PDA

View Full Version : The Wages of Sin is DEATH



Pages : [1] 2

Robert Pate
April 8th, 2016, 06:37 AM
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" Romans 6:23.

God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and then he gave him a warning. "For in the day that you eat of it you will most surely die" Genesis 2:17. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree they both died spiritually. God withdrew his Spirit from them and they both died spiritually. Spiritual death is eternal separation from God. We are all born spiritually dead and separated from God. This is why we need to be born again, 1 Peter 1:23.

Sin is the transgression of God's Holy Law. Paul makes it clear, "That all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. Paul said that the whole world is guilty because of sin.

"Now we know that whatever the laws says, it says to them that are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped and all of the world may become guilty before God" Romans 3:19.

The whole world is guilty of sin. This is why Jesus had to atone for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2. Because Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, it is now possible for anyone, everyone, whosoever, to be saved by doing nothing more than calling on the name of the Lord, Romans 10:13. This is the gift of God. Salvation is not by being predestinated or by joining the Catholic church. Salvation is by the doing and the dying of Jesus Christ. "Whosoever that shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13. The Lord is waiting to hear from you.

fishrovmen
April 8th, 2016, 07:43 AM
Did Jesus "atone" for the sin of unbelief for all people?

Robert Pate
April 8th, 2016, 08:59 AM
Did Jesus "atone" for the sin of unbelief for all people?

No one will be saved that does not believe that Jesus atoned for their sins and the sins of the whole world, I John 2:2.

That should answer your question, but knowing you, you will not accept that answer.

Sin and belief are not the same thing.

fishrovmen
April 8th, 2016, 10:17 AM
No one will be saved that does not believe that Jesus atoned for their sins and the sins of the whole world, I John 2:2.

That should answer your question, but knowing you, you will not accept that answer.

Sin and belief are not the same thing.

I accept answers when I find them, even if I don't agree with the answer. I haven't seen an answer to my question if Jesus a toned for the sin of unbelief.
I agree that sin and belief are not the same.

Robert Pate
April 8th, 2016, 10:41 AM
I accept answers when I find them, even if I don't agree with the answer. I haven't seen an answer to my question if Jesus a toned for the sin of unbelief.
I agree that sin and belief are not the same.

There is no scripture that says Jesus atoned for unbelief.

What the scripture does says is, "For God has concluded them ALL in unbelief that he might have mercy on ALL" Romans 11:32.

jamie
April 8th, 2016, 11:17 AM
Did Jesus "atone" for the sin of unbelief for all people?


Yes, one sacrifice for everyone for all time. However, the Father is not calling everyone at this time. Most will be in the second resurrection.

Robert Pate
April 8th, 2016, 01:21 PM
Yes, one sacrifice for everyone for all time. However, the Father is not calling everyone at this time. Most will be in the second resurrection.

All are being called now. The Holy Spirit is in the world calling all to come to Christ.

"Today is the day of salvation" 2 Corinthians 6:2.

jamie
April 8th, 2016, 02:43 PM
All are being called now. The Holy Spirit is in the world calling all to come to Christ.



For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.
(1 Corinthians 1:26)

Ok, so once again Paul got it wrong. It's a good thing you caught his mistake. If only Paul had known as much as you.

:cow:

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 8th, 2016, 02:58 PM
I accept answers when I find them, even if I don't agree with the answer. I haven't seen an answer to my question if Jesus a toned for the sin of unbelief.
I agree that sin and belief are not the same.

The answer lies in an intricate understanding of articular and anarthrous Greek nouns (and in contrast to English definite and indefinite article nouns). You're asking about a particular act, not sin as a noun.

In 1Corinthians 5:21, scripture clearly indicates Jesus was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous; NOT singular articular or plural articular/anarthrous). This has direct bearing upon ALL sinning (verb, hamartano) and resulting acts (sins, hamartema).

Atonement can only be understood in light of comprehensive understanding of Greek nouns, without perceiving them as verbs.

A particular individual act of sin is never the appropriate context to address atonement. To even ask means one doesn't have any understanding whatsoever of Hamartiology or Soteriology (the vast majority, BTW).

Zeke
April 9th, 2016, 09:43 AM
If you take any of this outside/parabolic symbolism as historic then Luke 17:20-21 hasn't registered with the persona yet, Matt 11:11 in light of Galatians 4:23-28 shows the intent of scripture and the states man goes through 1Cor 15:45, Luke 15:45.

So much for Innocent until proven guilty, Christianity has been duped into Guilty until proven innocent by slick theology and mind control legal wizards.

patrick jane
April 9th, 2016, 09:58 AM
The answer lies in an intricate understanding of articular and anarthrous Greek nouns (and in contrast to English definite and indefinite article nouns). You're asking about a particular act, not sin as a noun.

In 1Corinthians 5:21, scripture clearly indicates Jesus was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous; NOT singular articular or plural articular/anarthrous). This has direct bearing upon ALL sinning (verb, hamartano) and resulting acts (sins, hamartema).

Atonement can only be understood in light of comprehensive understanding of Greek nouns, without perceiving them as verbs.

A particular individual act of sin is never the appropriate context to address atonement. To even ask means one doesn't have any understanding whatsoever of Hamartiology or Soteriology (the vast majority, BTW).
What about that sin I did that one day ?

jamie
April 9th, 2016, 11:07 AM
What about that sin I did that one day ?


"Go and sin no more." (Jesus)

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 9th, 2016, 12:01 PM
What about that sin I did that one day ?

About that one act? The verb? The resulting act as a noun? Or about the singular articular or singular anarthrous noun?

Unfortunately, you're thinking of a noun as a verb without understanding the noun OR the verb. It's an epidemic. There is virtually no modern English speaker who remotely understands Hamartiology.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 9th, 2016, 12:03 PM
"Go and sin no more." (Jesus)

Well... At least you're referring to the verb, though it's in the middle voice.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 9th, 2016, 12:08 PM
If you take any of this outside/parabolic symbolism as historic then Luke 17:20-21 hasn't registered with the persona yet, Matt 11:11 in light of Galatians 4:23-28 shows the intent of scripture and the states man goes through 1Cor 15:45, Luke 15:45.

So much for Innocent until proven guilty, Christianity has been duped into Guilty until proven innocent by slick theology and mind control legal wizards.

It's sad you've been duped my Modernism-sculpted contemporary Christianity before having any actual understanding of the authentic Christian Faith apart from historical revisionism, including that which you perpetuate in your own freakish manner.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 9th, 2016, 12:19 PM
23926

patrick jane
April 9th, 2016, 12:27 PM
About that one act? The verb? The resulting act as a noun? Or about the singular articular or singular anarthrous noun?

Unfortunately, you're thinking of a noun as a verb without understanding the noun OR the verb. It's an epidemic. There is virtually no modern English speaker who remotely understands Hamartiology.

I was being sarcastic and funny, I understand the meanings whether or not I know what kind of noun

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 9th, 2016, 12:32 PM
I was being sarcastic and funny, I understand the meanings whether or not I know what kind of noun

Yes, I knew you were being sarcastic. My post was for the general readership.

First, the necessary distinction between noun (singular and plural) and verb. Then the vital distinction between articular and anarthrous nouns, both singular and plural.

Not one poster on TOL understands Hamartiology. Sad.

Nick M
April 9th, 2016, 03:57 PM
Did Jesus "atone" for the sin of unbelief for all people?

You are outside the faith. Reconciliation is universal. Salvation is not. People like you do not put their trust in him, but in themselves.

Robert Pate
April 9th, 2016, 04:22 PM
Yes, I knew you were being sarcastic. My post was for the general readership.

First, the necessary distinction between noun (singular and plural) and verb. Then the vital distinction between articular and anarthrous nouns, both singular and plural.

Not one poster on TOL understands Hamartiology. Sad.


I think that you have been hanging out with some of those highly educated Christian scholars.

PureX
April 9th, 2016, 04:24 PM
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" Romans 6:23. I agree that the "wages of sin, is death", but not always for the sinner, and rarely right away. Which is why we humans don't take the idea of "sin" all that seriously.

When we probably should.

Robert Pate
April 9th, 2016, 04:53 PM
I agree that the "wages of sin, is death", but not always for the sinner, and rarely right away. Which is why we humans don't take the idea of "sin" all that seriously.

When we probably should.

The Lord always gives us plenty of time to repent.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 9th, 2016, 06:52 PM
I think that you have been hanging out with some of those highly educated Christian scholars.

No. I've been hanging out with the inspired Greek text and prayerfully learning the major issues others build false doctrine upon because they don't know valid lexical and grammatical problems.

If one does not know the difference between articular/anarthrous Greek nouns and English definite article and indefinite articles for nouns (and the difference between nouns and verbs in that regard), then one does NOT understand Sin-ology (Hamartiology).

Anyone who constantly refers to the noun "sin" as the verb "sin" doesn't understand basic grammar and cannot represent the truth.

Rather than ad hominem, please provide a brief explanation of the word sin in all its forms. This is basic grammar, and it's crucial. Nouns are not verbs. Articular Greek nouns are not anarthrous Greek nouns OR indefinite article nouns in English.

If one does not know this, their entire scope of theological doctrines is simply and greatly flawed.

Zeke
April 9th, 2016, 06:59 PM
It's sad you've been duped my Modernism-sculpted contemporary Christianity before having any actual understanding of the authentic Christian Faith apart from historical revisionism, including that which you perpetuate in your own freakish manner.

Galatians 1:12 isn't some new Modernism, nor is Luke 17:20-21 a new concept. The labels are mans construct not the Spirit which transcends time and traditions of men playing the identity game.

patrick jane
April 9th, 2016, 07:11 PM
Hamartiology (from Greek: ἁμαρτία, hamartia, "missing the mark, error" and -λογια, -logia, "study"), a branch of Christian theology, studies sin.

Hamartiology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartiology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartiology

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 9th, 2016, 07:15 PM
Galatians 1:12 isn't some new Modernism, nor is Luke 17:20-21 a new concept. The labels are mans construct not the Spirit which transcends time and traditions of men playing the identity game.

Then stop playing the game. Galatians, like all of Pauline content, is ontological. Your false Epistemology is no better than that of the Methodologists you criticize.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 9th, 2016, 07:19 PM
Hamartiology (from Greek: ἁμαρτία, hamartia, "missing the mark, error" and -λογια, -logia, "study"), a branch of Christian theology, studies sin.

Hamartiology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartiology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartiology




Yes, this nebulous entry makes it seem like the noun is a verb. That's the problem.

patrick jane
April 9th, 2016, 10:05 PM
Yes, this nebulous entry makes it seem like the noun is a verb. That's the problem.
Your doctrines are skewed, you're all over the board. :chuckle:

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 9th, 2016, 10:52 PM
Your doctrines are skewed, you're all over the board. :chuckle:

Ummm... Nope.

PureX
April 10th, 2016, 07:01 AM
The Lord always gives us plenty of time to repent.That doesn't explain why the wages of sin is often someone else's death (or suffering).

Grosnick Marowbe
April 10th, 2016, 07:39 AM
Yes, I knew you were being sarcastic. My post was for the general readership.

First, the necessary distinction between noun (singular and plural) and verb. Then the vital distinction between articular and anarthrous nouns, both singular and plural.

Not one poster on TOL understands Hamartiology. Sad.

Yeah. We can't all be at your "Genuis level." Some of us have to keep our feet on the ground.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 09:49 AM
That doesn't explain why the wages of sin is often someone else's death (or suffering).

Sure it does. Sin is a noun. Part of the curse is randomness and the collective effects of evil in the cosmos.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 10:12 AM
Yeah. We can't all be at your "Genuis level." Some of us have to keep our feet on the ground.

Philippians 1:9-11
Love abounds in knowledge (epignosis).

Colossians 1:9-14
Be filled with the knowledge (epignosis) of His will.

