Excellent Discussion on OSAS

[Studyman]

These are dietary laws given to Israel only

This is deception #1 that you promote. It is exposed by the very Word's of God Jesus said to Live By.

Ex. 12: 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Lev. 17: 10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Lev. 11:45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

Is this not the Christ, in your religion, who became flesh? Didn't God say He has ONE LAW for Israel, and those who sojourn with Israel? Didn't HE say a Non-Jew who "joins himself to God" is considered as a Homeborn Israelite?

Again, I don't care who you "yield yourself a servant to obey" or whose instruction in righteousness to honor. But it is an insidious lie to preach to others that God treats men differently according to the DNA they were born with. And I must point this deception out for the brethren, out of God's Love for them.

which were done away with at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, per Acts 10.

Acts 10 doesn't do away with any of God's instruction in righteousness, it exposed the Jews religion. I am open to you posting the words given in acts 10 that states God's Laws are done away. The Pharisees Laws were exposed, and eliminated from Peters mind, but where is it taught that God's Law is eliminated?

Can you back up your preaching with more than your lips?

We will not allow you to mix Judaism with Christ's religion and not say a word. Not on our watch.

Again, you don't even know what "Judaism" is. And the "Christ's Religion", and "God's Religion" are ONE. At least according to what is actually written in the Holy Scriptures.

This world's religious system has created their own religion, their own righteousness, their own judgments and high days, etc. I know there are people on this forum who are pricked by these truths. My hope for them is that they stop kicking against them.

He was born a Jew UNDER THE LAW and yes he did live by Moses' law.

This is a popular religious teaching of this world's religious system, that Jesus walked in worthless Jewish Traditions of the Pharisees, because he was a Jew following the "Jews religion". It's such a demeaning and insidious lie to judge the Lord's Christ in such a way given the bible doesn't teach anything even similar, and I really wish the promoters of this world's religions would stop promoting this insidious falsehood. Jesus walked in the "Good Works" His Father before ordained that His People should walk in them, because His Father is Perfect, and the Way of the Lord is Perfect, Holy, and God's Laws are Holy, Just and Good. I almost feel sorry for you sometimes Red Baker, as Paul describes you, "Because that, when you knew God, you glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in you imaginations, and your foolish heart was darkened. Professing yourself to be wise, you became a fool, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

But then I remember what God says about men who are so uncircumcised of heart as to treat God's Word in this way, as Paul reminds me.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up "to uncleanness" through the lusts "of their own hearts", to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served "the creature" (Image of God in the likeness of man) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

This is why, in my understanding, Jesus said to "Come out of her".

 

[Studyman]

"These Words, and instructed me to "Live by" these Words as well." You must rightly divide eh word of truth and know which commandment are for Israel only and which are for all of man kind.

I posted God's easy to understand instructions that said who God's ONE Law if for. You don't believe HIM, I do, therefore we disagree.

I could spend a lot of time right here, and will if you desire me to do so. But, we allow the NT to tell us what commandment's were limited to Israel only, and only until the true Lamb of God should come, and then many other laws they the Jews' practiced in their rellgion died when Christ died and rose again. The laws summed up in the Ten commandments are ever enforce as a standard to live by only, not to lie life by doing them, for that's impossible. You said again:

"Have you been convinced by someone, that these Words are spoken by "seducing spirits", and are "doctrines of devils"...Yes, by Paul concerning your teachings!
Yes, he created swine's to be eaten if one enjoys meat lover Pizza, which I like, with a cold beer in the hot summer months; I like Pork chops, barbecue, I was raised poor, I'll eat anything put before me, well most things that the average person eats. No, we do not eat slugs, snakes, alligators, cats and dogs; etc, but, it is a personal thing with me, not religious, somethings I just cannot stomach. Enough for now.

Again, you have to omit, ignore and erase so much of God's Word in order to justify this world's religious system you have adopted. The Pharisees did the same.

I'm done here, I just wanted to make the case for Scriptures over man made religious philosophies of this world, in the same way Jesus and Paul made the same arguments against the man-made religious doctrines and traditions of the same religious system of their time.

 

[synergy]

Where you are incorrect brother, but no worries.

