The Spirit had been poured out showing the new covenant was in effect and the words of James are further evidence of the work of that Spirit among men.Baptism is not the works of the baptised but the obedience of the servants of Jesus. For them such works are the fruit of Christ in them.
Martian said:
Quote I did not personally say any of those words. That was a quote from an E magazine from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center, written by Jeff Benner. In fact I posted in the beginning the title of the magazine, the issue number and the date. Martian,
First, you are finally going to get a source from me. Second, I grant that you did not personally say those words. But you invoked the E Magazine which means that you too are saying it. Can you imagine Moses giving the people a word from God and when the people complain Moses replies, “I personally didn't say those words”? You invoked the E Magazine and then gave a detailed exposition supporting it. So you said it!But Strong's does not say that faith means to “support God”. It says this,
Quote emunah, em-oo-naw; fem. of 529; lit. frimness; fig. security; mor; fidelity:—faith ( -ful, -ly, -ness [man]) set office, stsability, steady, truly, truth, verily. WHERE DOES STRONG'S SAY THAT THE WORD MEANS TO “SUPPORT GOD”?
Martian said:
Quote Unlike others on here I actually use sources and quote them. Sources that are experts in their field. I do not spout off opinions. I know that concept is foreign as verified by the fact that you have yet to produce any sources yourself but only opinions and guesses. On the contrary Martian. I gave the online Hebrew-English Interlinear on another thread. You say that YHWH means simple existence. I produced a source that contradicts your idea. That source says this,
Quote I will BECOME what I will become You said that this refers to “function” and not existence. Then I pointed out to you that you had originally said that it means “existence” showing you your inconsistency. Then you replied that it was “opinion”. I caught on right away Martian. I knew right then that any sources I produce you will just dismiss as “opinion” when you can't reply to them.
After that you demanded sources. I replied saying that I don't give a hoot about your sources or mine. In other words, I am not going to chase you down some rabbit trail pitting source against source. But I will make a concession this one time and give you a source on “emunah” seeing that you think I am bluffing,
Quote EMUNAH, firmness, fidelity, steadiness This very important concept in biblical doctrine gives clear evidence of the biblical meaning of “faith” in contradistinction to the many popular concepts of the term. At the heart of the meaning is the root idea of CERTAINTY. And this is borne out by the NT definition of faith found in Heb. 11:1
The basic root idea is firmness or security. In the Qal it expresses the basic concept of support and is used in the sense of the strong arms of a parent supporting the helpless infant….The idea of support is also seen in 2 Kings 18:16, where it refers to pillars of support.
In the Hiphil (causative), it basically means “to cause to be certain, sure” or “to be certain about”, “to be assured”. In this sense the Hiphil congugation is the biblical word for “to believe” and shows that biblical faith is an assurance, a certainty….Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird harris, Gleason Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, p.51, vol 1, Moody press
Okay Martian. The example given from E magazine about Moses being supported is the Qal use of the word. But the word “emunah” in Genesis 15:6 is the Hiphil congugation and it means that Abraham was certain about the promise God gave to Him. This is borne out by Paul as I have already argued.
I expect that you're going to reply, “that's opinion”. But it is in fact Hebrew grammar. You labored to prove your “support God” theory from the Scriptures ignorant of the fact that the meaning of “emunah” will vary depending upon its grammatical function in a given context. This is my biggest frustration with you. You give the distinct impression that you are not interested in reading the Scriptures in their context.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 09 2009,06:58) Martian said: Quote I did not personally say any of those words. That was a quote from an E magazine from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center, written by Jeff Benner. In fact I posted in the beginning the title of the magazine, the issue number and the date. Martian,
First, you are finally going to get a source from me. Second, I grant that you did not personally say those words. But you invoked the E Magazine which means that you too are saying it. Can you imagine Moses giving the people a word from God and when the people complain Moses replies, “I personally didn't say those words”? You invoked the E Magazine and then gave a detailed exposition supporting it. So you said it!But Strong's does not say that faith means to “support God”. It says this,
Quote emunah, em-oo-naw; fem. of 529; lit. frimness; fig. security; mor; fidelity:—faith ( -ful, -ly, -ness [man]) set office, stsability, steady, truly, truth, verily. WHERE DOES STRONG'S SAY THAT THE WORD MEANS TO “SUPPORT GOD”?
