Someone recently stated he knew the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus. That raises an interesting question. How can a person go about establishing those "genuine attitudes"? In other words, what distinguishes genuine attitudes from non-genuine attitudes?

Someone recently stated he knew the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus. That raises an interesting question. How can a person go about establishing those "genuine attitudes"? In other words, what distinguishes genuine attitudes from non-genuine attitudes?

The best way to distinguish what Jesus really said from what others say he said is to examine the Gospels.

Matthew says to love your enemy. He also says that hell is a place of eternal punishment for bad guys - that is the traditional position of Matthew on the subject of hell. How can Matthew's Jesus believe in loving your enemy and punishing that enemy with the most horrible of punishments? The two contradict each other.

Many believers deny the contradiction. They will offer arguments that both are possible, but in the end, it's obvious both can't be true.

Which position most represents the attitude of Jesus?

Which position most represents the attitude of Jesus?You've answered the question with a question. Do you have an answer?

Perhaps my question was too vague. Aside from a person's own personal assumptions and prejudices, how can a person pick out the genuine from the non-genuine? Why should we accept that the words of Jesus about loving your enemy are the actually genuine words, while the words about judgment are not?

If I offer my enemy a life rope and he refuses it, should I be considered unloving?

You've answered the question with a question. Do you have an answer?

Perhaps my question was too vague. Aside from a person's own personal assumptions and prejudices, how can a person pick out the genuine from the non-genuine? Why should we accept that the words of Jesus about loving your enemy are the actually genuine words, while the words about judgment are not?

If I offer my enemy a life rope and he refuses it, should I be considered unloving?

An examination of the Gospels shows that Jesus' message was overwhelmingly about compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness. This is true of his parables and the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount and the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, etc.

Even dying on the cross, Jesus could have summoned legions of angels to save him but instead he asked his father to “forgive them for they know not what they do”.

These attitudes of Jesus far outnumber descriptions like Matthew's Jesus sending people to hell for eternal punishment and they are why the associated passages are genuine.

I don't think that's true. Just in the Sermon on the Mount passage in Mt. 5 alone there are multiple references to hell and judgment. For instance:


20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

21 “You have heard that [k (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23256k)]the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be [l (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23256l)]liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be [m (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257m)]guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘[n (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257n)]You good-for-nothing,’ shall be [o (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257o)]guilty before [p (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257p)]the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be [q (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257q)]guilty enough to go into the [r (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257r)]fiery hell. 23 Therefore if you are presenting your [s (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23258s)]offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your [t (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23259t)]offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your [u (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23259u)]offering.

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye makes you [w (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23264w)]stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you [x (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23264x)]to lose one of the parts of your body, [y (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23264y)]than for your whole body to be thrown into [z (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23264z)]hell. 30 If your right hand makes you [aa (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23265aa)]stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you [ab (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23265ab)]to lose one of the parts of your body, [ac (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23265ac)]than for your whole body to go into [ad (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23265ad)]hell.

There are also a number of verses there that place pretty exacting standards upon our personal behavior, and where Jesus labels some things as "evil".


31 “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who [ae (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23267ae)]divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a [af (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23267af)]divorced woman commits adultery.

33 “Again, you have heard that [ag (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23268ag)]the ancients were told, ‘[ah (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23268ah)]You shall not [ai (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23268ai)]make false vows, but shall fulfill your [aj (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23268aj)]vows to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or [ak (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23270ak)]by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is [al (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23272al)]of evil.

There are literally dozens of places in the Gospels where Jesus references judgment and/or hell. Many of the parables reference a coming judgment. http://blog.adw.org/2017/11/parables-jesus-day-judgment-need-ready/

As to the cross, it is evident that only one of the two thieves were saved and assured of a place in paradise with Jesus.

It's possible that your conclusion about the reader having to accept one teaching OR the other is not correct.

Why would Jesus representing God send his own creation to eternal horrific punishment in a fiery hell knowing beforehand that his own creation would become a murderer or an adulterer? It doesn't make sense if you think of God as a loving and just God.

Your idea of God then becomes a monster delighting in the suffering of his creatures. Better for the hell-destined not to have been created in the first place. Yet God, with his perfect foreknowledge that X would go to hell, created X anyway. No, it makes no sense.