1. Koine Greek Use of the Article as a Demonstrative:

In Koine Greek, especially in contexts of anaphoric reference (when the speaker refers back to something just mentioned), the article alone can function semantically like an English demonstrative ("this" or "that")-especially when it follows a prior conceptual referent.

As F. Blass & A. Debrunner write in A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (§253),
“The article may refer back to something previously mentioned (anaphoric), and in this use it may approach the demonstrative force of 'that.'”

In other words, ἡ πίστις here refers back to the kind of faith someone claims to have in the first clause--"if someone says he has faith (πίστιν)... but does not have works."

So, contextually, James is speaking not of faith in the abstract, but of a specific kind of professed faith: the workless, verbal-only faith.

Thus, "Can the faith save him?" naturally means, in idiomatic English:

“Can that kind of faith [the kind without works] save him?”

And most modern translations reflect this sense--not because the demonstrative is present in the Greek, but because the article carries an anaphoric and qualifying function.


Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 219:
q=Daniel+B.+Wallace%2C+Greek+Grammar+Beyond+the+Basics%2C+p.+219%3A&oq=Daniel+B.+Wallace%2C+Greek+Grammar+Beyond+the+Basics%2C+p.+219%3A&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i546i649l2j0i512i546j0i751.1711j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#:~:text=results%20with%3A%20219%3A-,GREEK%20GRAMMAR%20BEYOND%20THE%20BASICS,Good,-Neighbours%20Bookshop

“Anaphoric articles often appear where the article functions like a demonstrative in English (‘that X’).”

Craig L. Blomberg & Mariam J. Kamell, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary: James, p. 135:

James (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament | ZECNT)

Authors Craig Blomberg and Mariam Kamell use the historical, theological and literary elements of James to guide their interpretation of this often-overlooked early Christian text. Their concise discussion of how the book delivers consistent, challenging instruction will help pastors and church...

www.logos.com

“The presence of the article with pistis [faith] (‘the faith’) is likely anaphoric, referring back to the faith claimed in the first half of the verse. Hence many translations render it as ‘that faith.’”

You are correct in a strictly morphological sense: αὕτη ("that") is not in the Greek.

However, you err in their semantic conclusion. In Koine Greek, the article ἡ before πίστις can-and here does-function anaphorically to mean “that (just-mentioned) kind of faith”.

Therefore, “Can that faith save him?” is an accurate and idiomatic rendering, even if it’s not a woodenly literal one.

But now we are nitpicking on words, neglecting the context of James, and this is not edifying @synergy since we are here to do exegetical, hermeneutical studies, not isolated "words" within a verse?!

Jas 2:14 What [is] Τί the τὸ profit, ὄφελος, my μου, brothers, ἀδελφοί if ἐὰν anyone τις says λέγῃ to have ἔχειν faith, πίστιν but δὲ has ἔχῃ; no μὴ works? ἔργα {Is} the ἡ faith πίστις vvv μὴ able δύναται to save σῶσαι him? αὐτόν;

Definite article---The phrase "the faith" in certain translations of the Bible is an anaphoric reference to a previously established concept of faith, according to Bible Hub and other textual analyses. Specifically, when the article "the" is added before the Greek word "pistis" (faith), it indicates that the faith being referenced is a specific, previously defined faith, often translated as "that faith" to reflect this specificity.

J.

First of all, there is no need for the word "that". That's why there's no "that" in the Greek.

Second of all, there is no ambiguity between the 2 mentions of faith in John 2:14 that would necessitate the usage of the word "that". It is obvious for both Greek and English text that both mentions of the word faith refer to the exact same thing. Reread the verse. Where is the ambiguity?

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

Do I have to insert the word "that" each time I mention the same thing in two different sentence? Imagine if we had to insert "that" each time in order to communicate that the object I mentioned in one sentence is the same object in my previous sentence?

What's happening is that anti-James proponents like Robertson want to intentionally introduce ambiguity in James' message in order to cloud his message.