Martian said:
Quote Unlike others on here I actually use sources and quote them. Sources that are experts in their field. I do not spout off opinions. I know that concept is foreign as verified by the fact that you have yet to produce any sources yourself but only opinions and guesses. On the contrary Martian. I gave the online Hebrew-English Interlinear on another thread. You say that YHWH means simple existence. I produced a source that contradicts your idea. That source says this,
Quote I will BECOME what I will become You said that this refers to “function” and not existence. Then I pointed out to you that you had originally said that it means “existence” showing you your inconsistency. Then you replied that it was “opinion”. I caught on right away Martian. I knew right then that any sources I produce you will just dismiss as “opinion” when you can't reply to them.
After that you demanded sources. I replied saying that I don't give a hoot about your sources or mine. In other words, I am not going to chase you down some rabbit trail pitting source against source. But I will make a concession this one time and give you a source on “emunah” seeing that you think I am bluffing,
Quote EMUNAH, firmness, fidelity, steadiness This very important concept in biblical doctrine gives clear evidence of the biblical meaning of “faith” in contradistinction to the many popular concepts of the term. At the heart of the meaning is the root idea of CERTAINTY. And this is borne out by the NT definition of faith found in Heb. 11:1
The basic root idea is firmness or security. In the Qal it expresses the basic concept of support and is used in the sense of the strong arms of a parent supporting the helpless infant….The idea of support is also seen in 2 Kings 18:16, where it refers to pillars of support.
In the Hiphil (causative), it basically means “to cause to be certain, sure” or “to be certain about”, “to be assured”. In this sense the Hiphil congugation is the biblical word for “to believe” and shows that biblical faith is an assurance, a certainty….Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird harris, Gleason Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, p.51, vol 1, Moody press
Okay Martian. The example given from E magazine about Moses being supported is the Qal use of the word. But the word “emunah” in Genesis 15:6 is the Hiphil congugation and it means that Abraham was certain about the promise God gave to Him. This is borne out by Paul as I have already argued.
I expect that you're going to reply, “that's opinion”. But it is in fact Hebrew grammar. You labored to prove your “support God” theory from the Scriptures ignorant of the fact that the meaning of “emunah” will vary depending upon its grammatical function in a given context. This is my biggest frustration with you. You give the distinct impression that you are not interested in reading the Scriptures in their context.
thinker
Martian said:
Quote
I did not personally say any of those words. That was a quote from an E magazine from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center, written by Jeff Benner. In fact I posted in the beginning the title of the magazine, the issue number and the date.You say –
Martian,
First, you are finally going to get a source from me. Second, I grant that you did not personally say those words. But you invoked the E Magazine which means that you too are saying it. Can you imagine Moses giving the people a word from God and when the people complain Moses replies, “I personally didn't say those words”? You invoked the E Magazine and then gave a detailed exposition supporting it. So you said it!Reply –
Nonsense My response was regarding your false accusation that they were my words referencing a supposed Strong’s definition.You say –
But Strong's does not say that faith means to “support God”. It says this,
Reply –
When are you going to get off this nonsense. Nowhere in my original post Did I or the Emagazine article say that Strongs said anything. As I posted several times, the use of the strongs number is for identification purposes. Nowhere in the article was their any reference to Strongs definition.Quote
emunah, em-oo-naw; fem. of 529; lit. frimness; fig. security; mor; fidelity:—faith ( -ful, -ly, -ness [man]) set office, stsability, steady, truly, truth, verily.You say –
WHERE DOES STRONG'S SAY THAT THE WORD MEANS TO “SUPPORT GOD”?Reply – Nowhere. No one was referencing the Strongs definition.