These attitudes of Jesus far outnumber descriptions like Matthew's Jesus sending people to hell for eternal punishment and they are why the associated passages are genuine.
And why would Matthew et al. (and even Jesus?) want people to go to hell for everlasting punishment?

And why would Matthew et al. (and even Jesus?) want people to go to hell for everlasting punishment?Where does it say He wants that?


Why would Jesus representing God send his own creation to eternal horrific punishment in a fiery hell knowing beforehand that his own creation would become a murderer or an adulterer? It doesn't make sense if you think of God as a loving and just God.If God is loving and just, then why would He allow people to live who were going to become murderers and adulterers? Think of all the pain those people have caused. Why didn't God stop that? And how could God be "just" if He just allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity?


Your idea of God then becomes a monster delighting in the suffering of his creatures. Better for the hell-destined not to have been created in the first place. Yet God, with his perfect foreknowledge that X would go to hell, created X anyway. No, it makes no sense.Because everyone has free will. We make our own choices. Here is Paul's answer to your question from Romans 9. "20But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?.' "

You did not reply to the fact that your standard of Jesus using parables and the sermon on the Mount to be, "overwhelmingly about compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness," was, in fact, not true.

WG: And why would Matthew et al. (and even Jesus?) want people to go to hell for everlasting punishment?

JL: Where does it say He wants that?

WG: In many of your posts.


If God is loving and just, then why would He allow people to live who were going to become murderers and adulterers? Think of all the pain those people have caused. Why didn't God stop that? And how could God be "just" if He just allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity?
As you yourself said in the same post: "Because everyone has free will. We make our own choices."

WG: And why would Matthew et al. (and even Jesus?) want people to go to hell for everlasting punishment?

JL: Where does it say He wants that?

WG: In many of your posts.Totally untrue. And that tactic of yours to just make it up as you go along gets old after a while.


As you yourself said in the same post: "Because everyone has free will. We make our own choices."And your point is?

Totally untrue. And that tactic of yours to just make it up as you go along gets old after a while.
You've often quoted Bible verses that speak of the punishment of hell and eternal damnation.

And you have free will to descend into insults snd nastiness.

And your point is?
In answer to your "If God is loving and just, then why would He allow people to live who were going to become murderers and adulterers? Think of all the pain those people have caused. Why didn't God stop that? And how could God be "just" if He just allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity?"

And you have free will to descend into insults snd nastiness.Oh please. You tell a tall tale and then you want to act like you're offended. Good grief. No one offended you and no one was nasty to you.


In answer to your "If God is loving and just, then why would He allow people to live who were going to become murderers and adulterers? Think of all the pain those people have caused. Why didn't God stop that? And how could God be "just" if He just allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity?"Which was exactly the answer I gave to the point Athos made. Please keep up.

Oh please. You tell a tall tale and then you want to act like you're offended. Good grief. No one offended you and no one was nasty to you.
This was entirely inappropriate and uncalled for: "And that tactic of yours to just make it up as you go along gets old after a while."

This was entirely inappropriate and uncalled for: "And that tactic of yours to just make it up as you go along gets old after a while."It was completely called for since it was completely what you had just done. I have never posted that Matthew or anyone else wanted people to go to hell. You just made it up out of whole cloth.

But if that's not the case, then show me where I have said that and I will certainly retract my statement.

It was completely called for since it was completely what you had just done. I have never posted that Matthew or anyone else wanted people to go to hell. You just made it up out of whole cloth.

But if that's not the case, then show me where I have said that and I will certainly retract my statement.
You've often quoted Matthew 25, specifically:

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Where in there does it say He wants those people to die and go to hell?

Where in there does it say He wants those people to die and go to hell?
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment"

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment"Where does it say He WANTS that to happen? Or that "Matthew et al." wanted it to happen? Answer: It doesn't.

We are getting off topic. I asked how any of you could determine the "genuine attitudes" of Christ such that you could throw out the non-genuine attitudes. The answer Athos gave was shown to be questionable at best. So I'd still like to see any reliable standard that can be applied to determine, objectively, if it is genuine or not.

If God is loving and just, then why would He allow people to live who were going to become murderers and adulterers? Think of all the pain those people have caused. Why didn't God stop that? And how could God be "just" if He just allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity?

God has NOT "allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity". There are consequences for breaking laws - whether God's or not God's. What is being discussed here is the penalty of eternal punishment in hell for law-breakers. No infraction of any law justifies such a drastic punishment. The punishment does not fit the crime.



