Does righteousness ...

[ananda]

Really that doesn't matter in our discussion here. We are looking at usage, so if I can find particular uses of the present participle that discount what you are saying, whether biblical or extra-biblical, it lends support to my position. So here is where you are just wrong. There isn't really any reason to argue. The relative time of this particular present participle is based on the principle verb. πωλοῦντες ἔφερον, or sold them and brought. Because brought is the principle verb here and is used in past tense, the participle also follows suit.

ἔφερον is in the imperfect tense, and also has a continual aspect.

For an opposite example, check out Matthew 10:22- "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." The principle verb ἔσεσθε is modifying the present participle μισούμενοι, which thus renders the present participle as future.

Yes the time of the present participle is modified into the future, but it does not lose its continual aspect. "you will be continually-hated"

I am also not saying that belief must be perfect in its continuance either.

The demons believe, but they are not obedient.

 

[ananda]

Is that Bible available? I have a facsimile of it. It is a large book. Unfortunately it did not mark the apocryphal books as such, so it is not yet the word of God in English. It is a good translation though.

Yes, Matthew's bible is available.

The KJV does not mark apocryphal books as such to me either.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Yes, Matthew's bible is available.

The KJV does not mark apocryphal books as such to me either.

I have a 1611 facsimile and yes it divides the apocryphal into the apocrypha section. So it actually did. Every single page of those books it has "Apocrypha" marked in bold.

 

[ananda]

I have a 1611 facsimile and yes it divides the apocryphal into the apocrypha section. So it actually did. Every single page of those books it has "Apocrypha" marked in bold.

Assuming your canon is the Protestant canon, my canon's "Apocrypha" includes books which you consider canonical.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

ἔφερον is in the imperfect tense, and also has a continual aspect.
Yes the time of the present participle is modified into the future, but it does not lose its continual aspect. "you will be continually-hated"

The demons believe, but they are not obedient.

Could you maybe respond to my whole post? I don't think it is fair or honest even to cherry pick. Thanks.

 

[ananda]

Could you maybe respond to my whole post? I don't think it is fair or honest even to cherry pick. Thanks.

You asked no questions in your prior post, so I responded to what was relevant to me. Pot, kettle.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

You asked no questions in your prior post, so I responded to what was relevant to me. Pot, kettle.

You have yet to prove anything at all regarding your constant sticking of "continually" in front of every present participle in the NT. I have given more than enough evidence to show that the present participle does not simply mean "continually", and there is is much more to consider. Until we get past that, you are speaking into the open air, all by your lonesome.

 

[AndOne]

If you are non-Pauline you are not Christian.

 

[ananda]

You have yet to prove anything at all regarding your constant sticking of "continually" in front of every present participle in the NT. I have given more than enough evidence to show that the present participle does not simply mean "continually", and there is is much more to consider.

I don't remember writing that the present participle always means "continually". I'm satisfied with my conclusions.

 

[ananda]

If you are non-Pauline you are not Christian.

My faith rests on Messiah - not Paul. People were saved before Paul appeared.

I obey Messiah when He warned me against following the teachings of Pharisees.

 

[AndOne]

My faith rests on Messiah - not Paul. People were saved before Paul appeared.

I obey Messiah when He warned me against following the teachings of Pharisees.

You deny 3/4 of scripture if you deny Paul (Including the writings of Peter) - if you deny scripture you are not a Christian.

 

[ananda]

You deny 3/4 of scripture if you deny Paul (Including the writings of Peter) - if you deny scripture you are not a Christian.

I do not deny the writings of Peter, nor do I deny Scripture.

Where in the world did you get 3/4, or 75%?

I deny 6.5% of your canon, and that 6.5% I do not consider to be "Scripture" - I only only consider it "Apocrypha".

To embrace that what I consider Apocrypha, I would have to deny Messiah's direct command, which I am unwilling to do.

 

[AndOne]

I do not deny the writings of Peter,

Yes you do - 2 Peter 3:15-16: 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Where in the world did you get 3/4, or 75%?

I meant to say 3/4 of the NT - my mistake

I deny 6.5% of your canon, and that 6.5% I do not consider to be "Scripture" - I only only consider it "Apocrypha".

