What Is Biblical Faith?

[URAVIP2ME]

Hello ..... The Bible has many contradictions that many Christian theologists have admitted to........

Thank you for your reply.
Could you post just one ' contradiction ' which comes to mind ________

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The direct translation is "serpent", but which one is unspecified.

Yes, agree "serpent' and Not specified until we read what John wrote for us at Revelation 12:9 original "serpent'.
This corresponds to Genesis 3:1,4-5, 13; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 12:12.

 

[MyM]

Thank you for your reply.
Could you post just one ' contradiction ' which comes to mind ________

sure

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? (a) God did (2 Samuel 24:1) (b) Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You're not alone in your thinking, but where the dirge about King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:12-19) is concerned that simply parallels the course taken by Satan.
Not the King of Tyre, but cherubic Satan is linked to Eden. The king's puffed-up course was likened to Satan's.
Such a wrong course did Not original with the King of Tyre but originated with Satan in Eden.
If we become haughty as the King of Tyre became we will be fashioning one's self after sinner Satan.

I don't think so. Satan is not mentioned. You happen to be STARTING OFF with myth regarding satan, which is not in the Tanakh, and then you see parallels between this myth and the description of the King of Tyre. But you still have nothing in the Tanakh about satan that states he rebelled against God and became the arth-fallen angel. Indeed, the Tanakh rather assumes angels have no free will, and so there is no such thing as a fallen angel.

 

[MyM]

I don't think so. Satan is not mentioned. You happen to be STARTING OFF with myth regarding satan, which is not in the Tanakh, and then you see parallels between this myth and the description of the King of Tyre. But you still have nothing in the Tanakh about satan that states he rebelled against God and became the arth-fallen angel. Indeed, the Tanakh rather assumes angels have no free will, and so there is no such thing as a fallen angel.

In Islam, there is no fallen angel as well. It is not something befitting angels that our Creator created. On the other hand, Jinn are made from smokeless fire-the bad jinn/shayton, and will have their judgement for misleading mankind.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

sure
Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? (a) God did (2 Samuel 24:1) (b) Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1).

Thank you for your reply.
I do wonder why you say God at 2nd Samuel because the "one" (No Upper-Case letter "O" in 'one') is Not identified.
Did David just have wrong thinking at that time by putting trust in the number in his army ______
So, then, was it some human or was it Satan? 1st Chron. helps to answer the question saying, 'Satan'.
However, since Satan is a title and Not an actual name, then, Satan can be translated as or meaning: Resister.
That could lead the 'one' to be referring to a 'bad human advisor' (aka resister).
(Not Joab being the 'one' because Joab who knew David's decision was wrong )
Since Satan is the 'god' of this world of badness (2 Corinthians 4:4) then someone could conclude that the un-identified 'one' had Satan's backing, which of course then the 'one' would not be God.
When David is resurrected (Ezekiel 34:23-24) as a Prince on Earth, then we can ask David directly.
- Psalms 45:16; Isaiah 32:1

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't think so. Satan is not mentioned. You happen to be STARTING OFF with myth regarding satan, which is not in the Tanakh, and then you see parallels between this myth and the description of the King of Tyre. But you still have nothing in the Tanakh about satan that states he rebelled against God and became the arth-fallen angel. Indeed, the Tanakh rather assumes angels have no free will, and so there is no such thing as a fallen angel.

Then, who is the cherub (angel) mentioned at Ezekiel 28:14 since it is Not the King of Tyre.
That King was never in the Garden of Eden as that cherub was - Ezekiel 28:13.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then, who is the cherub (angel) mentioned at Ezekiel 28:14 since it is Not the King of Tyre.
That King was never in the Garden of Eden as that cherub was - Ezekiel 28:13.

It IS the King of Tyre. It is a metaphor, comparing him to a cherub.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It IS the King of Tyre. It is a metaphor, comparing him to a cherub.

At Ezekiel 28:15 the person talked about was faultless from the day he was created, until unrighteous was found in him.
That description does Not fit the King of Tyre who had imperfect human parents, but it fits Satan - James 1:13-15

 

[savagewind]

FAITH What is it really? If faith has any power then don't do it. Seek peace! Seek righteousness. Please, put peace and righteousness far ahead of faith.

 

[Wildswanderer]

By this I mean, what does the Bible say faith is, and what it entails?

