Or maybe it's redundant? There is always that possibility. It's the Military so the "Keep it simple Stupid"(KISS) methods apply π.
If you read "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" It's a given to what we believe and Whose church it is.
Christian Nationalist Pete Hegseth officially designates Mormonism as a non-Christian religion. We have never been part of these peopleβs theocratic project. If youβre a Latter-day Saint, you need to WAKE UP and stop voting for the Republican Party!!!
https://t.co/cqj4IyEndB
Great point, The irony, of course, is that from an LDS perspective, the Church's very name... "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is a theological statement about its Christocentric identity.
Look at it in this fashion, Ask this question, Do the other churches "Need" to be labeled to know they claim some relationship with Christ?
@GuyInco15542744@ExMosPostingLs Or maybe it's redundant? There is always that possibility. It's the Military so the "Keep it simple Stupid"(KISS) methods apply π.
If you read "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" It's a given to what we believe and Whose church it is.
@MJKelleyII So if he isn't human, how did he eat? Are you inferring he ascended to the Father in a form that can eat food? Implying the Father also must have a body that can eat food?
@VirginiaSlims14@LizzieMarbach When the Greek lexicons beat you, apparently the answer is "go pet puppies." Noted. The argument stands. The thread is there for anyone who wants to read it.
Remember it was you who engaged with me.
My response was to @LizzieMarbach.
We're back to your first statement. Unchanged. After Merriam-Webster failed.
After the cultural appropriation charge failed.
After blaming Protestant scholars for a Catholic conspiracy.
After every deflection, we're exactly where we started, with you simply reasserting the original claim.
That's not a defense of a position. That's proof you never had one.
The lexicons haven't changed. James 2 hasn't changed. Pistis still means allegiance. The thread speaks for itself.
A Master's in English Education means you're an expert in modern English.
We're discussing 1st century Biblical Greek. Those are different languages, different disciplines, and different centuries.
You've just confirmed the problem with your entire argument. You've been applying English language tools to a Greek text debate the whole thread.
BDAG requires Greek scholarship, not an English degree. James wrote in Greek, not English.
This credential doesn't help your case... it explains it.
"Faith requires nothing but itself." β Virginia Slims, 2026.
"Faith without works is dead." β James, ~50 AD.
I'll take James...Thanks
You accused the lexicons of being Catholic.
I showed they were all Protestant.
Now, out of arguments, you've landed on "unbiblical religion, plain and simple."
That's not a rebuttal. That's a retreat.
You started this conversation with a claim about word definitions.
The definitions didn't go your way. Own it.
Nice way to walk on landmines...
BDAG, the gold standard Greek lexicon, was produced by Walter Bauer, a German Protestant scholar,
refined by Frederick Danker, an American Lutheran.
Louw and Nida worked for the United Bible Societies, a Protestant missionary organization.
Thayer was a Unitarian.
Matthew Bates is an Evangelical Protestant.
Not one Catholic or Orthodox institution produced these lexicons.
You've just accused the Protestant scholarly establishment of running a Catholic narrative.
That's not my argument... that's your argument collapsing under its own weight.
"Semantics games", you mean like the entire field of Biblical exegesis? Yes. This is semantics. That's the point. You claimed faith and belief are synonyms. I challenged the definition. You appealed to Merriam-Webster. I appealed to BDAG and Greek lexicons. You called it ridiculous.
That's not an argument, that's a concession dressed up as frustration.
When the meaning of a Greek word determines your entire soteriology, semantics aren't a game. They're the whole ballgame.
If pistis means allegiance and not mere belief, your "sola fide" framework shifts significantly. That's not my narrative. That's the text.