On the contrary Martian. I gave the online Hebrew-English Interlinear on another thread. You say that YHWH means simple existence. I produced a source that contradicts your idea. That source says this,
Quote
I will BECOME what I will becomeAfter that you demanded sources. I replied saying that I don't give a hoot about your sources or mine. In other words, I am not going to chase you down some rabbit trail pitting source against source. But I will make a concession this one time and give you a source on “emunah” seeing that you think I am bluffing,
Quote
EMUNAH, firmness, fidelity, steadinessThis very important concept in biblical doctrine gives clear evidence of the biblical meaning of “faith” in contradistinction to the many popular concepts of the term. At the heart of the meaning is the root idea of CERTAINTY. And this is borne out by the NT definition of faith found in Heb. 11:1
The basic root idea is fi
rmness or security. In the Qal it expresses the basic concept of support and is used in the sense of the strong arms of a parent supporting the helpless infant….The idea of support is also seen in 2 Kings 18:16, where it refers to pillars of support.In the Hiphil (causative), it basically means “to cause to be certain, sure” or “to be certain about”, “to be assured”. In this sense the Hiphil congugation is the biblical word for “to believe” and shows that biblical faith is an assurance, a certainty….Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird harris, Gleason Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, p.51, vol 1, Moody press
Side note –
I would be careful using sources such as the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Thirty years old it does not include data from recent archeological digs that have impact on the understanding of Hebrew words and culture.You say –
Okay Martian. The example given from E magazine about Moses being supported is the Qal use of the word. But the word “emunah” in Genesis 15:6 is the Hiphil congugation and it means that Abraham was certain about the promise God gave to Him. This is borne out by Paul as I have already argued.Reply –
Huh! Imagine that! Your source confirms what I said all along, despite all your false accusations. As I already posted before the definition says firmness and security. Exactly what Strongs says. I also agree that it is derived from the context. I posted the following as a follow up of my original post.“The Hebrew root aman means firm, something that is supported or secure. This word is used in Isaiah 22:23 for a nail that is fastened to a “secure” place. Derived from this root is the word emun meaning a craftsman. A craftsman is one who is firm and secure in his talent. Also derived from aman is the word emunah meaning firmness, something or someone that is firm in their actions. When the Hebrew word emunah is translated as faith misconceptions of its meaning occur. Faith is usually perceived as a knowing while the Hebrew emunah is a firm action. To have faith in God is not knowing that God exists or knowing that he will act, rather it is that the one with emunah will act with firmness toward God's will. ?
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_faith.htmlThe mechanical translation of Gen 15:6 reads – “… and he was made firm in YHWH and he thought correctness of him.”
You finally went to a source and guess what? It confirmed everything I said. Despite all your opinions.
Finally –
You have continued to question my integrity on the issue of the Strongs number that was in the Emagazine. I have explained it 3 times and you continue to maintain your accusations.
Look at the sentence in question
“The Hebrew word for faith is hnwma (emunah – Strong's #530) and is an action oriented word meaning “support”.
It is obviously a reference point to indicate under which strongs number hhwma can be found. This is also done because the author prefers to write the Hebrew words without the vowel points that were added later. If you look up the word in Strongs and look for the “hhwma” spelling it will not match. Strongs lists it as “emunah” with the vowel points. The author simply wanted to clarify that they are the same word.Your definition from Strongs confirms both my definition of support and firmness.
My point all along has been that “faith” is an action oriented word. That action could be simply obeying the commandments. Do you disagree with doing that? Is that works?
If it is God’s will for me to attend a church service, would it be works to support God’s will by going to that service.
-or-
As I posted before, if it is God’s will for me to quit smoking (I do not really smoke) would it be works to do all I can to support God’s will and do what I need to do to overcome that sin in my life.I think you owe me an apology for several times accusing me of changing the Strongs definition and making up a new one.
You owe me an apology for accusing me of posting an article that misquoted Strongs definition when in truth the article had nothing to do with Strongs definition.
You owe me an apology for your aggressive , accusatory response to my post.Martian said:
Quote The mechanical translation of Gen 15:6 reads – “… and he was made firm in YHWH and he thought correctness of him.” You finally went to a source and guess what? It confirmed everything I said. Despite all your opinions.
Martian,
By your own mouth you have fallen. You said that the mechanical translation of Genesis 15:6 reads that Abraham “was made firm in YHWH.” Please take note that you gave a rendering of the action in the English passive voice. In other words, IT WAS ABRAHAM THAT WAS SUPPORTED AND NOT GOD! God acted upon Abraham and not the other way around.Thank you!
Then you said:
Quote My point all along has been that “faith” is an action oriented word. I do not the dispute that faith is an action oriented word. BUT the mechanical translation you gave above puts the action in the passive voice. This means that God supported Abraham.
This passive voice rendering you give goes right along with the Genesis account.
Abraham was an unbelieving man when God found him.
Quote After these things the word of YHWH came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.” BUT Abram said, “Lord God, what will you give me, seeing that I go childless….” I ask you Martian, Did YHWH find Abraham in a position to support God? God gave a promise to Abraham and he initially wavered in unbelief. Then God re-assured him and Abraham believed and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
You said it yourself. You said that Abraham “was made firm”, that is, he was acted upon by YHWH. The Genesis account confirms your rendering.