Faith is belief that comes from hearing or reading the testimony of others. I have never seen Paris, New York City, or Beijing, but I have faith that they exist because I have read about them from reliable sources. Faith is also, more broadly, the foundation of our hope as Christians. Because of our belief in the testimony of those long past, written for us in the Bible, we have hope and look forward to the fulfillment of its promises. (Heb. 11:1, paraphrased)

Hebrews 11 gives us a picture of what faithful men did because of their faith.

By faith, Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.
By faith, Noah prepared the ark.
By faith, Abraham went left home without knowing where he was going, dwelt there as a foreigner, sacrificed his son.

So, Biblical faith is faith which causes obedience to God.

James 2:14-26 says, "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

So what do we learn by these passages about faith? We must believe, we must obey, and we must do good works, all to have a faith that saves us. Notice that belief is not enough. No one professing to be a Christian believes that the demons are saved, but even they believe that Jesus is the Son of God! Many say this is enough to save someone, but this passage directly refutes that!

Faith and obedience are inextricably linked. But so many say that only faith is required. Should we believe God or men? Must we obey as well as believe to be saved from our sins?

Have you read Galatians and Romans? How do you deal with:

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

And:
"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God."

And:


Genesis 15:6

"Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.'


And especially:

"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."

Now yes, faith must be alive, but the works we do because of our faith do not in any way save us.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

At Ezekiel 28:15 the person talked about was faultless from the day he was created, until unrighteous was found in him.
That description does Not fit the King of Tyre who had imperfect human parents, but it fits Satan - James 1:13-15

All human beings have imperfect parents. And yet all babies are innocent.

 

[metis]

That is where you are wrong. The Quran has not been changed for over 1400 years and you say there aren't original pft

I was referring to the original texts of the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

BTW, there is no original copy of the Quran as the next oldest was written 19 years after Mohammed.

 

[metis]

Yes, agree "serpent' and Not specified until we read what John wrote for us at Revelation 12:9 original "serpent'.
This corresponds to Genesis 3:1,4-5, 13; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 12:12.

It's still not specified which species of serpent it was.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

All human beings have imperfect parents. And yet all babies are innocent.

Even the parents are innocent. Innocent of what fallen-father Adam did - Romans chapter 5; Isaiah 53:12
Every parent knows that the innocent baby will Not remain innocent because of Adam we lean towards/ wrongdoing.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It's still not specified which species of serpent it was.

'most cautious of all the wild animals.... - Genesis 3:1
So, at that Genesis time, which ever one fit that description is that 'one serpent' that Satan chose to use as his puppet.
Sinner Satan being the behind-the-scenes Puppeteer who was pulling the strings as per Revelation 12:9,12

 

[metis]

'most cautious of all the wild animals.... - Genesis 3:1
So, at that Genesis time, which ever one fit that description is that 'one serpent' that Satan chose to use as his puppet.
Sinner Satan being the behind-the-scenes Puppeteer who was pulling the strings as per Revelation 12:9,12

But again, which species of serpent is not specified, nor whether it was or wasn't a snake for example.

BTW. in Jewish folklore, the serpent was considered to be intelligent but often in a devious way, much like the coyote in western Amerindian lore-- the "Trickster".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is where you are wrong. The Quran has not been changed for over 1400 years and you say there aren't original pft

At one point there were many many divergent texts of the Quran. What you have today is simply the version that Caliph Uthman preferred, as he destroyed all the other versions. There is no reason to think that his version is any more the original than any of the versions that he destroyed.

 

[MyM]

At one point there were many many divergent texts of the Quran. What you have today is simply the version that Caliph Uthman preferred, as he destroyed all the other versions. There is no reason to think that his version is any more the original than any of the versions that he destroyed.

It isn't how you think. If you understood Arabic, you will know that the pronunciations without the harakat would be a problem for non arabs etc. All he did was gather them, put in the harakats (they knew the Quran) and put it in book form. They didn't change any words in the revelation from Allah to Mohammad pbuh. To clarify it in a bookform with the vowels was a way that it could be universally seen and understood what it was.

In Islam, Mohammad pbuh ordered that the revelation be written down.

Allah says in the Quran, “Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)”
al-Hijr 15:9

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm glad no such promise is made anywhere in any book of the bible. Although Revelation has a threat in it in chapter 22, its a vague threat which could be an allusion to Deuteronomy 28:58. Its not clear whether its about the letters in Revelation or is about something indirectly referred to.

A threat might have some deterrent affect on us and keep us from changing things, but a promise of incorruptibility is not believable to me. Anyone can hold a pen and write a letter. Pens don't hurt the hand that writes them. They are ink sticks. The threat if one should choose to corrupt laws is to the community not to the individual.