We make our own choices. Here is Paul's answer to your question from Romans 9. "20But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?.' "

Nowhere in your quote does Paul say the punishment for "talking back to God" is to spend eternity in a fiery pit.


You did not reply to the fact that your standard of Jesus using parables and the sermon on the Mount to be, "overwhelmingly about compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness," was, in fact, not true.

If you will read the Gospels you will find that the qualities I mentioned ARE true. I have never heard anyone deny that except you. Why you are promoting such an untrue position is a mystery.

We are getting off topic. I asked how any of you could determine the "genuine attitudes" of Christ such that you could throw out the non-genuine attitudes. The answer Athos gave was shown to be questionable at best.

Your question was answered. Your objections to a loving and just God have been noted. You may believe what you want. However, my answer was not questionable simply because you say so. Your reasons did not address the question - they only presented a contrary view, which is your right to do but don't expect that view to be accepted because you say so.

Also noted is that you never addressed the primary point of the creator damning his own creation to eternal punishment. Free will is NOT the answer.

Where does it say He WANTS that to happen? Or that "Matthew et al." wanted it to happen? Answer: It doesn't.

We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen. Why else would write those words? Not everything has to be written down in order to understand the implications - an idea that seems to have escaped you.

We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen. Why else would write those words? Not everything has to be written down in order to understand the implications - an idea that seems to have escaped you.What is it you were saying earlier about beliefs not equating to evidence? How much less an assumption based, it would seem, on personal preferences?

So my reply remains true. It does not say anyone "wanted" it to happen. In fact I would think that if Jesus really "wanted" people to go to hell, He would simply have not mentioned it. His warning pretty clearly indicates He is advising us to avoid it.

You still need a standard a person can use to distinguish genuine from non-genuine. If, that is, such distinctions should be made to begin with. I think you have an enormous problem in that there is not a manuscript of a NT Gospel which is absent of the statements you consider to be non-genuine. If they were added later, you would have early manuscripts not containing them.

What is it you were saying earlier about beliefs not equating to evidence? How much less an assumption based, it would seem, on personal preferences?

I never said Matthew's words were evidence. You are moving the goalposts. What I DID say was that the assumption (strong) was clearly implied. The assumption is not ("it would seem") based on "personal preferences". It is based on the several reasons I have already given on the topic.


So my reply remains true. It does not say anyone "wanted" it to happen.

You did not understand my point that not everything has to be written down to be true. That explains why you mistakenly believe that your reply "remains true". That's important for you to understand so you can avoid making the mistake ongoing.


You still need a standard a person can use to distinguish genuine from non-genuine.

The standard is employing a rational approach to a problem and applying it. That is a common standard.


If, that is, such distinctions should be made to begin with.

Of course they can.


I think you have an enormous problem in that there is not manuscript of a NT Gospel which is absent of the statements you consider to be non-genuine.

The problem is not as enormous as you think. There are a number of earlier writings that do not contain later passages. If you carefully examine the Gospels, you will find them. Start your research with Mark. I won't taint your search by leading you to a website. That's for you to discover on your own.

If you demand I provide a link, you will refuse to go to it. If I don't provide a link, you will demand I provide one. So it's best for you to do the research on your own. If you decide not to, that is your privilege.


If they were added later, you would have early manuscripts not containing them.

ALL of the early manuscripts omit passages that are found later in the Gospels. That's how it works. Not until centuries later do we possess complete manuscripts in what has become their final form. I trust that's not news to you.

The standard is employing a rational approach to a problem and applying it. That is a common standard.Except that your rational approach has already been shown to be not rational.

You said, "We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen." That is merely a belief of yours and a weak one at that since there is not a shred of evidence to support it.


ALL of the early manuscripts omit passages that are found later in the Gospels.First of all, that is basically not true. Secondly, even if it was, the early omissions would have to be the statements you consider to be non-genuine. You have certainly not demonstrated that to be the case at all, nor will you be able to. If it was true, it would be one of the most well-known manuscript facts.

I have no intention of doing your research for you. But if what you are saying is true, then you will have no problem in documenting it. The passages of the NT that are in question are pretty well known. They include the latter part of Mark 16 and the story of the adulterous woman in John 8. They do not, however, include what you are alleging.

