Romans 4:5 and the JST

[All-American]

And by the way, there is a μὴ in Romans 4:5, and an argument as to which part it applies to does, in fact, exist. But my objective is not to poke holes in your other argument, since it is largely irrelevant anyway.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by All-American

Good for you! You have graduated to level 2-- using the primary sources instead of somebody else's reinterpretation. Even if all you did was cut and paste somebody else's argument, but that will do for now.

Now, show me how we can count on every word of the New Testament being exactly what the original author wrote. Be sure to deal with variations in manuscripts that are being discovered on a nearly daily basis. That will be level 3.

Then, show me that what Paul wrote was exactly what he meant-- in other words, that he always correctly and exactly conveyed the thought that he had in mind when he wrote everything that you just proved that he wrote. Given the fact that he used a human language, this may prove somewhat difficult, but if you can pull it off, you will have not only won quite a bit of academic prestige, but you will have progressed to level 4.

Next, show me that what Paul had in mind is exactly correspondant to the truth. Show me that Paul was never wrong and that his own ideas are laced with infallability. That bit of mind reading over 2000 years ex post facto will get you to level 5.

Finally, show me how the truth is identical to your interpretation of the text. In doing so, not only will you have solved the answer to the sectarian question that has plagued the world since day one, you will have FINALLY arrived at the point wherein you will gain some sort of credibility on this particular issue.

You are way too far behind on this game, mon frere. I'd suggest you pick a different argument. Why not start on Joseph Smith and his claim to prophetic authority that justifies his rewrite of Romans in the first place? In fact, go even deeper and take on the Book of Mormon. I dare you. Much greater minds have tried and failed-- it will be entertaining to see your attempt.

Not to take Aaron's side -- because he's kind of a dick -- but your approach is an end run, at best. If you're going to apply the above standards, you might as well throw out the entire Bible -- and Book of Mormon, for that matter -- because you've just rendered them meaningless.

Using scholarship to bolster one's religious views is a silly exercise. It ultimately comes down to faith, and the gulf between the fantastic claims made in the Bible -- regardless of how you interpret them -- and that which is verifiable is so great, that no amount of scholarship will ever get you an inch closer to the truth. I don't care how many original texts you have or how adept you are at translation or how capable you are of reading the mind of Paul, you're still arguing about a book that talks of Gods, angels, miracles, resurrected beings, virgin births, etc.. If you're going to accept all of those incredible claims, isn't it kind of silly to insist on an educated approach when discussing them?

[aaronshaf]

All-American,

The grammar is more than clear. The μὴ modifies ἐργαζομένῳ (verb, to work), even Mormon scholars will admit that.

"And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" - Romans 4:5

For those willing to hear God out, I believe he has effectively, purposefully, intentionally communicated through human language in scripture. The usual backdoor out of that is a postmodern view of truth and knowledge and reading, and that is just a dishonest way to live.

[aaronshaf]

"If you're going to accept all of those incredible [supernatural, miraculous] claims, isn't it kind of silly to insist on an educated approach when discussing them?"

You're working off an unwarranted, anti-supernaturalistic assumption. What makes it impossible to take an educated, integrated approach to supernatural events or miracles or the mind of God as described by human witnesses?

I see no reason to assume absolute naturalism or materialism or anti-supernaturalism from the get-go.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Not to take Aaron's side -- because he's kind of a dick -- but your approach is an end run, at best. If you're going to apply the above standards, you might as well throw out the entire Bible -- and Book of Mormon, for that matter -- because you've just rendered them meaningless.

Using scholarship to bolster one's religious views is a silly exercise. It ultimately comes down to faith, and the gulf between the fantastic claims made in the Bible -- regardless of how you interpret them -- and that which is verifiable is so great, that no amount of scholarship will ever get you an inch closer to the truth. I don't care how many original texts you have or how adept you are at translation or how capable you are of reading the mind of Paul, you're still arguing about a book that talks of Gods, angels, miracles, resurrected beings, virgin births, etc.. If you're going to accept all of those incredible claims, isn't it kind of silly to insist on an educated approach when discussing them?

No I don't believe it's silly.

God expects us to work with our minds, as the methodology of how the various scripts devolve down to us teach us so that we can divine which aspects come from man and which aspects remain divine.

The reality is, Aaron fundamentally believes the compilation of script is inerrantly correct and ignores as Ehrman points out is origin, men.

He also ignores our belief that God, or an inspired prophet, could turn scripture on its head.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

For those willing to hear God out, I believe he has effectively, purposefully, intentionally communicated through human language in scripture.

scripture=the Bible (I assume)

If so, then why didn't He do a better job? Given the myriad of denominations, doctrines, and practices, not to mention interdenominational hostility, the Bible just hasn't turned out to be a very good "how to" be all and end all book on Christianity.

Hence the need for a living prophet.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No I don't believe it's silly.

God expects us to work with our minds, as the methodology of how the various scripts devolve down to us teach us so that we can divine which aspects come from man and which aspects remain divine.

The reality is, Aaron fundamentally believes the compilation of script is inerrantly correct and ignores as Ehrman points out is origin, men.

He also ignores our belief that God, or an inspired prophet, could turn scripture on its head.

Maybe "silly" is a poor choice of words. I'm not trying to belittle anyone's religious belief, but the entire core of religion is built on faith. Believing in God and angels and miracles is inherently irrational. It just seems a little incongruent when I hear people try to apply rationality to religious debate. It's like arguing over the color of Peter Pan's underwear.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Maybe "silly" is a poor choice of words. I'm not trying to belittle anyone's faith, but at the core of religion is faith. Believing in God and angels and miracles is inherently irrational. It just seems a little incongruent when I hear people try to apply rationality to religious debate. It's like arguing over the color of Peter Pan's underwear.

It was green when it was new.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by creekster

It was green when it was new.

Granted, there are many sects that believe Peter's underwear was green, but many of them disagree as to which shade of green. The fundamentalist insist they were forest green, but there is much evidence emerging that suggests his underwear was, indeed, kelly green. I've also read some authors who insist that J.M. Barrie was color-blind and that his concept of green has nothing in common with our modern day perception of green. It's a thorny issue, to be sure.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

All-American,

The grammar is more than clear. The μὴ modifies ἐργαζομένῳ (verb, to work), even Mormon scholars will admit that.



For those willing to hear God out, I believe he has effectively, purposefully, intentionally communicated through human language in scripture. The usual backdoor out of that is a postmodern view of truth and knowledge and reading, and that is just a dishonest way to live.

What's gone unanswered here is that Mormons believe Joseph's translation but also believe with the original text of Paul. We do take scripture to be the word of God and don't easily shrug it off.