 

[Johann]

1. The Greek word for "that" is "αυτή". It is nowhere in the Greek. This proves that the NKJV is correct in its translation.
2. "μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν" literally translates to "not able the faith saves him?" There is no "that" in the translation.
3. "ἡ πίστις" is "the Faith", not "that Faith".
4. to be "that faith" in the Greek, you would have to say "αυτή ἡ πίστις". It is not there.

Many people cornered with these facts will say it doesn't matter, that their presuppositions still hold. That's hilarious!!

Since you don't know what a Definite article is--here are some examples and do get Wallace Basic Greek Grammar brother.
̔
ho; fem. hē, neut. tó, def. art. Originally a demonstrative pron. meaning this, that, but in Attic and later usage it became mostly a prepositive art. The.

(I) As a def. art., the, that, this (Mat_21:7; Jhn_6:10; Jhn_7:40; Gal_5:8; Col_4:16 [cf. Rom_16:22; 1Th_5:27]). Of this or that way (Act_9:2; Act_19:9, Act_19:23; Act_24:22 [cf. Act_22:4]).

(II) The neut. art. tó is often applied in a similar sense in Luk_22:2 with pṓs (G4459), how, tó pṓs, meaning "how [literally, the how] they might kill Him" (cf. Luk_22:4; Luk_19:48; Act_4:21). Also similarly with tís (G5101) in Luk_9:46, meaning a dispute arose among them, namely, who should be the greatest of them (cf. Luk_22:24). Similarly in Mrk_9:23, "And Jesus said unto him [this, or thus], If thou canst believe."



Shalom.

J.

 

[Johann]

First of all, there is no need for the word "that". That's why there's no "that" in the Greek.

Second of all, there is no ambiguity between the 2 mentions of faith in John 2:14 that would necessitate the usage of the word "that". It is obvious for both Greek and English text that both mentions of the word faith refer to the exact same thing. Reread the verse. Where is the ambiguity?

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

Do I have to insert the word "that" each time I mention the same thing in two different sentence? Imagine if we had to insert "that" each time in order to communicate that the object I mentioned in one sentence is the same object in my previous sentence?

What's happening is that anti-James proponents like Robertson want to intentionally introduce ambiguity in James' message in order to cloud his message.

Disappointing, all I have to say.

Have a great day.

J.

 

[synergy]

Since you don't know what a Definite article is--here are some examples and do get Wallace Basic Greek Grammar brother.
̔
ho; fem. hē, neut. tó, def. art. Originally a demonstrative pron. meaning this, that, but in Attic and later usage it became mostly a prepositive art. The.

(I) As a def. art., the, that, this (Mat_21:7; Jhn_6:10; Jhn_7:40; Gal_5:8; Col_4:16 [cf. Rom_16:22; 1Th_5:27]). Of this or that way (Act_9:2; Act_19:9, Act_19:23; Act_24:22 [cf. Act_22:4]).

(II) The neut. art. tó is often applied in a similar sense in Luk_22:2 with pṓs (G4459), how, tó pṓs, meaning "how [literally, the how] they might kill Him" (cf. Luk_22:4; Luk_19:48; Act_4:21). Also similarly with tís (G5101) in Luk_9:46, meaning a dispute arose among them, namely, who should be the greatest of them (cf. Luk_22:24). Similarly in Mrk_9:23, "And Jesus said unto him [this, or thus], If thou canst believe."

View attachment 1966

Shalom.

J.

How would you translate "μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν"? There's a definite article in that sentence.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

First of all, there is no need for the word "that". That's why there's no "that" in the Greek.

Second of all, there is no ambiguity between the 2 mentions of faith in John 2:14 that would necessitate the usage of the word "that". It is obvious for both Greek and English text that both mentions of the word faith refer to the exact same thing. Reread the verse. Where is the ambiguity?

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

Do I have to insert the word "that" each time I mention the same thing in two different sentence? Imagine if we had to insert "that" each time in order to communicate that the object I mentioned in one sentence is the same object in my previous sentence?

What's happening is that anti-James proponents like Robertson want to intentionally introduce ambiguity in James' message in order to cloud his message.

here is the problem for people who do not actually dig deep to see what is actually beiong said.

Faith is used twice in this verse.