Again, I would like to see you treat the original languages in their biblical context. IT'S ABOUT CONTEXT!
I will apologize to you for questioning your integrity. I see now that your errors are unintentional.thinker
Martian…….i believe thinker is right on this point brother, you both are good scholars in my opinion.
love and peace to you both………………….gene
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 08 2009,21:05) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 08 2009,12:33) Hi TT,
Faith without works is dead.
Nick,
You're quoting the epistle of James which was written while the church was still under the old covenant. There is no reference at all to the death of Christ in the book of James. Therefore, the church was still under the old covenant.Under the new covenant a man is justified by faith without works,
Quote But to him who does NOT WORK but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, HIS FAITH is counted for righteousness (Rom. 4:5) You have said that “inference has no place with the sacred”. Yet you infer that James' faith plus works principle is new covenant. What is the basis for your inference?
thinker
Hi thetinkker:This is what the Apostle Paul states. I believe that it is self-explanitory:
Quote Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 3:29 [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Please explain how we establish the law through faith (Rom 3:31).
942767 wrote:
Quote This is what the Apostle Paul states. I believe that it is self-explanitory: Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 3:29 [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Please explain how we establish the law through faith (Rom 3:31).
Marty,
Did Paul mean that we establish the law by our works? No! In your quote I highlighted verse 28 which you cited. It says this,Quote Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith APART from the deeds of the law So in verse 31 Paul could not have meant that we establish the law by our deeds. Otherwise Paul contradicts himself. The way the law is established is shown in verse 21,
Quote But now the righteousness of God APART from the law is being revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ .
Note that Paul said that the Law itself testifies to the fact that justification is APART from the Law. It is in this sense that we establish the law. The Greek word “histemi” means “to stand with”. Therefore, we “establish” the Law by standing with its testimony that justification is APART from the Law. Paul said that the Law and the Prophets testify that justification is by faith alone.
In other words, we're not going to argue with the Law when it says that we are justified APART from it. It's all about context.
The epistle of James was written while the church was still under the old covenant. This is the best explanation as to why James says nothing about the death of Christ through out the epistle. And it clears up the contradiction between James and Paul. The first Christians had to live under the old covenant revelation they had until God gave them new revelation. God gave them that new revelation through Paul who wrote later than James. Now we are under Paul's revelation. And we ought not to argue with it. If we do we are also arguing with the law. The Law says that we are justified APART from it. So “stand with” the Law's testimony.
blessings,
thinkerQuote (thethinker @ Feb. 10 2009,11:00) 942767 wrote: Quote This is what the Apostle Paul states. I believe that it is self-explanitory: Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 3:29 [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Please explain how we establish the law through faith (Rom 3:31).
Marty,
Did Paul mean that we establish the law by our works? No! In your quote I highlighted verse 28 which you cited. It says this,Quote Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith APART from the deeds of the law So in verse 31 Paul could not have meant that we establish the law by our deeds. Otherwise Paul contradicts himself. The way the law is established is shown in verse 21,
Quote But now the righteousness of God APART from the law is being revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ .
Note that Paul said that the Law itself testifies to the fact that justification is APART from the Law. It is in this sense that we establish the law. The Greek word “histemi” means “to stand with”. Therefore, we “establish” the Law by standing with its testimony that justification is APART from the Law. Paul said that the Law and the Prophets testify that justification is by faith alone.
In other words, we're not going to argue with the Law when it says that we are justified APART from it. It's all about context.
The epistle of James was written while the church was still under the old covenant. This is the best explanation as to why James says nothing about the death of Christ through out the epistle. And it clears up the contradiction between James and Paul. The first Christians had to live under the old covenant revelation they had until God gave them new revelation. God gave them that new revelation through Paul who wrote later than James. Now we are under Paul's revelation. And we ought not to argue with it. If we do we are also arguing with the law. The Law says that we are justified APART from it. So “stand with” the Law's testimony.
blessings,
thinker
Hi thethinker:The Apostle Paul was dealing with the transition from the OT where people were under the law, and what he was trying to get accross to them is that they could not be saved by the works of the law because they could not obey the law without making mistakes if only inadvertantly.
It is evident that God knew that mankind could not obey the law without making mistakes,
The Apostle Paul states:
Quote Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. So, the law was there so people would know when they violated the law of God so that when they knew they had sinned, they could repent. In the OT they offered the blood of animals to atone for theirs sins, and on the day of atonement the high priest went into the holy of holies into the presence of God to offer blood for his sins and for the sins of the nation of Israel. Does this mean that the people under the law were not to obey the law? No, it does not, but it means that they could not be saved through the deeds of the law because they could not obey it without sin.