It's sad you are keeping your feet on the ground instead of walking in the Spirit and walking worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, increasing in the knowledge of God (love having abounded in that knowledge).

Knowledge (epignosis) is a synonym for faith. You dismiss faith itself when you dismiss knowledge. My "genius" is love abounding, and love works faith.

PureX
April 10th, 2016, 10:14 AM
Sure it does. Sin is a noun. Part of the curse is randomness and the collective effects of evil in the cosmos.… Except that it's irrational to presume that randomness has a purpose.

AND, in this case we aren't talking about randomness. We're talking about the moral disconnect between the sinner and the suffering.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 10:15 AM
Yeah. We can't all be at your "Genuis level." Some of us have to keep our feet on the ground.

Philippians 1:9-11
Love abounds in knowledge (epignosis).

Colossians 1:9-14
Be filled with the knowledge (epignosis) of His will.
Increasing in the knowledge (epignosis) of God.

It's sad you are keeping your feet on the ground instead of walking in the Spirit and walking worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, increasing in the knowledge of God (love having abounded in that knowledge).

Knowledge (epignosis) is a synonym for faith. You dismiss faith itself when you dismiss knowledge. My "genius" is love abounding, and love works faith.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 10:22 AM
… Except that it's irrational to presume that randomness has a purpose.

AND, in this case we aren't talking about randomness. We're talking about the moral disconnect between the sinner and the suffering.

All wrong statements and questions. There is too much you don't understand, especially about Ponerology and Hamartiology relative to all else.

PureX
April 10th, 2016, 10:30 AM
All wrong statements and questions. There is too much you don't understand, especially about Ponerology and Hamartiology relative to all else.There's no such thing as a "wrong question"; only people who can't or don't want to answer them.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 10:57 AM
There's no such thing as a "wrong question"; only people who can't or don't want to answer them.

Really? When did you last commit genocide of an entire people group? I would hope that is a wrong question.

Wrong questions are those posed from incorrect and invalid presuppositions such as yours.

Zeke
April 10th, 2016, 11:13 AM
Then stop playing the game. Galatians, like all of Pauline content, is ontological. Your false Epistemology is no better than that of the Methodologists you criticize.

The inward focus of interpretation rightly divided is by Divine revelation within, so called Pauline teaching is just a plagiarized version that still has some Esoteric truth laced in them Galatians 3:1, 1:12 portrayed/revelation/Allegory/Figurative instead of being an actual sacrifice of flesh and blood that has no inheritance Matt 11:11, Galatians 4:23-28.
The truth isn't founded on so called Pauline teachings that have no time limits as in past or future theological theory that could close all their institutions down with the simple inward message found in 1Cor 13, which transcended all the doctrinal strains of mental infection that teach the lie of original sin and total depravity.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 11:13 AM
… Except that it's irrational to presume that randomness has a purpose.

AND, in this case we aren't talking about randomness. We're talking about the moral disconnect between the sinner and the suffering.

Sin (the noun) entered the inhabited cosmos (Romans 5). You, like most, just don't know what sin is; and the same is true of "evil".

Any may suffer for sin having entered the cosmos.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 11:16 AM
The inward focus of interpretation rightly divided is by Divine revelation within, so called Pauline teaching is just a plagiarized version that still has some Esoteric truth laced in them Galatians 3:1, 1:12 portrayed/revelation/Allegory/Figurative instead of being an actual sacrifice of flesh and blood that has no inheritance Matt 11:11, Galatians 4:23-28.
The truth isn't founded on so called Pauline teachings that have no time limits as in past or future theological theory that could close all their institutions down with the simple inward message found in 1Cor 13, which transcended all the doctrinal strains of mental infection that teach the lie of original sin and total depravity.

And it is pointless and fruitless to have discourse with non-Christian false esotericists such as yourself. You reject the central singular absolute knowable truth for another that is not another.

Zeke
April 10th, 2016, 11:38 AM
And it is pointless and fruitless to have discourse with non-Christian false esotericists such as yourself. You reject the central singular absolute knowable truth for another that is not another.

Certainly is when you post in this section, seeing it is about religion in general. The knowable truth according to you're understanding (the legal use of that term) the Roman versions of history concerning a mere blip on the time scale of existence.

Truth is a inward revelation that we are Divine off spring Luke 15:45, That overcome the mental perceptions changed by the heights and lows of religious emotionalism Galatians 4:8-9, natural born killers or Humble servants pretending to be saved, both a misnomer that exist on a foundation of mental fear, yum yum.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 12:39 PM
Certainly is when you post in this section, seeing it is about religion in general.

Makes no difference to me whatsoever. I'm a pure Monotheist, not a Henotheist; so no other alleged god or pseudo-religion is actual Theism or Deism or religion in any manner.

Your heteronomy, heterodoxy, and heteropraxy is exactly that, regardless how you frame it up in your false automonous presuppositions and presumptions. It's all fallacy as the pride of life.


The knowable truth according to you're understanding (the legal use of that term)

No, according to valid linguistics and lexicography. Aletheia (truth) can only be one central singular absolute and objective "thing", not multiples. All else is gradients of un- and/or non- as negation or privation. Degrees of negation are exponential in a finite range. And you're at an extremity of un- and non- for your alleged "truth".


the Roman versions of history concerning a mere blip on the time scale of existence.

You have no idea about anything of history except whatever revisionism you've embraced for your false presuppositions. You weren't "there". So you must depend on writings or something in your psyche, etc.


Truth is a inward revelation that we are Divine off spring Luke 15:45,

No, man is not, has not ever been, and will not ever be, divine. You're deluded.


That overcome the mental perceptions changed by the heights and lows of religious emotionalism Galatians 4:8-9, natural born killers or Humble servants pretending to be saved, both a misnomer that exist on a foundation of mental fear, yum yum.

You need to stop smoking or channeling whatever you're imbibing. You're gone. Out there.

PureX
April 10th, 2016, 01:32 PM
Any may suffer for sin having entered the cosmos.If that's true, then our suffering is meaningless.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 06:12 PM
If that's true, then our suffering is meaningless.

It doesn't have to be, if one is part of the new creation in Christ.

It's amazing how you (like so many others tainted by Modernism in addition to sin and evil within them) think you have the overarching sense of rationality to presume to judge all things in this manner.

What an egomaniacally narrow and presuppositional self-determined false foundation of false autonomy.

Your logos is not God's Logos, so human logic cannot begin to understand such things without being born from above. I can recount an entire treatise on the meanings of suffering and all else, but you can't comprehend any of it without being renewed in the spirit of your mind.

You didn't abandon the Christian faith. You were never an actual Christian, just like the majority of other professing Christians.

patrick jane
April 10th, 2016, 06:23 PM
It doesn't have to be, if one is part of the new creation in Christ.

It's amazing how you (like so many others tainted by Modernism in addition to sin and evil within them) think you have the overarching sense of rationality to presume to judge all things in this manner.

What an egomaniacally narrow and presuppositional self-determined false foundation of false autonomy.

Your logos is not God's Logos, so human logic cannot begin to understand such things without being born from above. I can recount an entire treatise on the meanings of suffering and all else, but you can't comprehend any of it without being renewed in the spirit of your mind.

You didn't abandon the Christian faith. You were never an actual Christian, just like the majority of other professing Christians.

When you snap later in life you might be like Let's Argue. Nobody's a Christian

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 06:30 PM
When you snap later in life you might be like let's Argue. Nobody's a Christian

Nope. Because I judge all things, not individual hearts. There's only one thing, so only one truth. So there's only a gradient of un- and non- degrees of what is added to subtract from that truth.

Are you actually insisting Zeke is within the confession of Christian faith? He doesn't even profess faith in Christ. Quite the contrary.

1Mind1Spirit
April 10th, 2016, 07:06 PM
Nope. Because I judge all things, not individual hearts. There's only one thing, so only one truth. So there's only a gradient of un- and non- degrees of what is added to subtract from that truth.


PJ has nailed it for you.

Your mistake is thinking your scholarly endeavors equate to being born from above.


Are you actually insisting Zeke is within the confession of Christian faith? He doesn't even profess faith in Christ. Quite the contrary.

In the case of Zeke, I would like him to clarify if he believes Jesus was actually crucified.

He does seem to be as guilty as you of thinking he knows rather than speaking from experience.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 10th, 2016, 08:52 PM
PJ has nailed it for you.

Your mistake is thinking your scholarly endeavors equate to being born from above.

If I was actually doing that, you might have a point. But like always, you don't.



In the case of Zeke, I would like him to clarify if he believes Jesus was actually crucified.

He does seem to be as guilty as you of thinking he knows rather than speaking from experience.

Whatevs. You have no idea what the inspired text even says, nor do you know the actual Gospel.

1Mind1Spirit
April 10th, 2016, 10:35 PM
If I was actually doing that, you might have a point. But like always, you don't.


Yer bein' in denial in no way invalidates my point.



Whatevs. You have no idea what the inspired text even says, nor do you know the actual Gospel.

Now you sound like my kids.

Love yuh, bro.
:)

patrick jane
April 10th, 2016, 10:45 PM
Yer bein' in denial in no way invalidates my point.




Now you sound like my kids.

Love yuh, bro.
:)
one head

1Mind1Spirit
April 10th, 2016, 11:02 PM
one head

Where's Johnny when yuh need him?

Can I get a praiiiiiiiise Jeeeesuuuus!!!!!

The one head. :king::zman: :bow:

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 11th, 2016, 12:19 AM
Yer bein' in denial in no way invalidates my point.

You mistake denial for valid dismissal of untruth, etc.



Now you sound like my kids.

So your kids think your doctrines are whack?

My kids know I have the depth, breadth, and height of truth. And I'm humbly privileged to disciple them for hours each week. Soon it will include my grandkids. There's no greater blessing.


Love yuh, bro.
:)

I'm not so sure about that, old timer.

Ben Masada
April 11th, 2016, 01:59 AM
Did Jesus "atone" for the sin of unbelief for all people?

No, he did not. He would not go against the Prophets of the Most High who said that no one can atone for the
sins of another. (Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20)

Robert Pate
April 11th, 2016, 08:18 AM
No, he did not. He would not go against the Prophets of the Most High who said that no one can atone for the
sins of another. (Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20)

You need to get out of the Old Testament and get in the new. Every thing has changed, 1 John 2:2.

1Mind1Spirit
April 11th, 2016, 02:43 PM
So your kids think your doctrines are whack?



No.
They are just like all of us.
When they run out of reasons to justify their activities the last thing outta their mouth is what ever.
When they were young it sometimes was I hate you.


I'm not so sure about that, old timer.

I know.

1Mind1Spirit
April 11th, 2016, 03:00 PM
My kids know I have the depth, breadth, and height of truth. And I'm humbly privileged to disciple them for hours each week. Soon it will include my grandkids. There's no greater blessing.


I seek to know the heighth, depth and breadth of the love of Jesus.

I'll give you a hint.

It's not found in portraying God on a graph conforming Him to fit the trinity doctrine.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 11th, 2016, 03:21 PM
I seek to know the heighth, depth and breadth of the love of Jesus.

I'll give you a hint.

It's not found in portraying God on a graph conforming Him to fit the trinity doctrine.

Yeah, I never even hinted at such a thing. But if one can't even define love, one can't know it.

1Mind1Spirit
April 11th, 2016, 03:33 PM
Yeah, I never even hinted at such a thing. But if one can't even define love, one can't know it.

Love is learned through experience.

Not a Greek dictionary or inverting verbs into nouns.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 11th, 2016, 03:38 PM
Love is learned through experience.

Not a Greek dictionary or inverting verbs into nouns.

Love is learned by the Word, whether experience OR valid lexicography. They work together. Maybe you don't know what it means and don't know you don't know what it means.

1Mind1Spirit
April 11th, 2016, 04:07 PM
Love is learned by the Word, whether experience OR valid lexicography. They work together. Maybe you don't know what it means and don't know you don't know what it means.