(James 2:14) Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;

the first time, the accusative pistin is used.. it is accusative in language because the person is said to have stated they have faith

the second time we see the word. we see ho pistis used.. ie. the faith. what faith? the faith that the person stated he had.

in no language would anyone bring up the fact that someons said they had something. Then later, asked if something else the person did not say, was in question.

this is called useing your belief system to interpret the word. because if "the faith" is the "faith" the person claimed to have earlier. then yiour whole belief system falls on its face

 

[synergy]

Disappointing, all I have to say.

Have a great day.

J.

Point out where exactly I'm wrong. That's all.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

How would you translate "μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν"? There's a definite article in that sentence.

In Ancient Greek, the definite article, equivalent to "the" in English, is formed using the words ὁ (ho), ἡ (hē), and τό (to). These words agree with the noun they modify in gender, number, and case. The form of the article also depends on whether the noun is masculine, feminine, or neuter.
"μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν"?

the definite article is in the very quote you made.. did you miss this?

 

[Johann]

How would you translate "μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν"? There's a definite article in that sentence.

Point out where exactly I'm wrong. That's all.

You're not incorrect per se, but your approach at the moment lacks reasonable balance--you’re fixated on debating the definite article while overlooking the actual thrust of James's argument, which has already been clearly and thoroughly laid out for you.

J.

 

[Johann]

here is the problem for people who do not actually dig deep to see what is actually beiong said.

Absolutely correct here.

J.

 

[Studyman]

do you consider trinitarians your brethren that you can fellowship with and break bread ?

I'm sorry Civic, I just don't engage in the popular tradition you have adopted, of placing people in your judgment boxes.

You judge me as a unitarian, Legalist, Judaizer, etc., and admonish me because I don't fit into your judgment box called trinitarian. I am no more a unitarian than Jesus was. And Jesus was no more a trinitarian than I am. I am no more a Legalist than Jesus was. I am no more a Judaizer than Jesus was. At least according to what is actually written in Scriptures. And you have Zero evidence to the contrary in any of these things.

But if we were sitting in lawn chairs fishing for walleye on a nice lake somewhere, and we were talking about the Parables of God, or what the Spiritual intent of the inclusion of the Amalekites in the Exodus was written for, and how that applies to the Kingdom of God within of us, I would be overjoyed, and we would have a great fellowship, maybe even drink a beer or two and would continue until our wives came to take us home. I have spent many an afternoon with men who I had never met before, not promoting anything, any traditions, any philosophies, but seeking to know God through His Christ by which the Scriptures are made available to us.

But if you started in with your judgments boxes, and promoting your adopted religious philosophies, which exist in this world God placed us in, I would probably reel my pole in and bid you a kind fare well.

 

[synergy]

You're not incorrect per se, but your approach at the moment lacks reasonable balance--you’re fixated on debating the definite article while overlooking the actual thrust of James's argument, which has already been clearly and thoroughly laid out for you.

J.

My point was that the word "that" has no place in the translation. I didn't see any argument about that.

Now you're talking about definite articles. I already gave you my translation as "not able the faith saves him?" The definite article is there. So what's the problem?

 

[civic]

I'm sorry Civic, I just don't engage in the popular tradition you have adopted, of placing people in your judgment boxes.

You judge me as a unitarian, Legalist, Judaizer, etc., and admonish me because I don't fit into your judgment box called trinitarian. I am no more a unitarian than Jesus was. And Jesus was no more a trinitarian than I am. I am no more a Legalist than Jesus was. I am no more a Judaizer than Jesus was. At least according to what is actually written in Scriptures. And you have Zero evidence to the contrary in any of these things.

But if we were sitting in lawn chairs fishing for walleye on a nice lake somewhere, and we were talking about the Parables of God, or what the Spiritual intent of the inclusion of the Amalekites in the Exodus was written for, and how that applies to the Kingdom of God within of us, I would be overjoyed, and we would have a great fellowship, maybe even drink a beer or two and would continue until our wives came to take us home. I have spent many an afternoon with men who I had never met before, not promoting anything, any traditions, any philosophies, but seeking to know God through His Christ by which the Scriptures are made available to us.

