|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 23, 2021 0:24:28 GMT
Yes, and... Biblical faith is more than just "belief." The Greek word for faith ( pistis) more accurately connotes loyalty (one scholar says "believing loyalty"), trust, allegiance, faithful ness, etc. That may be how the word was generally used at the time, but the New Testament also uses it in the sense of "beliefs", especially in Hebrews. It would make no sense to say that loyalty is the substance of things for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 is not a definition of faith by any means. It is answering the implied question asked in the last verse of the previous chapter. Hebrews 10:39 - "But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved." What gives us this hope? This assurance? Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (NIV) The New Living Translation, not typically an accurate translation, gets the gist right here: "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see." So what gives us hope and assurance? Our loyalty, trust, allegiance to God...the kind demonstrated by Jesus (Hebrews 12:1).
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Nov 23, 2021 17:43:12 GMT
I'm not convinced. The passage continues:
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made from visible things.
Loyalty and allegiance don't make sense in this context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 20:21:47 GMT
I think someone in this thread defined "faith" as "belief in something you know is not true." That's compartmentalization, not faith. Faith is believing something is true without tangible, objective proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, and... Biblical faith is more than just "belief." The Greek word for faith ( pistis) more accurately connotes loyalty (one scholar says "believing loyalty"), trust, allegiance, faithful ness, etc. Really, that changes everything. We see vestiges of this concept in the phrase "keep the faith" (although the the root of that could be understood as "the faith" meaning the collection of doctrinal truths, I don't believe that's what the phrase really means) and the motto of the Marines: semper fi ("always faithful"). Having capitulated to that Enlightenment definition (the definition you point out), we have intellectualized our "faith" into something like checking a bunch of doctrinal points...and that's it. And for many (on both sides of the argument, I believe), "faith" is reduced to "suspending your disbelief to acquiesce to a bunch of propositions," an idea which rightly ridiculed, because it's ridiculous. How you act reflects what you truly believe, regardless of what you say you believe. Of course it's loyalty because the early Hebrews were polytheists, they just believed that their god was more powerful than the others. This can be seen in the story of Moses in Exodus. The Egyptian priest had powers they were just more limited than Moses'. It's amazing how much changes something that some people boast as the true faith had to undergo before it got its final form in the written bible the final result of several generations of oral tradition.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 23, 2021 23:02:44 GMT
I'm not convinced. The passage continues: By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made from visible things. Loyalty and allegiance don't make sense in this context. Yes, but the context is maintaining hope in the face of persecution. The "Hall of Fame of Faith" isn't "just there." It's a list of people who demonstrated that loyalty and commitment in the hope of future promise. The problem with the translation you're using is the word "by" (ἐν), which could (and should, I believe) be translated "in" here. This way, the meaning stays consistent through Hebrews 10-12. It's in faith that these "heroes of faith" maintained their hope, anticipating a result they would not see in their lifetime. And the ultimate model of faith(fulness) is Jesus himself (Hebrews 12:1), whose demonstration of that faithfulness (in the face of suffering) is our ultimate model.
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Nov 23, 2021 23:55:31 GMT
In context, the author is definitely exhorting his readers to persevere, but I'm not convinced that "faith" means "loyalty" or "allegiance" so much as a belief in a great promise or final hope. The heroes didn't do all these things because of allegiance or loyalty to God so much as their belief in a great promise that they did not live to see. I don't see what the author thinks that promise is, though I think it's tied to the sacrifice of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 24, 2021 2:39:04 GMT
In context, the author is definitely exhorting his readers to persevere, but I'm not convinced that "faith" means "loyalty" or "allegiance" so much as a belief in a great promise or final hope. The heroes didn't do all these things because of allegiance or loyalty to God so much as their belief in a great promise that they did not live to see. I don't see what the author thinks that promise is, though I think it's tied to the sacrifice of Christ. The loyalty (allegiance/commitment) is the condition of covenant (both old and new). The promise is decreasingly ambiguous but the author has already foreshadowed it in Hebrews 8 (where the physical tabernacle is described as a mere shadow of the "real thing") and he reinforces it afterwards in Hebrews 13 (where the "mountain to which we have come" is God's very presence). The promise is the "coming of the real thing": Hebrews 11:8-10 - "By faith [or: in faith, being faithful; also in later instances] Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he left, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as a stranger