You're the one who is unsure I love you.

How is that, seeing you have been born from above enabling you to decipher language like no other before you?

patrick jane
April 11th, 2016, 04:10 PM
You're the one who is unsure I love you.

How is that, seeing you have been born from above enabling you to decipher language like no other before you?
We love you OneHead

Grosnick Marowbe
April 11th, 2016, 04:12 PM
It doesn't have to be, if one is part of the new creation in Christ.

It's amazing how you (like so many others tainted by Modernism in addition to sin and evil within them) think you have the overarching sense of rationality to presume to judge all things in this manner.

What an egomaniacally narrow and presuppositional self-determined false foundation of false autonomy.

Your logos is not God's Logos, so human logic cannot begin to understand such things without being born from above. I can recount an entire treatise on the meanings of suffering and all else, but you can't comprehend any of it without being renewed in the spirit of your mind.

You didn't abandon the Christian faith. You were never an actual Christian, just like the majority of other professing Christians.

Can you say this five times real fast?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 12th, 2016, 07:58 AM
You're the one who is unsure I love you.

How is that, seeing you have been born from above enabling you to decipher language like no other before you?

Because whatever crossover of agape and phileo it might be, it has pathos. So it's the pathos that makes the love unsure. I'm not unsure. Your "love" is unsure.

1Mind1Spirit
April 12th, 2016, 09:52 PM
Because whatever crossover of agape and phileo it might be, it has pathos. So it's the pathos that makes the love unsure. I'm not unsure. Your "love" is unsure.

You're losin' it old friend.

You might need to see a doctor as you can no longer carry on a conversation.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 12th, 2016, 10:15 PM
You're losin' it old friend.

You might need to see a doctor as you can no longer carry on a conversation.

No, the problem is the nebulous English word "love" being thrown around by those who presume they are somehow conversing.

Ben Masada
April 13th, 2016, 02:00 AM
Did Jesus "atone" for the sin of unbelief for all people?

No, as there was no need for Jesus to get into that picture. HaShem had already provided a self atonement through the Law. Now, if you want to set things right with the Lord, all you need is to repent and return to the obedience of the Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19) Jesus himself confirmed it when he said that, to achieve atonement for ones'sins, we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) If you find hard to believe what I have said just above, read the quotes for clarity.

Ben Masada
April 13th, 2016, 02:10 AM
You need to get out of the Old Testament and get in the new. Every thing has changed, 1 John 2:2.

Who dared to make any change in the only Scriptures that Jesus used to refer to as the Word of God aka the Tanach? (Deut. 4:2) Oh yes because, of the NT, he had never even dreamed it would ever rise.

fishrovmen
April 13th, 2016, 05:53 AM
No, as there was no need for Jesus to get into that picture. HaShem had already provided a self atonement through the Law. Now, if you want to set things right with the Lord, all you need is to repent and return to the obedience of the Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19) Jesus himself confirmed it when he said that, to achieve atonement for ones'sins, we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) If you find hard to believe what I have said just above, read the quotes for clarity.
I actually agree with Robert Pate here. Get out of the old covenant (Hebrews chapter 7 and 8) and read Romans 8:3,4

Robert Pate
April 13th, 2016, 07:41 AM
Who dared to make any change in the only Scriptures that Jesus used to refer to as the Word of God aka the Tanach? (Deut. 4:2) Oh yes because, of the NT, he had never even dreamed it would ever rise.

The Old Testament is a record of God bringing forth a nation and a people from whom the savior of the world would come.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 13th, 2016, 10:33 AM
The Old Testament is a record of God bringing forth a nation and a people from whom the savior of the world would come.

^ THIS. ^

Aletheiophile
April 13th, 2016, 04:27 PM
The Old Testament is a record of God bringing forth a nation and a people from whom the savior of the world would come.

Amen!

Ben Masada
April 15th, 2016, 10:46 PM
The Old Testament is a record of God bringing forth a nation and a people from whom the savior of the world would come.

And when he came, you made of him a Christian. The only way to make reparations for that is to promote the truth that he was Jewish and that he never had any thing to do with Christianity.

Ben Masada
April 15th, 2016, 10:55 PM
I actually agree with Robert Pate here. Get out of the old covenant (Hebrews chapter 7 and 8) and read Romans 8:3,4

We have left the OT and taken possession of the New Covenant which was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Nothing to do with Christians. (Jer. 31:31) What you are suggesting is to replace the Tanach with the gospel of Paul. No sir, that would be to adopt the idolatry of the NT. Thank you but no, thanks.

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 12:38 AM
Did Jesus "atone" for the sin of unbelief for all people?

Paul distinguishes faith from works of the law.

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 12:42 AM
Yes, I knew you were being sarcastic. My post was for the general readership.

First, the necessary distinction between noun (singular and plural) and verb. Then the vital distinction between articular and anarthrous nouns, both singular and plural.

Not one poster on TOL understands Hamartiology. Sad.

Perhaps you could explain your point?

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 12:56 AM
The Old Testament is a record of God bringing forth a nation and a people from whom the savior of the world would come.

Indeed.

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 12:59 AM
And when he came, you made of him a Christian. The only way to make reparations for that is to promote the truth that he was Jewish and that he never had any thing to do with Christianity.

Hosea 2:23
I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’ I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’ ”

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 01:01 AM
We have left the OT and taken possession of the New Covenant which was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Nothing to do with Christians. (Jer. 31:31) What you are suggesting is to replace the Tanach with the gospel of Paul. No sir, that would be to adopt the idolatry of the NT. Thank you but no, thanks.

What are you suggesting - that God is only interested in non-gentiles?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 09:35 AM
Perhaps you could explain your point?

Greek has a different noun structure than English. The English-patterned mind superimposes a presumed context upon whatever is translated from Greek into English, even with quality translations. Some of this includes processing nouns as verbs because of sentence structure; and it's a huge challenge for English to represent Greek anarthrous nouns, most often leaving English speakers presuming nouns are merely definite or indefinite article English nouns.

Since nouns are the person/place/thing doing all action as verbs; and since adjectives modify nouns while adverbs modify the verbs that nouns are doing; and since all other forms of language structure follows this pattern; then understanding nouns is the vital key to recognizing truth in translation.

Greek does not have indefinite article nouns (a/an), so there is no such thing as a/an for nouns. English does not have anarthrous nouns, instead resigning all anarthrous reference to adjectives and adverbs, etc. So every time an anarthrous Greek noun is referring to quality, character, and activity of an articular noun, English speakers virtually always perceive that noun to be a definite article noun, an indefinite article noun, or a verb.

Once someone can learn this basic distinction (which takes an initial understanding and then some time to apply), their patterns of thought can be conformed to what the inspired text is actually saying instead of passively and unconsciously changing what scripture says and means.

This one language structure disparity is the main cause of most tangents and binaries of doctrine, and is the foundation for the overwhelming majority of false doctrines that have emerged in the last half millennia in the Protestant sects that have proliferated because of it.

This will not go away by ignoring it or downplaying it in denial. English speakers have hearts and minds that are patterned to process word meanings in a different fashion than is presented in scripture. It's an epistemological functionality issue, and virtually everyone is blind to it because it's their epistemological pattern of (dys-)functionality.

Add in the necessary examination of individual word meaning variances, and it means a multitude are reading scripture and coming to conclusions based more on their own subjective presuppositions than objective truth presented by/from the text.

Voila... Hundreds and thousands of variations in belief, all professing to be Christian and to have THE truth.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 09:40 AM
Voila... Hundreds and thousands of variations in belief, all professing to be Christian and to have THE truth.

Jesus says we know them by their fruit not by their doctrines.

You need to take heed of His word, friend.

Ben Masada
April 16th, 2016, 10:00 AM
Hosea 2:23
I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’ I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’ ”

Yes, but not as an independent or separated people from Judah. Modern Israel is composed mainly of Judah, about 10% of the Ten Tribes that escaped Assyria and joined Judah in the South. But, as two Kingdoms or 12 Tribes, no longer. (Psalm 78:67-69) The rejection of the ancient Ten Tribes by the Lord was final and forever.

Ben Masada
April 16th, 2016, 10:12 AM
What are you suggesting - that God is only interested in non-gentiles?

No, we even have a peculiar term for the Gentiles, The Righteous Gentiles, aka all who convert to Judaism and get a name better than sons and daughters if you read Isaiah 56:1-8. The Lord does have a place for the Gentiles but only through the intercession of Israel.(job 42:9)

Ben Masada
April 16th, 2016, 10:26 AM
Hosea 2:23
I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’ I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’ ”

Here the Lord is talking about Israel and not the Gentiles. By the way, if you take a look at Matthew 10:5,6, Jesus himself, when giving instructions to his disciples before sending them on a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he forbade them to go the way of the Gentiles. That was strange to me because he should have known that Israel had been assigned as light to the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:6) One is tempted to see that Jesus was rather adding more and more bricks unto the wall of separation between Israel and the Gentiles.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 10:31 AM
Jesus says we know them by their fruit not by their doctrines.

You need to take heed of His word, friend.

Doctrine (logos) IS fruit.

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 12:54 PM
Greek has a different noun structure than English. The English-patterned mind superimposes a presumed context upon whatever is translated from Greek into English, even with quality translations. Some of this includes processing nouns as verbs because of sentence structure; and it's a huge challenge for English to represent Greek anarthrous nouns, most often leaving English speakers presuming nouns are merely definite or indefinite article English nouns.

Since nouns are the person/place/thing doing all action as verbs; and since adjectives modify nouns while adverbs modify the verbs that nouns are doing; and since all other forms of language structure follows this pattern; then understanding nouns is the vital key to recognizing truth in translation.

Greek does not have indefinite article nouns (a/an), so there is no such thing as a/an for nouns. English does not have anarthrous nouns, instead resigning all anarthrous reference to adjectives and adverbs, etc. So every time an anarthrous Greek noun is referring to quality, character, and activity of an articular noun, English speakers virtually always perceive that noun to be a definite article noun, an indefinite article noun, or a verb.

Once someone can learn this basic distinction (which takes an initial understanding and then some time to apply), their patterns of thought can be conformed to what the inspired text is actually saying instead of passively and unconsciously changing what scripture says and means.

This one language structure disparity is the main cause of most tangents and binaries of doctrine, and is the foundation for the overwhelming majority of false doctrines that have emerged in the last half millennia in the Protestant sects that have proliferated because of it.

This will not go away by ignoring it or downplaying it in denial. English speakers have hearts and minds that are patterned to process word meanings in a different fashion than is presented in scripture. It's an epistemological functionality issue, and virtually everyone is blind to it because it's their epistemological pattern of (dys-)functionality.

Add in the necessary examination of individual word meaning variances, and it means a multitude are reading scripture and coming to conclusions based more on their own subjective presuppositions than objective truth presented by/from the text.

Voila... Hundreds and thousands of variations in belief, all professing to be Christian and to have THE truth.

Thank you - very interesting (I did have some understanding of this issue). Would you give a simple example please? I suppose the obvious one is John 1:1.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 01:43 PM
Doctrine (logos) IS fruit.

Nope, it is just lip service.

Fruit is what you actually practice.

Like practicing Jesus' teaching of "love your enemy".

If you approve of joining the military or joying the military yourself, you are disobeying Him.

this is just one example.

disobeying His commands or teachings is sin, friend.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 02:02 PM
Thank you - very interesting (I did have some understanding of this issue). Would you give a simple example please? I suppose the obvious one is John 1:1.

John 1:1 is very much an example of this. One of the best examples I utilize is Romans 10:17, which can be perceived by English speakers in several different subtle ways (all of which are not the specificity of scripture).

So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

First... "So then" is ara, an inferential participle which means "consequently, it follows that...". This means v17 is referring to v16.

Then... "faith" is an articular noun, meaning "that" or "this" as "the"; and referring to the verb form in v16 as "the thing believed".