But if you started in with your judgments boxes, and promoting your adopted religious philosophies, which exist in this world God placed us in, I would probably reel my pole in and bid you a kind fare well.

I’m sure you realize real life is different than debating on a forum and I would enjoy a day with you fishing

 

[Dizerner]

I actually don't think it matters whether you translate it "the faith" or "that faith," they both still convey the same meaning.

The key Scripture and major point here is the conclusion:

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (Jas. 2:24 NKJ)

Clearly James is not saying here that we are justified by a dead or false faith.

 

[synergy]

In Ancient Greek, the definite article, equivalent to "the" in English, is formed using the words ὁ (ho), ἡ (hē), and τό (to). These words agree with the noun they modify in gender, number, and case. The form of the article also depends on whether the noun is masculine, feminine, or neuter.
"μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν"?

the definite article is in the very quote you made.. did you miss this?

The definite article ἡ translates to "the", not "that". That proves my point that the word "that" is unwarranted in the English language.

 

[Dizerner]

I’m sure you realize real life is different than debating on a forum and I would enjoy a day with you fishing

I heard a true story of two guys debating theology and one got so angry he actually came back and killed the man in real life.

We do need to watch out for bad feelings in our disagreements, lol.

 

[synergy]

here is the problem for people who do not actually dig deep to see what is actually beiong said.

Faith is used twice in this verse.

(James 2:14) Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;

the first time, the accusative pistin is used.. it is accusative in language because the person is said to have stated they have faith

the second time we see the word. we see ho pistis used.. ie. the faith. what faith? the faith that the person stated he had.

in no language would anyone bring up the fact that someons said they had something. Then later, asked if something else the person did not say, was in question.

Who is attempting to do that? I already said that both instances of faith refer to the same thing.

this is called useing your belief system to interpret the word. because if "the faith" is the "faith" the person claimed to have earlier. then yiour whole belief system falls on its face

You offered no support for the word "that". That's all I needed to know.

 

[Johann]

My point was that the word "that" has no place in the translation. I didn't see any argument about that.

Now you're talking about definite articles. I already gave you my translation as "not able the faith saves him?" The definite article is there. So what's the problem?

Jas 2:14 What is the benefit, my fellow believers, if someone claims to have faith but has no [good] works [as evidence]? Can that [kind of] faith save him? [No, a mere claim of faith is not sufficient--genuine faith produces good works.]
AMP

Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith R15but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
ESV

Jas 2:14 Faith is Shown by Actions
¶ What good does it do, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but does not prove it with actions? This kind of faith cannot save him, can it?
ISV


Jas 2:14 Faith and Works
What (+) is the benefit, my brothers, if someone says (+) that he has faith but does not have works? That faith (+) is not able to save him, (+) is it? [The negative construction in Greek anticipates a negative answer here]
LEB

Jas 2:14 My brothers, what good is there in a man's saying that he has faith, if he has no good deeds to prove it? Such faith cannot save him, can it?
Williams

Jas 2:14 What is the revach (gain, profit), my Achim b'Moshiach, if anyone claims to have emunah but does not have ma'asim (deeds)? Surely not such "emunah" is able to bring him to Yeshu'at Eloheinu?
OJB.

What next? Going to tell me these "versions" are wrong @synergy?

James 2:14 is constructed with a rhetorical question that expects a negative answer, and the Greek grammar confirms that James is not making an open inquiry, but driving a theological point with forceful logic.

Rhetorical Framework and Expectation:
James uses a μὴ question: μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν
This construction with μὴ expects a “No” answer, as in:

“That faith cannot save him, can it?” (Expected: No, it cannot)

Shalom.

J.

 

[synergy]

I actually don't think it matters whether you translate it "the faith" or "that faith," they both still convey the same meaning.

The key Scripture and major point here is the conclusion:

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (Jas. 2:24 NKJ)

Clearly James is not saying here that we are justified by a dead or false faith.

The faith is singular. That faith means that there are many more forms and types of faith. That opens up the Pandora box of all forms, classes, species, phylums, etc... (my high school biology is coming back to mind) of faiths. That clouds James' message which is exactly what anti-James people want in order to push their agenda.