The Wages of Sin is DEATH

[Grosnick Marowbe]

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]

Throw in the towel PPS, you're cooked.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

PPS is down for the count.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

PPS doesn't know who he's dealing with? He's at a disadvantage.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I declare, "Meshak the Magnificent" as the World Heavyweight Debater." What a Gal.

 

[meshak]

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]

"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]

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]

It would be best for you to go back to reading comic books PPS. Meshak gave you a world class "What For."

 

[meshak]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks for tuning in folks. You just witnessed, "One terrific battle of the wits."

 

[meshak]

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]

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]

Recognizing sin is not difficult.

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

It is that simple.

 

[Sonnet]

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]

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]

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]

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?