Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

rdp,

You made the point that there weren't any Christians who were "beggars" based on Psalms, I assume to illustrate that the poor man in James wasn't a Christian.

However, Romans uses the same word for "poor" to describe saints. Obviously there WERE poor saints, and the same word that you ascribed as "beggar" was used to describe them.

So which is it? Were there poor (beggars) people in the NT church or not?

There's a distinction made between "poor" folks & outright "beggars"...if you cannot even comprehend that, then no wonder we're going nowhere!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

There's a distinction made between "poor" folks & outright "beggars"...if you cannot even comprehend that, then no wonder we're going nowhere!

I comprehend that there's a distinction. My question is: Since the same word is used for "poor" saints in Romans as is used for "poor" man in James, which definition do you prefer. Was the man in James a "beggar" while the saints in Romans were only "poor?"

Maybe I did misunderstand you somewhere; I thought that earlier on the thread you were saying the poor man in James was not a Christian because there aren't Christians who are beggars. e.g., you were using that point to prove he was actually "vile/wicked" and not just "poor." If that's what you stated, then doesn't that mean you also interpret the word to mean "beggar?" And if you interpret it to mean that in James, then why not in Romans as well?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I comprehend that there's a distinction. My question is: Since the same word is used for "poor" saints in Romans as is used for "poor" man in James, which definition do you prefer. Was the man in James a "beggar" while the saints in Romans were only "poor?"

Maybe I did misunderstand you somewhere; I thought that earlier on the thread you were saying the poor man in James was not a Christian because there aren't Christians who are beggars. e.g., you were using that point to prove he was actually "vile/wicked" and not just "poor." If that's what you stated, then doesn't that mean you also interpret the word to mean "beggar?" And if you interpret it to mean that in James, then why not in Romans as well?

He thinks it somehow helps his argument, so that's what informs him which choosing which usage of the word. Of course, the translators screwed this one up.

Second bold: that's exactly what he said You start wading in deep water when you get "stretchy" with the facts.