"Cometh" is not explicitly in the Greek text, but is provided as part of the translation for "by", which is "ek" (motion out of/from the following noun as a thing).

"Hearing", though virtually always presumed to be a VERB, is a NOUN; and it's an anarthrous noun. So it's not DOING auditory reception as an ACTION, it's the thing heard; and it's referring to the same word (akuo) rendered in v16 as "report" (like the report as the sound of fireworks), an articular noun as "the" thing heard.

Being anarthrous, it's referring to every quality, characteristic, and functional activity of the articular noun. It is NOT action, for every noun has a latent sense of activity as a thing. Example... A table isn't "table-ing" as a verb when it is holding up things put on it. That's the latent function of a table, and thus its anarthrous activity AS a noun without being a verb. Tables are never verbs.

So "hearing" is the all-encompassing nature of "that" thing heard (the report referred to in v16). And there isn't a "thing heard" if there is no sound as a "thing said" (or whatever other sound would be applicable in other contexts).

So far... We have a contingent verse referring to the previous verse, though virtually everyone leaves out the "so then". And we have "that" thing believed (from the verb pisteuo in v16), which comes out of the quality, character, and activity of "the thing heard". So faith is not another nebulous "something". Faith is literally "the thing believed'. And it comes out of "the thing heard", which is anarthrous as a qualitative consideration.

So it is not true faith if the quality is not the thing heard according to the rest of the verse about it being the word (rhema) of God. Only that which is God's Rhema can be the thing heard, from which comes the thing believed that is authentic faith. Any other word as the thing heard will produce a thing believed that is not the word of God.

Going on... "And" is "de" (a dysjunctive), NOT kai (the conjunctive). "De" does not mean "and" in the common English sense at all. The last phrase is not just linked to the first phrase. "De" means something like "moreover", because it indicates the dysjunctive of the first phrase being utterly dependent upon the last phrase. Often the Greek emphasis is on a latter part of a sentence rather than the earlier part of a sentence.

So the "thing believed" which comes out of every qualitative characteristic and functional activity of "the thing heard" MUST be according to the latter phrase or it is not whatever is in the first phrase... faith.

The last phrase... and ("de", meaning moreover) "THAT" faith (articular noun, referring to the same noun in the anarthrous from the first phrase) "by" ("dia", which is "by means of") the word (rhema, anarthrous noun) of God (many manuscripts have Christos rather than Theos, for Christ instead of God; but Christ IS God by divinity, so they're the same).

Rhema as an anarthrous noun againg refers to every qualitative characteristic and functional activity of the noun that is God's word. And rhema, by definition, is the result (-ma) of the flowing (rheo-) of speaking (rheo-) forth from God's own underlying reality of existence (hypostasis, that which stands (stasis) under (hypo)).

In summary... Based on the references in v16, "the thing believed" (faith) comes out of "the qualitative characteristics and functional activity of the thing heard" (hearing, for there is no hearing without a thing heard), moreover "that" hearing (the anarthrous noun of hearing) is by sole means of every quality, charcteristic, and functional activity of the resulting flow of the speaking forth of/from the very underlying reality of God's substance as His word (by which He brought forth and is perpetually upholding all things for all everlasting).

Because of a total void of understanding of Greek anarthrous nouns, they get turned into verbs (like hearing) by English speakers who only understand definite and indefinite artilce English nouns. This easily turns noun things into a works soteriology in a way that can't even be recognized, and it changes faith into a thing that is an odd phenomenon unto itself instead of it coming being the result of the thing heard as only the word of God.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 02:13 PM
Nope, it is just lip service.

Fruit is what you actually practice.

Like practicing Jesus' teaching of "love your enemy".

If you approve of joining the military or joying the military yourself, you are disobeying Him.

this is just one example.

disobeying His commands or teachings is sin, friend.

And TRUE doctrine means such will be the same in practice as belief. Faith without works is dead. So faith will inevitably result in the works that correspond to the belief.

If one's works do not correspond to one's stated belief, then that belief is not indeed faith.

This is what you are always trying to say, but you present it as works being the means of salvific faith. Works are the RESULT of salvific faith.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 02:23 PM
And TRUE doctrine means such will be the same in practice as belief. Faith without works is dead. So faith will inevitably result in the works that correspond to the belief.

If one's works do not correspond to one's stated belief, then that belief is not indeed faith.

This is what you are always trying to say, but you present it as works being the means of salvific faith. Works are the RESULT of salvific faith.

You see, you don't know what Jesus teaches. You don't know what sin is.

Disobeying Jesus' teachings is sin. You don't even know that.

I am saying this because you are pro-military which is you are disobeying Jesus' word. This is your fruit.

What you are doing is playing a scholar.

What you are doing is just plain ego.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 02:27 PM
BTW, pps,

You are not only one who is doing this. Many posters are doing exactly the same.

they are showing off what they learned from their churches and denomination or Calvin or Derby or many other famous theologians.

Knowledge puffs up. Pride is a grave sin.

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 02:28 PM
John 1:1 is very much an example of this. One of the best examples I utilize is Romans 10:17, which can be perceived by English speakers in several different subtle ways (all of which are not the specificity of scripture).

So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

First... "So then" is ara, an inferential participle which means "consequently, it follows that...". This means v17 is referring to v16.

Then... "faith" is an articular noun, meaning "that" or "this" as "the"; and referring to the verb form in v16 as "the thing believed".

"Cometh" is not explicitly in the Greek text, but is provided as part of the translation for "by", which is "ek" (motion out of/from the following noun as a thing).

"Hearing", though virtually always presumed to be a VERB, is a NOUN; and it's an anarthrous noun. So it's not DOING auditory reception as an ACTION, it's the thing heard; and it's referring to the same word (akuo) rendered in v16 as "report" (like the report as the sound of fireworks), an articular noun as "the" thing heard.

Being anarthrous, it's referring to every quality, characteristic, and functional activity of the articular noun. It is NOT action, for every noun has a latent sense of activity as a thing. Example... A table isn't "table-ing" as a verb when it is holding up things put on it. That's the latent function of a table, and thus its anarthrous activity AS a noun without being a verb. Tables are never verbs.

So "hearing" is the all-encompassing nature of "that" thing heard (the report referred to in v16). And there isn't a "thing heard" if there is no sound as a "thing said" (or whatever other sound would be applicable in other contexts).

So far... We have a contingent verse referring to the previous verse, though virtually everyone leaves out the "so then". And we have "that" thing believed (from the verb pisteuo in v16), which comes out of the quality, character, and activity of "the thing heard". So faith is not another nebulous "something". Faith is literally "the thing believed'. And it comes out of "the thing heard", which is anarthrous as a qualitative consideration.

So it is not true faith if the quality is not the thing heard according to the rest of the verse about it being the word (rhema) of God. Only that which is God's Rhema can be the thing heard, from which comes the thing believed that is authentic faith. Any other word as the thing heard will produce a thing believed that is not the word of God.

Going on... "And" is "de" (a dysjunctive), NOT kai (the conjunctive). "De" does not mean "and" in the common English sense at all. The last phrase is not just linked to the first phrase. "De" means something like "moreover", because it indicates the dysjunctive of the first phrase being utterly dependent upon the last phrase. Often the Greek emphasis is on a latter part of a sentence rather than the earlier part of a sentence.

So the "thing believed" which comes out of every qualitative characteristic and functional activity of "the thing heard" MUST be according to the latter phrase or it is not whatever is in the first phrase... faith.

The last phrase... and ("de", meaning moreover) "THAT" faith (articular noun, referring to the same noun in the anarthrous from the first phrase) "by" ("dia", which is "by means of") the word (rhema, anarthrous noun) of God (many manuscripts have Christos rather than Theos, for Christ instead of God; but Christ IS God by divinity, so they're the same).

Rhema as an anarthrous noun againg refers to every qualitative characteristic and functional activity of the noun that is God's word. And rhema, by definition, is the result (-ma) of the flowing (rheo-) of speaking (rheo-) forth from God's own underlying reality of existence (hypostasis, that which stands (stasis) under (hypo)).

In summary... Based on the references in v16, "the thing believed" (faith) comes out of "the qualitative characteristics and functional activity of the thing heard" (hearing, for there is no hearing without a thing heard), moreover "that" hearing (the anarthrous noun of hearing) is by sole means of every quality, charcteristic, and functional activity of the resulting flow of the speaking forth of/from the very underlying reality of God's substance as His word (by which He brought forth and is perpetually upholding all things for all everlasting).

Because of a total void of understanding of Greek anarthrous nouns, they get turned into verbs (like hearing) by English speakers who only understand definite and indefinite artilce English nouns. This easily turns noun things into a works soteriology in a way that can't even be recognized, and it changes faith into a thing that is an odd phenomenon unto itself instead of it coming being the result of the thing heard as only the word of God.

Thank you - will get back to you.

I'll be less than ten years.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 02:32 PM
BTW, pps,

You are not only one who is doing this. Many posters are doing exactly the same.

they are showing off what they learned from their churches and denomination or Calvin or many famous theologians.

Knowledge puffs up. Pride is a grave sin.

Faith is not pride. And gnosis (knowledge) is vital and unavoidable.

Knowledge only puffs up in the manner indicated by ONE verse.

Love abounds in knowledge (epignosis). (Philippians 1:9, Colossians 1:9)

I didn't learn any of this from a denomination. I've spent nearly 20 years in scripture for everything. Please stop assuming otherwise.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 02:36 PM
You see, you don't know what Jesus teaches. You don't know what sin is.

Disobeying Jesus' teachings is sin. You don't even know that.

I am saying this because you are pro-military which is you are disobeying Jesus' word. This is your fruit.

What you are doing is playing a scholar.

What you are doing is just plain ego.


I know exactly what sin is, and it's a noun while you presume it's a verb. Big difference, but you're not alone.

Of course disobeying Jesus' teachings is sin.

What makes you think I'm pro-military. You have no idea what my position is on governmental authority of various kinds. I've never addressed it on TOL that I recall.

I'm not "playing" the scholar, I'm doing exactly what God's word tells me I should do in getting understanding, etc.

No, it's not ego. It's faith and the works that come from faith.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 02:39 PM
I didn't learn any of this from a denomination. I've spent nearly 20 years in scripture for everything. Please stop assuming otherwise.

I am not assuming. My observation comes from what you practice which is fruit.

Your pro-military position is your fruit.

Jesus says we know them by their fruit.

If you dont know what sin is, your knowledge is empty or vein.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 02:40 PM
BTW, pps,


Calvin or Derby or many other famous theologians.

Knowledge puffs up. Pride is a grave sin.

Would that be "The Brown Derby?"

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 02:41 PM
My posts are for you too, aletheiophile.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 02:41 PM
I am not assuming. My observation comes from what you practice which is fruit.

Your pro-military position is your fruit.

Jesus says we know them by their fruit.

If you dont know what sin is, your knowledge is empty or vein.

You tell him Meshak. PPS is a little less intelligent than you. Therefore, he can take it.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 02:45 PM
I know exactly what sin is,

So you just ignore what Jesus teaches and stay in your sinful situation.

that is willful sin.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 02:45 PM
I know exactly what sin is, and it's a noun while you presume it's a verb. Big difference, but you're not alone.

Of course disobeying Jesus' teachings is sin.

What makes you think I'm pro-military. You have no idea what my position is on governmental authority of various kinds. I've never addressed it on TOL that I recall.

I'm not "playing" the scholar, I'm doing exactly what God's word tells me I should do in getting understanding, etc.

No, it's not ego. It's faith and the works that come from faith.

I'm afraid she's got more experience in this area than you have. If I was you, I'd bow to her superior knowledge. However, I'm not you, thank goodness.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 02:46 PM
So you just ignore what Jesus teaches and stay in your sinful situation.

that is willful sin.

