Here's your chance: Stump the Christian Chump

[angellous_evangellous]

That's not what the text is talking about. That's an insertion of your own favorite theology into the passage we are talking about.

Hey dopp, can you read Greek?

I looked up the usage of pistis in the NT and Greek literature and it means 'to trust,' 'to rely on,' and to 'believe.' Its verbal form means "to regard as credible, true." Also "faithfulness" and "trusting."

The explanation is technical and several pages long. I can scan it next week for you if you're interested.

 

[doppelganger]

Hey dopp, can you read Greek?

Very little. But I know how to research it.

I looked up the usage of pistis in the NT and Greek literature and it means 'to trust,' 'to rely on,' and to 'believe.' Its verbal form means "to regard as credible, true." Also "faithfulness" and "trusting."

The explanation is technical and several pages long. I can scan it next week for you if you're interested.

I can see "to trust or rely on" in NT theology, but "believe" not as much and that leads us back to the etymology of "believe" since we are defining pistis by a supposed synonym from modern English.

I'd be interested in reading the explanation. Can you link it somewhere?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Very little. But I know how to research it.


I can see "to trust or rely on" in NT theology, but "believe" not as much and that leads us back to the etymology of "believe" since we are defining pistis by a supposed synonym from modern English.

I'd be interested in reading the explanation. Can you link it somewhere?

Unfortunately I can't. It's not available online.

I can't scan it because my computer is in the shop.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Very little. But I know how to research it.


I can see "to trust or rely on" in NT theology, but "believe" not as much and that leads us back to the etymology of "believe" since we are defining pistis by a supposed synonym from modern English.

I'd be interested in reading the explanation. Can you link it somewhere?

I think that these two phrases are logically inconsistant - at least with reference to translation.

You say (in blue) that we are defining pistis by a supposed synonym from modern English. Modern English is not bound to its etemological heritage. We are looking at modern meanings to associate with Greek idiom. It doesn't make any difference at all if the concept of belief took on a certain meaning in the 16th century - it doesn't mean that such a concept did not exist in Greek or English (using other words).

 

[doppelganger]

You say (in blue) that we are defining pistis by a supposed synonym from modern English. Modern English is not bound to its etemological heritage.

True, but the etymological heritage does inform the meaning somewhat. In the context of this particular discussion, it does more than that though, because "believe" has been used to describe "faith"/fides/pistis for centuries, but during that time its meaning has evolved, such that what we call faith (i.e. "belief") today is not likely what was typically understood as faith in the 12th century and earlier. That's why I keep coming back to how the NT uses pistis. It doesn't help to define pistis as "belief" because that's not an ancient Greek word and that puts us back into the problem of figuring out what "belief" means and when it meant it.

 

[Quagmire]

Always wondered: what would Jesus do?

 

[wildcatwelder]

In light of all the stump threads.

I am a Chrisitan. So ask me a question about Chrisitanity which may stump me.

You know what to do.

This is a serious question sir, thanks for taking the time to answer every one's inquiries. Mine is this: We are told Heaven is a perfect place with no sin. How then did Satan even become evil to begin with in Heaven? If it's sin free, there shouldn't have been a "revolt" in Heaven, right? This question has bothered me for some time now. Thanks again, WW.

 

[Vendetta]

1) There is a Jesus of history - a poor Jew who was crucified for upsetting the Romans. Possibly the son of a Roman soldier, had followers who believed that he died and rose again.

2) There is a Christ of faith - the Jesus that is encased in myth // all the miracles, theological teachings that bear his authority, the pattern that inspired Paul to serve as an apostle

By faith we realize the Christ of faith, actualizing the myth.

That didn't answer my question. What do you believe as far as Jesus. I don't need a history lesson on Jesus. I was a philosophy major and took a whole semester reading biblical verses and their philosophy. I just want to know what you believe cause honestly it doesn't sound like you're orthodox.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That didn't answer my question. What do you believe as far as Jesus. I don't need a history lesson on Jesus. I was a philosophy major and took a whole semester reading biblical verses and their philosophy. I just want to know what you believe cause honestly it doesn't sound like you're orthodox.

That's what I believe.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is a serious question sir, thanks for taking the time to answer every one's inquiries. Mine is this: We are told Heaven is a perfect place with no sin. How then did Satan even become evil to begin with in Heaven? If it's sin free, there shouldn't have been a "revolt" in Heaven, right? This question has bothered me for some time now. Thanks again, WW.

Good question, WW.

This kind of thing, I think, is something that we can't know.

But I see that you're a Baptist. I attended a Baptist seminary - I was taught that God gave Satan and the angels freewill, and when they rebelled they were immediately cast out, retaining the holiness of heaven. That's the answer I got.

 

[wildcatwelder]

Good question, WW.

This kind of thing, I think, is something that we can't know.

But I see that you're a Baptist. I attended a Baptist seminary - I was taught that God gave Satan and the angels freewill, and when they rebelled they were immediately cast out, retaining the holiness of heaven. That's the answer I got.

Thank you very much. That makes sense then, IMO. If indeed He gave them free will, then they chose the path of evil. Best explanation I've heard, thanks again.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thank you very much. That makes sense then, IMO. If indeed He gave them free will, then they chose the path of evil. Best explanation I've heard, thanks again.

Glad to be of service.

 

[stonedsober]

Do you understand this parable?

 

[averageJOE]

If you make it to heaven but your wife and/or child doesn't make it how could you truley be happy knowing they are in hell?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you make it to heaven but your wife and/or child doesn't make it how could you truley be happy knowing they are in hell?

How could you?

(I guess it depends on what someone thinks of his wife)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First, the flood story is a myth. So, no.

That twigged something in my brain:

Do you think that Christianity is dependent on the literal truth of the Resurrection? If Christ didn't really rise from the dead, does the whole basis of Christianity fall apart?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That twigged something in my brain:

Do you think that Christianity is dependent on the literal truth of the Resurrection? If Christ didn't really rise from the dead, does the whole basis of Christianity fall apart?

I've thought about that a lot.

Personally, I do believe that Jesus rose from the dead in an historical sense.

But I don't think that Christianity falls apart - even if there was no historical Jesus - or our historical Jesus simply died like everyone else. The Resurrection theology is a central aspect of Christian cosmology, and it can be sustained without the historical element.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's not what the text is talking about. That's an insertion of your own favorite theology into the passage we are talking about.

I take the bible as a whole and your interpretation conflicts with the rest of Scripture.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I take the bible as a whole and your interpretation conflicts with the rest of Scripture.

Well that was off topic.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's not what the text is talking about. That's an insertion of your own favorite theology into the passage we are talking about.

Actually the text says that God's goodness, forbearance and longsuffering leads to repentance. Would you then suggest that the riches spoken of here is repentance?