in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God." Hebrews 11:16 - "...as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them." Hebrews 11:24-26 - "By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the temporary pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward." Hebrews 11:35 - "Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection..." Again, the overarching message of Hebrews (besides the explication of the "new and better covenant") is to persist despite persecution, because the "eternal reward" (i.e., the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant promises—the restoration of "heaven&earth") is worth the temporary burden. To aim for that requires "maintaining faith in hope." As for "belief in a great promise or hope," even a flat reading of "faith=belief" must account for belief being more than "held opinions" or "suspended disbelief." What you truly believe is manifested by how you live. But regardless, you simply can't impose this Enlightenment definition of "faith" onto the text when the meaning of the word in its culture was more than just belief. It really seems to me that we read it as "belief" because we have always been taught that it is so (again: Enlightenment influence). And so we read Hebrews 11:1 as a definition when it is not a definition. But "re-reading it" as "covenant loyalty" or "loving allegiance" and reading the ἐν as "in" instead of "by," the message of the whole book is more consistent and coherent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 6:11:09 GMT
I'm not convinced. The passage continues: By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made from visible things. Loyalty and allegiance don't make sense in this context. Yes, but the context is maintaining hope in the face of persecution. The "Hall of Fame of Faith" isn't "just there." It's a list of people who demonstrated that loyalty and commitment in the hope of future promise. The problem with the translation you're using is the word "by" (ἐν), which could (and should, I believe) be translated "in" here. This way, the meaning stays consistent through Hebrews 10-12. It's in faith that these "heroes of faith" maintained their hope, anticipating a result they would not see in their lifetime. And the ultimate model of faith(fulness) is Jesus himself (Hebrews 12:1), whose demonstration of that faithfulness (in the face of suffering) is our ultimate model. It's all a matter of perspective. If you were a muslim you'd likely call the assholes, who flew the planes in the WTC heroes pf faith too. People who are willing to die for a delusion are no heroes of mine, they're the scum of the earth.
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Nov 24, 2021 15:43:21 GMT
Yes, but the context is maintaining hope in the face of persecution. The "Hall of Fame of Faith" isn't "just there." It's a list of people who demonstrated that loyalty and commitment in the hope of future promise. The problem with the translation you're using is the word "by" (ἐν), which could (and should, I believe) be translated "in" here. This way, the meaning stays consistent through Hebrews 10-12. It's in faith that these "heroes of faith" maintained their hope, anticipating a result they would not see in their lifetime. And the ultimate model of faith(fulness) is Jesus himself (Hebrews 12:1), whose demonstration of that faithfulness (in the face of suffering) is our ultimate model. It's all a matter of perspective. If you were a muslim you'd likely call the assholes, who flew the planes in the WTC heroes pf faith too. People who are willing to die for a delusion are no heroes of mine, they're the scum of the earth. the "assholes" that flew the planes into the WTC were not heroes of faith. They did not exemplify the teachings of Mohammed, just the transmogrification of those teachings practiced by radical fringe Muslims who are still quite numerous. they mislead the masses for their own personal benefit, much like televangelists in the US who do it purely for money but, thankfully, no murders. People who are willing to die for their faith, like Stephen (the first martyr) are either victims of murder or casualties of persecution or strife related to their faith. Since you characterize their faith as delusion, you call them "scum."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 17:04:50 GMT
It's all a matter of perspective. If you were a muslim you'd likely call the assholes, who flew the planes in the WTC heroes pf faith too. People who are willing to die for a delusion are no heroes of mine, they're the scum of the earth. the "assholes" that flew the planes into the WTC were not heroes of faith. They did not exemplify the teachings of Mohammed, just the transmogrification of those teachings practiced by radical fringe Muslims who are still quite numerous. they mislead the masses for their own personal benefit, much like televangelists in the US who do it purely for money but, thankfully, no murders. People who are willing to die for their faith, like Stephen (the first martyr) are either victims of murder or casualties of persecution or strife related to their faith. Since you characterize their faith as delusion, you call them "scum." One man's religion is another man's bulshit. If you shared their interpretation of the quran, you'd call them heroes, just as you don't call them heroes now. But I notice that you can't even call them assholes now as you put it between quotes, you stupid tool. You are a fucking imbecile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 17:09:59 GMT
There are good causes to die for... to defend your loved ones, to defend ideals of liberty and freedom of speech... etc... Religion is not one of them. I don't give two shits about the martyrs of religion.
|
|