I'm cheering you on Meshak. You have PPS on the ropes.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 02:47 PM
Throw in the towel PPS, you're cooked.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 02:48 PM
PPS is down for the count.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 02:50 PM
PPS doesn't know who he's dealing with? He's at a disadvantage.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 02:53 PM
I declare, "Meshak the Magnificent" as the World Heavyweight Debater." What a Gal.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 02:54 PM
This thread is about sin.

Christianity is all about Jesus teachings and obey what He teaches and commands.

We are supposed to repent of our worldly way of living and mentality to Jesus' ways.

It is all about changing our sinful way of living to godly way which is Jesus' ways.

Debating your doctrines will not make you a godly. It just makes you feel good to show off you knowledge.

Jesus says to love your enemy. If you know this you will not hold your pro-military position if your esteem His word.

I am only showing you actual example of what I am talking about.

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 02:54 PM
"Hearing", though virtually always presumed to be a VERB, is a NOUN; and it's an anarthrous noun. So it's not DOING auditory reception as an ACTION, it's the thing heard; and it's referring to the same word (akuo) rendered in v16 as "report" (like the report as the sound of fireworks), an articular noun as "the" thing heard.

Being anarthrous, it's referring to every quality, characteristic, and functional activity of the articular noun. It is NOT action, for every noun has a latent sense of activity as a thing. Example... A table isn't "table-ing" as a verb when it is holding up things put on it. That's the latent function of a table, and thus its anarthrous activity AS a noun without being a verb. Tables are never verbs.

So "hearing" is the all-encompassing nature of "that" thing heard (the report referred to in v16). And there isn't a "thing heard" if there is no sound as a "thing said" (or whatever other sound would be applicable in other contexts).

So then faith comes by the thing heard.


So far... We have a contingent verse referring to the previous verse, though virtually everyone leaves out the "so then". And we have "that" thing believed (from the verb pisteuo in v16), which comes out of the quality, character, and activity of "the thing heard". So faith is not another nebulous "something". Faith is literally "the thing believed'. And it comes out of "the thing heard", which is anarthrous as a qualitative consideration.

So it is not true faith if the quality is not the thing heard according to the rest of the verse about it being the word (rhema) of God. Only that which is God's Rhema can be the thing heard, from which comes the thing believed that is authentic faith. Any other word as the thing heard will produce a thing believed that is not the word of God.


If someone preaches the gospel then we hear the Rhema right? Or are you saying that if the gospel is poorly delivered then we might not have the Rhema?


Going on... "And" is "de" (a dysjunctive), NOT kai (the conjunctive). "De" does not mean "and" in the common English sense at all. The last phrase is not just linked to the first phrase. "De" means something like "moreover", because it indicates the dysjunctive of the first phrase being utterly dependent upon the last phrase. Often the Greek emphasis is on a latter part of a sentence rather than the earlier part of a sentence.

So the "thing believed" which comes out of every qualitative characteristic and functional activity of "the thing heard" MUST be according to the latter phrase or it is not whatever is in the first phrase... faith.

The last phrase... and ("de", meaning moreover) "THAT" faith (articular noun, referring to the same noun in the anarthrous from the first phrase) "by" ("dia", which is "by means of") the word (rhema, anarthrous noun) of God (many manuscripts have Christos rather than Theos, for Christ instead of God; but Christ IS God by divinity, so they're the same).

Rhema as an anarthrous noun againg refers to every qualitative characteristic and functional activity of the noun that is God's word. And rhema, by definition, is the result (-ma) of the flowing (rheo-) of speaking (rheo-) forth from God's own underlying reality of existence (hypostasis, that which stands (stasis) under (hypo)).

The underlying reality of God in the gospel? Not everyone preaches the same gospel. The Calvinist hesitates on the 'died for your sins ' bit.



In summary... Based on the references in v16, "the thing believed" (faith) comes out of "the qualitative characteristics and functional activity of the thing heard" (hearing, for there is no hearing without a thing heard), moreover "that" hearing (the anarthrous noun of hearing) is by sole means of every quality, charcteristic, and functional activity of the resulting flow of the speaking forth of/from the very underlying reality of God's substance as His word (by which He brought forth and is perpetually upholding all things for all everlasting).

Because of a total void of understanding of Greek anarthrous nouns, they get turned into verbs (like hearing) by English speakers who only understand definite and indefinite artilce English nouns. This easily turns noun things into a works soteriology in a way that can't even be recognized, and it changes faith into a thing that is an odd phenomenon unto itself instead of it coming being the result of the thing heard as only the word of God.

I think I see what you are saying though I am wondering how this all renders the hearer. You seem to be suggesting little or no participation by the person hearing the gospel.

Aletheiophile
April 16th, 2016, 02:54 PM
My posts are for you too, aletheiophile.

Oh my goodness. Thank you for including me. I was afraid of being left out.

It's not our job to play the role of fruit inspector. That is the Spirit of Cain. Cain produced labor by the work of his own hands and presented that to God. Able brought the ordained sacrifice that he did not labor for - only what was required of God. Cain judged his sacrifice as superior to Able's, and was insulted when refused. We are not to judge by the external, but the internal. How is that? By the Spirit, discerning all things. 1 Cor 2:15

To judge all scholarship as pride and sin is to disregard all of Christian history. We have the oracles of faith because of "arrogant scholars." Without scribes and scholars, there would be no OT or NT manuscripts. There would be no doctrine of the early fathers, or later fathers. There would be no reformation. Shoot, there would be no coherent doctrine and tradition whatsoever.

The knowledge-less "religions" of the ancient pagans were lost and subject to change. Do we want a people subject to change without leaders to guide, correct, and instruct?

Studying the depths of the scriptures is not an arrogant position. It is a position of serving. It only functions when you serve.

How are you to assume how any person comes to their doctrine? You distrust institutions and theologians, and write them off. But what if an individual has divested themselves into the text of scripture, consulting no theologians but the early fathers? What if all secular learning has come second to the text of scripture? What then?

I grieve for you, for in your pseudo-humiility you portray grave arrogance. Imposing simplicity is imposing a standard, and you have exalted yourself as the judge of persons. There is a difference between judging persons and discerning things. I pray that you would cease the former and engage in the latter.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 02:55 PM
It would be best for you to go back to reading comic books PPS. Meshak gave you a world class "What For."

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 02:57 PM
It's not our job to play the role of fruit inspector.

It is not godly thing or good Christian thing to do to ignore or close your eyes off plain hypocrisy.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 02:59 PM
It is not godly thing or good Christian thing to do to ignore or close your eyes off plain hypocrisy.

Have you a few words for your many fans out there Meshak? You just won the fight of your life with none other than "PPS."

Aletheiophile
April 16th, 2016, 03:00 PM
It is not godly thing or good Christian thing to do to ignore or close your eyes off plain hypocrisy.

You ignore 95% of what I have to say, and only repeat your own egocentric position. I will not engage in discussion with you if you will not even address what others are actually saying.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 03:01 PM
Thanks for tuning in folks. You just witnessed, "One terrific battle of the wits."

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 03:08 PM
You ignore 95% of what I have to say,
I focus on posters main point.

I dont play beat around the bush type of talking.

What I pointed out is what is going on in most churches.

What is going on is "elephant in the room" and ignore what is clear.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 03:11 PM
Thank you - will get back to you.

I'll be less than ten years.

LOL. I understand. If only others would ask and consider some of these things before having 20 years of doctrine set in stone that is grammatically and semantically incorrect in multitudinous ways and by varying degrees.

An anarthrous noun refers to the qualitative characteristics and funcional activity of a particular (articular) noun. There is no indefinite article noun in Greek, so there is no "a/an" for any noun.

For instance... There is not "a" sin as an accomplished act resulting from a verb. Chew on that for a minute. Yet it doesn't mean there aren't resulting acts as sins that come from "sin", the condition... which is a noun.

:)

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 03:17 PM
Recognizing sin is not difficult.

If we practice or endorse against Jesus' teachings it is sin.

It is that simple.

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 03:20 PM
For instance... There is not "a" sin as an accomplished act resulting from a verb. Chew on that for a minute. Yet it doesn't mean there aren't resulting acts as sins that come from "sin", the condition... which is a noun.

:)

So this is important in what way?

1Mind1Spirit
April 16th, 2016, 03:27 PM
LOL. I understand. If only others would ask and consider some of these things before having 20 years of doctrine set in stone that is grammatically and semantically incorrect in multitudinous ways and by varying degrees.

An anarthrous noun refers to the qualitative characteristics and funcional activity of a particular (articular) noun. There is no indefinite article noun in Greek, so there is no "a/an" for any noun.

For instance... There is not "a" sin as an accomplished act resulting from a verb. Chew on that for a minute. Yet it doesn't mean there aren't resulting acts as sins that come from "sin", the condition... which is a noun.

:)

All hot air.


Nouns are tangible, not concepts of the mind.

:drum:Accordingly the sound a drum makes when beaten is not the drum itself.

So according to PPS the learned Greeks would be like an unlearned simpleton and say, Tonto beat drum.:kookoo::crackup:

Robert Pate
April 16th, 2016, 03:29 PM
LOL. I understand. If only others would ask and consider some of these things before having 20 years of doctrine set in stone that is grammatically and semantically incorrect in multitudinous ways and by varying degrees.

An anarthrous noun refers to the qualitative characteristics and funcional activity of a particular (articular) noun. There is no indefinite article noun in Greek, so there is no "a/an" for any noun.

For instance... There is not "a" sin as an accomplished act resulting from a verb. Chew on that for a minute. Yet it doesn't mean there aren't resulting acts as sins that come from "sin", the condition... which is a noun.

:)

Huh? Can you bring that down a little? I didn't make it to college.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 03:37 PM
Huh? Can you bring that down a little? I didn't make it to college.

He KNOWS most posters won't have a clue what he's talking about. He thinks it gives him an advantage over those who are not as well educated as he. That makes him a "Cyber-bully" and a show off. Someone who is "truly" well educated well recognize their audience and speak on their level. Get it?

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 03:47 PM
I focus on posters main point.

I dont play beat around the bush type of talking.

What I pointed out is what is going on in most churches.

What is going on is "elephant in the room" and ignore what is clear.

You are quite the philosopher. Of course, you've done some personal research in order to come to your findings, correct? I mean, you said: "Most churches?" You must have spent many years observing all of these churches in order to draw your amazing conclusions?

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 03:49 PM
Oops!

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 03:50 PM
Delete

Grosnick Marowbe
April 16th, 2016, 03:57 PM
I'm still rooting for ya Meshak. Someday, in the distant future, you're gonna say something that makes a modicum of sense?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 05:11 PM
So then faith comes by the thing heard.

Yes, or more precisely, the thing believed comes by motion out of the thing heard. This means faith is not a stand-alone something, as most conceptualize.


If someone preaches the gospel then we hear the Rhema right?

Right.


Or are you saying that if the gospel is poorly delivered then we might not have the Rhema?

Exactly. If it is inadequately or insufficiently delivered, then it is not the Rhema; therefore if it is not the thing thought and spoken about and forth by God, it is another thing heard and believed. That's why there are so many gradients and tangents of belief.


The underlying reality of God in the gospel?

God is a hypostasis. Faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for...

Faith is the flowing of God speaking forth the underlying reality of existence (hypostasis - that which foundationally and objectively underlies reality for existence). It's about the new creation of us having our existence in Christ by faith... born from above.


Not everyone preaches the same gospel. The Calvinist hesitates on the 'died for your sins ' bit.

There are many subtelties as "a" gospel, but that isn't possible. There is no indefinite article in Greek, while English is utterly driven BY the indefinite article. There can't be other gospels, numerically; so there can only be qualitative gospels, but Galatians says they're NOT another. There is only one Gospel, and we are to all speak the same thing. English structural miscomprehension is one huge impediment for that unless/until hearts and minds are conformed to something besides the patterning effects of their English first language.



