Well one of us is certainly doing that about the other.
I know I hold no animosity towards you, and never have.
ECT There is one God who justifies
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Well one of us is certainly doing that about the other.
I know I hold no animosity towards you, and never have.
I'll help out a little by showing the contrast in Greek and why they differ (by vs. through).
Romans 3:30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcisedthrough faith is one.
Romans 3:30 επειπερ εις ο θεος ος δικαιωσει περιτομην εκ πιστεως και ακροβυστιαν δια της πιστεως
Both are prepositions.
The prepositions can indicate motion or method, depending on the construction.
For the construction of the above verse:
ek indicates motion out from an origin - the starting place which can be physical or mental depending on context.
dia (in this construction it is with the 'genitive') indicates motion through a place (a physical place, a situation, an idea).
If it had been with the 'accusative', it would indicate method - the means by which something occurs (on account of, because of).
By using these two together as contrasts, it indicates the starting points (origins), not the methods, that differ.
The method is the same for both - faith, but their origin (starting points) are different.
Interplanner
Well-known member
so what? by definition, it is the object of faith that defines it. Faith is only as good as its object.
You sound like one of these people who would qualify everything in the Bible by saying 'it depends on your personal learning method' and you'd have a list of 9 based on the latest in research from Stanford U, etc.
Yes, several prepositions can say the same thing, more in the abstract world than the concrete.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
Tam's greek lesson proves there is one gospel. The people who needed to hear about the 2 starting points were the Jews. That was true generally in the 1st century but especially in the setting of Romans where Jews were returning to Rome (and to mostly Gentile Christians) after the Claudian eviction.
Yes, they had two starting points and believed the one objective Gospel. I've been teaching that for 40 years, if you have any questions.
Yes, they had two starting points and believed the one objective Gospel. I've been teaching that for 40 years, if you have any questions.
Or ..... I sound like someone that knows Greek, which I do.
There is a contrast and some folks were wondering what the contrast was. I gave the contrast.
The origin (starting point) of the circumcision's faith differed from the origin (starting point) of the uncircumcision's faith.
You can go right ahead and ignore the contrast if you want to, but it's till there.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Hmmm.... I'm not sure if this fits, but I do see what STP might have been talking about.
So, the circumcision were justified by faith when they did something.
By faith Abel offered
By faith Enoch pleased God.
By faith Noah prepared an ark
By faith Abraham obeyed ... By faith he sojourned
And the uncircumcision were justified through faith when they believed God.
Heb. 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
Romans 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
Romans 4:21
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Romans 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
Romans 4:21
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
I've always expected that God required more from His chosen people than of others. After all, they did have an advantage.
Romans 3:1-2
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
glorydaz
Well-known member
What were the two starting points, IP?
opcorn:
One was from man and his doing, and the other was from God and His doing. :think:
Interplanner
Well-known member
I didn't ignore, but the declaration shows it doesn't matter. Because the Gospel is one objective reality. It is not a different gospel for the two , which is why I started this post. There is one Gospel that justifies.
Have you ever tried not to find a fracture? Have you ever tried to find a unifying doctrine?
There never was a question that the two starting points were circ vs uncirc. The reason he is saying all this is because there is not a bombastically created 2nd gospel by some know it alls 20 centuries later.
The verse in question doesn't mention "gospel" so no contrast is made between their gospels.
The contrast is between the origin (starting point) of the circumcision and the origin of the uncircumcision.
When scripture presents a contrast, it shouldn't be ignored as if it doesn't matter.
Others here, like GloryDaz are studying it out to find the origins.
If you don't want to, or don't know, just say so.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why did Paul immediately break the agreement, then, by preaching to Jews in Acts 17-20?
No answer. Because the gospel of uncircumcision was to include some Jews.
Cool!
Just remember that the contrast is between their origins (starting points), and not the method (cause).
In other words, look for the origin and not the "cause" of the origin.
For instance when Paul makes statements like "but NOW" as he does in the same chapter as the verse we are discussing.
Romans 3:21 KJV
(21) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
(21) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
One might recall that one had to be circumcised for the kingdom and would be excluded from the kingdom if not circumcised.
For the BOC one cannot be excluded.
Another way to look at it is to picture one's 'nativity' so to speak .
Kingdom saints born under the law.
BOC saints born not under the law.
Imafixinta write that one down("the english grammar").The truth is...the truth is the truth....
And my brother is a doctor-I will ask him about fracturing...
That one, also.
Vs.
Got it. Thanks for checkin' in, as the LORD God checked you out, years ago...
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I think this Interloper fella might have a brain fracture, saint john.
The New Covenant preceded the Old, Mayor, had you a grasp of "the greek grammar," and were not so obtuse, and fractional, Mayor Frank Burns "nose it all."
Interplanner
Well-known member
Nice try:
The verse in question doesn't mention "gospel" so no contrast is made between their gospels.
The contrast is between the origin (starting point) of the circumcision and the origin of the uncircumcision.
That is the kind of narrow reading that makes the bible fractured and makes it stink.
there is one gospel, that is why there is one gospel mentioned. The whole development, argument of the material is the Gospel. You are a professional at not finding what is there, and implanting what is not there.
I know better than you they started two ways but there is one gospel on which they are unified and why the anti-climax paragraph of Rom 3 is there. That there is one God and one Gospel that justifies.
Your incessant trying to find 2 of this, or fractures of that, is sickening because it was such a beautiful message before your little club here came along to try to gain 5 mins of internet fame.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Made up.
New favorite word: Fracture
From which commentary did you pick up usage of this word?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:idunno:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You are narrowcasting and fracturing the text beyond repair. Am I getting through to you fella?