Then you are not a Christian as far as I'm concerned.

 

[jesse630]

Interesting question.

Paul taught that God declares the believer righteous in Rom2-4. God credited righteousness to Abraham when he believed God's promise. Gen 15:6.

I don't believe the act of believing is righteous. Righteousness is something that God declares of those who believe. And it is an imputed righteousness, nothing that we do.

Further, any and all good deeds done by believers but only in the power of the Holy Spririt are righteous. Those moral and good deeds in the power of the flesh are not.

 

[ananda]

Yes you do - 2 Peter 3:15-16: 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Peter was warning the ignorant and unstable against twisting Paul's words and the Scriptures to support lawlessness, to their own destruction. I do not deny this.

I meant to say 3/4 of the NT - my mistake

What happened to your OT?

It's not 3/4 of the "NT" either. I deny only approx. 28% of your "NT" canon - not 75%.

My NT canon is 100% intact

Then you are not a Christian as far as I'm concerned.

Everyone has an opinion

 

[AndOne]

Peter was warning the ignorant and unstable against twisting Paul's words and the Scriptures to support lawlessness. I do not deny this.

Peter referred to Paul's writings as scripture - you denied that already. Can't back out of it - not to mention its in your tag line.

What happened to your OT?

nothing -I was referring to the NT when I made the comment - admitted my mistake - apparently you didn't get that part.

It's not 3/4 of the "NT" either. I deny only approx. 28% of your "NT" canon - not 75%.

It's a rough estimate to be sure - but pretty close. We've already addressed the writings of Peter. Luke - who wrote Acts (a good chunk which is about Paul) and his Gospel, was one of Paul's right hand men in ministry so if you deny Paul you should deny Luke as well. James affirmed Paul's ministry in the book of Acts. Mark - who was partners with Peter in ministry whom you also must deny if you deny Peter whom most historians believe contributed greatly to the gospel of Mark. All you are left with is John, John1-3, Matthew, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.

Everyone has an opinion

except mine is supported by orthodox Christianity and History.

 

[ananda]

Peter referred to Paul's writings as scripture - you denied that already. Can't back out of it - not to mention its in your tag line.

I didn't deny anything, except your interpretation of Peter.

Peter did not refer to Paul's writings as Scripture. He referred to them as γραφὰς which may be translated simply as "writings". Do you understand the significance of the three levels of Scripture?

It's a rough estimate to sure - but pretty close. We've already addressed the writings of Peter. Luke - who wrote Acts (a good chunk which is about Paul) and his Gospel, was one of Paul's right hand men in ministry so if you deny Paul you should deny Luke as well. James affirmed Paul's ministry in the book of Acts. Mark - who was partners with Peter in ministry whom you also must deny if you deny Peter whom most historian believe contributed greatly to the gospel of Mark. All you are left with is John, John1-3, Matthew, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.

75% is not close to 28%.

Your statement assumes much about my perspective on the canon of Scripture. As I hinted above, I do not hold to today's general Protestant perspective that all books are equally inspired. I hold to the ancient & traditional belief of three tiers of Scripture.

Luke-Acts I categorize in the last tier of "Scripture": useful and generally edifying, but not necessarily inspired.

except mine is supported by orthodox Christianity and History.

No, it isn't. Today's "orthodoxy" is vastly different from the orthodoxy of the first four centuries of Christianity.

 

[AndOne]

whatever.... I'm done exposing you. Thanks for at least having the decency to be up front about it by putting it in your tag line. cheers...

 

[ananda]

whatever.... I'm done exposing you. Thanks for at least having the decency to be up front about it by putting it in your tag line. cheers...

I'm not hiding anything, so there's nothing to "expose".

I am up front about obeying my Master's command:

"Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. ... Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Mt 16:6,12
​

It's interesting to see how you totally avoided addressing that.

 

[ananda]

Thanks for that.

I don't debate with non-Christians in the Christians only forum section of CF. Sorry.

Correction ... I think you meant "non-Pharisee Paul followers".

And here, for all this time, I thought that Baptists believed that "belief alone in Jesus saves". I certainly have belief in Him.

Is it revised now to "belief alone in Jesus and Paul saves"?