Jump to content
The World News Media

PISTIS


sami

Recommended Posts

  • Member



The apostle Paul wrote at Hebrews 11.1 "Estin de pistis elpizomenôn hupostasis pragmatôn elenchos ou blepomenôn: en tautêi gar emarturêthêsan hoi presbuteroi"



Pistis means to trust or a trust, often meaning position of trust such as a trustee, a pledge or act of good faith, a guarantee given, an entrustment, often used in the Greek commercial world to account one credit [e.g., tosouton chrematon esti tini para tisi - eis pistin didonai - he has credit for so much money with them] - the Hebrew noun corresponding to emunah, rendered pistis, in the Septuagint - from the root aman means firm, something that is supported or secure - as used in Isaiah 22:23 for a nail that is fastened to a "secure" place - the Hebrew emunah is a firm action - hence the specific examples given in Hebrews 11 of what faith "is". This idea of support for the word emunah can be seen in Exodus 17:12, "But Moses' hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat upon it, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady (emunah) until the going down of the sun." It is the support/emunah of Aaron and Hur that held up Moses' arms, not the support/emunah of Moses - "I have faith in God", should be more accurately saying according to Hebrew application, "I will do what I can to support God".



Elpizomenôn [form of elpizô] which refers to one's expectations, looking forward to something, even to look for in wait for that which you know exists.



Hupostasis refers to that which settles at the bottom, the sediment [even the lower part of a crenellated wall], the substantial nature of a thing, its true foundation, its true support upon immovable confidence can be placed, its true purpose, its underlying plan - used quite often in antiquities in specific reference to what we would call today, a title deed - which is the underlying and foundational official document for property ownership.



Pragmatôn [from pragma] meaning that which has been done, an act, or a deed.



Eenchos - a cross examining, or testing.



Bepomenôn [from blepô] meaning to see, to have the power of sight.



Earturêthêsan [aortist passive form of martureo] meaning to be a witness, the bear witness, give evidence, or bear testimony.



Pesbuteroi [from presbus], lierally, an old man, or elderly one.



Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities [foundational] though not beheld - for by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them.



In other words, as stated in 11:3, by faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God’s word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear. 



Hebrews 11:4-40 then proceeds to provide many examples of pistis.



"Certain of what we do not see" - no, certain of the foundational things not now seen on the immediate surface for the reality of them must be observed through examination and testing of the true foundation underlying them.




A person invoking “faith” could be compared to a person who steps from the shore of a murky lake onto a lily pad but his weight does not collapse the pad and so he does not fall into the water – he performed this act not in a blind belief [a trust with no underlying basis] that a “miracle” would be the cause for his weight not collapsing the lily pad – but because he was able to observe that the pad rested upon a column of concrete lying under the waters surface – and he long ago tested the reality of that observation and was provided comprehension through examination that what he observed was real – and so he knew, or “came to know” that when he left the solid ground to step on the lily pad, that it would hold his weight, and he would not fall into the water. He had an assured expectation of that which he longed or hoped for because of the evident demonstration of realities [foundational] though not beheld from simply the surface of the murky water which appeared to present only a lily pad which floated upon water – he therefore, had witness borne to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 333
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,680
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Col310
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.