I think I see what you are saying though I am wondering how this all renders the hearer. You seem to be suggesting little or no participation by the person hearing the gospel.

We have access BY faith INTO the grace wherein we stand. Repentance is granted. That's why the Monergism of the Reformed tradition is more functionally applicable for modern western minds; while Synergism was more functionally applicable for more ancient and eastern minds.

It requires understanding the interface of God's timelessness with the chronological form of time in the fallen earth ages of the cosmos. For God, there is NO time. Time is created, as is space and matter. God is both "no-when" and "every-when", just as He is "no-where" and "every-where". There is no linearity or sequentiality or duration or elapsation for God in any manner related to time. Most views depend on varying fallacies of superimposing time upon God to understand what is theologically referred to as "Ordo Salutis" (order of salvation).

The "here" and "now" for all peoples of all earth ages since creation ALL have a sense of contemporaneous "nowness" to God. This takes some time and effort in the spirit to understand and be conformed to as the renewing of the mind. It can (and should) be discipled and taught; and it is epistemological and ontological, with methodologies emerging as the "doing" from "being"... in Christ.

This is not happening in the modern Church-at-large.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 05:26 PM
So this is important in what way?

The overwhelming majority are dealing with sin/s (whether regarding salvation or ongoing Christian life) as the verb/action (sinning) and the resulting act/noun (sin/sis).

Sin is a noun, and it is a something-lessness. Hamartia is from a- and -meros. Meros is "no share/part, and a- is "no/not" as a negation. Hamartia, the noun, is "the missing share or part. It's a noun in the sense of a hole or pit. It's a void of something, not a something.

Everyone has the perception that sin is a verb and is a something as an action. The English mind has a difficult time processing by any other construct because of its structure and effects on epistemological functionality.

Thus the focus is always on actions/acts. The doing and the done. That's not the void or "hole" that is the somethinglessness of sin, the noun. Sin is the source of all actions, and it's a void that is in our nature and our members. And this is why Anthropology Proper is so important; to understand the substance, essence, nature, and outward appearance of man relative to spirit, soul, and body, etc.

Everyone believes something/s and thinks something/s and wills something/s and desires something/s. What matter is whether the source of all being and doing is Christ or one's self. And the heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things; so it has to come by the Spirit from without or within.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 05:29 PM
Oops!

This is by far your best and most cogent post ever, Gross One.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 05:30 PM
Huh? Can you bring that down a little? I didn't make it to college.

You don't need college, just an understanding of how the Greek language translates into English so as not to employ fallacies for false doctrine.

patrick jane
April 16th, 2016, 05:35 PM
You don't need college, just an understanding of how the Greek language translates into English so as not to employ fallacies for false doctrine.

I think we can all understand sin as a noun and not a verb or individual action, but sin as a whole.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 05:39 PM
I think we can all understand sin as a noun and not a verb or individual action, but sin as a whole.

I guarantee you don't, especially the anarthrous noun.

patrick jane
April 16th, 2016, 05:45 PM
I guarantee you don't, especially the anarthrous noun.
As long as you understand it the world is safe, I guarantee it.

patrick jane
April 16th, 2016, 05:58 PM
I guarantee you don't, especially the anarthrous noun.
Yep, you're the only one who knows

http://www.biblefood.com/articthe2.html

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:04 PM
Yep, you're the only one who knows

http://www.biblefood.com/articthe2.html

Outline it very explicitly Pajama-man. Tell us what the singular and plural, articular and anarthrous noun sin is and means; and disintinguish it from the verb and the resulting act/s as noun/s.

G'head, two-faced fence-straddling flatterer of feigned love.

Aletheiophile
April 16th, 2016, 06:05 PM
Goodness. Being biblically-literate doesn't require secular schooling.

kmoney
April 16th, 2016, 06:16 PM
The overwhelming majority are dealing with sin/s (whether regarding salvation or ongoing Christian life) as the verb/action (sinning) and the resulting act/noun (sin/sis).

Sin is a noun, and it is a something-lessness. Hamartia is from a- and -meros. Meros is "no share/part, and a- is "no/not" as a negation. Hamartia, the noun, is "the missing share or part. It's a noun in the sense of a hole or pit. It's a void of something, not a something.

Everyone has the perception that sin is a verb and is a something as an action. The English mind has a difficult time processing by any other construct because of its structure and effects on epistemological functionality.

Thus the focus is always on actions/acts. The doing and the done. That's not the void or "hole" that is the somethinglessness of sin, the noun. Sin is the source of all actions, and it's a void that is in our nature and our members. And this is why Anthropology Proper is so important; to understand the substance, essence, nature, and outward appearance of man relative to spirit, soul, and body, etc.

Everyone believes something/s and thinks something/s and wills something/s and desires something/s. What matter is whether the source of all being and doing is Christ or one's self. And the heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things; so it has to come by the Spirit from without or within.

So you would say that sin is the state of being and acting from one's self instead of Christ?

How would you handle a verse like this that seems to treat sin as a verb?

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

patrick jane
April 16th, 2016, 06:18 PM
Outline it very explicitly Pajama-man. Tell us what the singular and plural, articular and anarthrous noun sin is and means; and disintinguish it from the verb and the resulting act/s as noun/s.

G'head, two-faced fence-straddling flatterer of feigned love.

Sin is sin, singular. Individual sins are actions and can be verbs. If one is in the act of sinning the action of the sin or crime is a verb. what's it like being a dummy ?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:19 PM
All hot air.

Nouns are tangible, not concepts of the mind.

:drum:Accordingly the sound a drum makes when beaten is not the drum itself.

So according to PPS the learned Greeks would be like an unlearned simpleton and say, Tonto beat drum.:kookoo::crackup:

You're just an old lunatic. Don't the horses need some whispering or something?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:21 PM
So you would say that sin is the state of being and acting from one's self instead of Christ?

Yes, essentially the summary.


How would you handle a verse like this that seems to treat sin as a verb?

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Both of those ARE the verb form (hamartano). The verb is the bringing forth into action of the condition or state of being within oneself, which is the (articular) noun. The anarthrous noun is another issue altogether, and vital.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:23 PM
Sin is sin, singular.

Wow. You defined the word with the word itself. This would be like defining horse as horse.


Individual sins are actions and can be verbs.

No. That would be hamartema (whether singular or plural), not hamartia; and then hamnartano (the verb). You have no clue whatsoever.


If one is in the act of sinning the action of the sin or crime is a verb. what's it like being a dummy ?

Nope, not even close. Wow, that was SOOOOOOO explicit. You have no clue. And you said nothing of the articular versus anarthrous, which is the real issue (along with the distinction between noun and verb, etc.).

What. An. Idiot. You'd be better off still pretending to know without proving you don't outright by your own posts.

patrick jane
April 16th, 2016, 06:23 PM
I focus on posters main point.

I dont play beat around the bush type of talking.

What I pointed out is what is going on in most churches.

What is going on is "elephant in the room" and ignore what is clear.

:rotfl:

kmoney
April 16th, 2016, 06:24 PM
Both of those are the verb form. The verb is the bringing forth into action of the condition or state of being within oneself, which is the noun.
I may have misunderstood something. I thought you were saying that sin is never a verb. Are you saying that sin can be a verb?

Can you define 'sin'?
And what do you call the opposite of sin?

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 06:24 PM
the word sin is both noun and verb.

Why are you guys making such a big deal out of this simple word?

sheesh.

patrick jane
April 16th, 2016, 06:25 PM
Nope. Wow, that was SOOOOOOO explicit. You have no clue. And you said nothing of the articular verus anarthrous, which is the real issue, along with the distinction between noun and verb, etc.

What. An. Idiot. You'd be better off still pretending to know without proving it outright by your own posts.

I'm a master of the English language, you take it Greek style - :rotfl:

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:40 PM
I may have misunderstood something. I thought you were saying that sin is never a verb. Are you saying that sin can be a verb?

Sin can be articular or anarthrous, singular or plural noun in any case, and sin can be a verb in any tense, mood, or voice. And sin can be hamartia/hamartiai or hamartema. The latter is the resulting acts of the verb. The former is what everyone presumes is the verb or the resulting acts OF the verb, whether regarding initial salvation or the ongoing Christian life.


Can you define 'sin'?

Sin is hamartia, a noun. It is from a- and -meros, with meros being "share/part" and a- being a negation of "no/not". Sin is the missing share or part. It's a noun, but it's a noun like a hole or pit or void is a noun. It's a "something-lessness". And in it's singular articular noun form, it is the missing share or part in us that is the void or our condition and state of being requiring inner resurrection.


And what do you call the opposite of sin?

Righteousness. The missing share/part that is the void is our lack of God communing His righteousness to us because of the spiritual death during our spiration into physical existence at conception.

Righteousness is God's standard for inner character for outer conduct. Without God communing His standard, we must rely on our own. So our condition and state of being is what is brought forth into action as the source of all our doing, whether benevolent or malevolent. Even the best works are sin, because they are our own standard elevated to accomplish what we self-determine as the standard for inward character and outward conduct.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:42 PM
the word sin is both noun and verb.

Why are you guys making such a big deal out of this simple word?

sheesh.

So we won't be ignorant of what sin is, as you are. And so others can see that faith produces works, but works don't produce faith.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 06:44 PM
So we won't be ignorant of what sin is, as you are. And so others can see that faith produces works, but works don't produce faith.

whatever,

Your big word debate is not impressive to me. I know many are impressed with your big words.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:44 PM
I'm a master of the English language, you take it Greek style - :rotfl:

No. You're nowhere close to even being a master of the English language. And you have no idea what sin is, instead substituting a vague and nebulous concept of your own mind that is utterly fallacious.

You're a poser and a flatterer, and a mocker of truth.

jamie
April 16th, 2016, 06:45 PM
I'm a master of the English language, you take it Greek style - :rotfl:


Can you define Greek style? :crackup:

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:46 PM
whatever,

Your big word debate is not impressive to me. I know many are impressed with your big words.

I'm never concerned with whether you or anyone else is or isn't impressed with me. All I care about is declaring the truth and destroying untruth.

One cannot be saved by one's works in trying to produce faith. Faith, though, will always result in works. You need to learn this and quit trying to earn your salvation. You never will.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 06:47 PM
You're a poser and a flatterer, and a mocker of truth.

that's appropriate name for him.

there are many like that in this site.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:47 PM
I'm a master of the English language, you take it Greek style - :rotfl:

And stop being nasty, pervert. Don't deny it. It was sexual innuendo. Filthy man.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:48 PM
that's appropriate name for him.

there are many like that in this site.

Yes, that's blatantly obvious. I've had several others read what the Dispos post, and they're appalled.

patrick jane
April 16th, 2016, 06:49 PM
And stop being nasty, pervert. Don't deny it. It was sexual innuendo. Filthy man.
You've been calling me a lot of names, you're the expert on Greek, not me

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 06:51 PM
I'm never concerned with whether you or anyone else is or isn't impressed with me. All I care about is declaring the truth and destroying untruth.

One cannot be saved by one's works in trying to produce faith. Faith, though, will always result in works. You need to learn this and quit trying to earn your salvation. You never will.

I don't earn. Jesus gives:)

BTW, your kind of "big word debaters" are abound in this site too. Famous one is Calvinists. Have you debated with them yet? You cannot beat them. They are thorough.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 06:52 PM
Yes, that's blatantly obvious. I've had several others read what the Dispos post, and they're appalled.

Dispies are shameless.

patrick jane
April 16th, 2016, 06:55 PM
Dispies are shameless.
WE are not ashamed, you're right.

Romans 1:16 KJV - Romans 1:17 KJV -

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:55 PM
I don't earn. Jesus gives:)

BTW, your kind of "big word debaters" are abound in this site too. Famous one is Calvinists. Have you debated with them yet? You cannot beat them. They are thorough.