Therefore, Jesus was sent by our God to offer his life as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Theirs as well as ours. In the OT, they believed God (Faith), and they obeyed Him but not without sin. Therefore, there salvation is by faith so that it might be by grace.
In the NT, we believe the testimony of God regarding what he has done for us in the person of Jesus Christ (Faith). When we confess Jesus as our Lord, we are indicating by our confession that will obey his commandments, but we know we will make mistakes, and without the blood that Jesus shed for our sins we could not be saved, and so, our salvation is by faith so that it might be by grace. We did not obey God without sin even unto death,and neither did those who were under the law of Moses. We obeyed but we made mistakes.
There is no condradiction between the Apostle Paul and James. It is by our works that our faith is manifest.
Paul states:
Quote Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Quote Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.Quote 1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jo 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
1Jo 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.Quote
Hbr 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Hbr 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;This is a quote from the epistle of James:
Quote Jam 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (thethinker @ Feb. 09 2009,17:00)
Thinker,I am still working out a dating issue I am having. I asked priviously for some clarification:
Quote I understand these dates, approximate as they are,
to be widely accepted times of writing – Romans AD57 -1Cor. AD55 – Gal. AD48-53 – EPH. AD60 – Philip. AD 53-55 – Col.AD60 – Thess. AD51 – Tim. Titus mid to late sixties. Without going further, James was appaerently written AD 50-60. I don't follow that he was not contemporary with Paul.You are mentioning again –
The epistle of James was written while the church was still under the old covenant… God gave them that new revelation through Paul who wrote later than James.
Do you have different dating information than I am working with? It would seem James was contemporary with Paul from
the dating I have.Seeking
942767 wrote:
Quote The Apostle Paul was dealing with the transition from the OT where people were under the law, and what he was trying to get accross to them is that they could not be saved by the works of the law because they could not obey the law without making mistakes if only inadvertantly. Exactly! Paul was trying to get acrross to them that they could not be justified by the works of the law. You have said so yourself.
942767 wrote:
Quote There is no condradiction between the Apostle Paul and James. It is by our works that our faith is manifest. If James' audience was a new covenant audience then Paul clearly contradicts James.
Paul said,
Quote Therefore we conclude that a man is justified APART from the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:21) But James said,
Quote You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only (2:24). The issue in both epistles was how a man is justified before God. Paul explicitly said that justification was by faith alone. James clearly said that justification was by works and not by faith alone. This is a blatant contradiction IF each audience was a new covenant audience. But this was not the case. James wrote to an old covenant audience which was still under the law while Paul wrote moving God's people over to new covenant rule. He said,
Quote Now to Him who is able to establish you according to MY gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25) See Strong's #4741. It says that the Greek “sterizo” (to establish) means to “turn resolutely in a certain direction.” So Paul said that God was able to turn them into a certain direction by “MY gospel.” That direction was FROM old covenant faith-works TO new covenant faith alone. Paul said this another way,
Quote For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is being revealed out of faith into faith (Rom. 1:16-17) Please note that Paul's gospel was to lead those first Christians “out of faith into faith”. That is, out of faith with its old covenant content and into faith with its new covenant content.
This clears up the contradiction between James and Paul. There is a saying in logic which goes like this: Time resolves some discrepancies. James wrote when old covenant justification was still in effect. That was a faith-works justification. But God later revealed to Paul that new covenant justification would be by faith alone. And God used the preaching and teaching of Paul to turn those first Christians in the new covenant direction.
You offered James 1:1 which refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. But James did not refer to Christ's death anywhere in the epistle. James taught the same works salvation that Jesus taught. Jesus said that “a jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law til all be fulfilled”. The law has been fulfilled since James was written so we are no longer under James' faith-works justification principle. We are under Paul's faith alone principle now.
Paul turned those first saints in the direction of new covenant principles. We are living after the fact and have been under those new covenant principles for nearly 2,000 years now.
blessings,
thinkerHi TT,
No contradiction.Salvation is by faith in God through Christ Jesus.
Then the equipped servants must work out that salvation in fear and trembling.
God is not about glorifying us but using the parts of the body of Jesus to continue that blessing work.
The Gardener checks to see if the new trees planted produce useful fruit and if not they come down.
Luke 13:8
” 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
