Hindi

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

Table of contents
1 English

1.1 Pronunciation
1.2 Noun

1.2.1 Translations

1.3 Adjective
1.4 See also
1.5 External links

2 Filipino

2.1 Adverb

2.1.1 Derived terms

2.2 See also

3 German

3.1 Noun
3.2 Noun

4 Tagalog

4.1 Adverb

4.1.1 Related terms

5 Turkish

5.1 Etymology
5.2 Noun

6 Persian

6.1 Noun

[edit]

English

[edit]

Pronunciation

  • hĭn'di, /ˈhɪndi/, /"hIndi/
[edit]

Noun

Hindi

  1. A language spoken in the Northern States of India. Also spoken in Fiji, Guyana and as a second language by Indians in many other countries. The word Hindi is borrowed from Persian into other languages.
[edit]

Translations

[edit]

Adjective

Hindi

  1. Of or relating to the Hindi language.
[edit]

See also

[edit]

External links

Missing image
Wiktionary.png
Wiktionary

[edit]

Filipino

[edit]

Adverb

hindi

  1. Spelling of hindî no, not when followed by a monosyllable.
[edit]

Derived terms

[edit]

See also

[edit]

German

[edit]

Noun

Hindi n

  1. The Hindi language
[edit]

Noun

Hindi m

  1. A Hindi-speaking person
[edit]

Tagalog

[edit]

Adverb

hindi

  1. not
[edit]

Related terms

[edit]

Turkish

[edit]

Etymology

From Persian "Hindustan", India.

[edit]

Noun

hindi

  1. a turkey.
[edit]

Persian

[edit]

Noun

See هندي (Hendi)

de:Hindi fr:Hindi gu:hindi hi:hindi nl:Hindi

Retrieved from "http://www.kristos.us/vocab/Hindi"

wrf3@stablecross.com wrote:

>> In the way I mean here, "no". The unforgivable sin is to
>> reject what the Holy Spirit has convicted one of.
>
> Can one be convicted that Jesus died for one's sins and rose from the
> dead, and yet not be convicted of other doctrinal points?

The question misses the point a bit. The _only_ message the
Holy Spirit carries is "Jesus Christ and Him crucified."
All doctrine flows out of this and any doctrine which
contradicts this is heretical.


>> And what the Holy Spirit convicts one of is the Gospel. The doctrine
>> of the Trinity isn't just a sort of philosophical conclusion, but _an
>> expression of the Gospel_.
>
> That's what you need to prove. I made a brief attempt in another
> thread, but I'm still not convinced, because I don't think that we are
> saved by our having a correct understanding of doctrine.

I didn't use the words "correct understanding of doctrine."
It's easy to pooh-pooh the idea of a pedant who is overly
attached to the letter of sophisticated doctrine. But
that is not the picture here. When Scripture speaks of
"the faith", then it is speaking of doctrine. And we're
not so concerned with head-knowledge but instead the
conviction of one's heart. Certainly head knowledge must
follow the heart and inform the heart, but it is the
heart which "holds" the faith (or doctrine.) People aren't
converted because they are logically argued into a corner,
but rather because the Word has been preached to them and
the Holy Spirit changes their heart with it.

And infant can hold the doctrine in this sense (and this is
the sense in the Nicene Creed.)

Proving: If we present the doctrine of the Trinity as
"here's a list of statements you must subscribe to" then
we've got the cart in front of the horse. The Gospel is
comfort and the doctrine of the Trinity preaches that
comfort. It says that Jesus has a divine nature (hurrah!)
and a human nature (huzzah!) It's not a doctrine for our
understanding but for our joy.

This doesn't mean the doctrine is mysterious or hard to
understand, but only that cognition is not its purpose.
We tell about God for only one purpose, and that is
to spread the Gospel to hungry souls.


> The Pharisees used their claim to deny that Jesus died for their sins
> and that He rose again. I don't see the Trinity deniers doing this,
> so I don't think the cases are parallel.

I'm thinking of John 8. In verse 28 Jesus says they will _know_
that He is who He says He is. _Knowing_, they deny. This
is the unforgivable sin. "If you deny Me before men, I will
deny you before My Father."

Doesn't JW doctrine deny that Jesus is Who He says He is?


