Bible Questions?

Faith without works is dead
Works without faith is deader

The words faith, belief and trust are all interchangable in the bible because they come from the same greek word. I like trust the best.

 

I understand that and accept that! what am saying is good works alone cant get you Heaven.........accepting JC together also.

 

The word is pistis.

It's in the Strong's Concordance as entry #4102

1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
a) relating to God
1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
b) relating to Christ
1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
c) the religious beliefs of Christians
d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
a) the character of one who can be relied on


It's a derivative of the primary word peithō SC #G3982

1) persuade
a) to persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe
b) to make friends of, to win one's favour, gain one's good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one
c) to tranquillise
d) to persuade unto i.e. move or induce one to persuasion to do something
2) be persuaded
a) to be persuaded, to suffer one's self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing
1) to believe
2) to be persuaded of a thing concerning a person
b) to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with
3) to trust, have confidence, be confident




-

 

Thanx. Pisteuo is the verb form of the word. (#4100) and it means...

to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ):--believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

Using trust instead of believe in scripture gives it a more intimate meaning. Faith is a verb in greek and not in english so it can't be used.

 

Why do we do this? What is the significance of performing this ritual that you haven't already mentioned?

I don't mean any offense to you when I say this, but I don't really understand why eating his flesh and drinking his blood has to do with God's overall plan. If you can, could you go into this a little more deeply?

I was once a Catholic; received communion and confirmation, but I left the church and one of the reasons why I left was hearing about the church's past and that communion mass, at the end, didn't make much sense to me. I respected the ritual and saw it as a way of saying 'amen' to Jesus' message, but I didn't take it literally.

 

The reason I didn't quote the root is because it's a generic term. It has no bearing on how this word is used/presented.

Faith in God is a PARTICULAR type of belief, and trust. Sorry, but not interchangeable in this case. Trust is just a generic word for a state of mind. Faith in God is speaking of a particular kind of trust.

Read it again. Or twist away. Makes me none.

-

 

JusSumguy,

how come you never reply to my post sometime.........

shoot even when i get in heated discussions with ukr-cdn he at least try's to understand me...and reply's....

 

I not sure whether this helps or hinders your discussion but when discussing Faith, I always turn to how the Bible it's self defines it.

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. (Hebrews 11:1)

 

This is a little something I found with regard to what you're talking about.

What did Jesus mean when he said, “This is my body,” “This is my blood”?

Matt. 26:26-29, JB: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and when he had said the blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples. ‘Take it and eat;’ he said ‘this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and when he had returned thanks he gave it to them. ‘Drink all of you from this,’ he said ‘for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. From now on, I tell you, I shall not drink wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.’”

Regarding the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” the following is noteworthy: Mo reads, “it means my body,” “this means my blood.” (Italics added.) NW reads similarly. LEF renders the expressions, “this represents my body,” “this represents my blood.” (Italics added.) These renderings agree with what is stated in the context, in verse 29, in various Catholic editions. Kx reads: “I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine again, until I drink it with you, new wine, in the kingdom of my Father.” (Italics added.) CC, NAB, Dy also show Jesus referring to what was in the cup as being “this fruit of the vine,” and that was after Jesus had said, “This is my blood.”

Consider the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood” in the light of other vivid language used in the Scriptures. Jesus also said, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the gate of the sheepfold,” “I am the true vine.” (John 8:12; 10:7; 15:1, JB) None of these expressions implied a miraculous transformation, did they?

At 1 Corinthians 11:25 (JB), the apostle Paul wrote concerning the Last Supper and expressed the same ideas in slightly different words. Instead of quoting Jesus as saying regarding the cup, “Drink all of you from this . . . for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant,” he worded it in this way: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Surely that did not mean that the cup was somehow miraculously transformed into the new covenant. Is it not more reasonable to conclude that what was in the cup represented Jesus’ blood by means of which the new covenant was validated?

What did Jesus mean by his statement at John 6:53-57?

“Jesus replied: ‘I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him. As I, who am sent by the living Father, myself draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will draw life from me.’”—John 6:53-57, JB.

Is this to be understood as meaning that they were literally to eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood? If so, Jesus would have been advocating a violation of the Law that God had given Israel through Moses. That Law prohibited the consuming of any sort of blood. (Lev. 17:10-12) Contrary to advocating such a thing, Jesus spoke out strongly against breaking any of the requirements of the Law. (Matt. 5:17-19) So what Jesus had in mind must have been eating and drinking in a figurative sense, by exercising faith in the value of his perfect human sacrifice.—Compare John 3:16; 4:14; 6:35, 40.

 

Pisteuo isn't the root it's the action form of pistis.

Good point.

What kind of trust?

Pisteuo is used almost 100 times in the Gospel of John and Pistis isn't used once. So John was emphasizing action. Belief is mainly mental whereas trust involves action. For example, pisteuo is used in John 3:16 "whoever believes in me should not perish but have eternal life" or "whoever trusts in me should not perish" I think trust is a better translation because it includes action and reliance.

 

As a Catholic, I would say that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the summit of the life of a Christian. In it we directly andf in person encounter Christ, the Divine Son of God.

I will post more later.

 

Is every sperm truly sacred?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A

 

I've gotten a little tired of listening to these guys go on and on without their even trying to back it up with scripture. Does it cite any scriptures, if it does, I might listen to it.

 

So then when people didn't understand (even some of his own disciples) asked him how it was possible, did he explain--or did he repeat himself

While Phago can be used symbolically, trogo (to chew, to gnaw) is never used symbolically in Greek.

Also, Jesus does not say we heat him soma, or body, which is often metaphotical. He says we truly must literally chew on his literal flesh in order to have God's grace of salvation delivered.

Is it so strange to believe in a supernatural transformation of bread and wine into the blood, body and soul of Christ if we already believe that (excluding OWB) that one person of a triune God became incarnate in a Virgin, died, resurrected, and ascended into heaven?

OWB, isn't it written that what goes into a man does not defile him, but what comes out?

 

So is that a no?

 

What significance would the discovery of intelligent alien life have on Christianity?

What if this extra terrestrial intelligence had a more detailed account of the formation of the universe and were able to demonstrate there theory?

Would it be unwise to attempt to convert these beings to any religion?

 

That is a; before I watch this video can you tell me if it supports itself with any scriptures?

 

I think Christianity will cross that bridge when it gets to it.

 

At the start of the Gospel of John it says "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God"...and..."the Word became flesh" So when Jesus says eat my flesh doesn't he mean devour the words that he speaks because they from God and they are God?

Later in John 6:63 Jesus says "it's the spirit that is life giving, the flesh has no use at all. The sayings I have spoken to you are spirit and are life"