[B-Greek] Acts 17:31 follow up

waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Sat Jan 17 15:25:42 EST 2004


Mitch:

I am sympathetic to your concern, but you have to
realize that you are looking in the wrong place for
the answer to the core of your question. You will not
find the answer to ANY theological issue in a
dictionary. 

Someone recently asked if OIDA meant people can know
for sure about a biblical truth (I think it was on 1
John 5:13 or something). The answer is not going to be
forthcoming in a lexicon, but in the GNT.

I think that is what you are ultimately
seeking...biblical proof, not lexical proof. 

Now concerning this faith you are asking about,
consider this passage in John's gospel:

10:37 If I do not perform the works of my Father, do
not believe me. 10:38 But if I do them, even if you do
not believe me, believe the works, so that you may
come to know and understand that I am in the Father
and the Father is in me.

Here, come to "know" is not OIDA but GINWSKW. Surely
Jesus is claiming that the evidence is not impressive
but conclusive, otherwise they have an out. At the
risk of answering this theological question of yours
in Acts, I would just say here that the PISTIS that
Christ demanded was based on empirical evidence,
evidence that amounted to verifiable proof if examined
with a pure heart. And in this sense, Acts 17 uses
PISTIS since the Christian faith is often presented as
accepting as true the undeniable (the resurrection of
Jesus, in this case).

Waldo


--- Mitch Larramore <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Acts 17:31
> KAQOTI ESTHSEN hHMERAN EN hHi MELLEI KRINEIN THN
> OIKOUMENHN EN DIKAIOSUNHi EN ANDRI hWi hWRISEN,
> PISTIN
> PARASCWN PASIN ANASTHSAS AUTON EK NEKRWN
> 
> 
> I've been mulling over the responses to my original
> post and just wanted to now confirm that I have
> misunderstood the meaning of PISTIS here. It was
> stated that it means "proof" as in "ground for
> believing". Many people ground their belief in one
> thing or another, but I think we all know that why
> you
> believe something has nothing to do with whether or
> not that belief has proof. Therefore, am I right in
> assuming that "proof" is not to be understood as in
> the fact that we can prove 1+1 equals 2. That to me
> is
> what proof is. Both those who have faith in Creation
> and those who have faith in An eternal Universe both
> have "grounds for believing" their positions, but
> since these are mutually exclusive options, at least
> one has to be false, having therefore no proof.
> Sorry
> again for rehashing this, but sometimes quick
> answers
> give little to resolve complicated issues.
> 
> =====
> Mitch Larramore
> Spring Branch, Texas
> Student/Memorial High School
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus"
> Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus



More information about the B-Greek mailing list