>> This is again (at least partly) a quibble on the word "hold". In the
>> Nicene Creed, this "hold" is a matter of the heart, more than of the
>> mind.
>
> An irrelevant distinction, IMO, unless you have an argument to the
> contrary.

I tried to say something about this above. Demons believe the
DoT is true, but it doesn't avail them. "Hold" means something
different here.


>> Further, the worry is that a bit of incorrect doctrine will grow up
>> to become full-blown denial.
>
> You can't say someone isn't redeemed because of the worry of some
> future possibility that may never happen.

I haven't.


>> And such denial certainly damns. Fortunately, most of us die before
>> the heresy completely destroys us.
>
> Huh? You have the case of 'dieing in a state of heresy, which damns'
> and 'dieing before being completely destroyed'.

Those aren't my words. It is vitally important that the Church
not teach heresy, and that little bits of heresy be guarded
against and rooted out quickly. It's quite another thing
to worry about individuals' hearts. Silly old women have all
sorts of nonsense flitting about their brains. If they know
Who their Father is, that's as sufficient for them as for
it is for infants.



>> > I would claim that all of us, to some degree or another, worship a
>> > false God.
>>
>> I agree with this in the sense you mean. But even if we don't
>> have a clear picture of Who and What Jesus is, it is Him we
>> worship and from Him we expect all good things.
>
> So? A false image is still a false image, even if one is better than
> another.

You're playing with "false image". A false idol is something
which is not God. A "false image" (here) is someone's incorrect
view of the True God. Worshipping a false god can't save a person.
Neither Allah, nor Zeus, nor any other god which is not the
Trinity can save. A blurry or incomplete picture of the True
God is a far cry from an entirely different God altogether.
(Refer to my example of a child and its parent.)


>> JW's don't know God, because they worship a different god.
>> And BB agrees, since he keeps calling us "pagans".
>
> And "we" (you and Matthew) keep calling him names, too.

(I'm just playing with him. Whenever he displays bigotry,
I lob his own sentence back at him with the words switched
around. If he complains about long posts, I give it back
to him. It could be that someday he'll blink and my
amusement will be over. Meanwhile...)

The point here is not "He's been calling us names", but
that he agrees that we worship different gods. He says
the Trinity is pagan. He doesn't believe that the Trinity
is just a blurry picture of the True God, but is, in fact,
a different God. He has as least this clear and correct.


>> Isaiah called God our Redeemer. Arius had no argument against
>> that.
>
> I don't see why not. God is our Redeemeer who redeemed us through
> Jesus.

Then Jesus is our Redeemer. _Jesus_ is the one Who paid the price.
Our redemption cost Jesus everything and God nothing. Heck,
He could snap His fingers and create a bagoogazillion Jesus's
with no more cost or effort than it took Him to create
a rock. (Sorry about using a technical math term.) One
has to wonder why He bothered. He could have just as easily
snapped His fingers and erased our sin. That, at least, would
help Him seem like our Redeemer, since it would have been an
act of plain forgiveness. Instead, the JW picture is that
God wants to fogive us, but for some reason won't until
He creates a sacrifice and then kills it. That's hardly
being "our Redeemer".

The Crucifixion show us how much our sin hurt _God_, because
it is God hurting and God is our Redeemer.


> I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I would bet that BB would
> say that Jesus is his Savior. But it seems you would claim that this
> isn't a high enough level, contradicting your statement that our
> apprehension doesn't have to attain to a level.

It's not the misapprehension, but that which causes the
misapprehension. As always, works of the law follow faith,
and not vv.


> If I were to argue the Arian position, I would say that God saved me
> though Jesus my Savior, and that God redeemed me through my redeemer
> Jesus. I may be confused, I may be logically incoherent -- but you
> cannot claim (IMO) that this damns. Otherwise you make salvation
> dependent upon some quality within man. Sure you want to go there?

I think this has been covered. A person's confession flows out
of his faith. It's not the confession, but what caused the
confession which is important here. Why does an Arian deny
the Godhood of Jesus? At heart, it's because he doesn't trust
God to save him, but needs to rely on himself.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Navigation

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

What links here
PVC abbreviation an abbreviation for a material called '' polyvinyl chloride ''. :''Did you use PVC pipe for the plumbing?'' : Translations : Dutch : PVC