I think if you would learn to more effectively express what you're saying, others wouldn't think you're promoting salvation by works. It certainly seems so.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:56 PM
WE are not ashamed, you're right.

Romans 1:16 KJV - Romans 1:17 KJV -

Dispensationalism is apostasy. Be it unto you according to your own words.

patrick jane
April 16th, 2016, 06:57 PM
I don't earn. Jesus gives:)

BTW, your kind of "big word debaters" are abound in this site too. Famous one is Calvinists. Have you debated with them yet? You cannot beat them. They are thorough.

You can't beat the calvinists

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 07:00 PM
I think if you would learn to more effectively express what you're saying, others wouldn't think you're promoting salvation by works. It certainly seems so.

I emphasize on obedience to Jesus and most of them don't like it. So they tell me I am "work based salvation".

I claim everything based on what Jesus said.

In mainstream churches, they don't esteem Jesus' word much.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 07:03 PM
I emphasize on obedience to Jesus and most of them don't like it. So they tell me I am "work based salvation".

I claim everything based on what Jesus said.

In mainstream churches, they don't esteem Jesus' word much.

It seems the language barrier is part of the problem, with English not being your first language. It certainly appears you are advocating salvation is by works alone, totally apart from faith and grace.

Like I said, it might help if you would spend time attempting to word things differently. Your emphasis on obedience indicates you are speaking of earning salvation by what you do. If that's not what you mean, it would help if you would take a different approach with different words.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 07:03 PM
Dispies claim Jesus' word is for the Jews, not for the gentiles.

this is the most outlandish claim I ever heard.

jamie
April 16th, 2016, 07:04 PM
...you're the expert on Greek, not me


But probably not the way you meant it. That was bad.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 07:07 PM
It seems the language barrier is part of the problem, with English not being your first language. It certainly appears you are advocating salvation is by works alone, totally apart from faith and grace.

Like I said, it might help if you would spend time attempting to word things differently. Your emphasis on obedience indicates you are speaking of earning salvation by what you do. If that's not what you mean, it would help if you would take a different approach with different words.

Nope, I am doing fine. they just don't like Jesus' word being emphasized.

Jesus' word need to be spread to the world.

Jesus said "make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey I have commanded you".

You see Jesus says to teach them to obey everything He commanded us.

KingdomRose
April 16th, 2016, 08:36 PM
I think if you would learn to more effectively express what you're saying, others wouldn't think you're promoting salvation by works. It certainly seems so.

I think what she has been saying is what I have also been saying.....that we cannot earn our salvation without accepting Jesus' sacrifice for us. That comes first. THEN we follow in his steps (and work out our salvation with earnestness, or, as Paul said, with trembling).

"For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in his steps." (I Peter 2:21, NASB)

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12b, NASB)

Ben Masada
April 16th, 2016, 10:20 PM
Dispies claim Jesus' word is for the Jews, not for the gentiles.

this is the most outlandish claim I ever heard.

Meshak, you are right when you say above that, to claim that Jesus' words are for Jews and not for the Gentiles is something you have never heard before. I believe you because this is an evidence that you don't read your NT. Now, you are going to hear about it: open your Bible in Mat. 10:5,6. When Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread his gospel of salvation, he forbade them to go to the Gentiles but only to the Jews. Now, what do you have to say?

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 10:47 PM
Meshak, you are right when you say above that, to claim that Jesus' words are for Jews and not for the Gentiles is something you have never heard before. I believe you because this is an evidence that you don't read your NT. Now, you are going to hear about it: open your Bible in Mat. 10:5,6. When Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread his gospel of salvation, he forbade them to go to the Gentiles but only to the Jews. Now, what do you have to say?

You are a liar.

Stop addressing me.

Ben Masada
April 16th, 2016, 10:59 PM
You are a liar. Stop addressing me.

As I can see, you either read the quote I gave you or prefer to stand against the truth. And worst than any thing else, you choose to insult me with calling me a liar when, deep down, you know I am the one with the Truth. Pity!

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 11:01 PM
As I can see, you either read the quote I gave you or prefer to stand against the truth. And worst than any thing else, you choose to insult me with calling me a liar when, deep down, you know I am the one with the Truth. Pity!

I just reported your false witnessing about Christianity.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 11:02 PM
I think what she has been saying is what I have also been saying.....that we cannot earn our salvation without accepting Jesus' sacrifice for us. That comes first. THEN we follow in his steps (and work out our salvation with earnestness, or, as Paul said, with trembling).

"For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in his steps." (I Peter 2:21, NASB)

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12b, NASB)

And I mentioned to her that it would be helpful for her to express in such a manner instead of the way she has communicated since she's been on TOL.

Her denial of the divinity of Christ is a separate issue beyond the above.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 11:13 PM
And I mentioned to her that it would be helpful for her to express in such a manner instead of the way she has communicated since she's been on TOL.

Her denial of the divinity of Christ is a separate issue beyond the above.

I don't need your advice, dear.

You don't seem to know what Jesus teaches or commands.

This is what you don't know that Jesus says: "go therefore make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you".

You continually dismiss this every time I mention this to you.

I wonder why.

Ben Masada
April 16th, 2016, 11:15 PM
I just reported your false witnessing about Christianity.

Thank you! Now, tell me, did you read the quote I gave you of Mat. 10:5,6 where Jesus forbade his disciples not to go to the Gentiles with his gospel of salvation? You told me I was a liar for that when the truth is very clear in the quote. I would like to tell you that you broke the Golden Rule not to say to others what you would not like that others said unto you. How can you be a loving Christian and offend others without reason?

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 11:15 PM
As I can see, you either read the quote I gave you or prefer to stand against the truth. And worst than any thing else, you choose to insult me with calling me a liar when, deep down, you know I am the one with the Truth. Pity!

runt all you want while you can.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 11:16 PM
I don't need your advice, dear.

You don't seem to know what Jesus teaches or commands.

This is what you don't know that Jesus says: "go therefore make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you".

You continually dismiss this every time I mention this to you.

I wonder why.

I don't and haven't dismissed it at all; I've just ignored it.

Faith will result in works; works will NOT result in faith. No one who has true faith will refuse to obey. But it's not about keeping the law. It's about whether one is kept by Christ unto obedience.

meshak
April 16th, 2016, 11:19 PM
I don't and haven't dismissed it at all; I've just ignored it.

I know, you don't like to follow Jesus' commands.


Faith will result in works; works will NOT result in faith. No one who has true faith will refuse to obey. But it's not about keeping the law. It's about whether one is kept by Christ unto obedience.

Your works is to ignore Jesus' commands.

So convenient.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 11:19 PM
Thank you! Now, tell me, did you read the quote I gave you of Mat. 10:5,6 where Jesus forbade his disciples not to go to the Gentiles with his gospel of salvation? You told me I was a liar for that when the truth is very clear in the quote. I would like to tell you that you broke the Golden Rule not to say to others what you would not like that others said unto you. How can you be a loving Christian and offend others without reason?

You really need to go to a Talmudist forum or a CIA shill forum or something. You're a Zionist plant to monitor and disinform, etc.

You're a deluded Kaballist; but a low grade and nominal bottom-runger, likely trying to work your way up.

Biblical Judaism is extinct, and you know it. You're a poser and an infiltrator. You think you can fool the "Goy", but you're overt and obvious. Go worship your egregore with your Luciferian peers, foul spirit of hell.

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 11:24 PM
There are many subtelties as "a" gospel, but that isn't possible. There is no indefinite article in Greek, while English is utterly driven BY the indefinite article. There can't be other gospels, numerically; so there can only be qualitative gospels, but Galatians says they're NOT another. There is only one Gospel, and we are to all speak the same thing. English structural miscomprehension is one huge impediment for that unless/until hearts and minds are conformed to something besides the patterning effects of their English first language.

How would you define the gospel? 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 is Paul's definition, but some deny that Paul ever preached 'Christ died for our sins' to unbelievers.


We have access BY faith INTO the grace wherein we stand. Repentance is granted. That's why the Monergism of the Reformed tradition is more functionally applicable for modern western minds; while Synergism was more functionally applicable for more ancient and eastern minds.

Without synergism, man is rendered as something less than a worthwhile creation.


It requires understanding the interface of God's timelessness with the chronological form of time in the fallen earth ages of the cosmos. For God, there is NO time. Time is created, as is space and matter. God is both "no-when" and "every-when", just as He is "no-where" and "every-where". There is no linearity or sequentiality or duration or elapsation for God in any manner related to time. Most views depend on varying fallacies of superimposing time upon God to understand what is theologically referred to as "Ordo Salutis" (order of salvation).

The "here" and "now" for all peoples of all earth ages since creation ALL have a sense of contemporaneous "nowness" to God. This takes some time and effort in the spirit to understand and be conformed to as the renewing of the mind. It can (and should) be discipled and taught; and it is epistemological and ontological, with methodologies emerging as the "doing" from "being"... in Christ.

This is not happening in the modern Church-at-large.

And this relates to the compatibilism issue - which we have touched on before. God's sovereignty and man's responsibility must be balanced else polemic follows. Maybe part of the problem lies in the acronym TULIP which nowhere mentions that Calvinists, whilst affirming that God is sovereign, believe that men remain responsible. It's in the Canons of Dordt of course - from which the five points where formulated.

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 11:41 PM
The overwhelming majority are dealing with sin/s (whether regarding salvation or ongoing Christian life) as the verb/action (sinning) and the resulting act/noun (sin/sis).

Sin is a noun, and it is a something-lessness. Hamartia is from a- and -meros. Meros is "no share/part, and a- is "no/not" as a negation. Hamartia, the noun, is "the missing share or part. It's a noun in the sense of a hole or pit. It's a void of something, not a something.

Everyone has the perception that sin is a verb and is a something as an action. The English mind has a difficult time processing by any other construct because of its structure and effects on epistemological functionality.

Thus the focus is always on actions/acts. The doing and the done. That's not the void or "hole" that is the somethinglessness of sin, the noun. Sin is the source of all actions, and it's a void that is in our nature and our members. And this is why Anthropology Proper is so important; to understand the substance, essence, nature, and outward appearance of man relative to spirit, soul, and body, etc.

Everyone believes something/s and thinks something/s and wills something/s and desires something/s. What matter is whether the source of all being and doing is Christ or one's self. And the heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things; so it has to come by the Spirit from without or within.

So you are saying that sin (noun) is the anthropological absence (the something lessness) of the Christ essence or hypostasis? And from this our actions follow?

So, essentially, faith is the recognition of one's something lessness and the receiving of it (that which is missing) - the Rhema?

Sonnet
April 16th, 2016, 11:56 PM
Yes, essentially the summary.

Both of those ARE the verb form (hamartano). The verb is the bringing forth into action of the condition or state of being within oneself, which is the (articular) noun. The anarthrous noun is another issue altogether, and vital.

I understand what you are saying but am confused by you language.

within oneself - don't you mean without Christ?

which is the (articular) noun - this is in reference to what?

The anarthrous noun is another issue altogether, and vital. - this is in reference to what?

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 12:02 AM
I understand what you are saying but am confused by you language.

within oneself - don't you mean without Christ?

which is the (articular) noun - this is in reference to what?

The anarthrous noun is another issue altogether, and vital. - this is in reference to what?

PPS likes to use a big words.

good luck trying to learn from him.

His username represent him well, big word.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:08 AM
Sin can be articular or anarthrous, singular or plural noun in any case, and sin can be a verb in any tense, mood, or voice. And sin can be hamartia/hamartiai or hamartema. The latter is the resulting acts of the verb. The former is what everyone presumes is the verb or the resulting acts OF the verb, whether regarding initial salvation or the ongoing Christian life.



Sin is hamartia, a noun. It is from a- and -meros, with meros being "share/part" and a- being a negation of "no/not". Sin is the missing share or part. It's a noun, but it's a noun like a hole or pit or void is a noun. It's a "something-lessness". And in it's singular articular noun form, it is the missing share or part in us that is the void or our condition and state of being requiring inner resurrection.



