The Wages of Sin is DEATH

[meshak]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

My posts are for you too, aletheiophile.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

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]

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]

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.