Righteousness. The missing share/part that is the void is our lack of God communing His righteousness to us because of the spiritual death during our spiration into physical existence at conception.

Righteousness is God's standard for inner character for outer conduct. Without God communing His standard, we must rely on our own. So our condition and state of being is what is brought forth into action as the source of all our doing, whether benevolent or malevolent. Even the best works are sin, because they are our own standard elevated to accomplish what we self-determine as the standard for inward character and outward conduct.

Hence 'original sin' means something quite different from whatever I have struggled to understand by that term....

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:11 AM
I'm never concerned with whether you or anyone else is or isn't impressed with me. All I care about is declaring the truth and destroying untruth.

One cannot be saved by one's works in trying to produce faith. Faith, though, will always result in works. You need to learn this and quit trying to earn your salvation. You never will.

Romans 4:1-5
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Romans 9:30-32, Romans 10:1ff, Galatians 3:1ff etc.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:13 AM
Dispies are shameless.

?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:18 AM
Meshak, you are right when you say above that, to claim that Jesus' words are for Jews and not for the Gentiles is something you have never heard before. I believe you because this is an evidence that you don't read your NT. Now, you are going to hear about it: open your Bible in Mat. 10:5,6. When Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread his gospel of salvation, he forbade them to go to the Gentiles but only to the Jews. Now, what do you have to say?

I am still not getting your point. Yes, Jesus came to the Jews. Why is this a big deal?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:20 AM
Thank you! Now, tell me, did you read the quote I gave you of Mat. 10:5,6 where Jesus forbade his disciples not to go to the Gentiles with his gospel of salvation? You told me I was a liar for that when the truth is very clear in the quote. I would like to tell you that you broke the Golden Rule not to say to others what you would not like that others said unto you. How can you be a loving Christian and offend others without reason?

Mat. 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 12:24 AM
?

They claim to be Paul's followers instead of Jesus' followers because Jesus' word is just for Jews and not for the gentiles.

Are you afraid of them?

Their talk is kind of intimidating for new comers.

Dispies and MADists.

If you don't know what I am talking about, just ask them.

There are tons of them in this site;John W, Saul to Paul, hair, Steko and many others.

You are not a newbie it seems, and you don't know who they are?

This site owner is MADist, it seems.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 12:27 AM
I am still not getting your point. Yes, Jesus came to the Jews. Why is this a big deal?

So you are MADist too?

You believe Jesus' word is just for the Jews and not for the gentiles?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:41 AM
So you are MADist too?

You believe Jesus' word is just for the Jews and not for the gentiles?

No.
Jesus came to the Jews - after all, he was prophesied to them - but Christ is for all men. Romans 11 - gentiles are grafted in.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:42 AM
They claim to be Paul's followers instead of Jesus' followers because Jesus' word is just for Jews and not for the gentiles.

Are you afraid of them?

Their talk is kind of intimidating for new comers.

Dispies and MADists.

If you don't know what I am talking about, just ask them.

There are tons of them in this site;John W, Saul to Paul, hair, Steko and many others.

You are not a newbie it seems, and you don't know who they are?

This site owner is MADist, it seems.

Dispensationalists? I think there is some confusion here.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 12:43 AM
No.
Jesus came to the Jews - after all, he was prophesied to them - but Christ is for all men. Romans 11 - gentiles are grafted in.

You are avoiding my question.

Why?

I ask you again.

do you believe Jesus' word in the new testament is just for the Jews and not for the gentiles?

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 12:44 AM
Dispensationalists? I think there is some confusion here.
You are the one who is confused.
Are you being pretentious?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:45 AM
So you are MADist too?

You believe Jesus' word is just for the Jews and not for the gentiles?

The baton, for now has passed to the gentiles - gGd working through the (true) chiurch - until the fullness comes in. (romans 11)

Matthew 21:33ff

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:46 AM
You are the one who is confused.
Are you being pretentious?

?

Dispensationalism is an religious futurist interpretive system for the Bible. It considers Biblical history as divided deliberately by God into defined periods or ages to each of which God has allotted distinctive administrative principles.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 12:47 AM
The baton, for now has passed to the gentiles - gGd working through the (true) chiurch - until the fullness comes in. (romans 11)

Matthew 21:33ff

You don't seem to know what Christianity is all about.

do you know Jesus gave His disciples great commission?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:47 AM
You are avoiding my question.

Why?

I ask you again.

do you believe Jesus' word in the new testament is just for the Jews and not for the gentiles?

For all men.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 12:48 AM
We seem to have another Jacob here.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:49 AM
You don't seem to know what Christianity is all about.

?


do you know Jesus gave His disciples great commission?

Yes - Mat 28:19

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 12:50 AM
For all men.

there, what took you so long?

So Jesus' word is for gentiles too, not just for the Jews.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:50 AM
We seem to have another Jacob here.

?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:51 AM
there, what took you so long?

So Jesus' word is for gentiles too, not just for the Jews.

Yes, of course.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 12:52 AM
?
Never mind.

You are pretentious.

I am done with you.

I am sorry I even started.

good day.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:54 AM
Never mind.

You are pretentious.

I am done with you.

I am sorry I even started.

good day.

Pretentious? Why are you accusing me of that?

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 12:56 AM
Pretentious? Why are you accusing me of that?

good day.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 12:59 AM
good day.

To call me pretentious without giving a reason is pretty rude. If you inferred I was being so, then you must have misunderstood me.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:26 AM
Pretentious? Why are you accusing me of that?

Yeah, you are a little on the pretentious side.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:28 AM
Sonnet, you seem kind of angry? Why is that?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:29 AM
Yeah, you are a little on the pretentious side.

Because?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:30 AM
Sonnet, you seem kind of angry? Why is that?

I'm okay.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:31 AM
You were a bit rude and abrupt with me on another thread. So, you can expect to be treated the same on TOL. It's a rough place, not for the weak of heart.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:33 AM
If ya can't take the heat, get outta Dodge.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:33 AM
You were a bit rude and abrupt with me on another thread. So, you can expect to be treated the same on TOL. It's a rough place, not for the weak of heart.

Where?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:34 AM
If ya can't take the heat, get outta Dodge.

That would be the right thing to do.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:36 AM
That would be the right thing to do.

That's up to you? Can ya take the heat or not?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:37 AM
That's up to you? Can ya take the heat or not?

Well, I'm still here. Are you?
Where was I rude?

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:39 AM
Well, I'm still here. Are you?
Where was I rude?

You'll have to wait until the other Threads come up tomorrow. It was the one where I mentioned Christ came for the lost sheep of Israel.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:40 AM
Yeah, you are a little on the pretentious side.

Because?

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:41 AM
And, you said: "I was talking about Judas." However, you didn't mention Judas in the post that you were referring to.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:43 AM
Remember? You said: "What's your point I was talking about Judas."

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:43 AM
You'll have to wait until the other Threads come up tomorrow. It was the one where I mentioned Christ came for the lost sheep of Israel.

Christ did come for the lost sheep of Israel.

I don't mean to be rude. Sorry if it came across that way.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:43 AM
Because?

Because, you're a little pretentious.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:44 AM
Christ did come for the lost sheep of Israel.

I don't mean to be rude. Sorry if it came across that way.

Okay. I accept your apology. Let's start over.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:45 AM
Remember? You said: "What's your point I was talking about Judas."

Ok - but it's only asking a question...it can seem curt and short...

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:45 AM
I gave you a "Thanks."

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:46 AM
Okay. I accept your apology. Let's start over.

Ok.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:47 AM
I gave you a "Thanks."

Cheers.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:47 AM
All is well now. Perhaps, it was a misunderstanding on my part.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:48 AM
Because, you're a little pretentious.

I'm pretentious because I'm pretentious.

I'm none the wiser.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:48 AM
Cheers.

Cheers.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:49 AM
So, what church or denomination are you affiliated with, if I may ask?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:50 AM
So, what church or denomination are you affiliated with, if I may ask?

I'm not. I'm not a believer.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:51 AM
..and they studied the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true...

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:52 AM
Acts 17:11b

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:54 AM
Because, you're a little pretentious.

Still curious to know why you think that.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:54 AM
I'm a Non-Denominational, Bible believing, Christ centered, type of guy. I believe in the Grace Gospel that was given to the Apostle Paul by the Ascended Lord Jesus Christ. God's Grace through our faith.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:55 AM
I'm not. I'm not a believer.

Atheist or Agnostic?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:56 AM
I'm a Non-Denominational, Bible believing, Christ centered, type of guy. I believe in the Grace Gospel that was given to the Apostle Paul by the Ascended Lord Jesus Christ. God's Grace through our faith.

Okay. ta.

Grace though faith. sounds right.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 01:56 AM
Atheist or Agnostic?

Agnostic.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:58 AM
Okay. ta.

Grace though faith. sounds right.

You said you weren't a believer, so that would make you either an Agnostic or an Athiest, correct?

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 01:59 AM
Agnostic.

At least you're open to the possibility of a creator, correct?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 02:00 AM
You said you weren't a believer, so that would make you either an Agnostic or an Athiest, correct?

Agnostic but I'm doing the Acts 17:11b thing.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 02:00 AM
What brings you to a Christian forum?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 02:01 AM
At least you're open to the possibility of a creator, correct?

Yes.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 02:02 AM
What brings you to a Christian forum?

Just doin as the Bereans - Acts 17:11b :)

and, no, I'm not claiming the 'nobler' bit :)

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 02:04 AM
Agnostic but I'm doing the Acts 17:11b thing.

Well, what you might do then is, tell God you're not sure He exists, but, ask Him to show you through the Bible. I would suggest you start reading the Book of Romans in the Bible? It was written by the Apostle Paul.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 02:06 AM
Well, what you might do then is, tell God you're not sure He exists, but, ask Him to show you through the Bible. I would suggest you start reading the Book of Romans in the Bible? It was written by the Apostle Paul.

Thanks.

I have been asking that question for years. I do keep reading and rereading Romans.
:)

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 02:14 AM
In order for one to become a Christian, they must hear the Gospel and place all their faith in Christ as their Savior. First of all, you have to realize that you're a lost sinner. Jesus came to this world to die for all of humanities sins. In other words, He paid the price for our sins. Without faith in Christ, one will stand before God some day and be judged by their works and spend eternity in what's called, The Lake of Fire.

This is a place where unbelievers will go after the judgment. It's a scary thought. I first heard the Gospel in 1963. Right before placing my faith in Christ, I was 12 years old and asked my Mom if we were going to Hell? She said: "Probably?" The thought of going to Hell scared me to death, even though our family wasn't religious.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 02:17 AM
Thanks.

I have been asking that question for years. I do keep reading and rereading Romans.
:)

Good works, going to church, getting water baptized, or trying to obey the law of God won't gain you entrance into Heaven.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 02:20 AM
In order for one to become a Christian, they must hear the Gospel and place all their faith in Christ as their Savior. First of all, you have to realize that you're a lost sinner. Jesus came to this world to die for all of humanities sins. In other words, He paid the price for our sins. Without faith in Christ, one will stand before God some day and be judged by their works and spend eternity in what's called, The Lake of Fire.

This is a place where unbelievers will go after the judgment. It's a scary thought. I first heard the Gospel in 1963. Right before placing my faith in Christ, I was 12 years old and asked my Mom if we were going to Hell? She said: "Probably?" The thought of going to Hell scared me to death, even though our family wasn't religious.

Thank you.

Not all Christians preach this gospel...and it is one of the reasons why I (and probably others) don't believe....yet.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 02:20 AM
Good works, going to church, getting water baptized, or trying to obey the law of God won't gain you entrance into Heaven.

Indeed - exactly as Paul says.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 02:21 AM
Paul said in Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

We cannot earn forgiveness of our sins and Heaven. It is a free gift from God through our faith.