Except that your rational approach has already been shown to be not rational.

No one, especially you, has shown anything I wrote to be non-rational.


You said, "We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen." That is merely a belief of yours and a weak one at that since there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

That is what an assumption is - a belief. There is plenty to support the assumption - the passage has already been quoted. Why would the author of Matthew write it if he didn't believe it? You're not making any sense by defending a weak position..


First of all, that is basically not true.

It is decidedly true.


the early omissions would have to be the statements you consider to be non-genuine.

Not at all. The principle remains the same regardless of the statements employed to demonstrate it.


You have certainly not demonstrated that to be the case at all, nor will you be able to.

I HAVE demonstrated it to be true. It is a simple matter. Your refusal to see the obvious is your privilege.


If it was true, it would be one of the most well-known manuscript facts.

As a matter of definite fact, it IS one of the most well-known facts re the manuscripts. You are denying the obvious. You may have whatever belief you want, but you CANNOT have your own facts.


I have no intention of doing your research for you.

As I took pains to point out, the needed research is for YOU. And, as I also pointed out - whatever I say, you would say the opposite. That prediction has been right on target!


But if what you are saying is true, then you will have no problem in documenting it.

I don't have any problem documenting it. The point is for YOU to do your work and uncover it yourself. It's not very difficult, but does take some effort, which you are apparently not willing to do. Your response to research remains as it always has. "Tell me and I won't believe you". OR, "Don't tell me and I will demand you document it". You're very predictable.


The passages of the NT that are in question are pretty well known.

Not to you.


They include the latter part of Mark 16 and the story of the adulterous woman in John 8. They do not, however, include what you are alleging.

There is much, much more. Seek and you shall find.

That is what an assumption is - a belief. There is plenty to support the assumption - the passage has already been quoted. Why would the author of Matthew write it if he didn't believe it? You're not making any sense by defending a weak position..The question was not whether he believed it. The question was whether or not he wanted it to happen. Even you said that. Post 21. There is no evidence at all for that. And please stop copying my comments. Make up your own. The compliment of being imitated, however, is appreciated.


Not at all. The principle remains the same regardless of the statements employed to demonstrate it.That's ridiculous. Unless you could demonstrate that your non-genuine statements were missing from the early manuscripts, you would have nothing.


I HAVE demonstrated it to be true. It is a simple matter. Your refusal to see the obvious is your privilege.You have demonstrated nothing to be true.


As a matter of definite fact, it IS one of the most well-known facts re the manuscripts. You are denying the obvious. You may have whatever belief you want, but you CANNOT have your own facts.Your difficulty is you cannot support that statement. It simply is not true that your so called non-genuine statements are missing from the early manuscripts. It's a preposterous idea.


I don't have any problem documenting it. Except, of course, that you can't.


No one, especially you, has shown anything I wrote to be non-rational.Of course I did. It was so conclusive you avoided replying to it. Post 4.

The question was not whether he believed it. The question was whether or not he wanted it to happen. Even you said that. Post 21. There is no evidence at all for that. And please stop copying my comments. Make up your own. The compliment of being imitated, however, is appreciated.

That's ridiculous. Unless you could demonstrate that your non-genuine statements were missing from the early manuscripts, you would have nothing.

You have demonstrated nothing to be true.

Your difficulty is you cannot support that statement. It simply is not true that your so called non-genuine statements are missing from the early manuscripts. It's a preposterous idea.

Except, of course, that you can't.

Of course I did. It was so conclusive you avoided replying to it. Post 4.


This entire post is so repetitive of what has already been said, it's tempting to just skip it.

One thing struck me – after I tried to teach you about proving a negative and that it can't be done, you yourself have used the same argument in another post and yet here again you revert and bring it up once more, again demanding I prove a negative. Apparently, whatever suits you at the moment is grist for your mill.

Two examples:

Unless you could demonstrate that your non-genuine statements were missing from the early manuscripts, you would have nothing.

And

It simply is not true that your so called non-genuine statements are missing from the early manuscripts. It's a preposterous idea.

Kind of blows your comment about imitation, doesn't it?

No idea what your last sentence refers to.


PS – You should never, never talk about evidence. It's another term you use only when it suits you. Talking snakes and comparing them to the resurrection belie your insistence on requiring evidence from others. Speaking about preposterous..... There, I imitated you again. Happy, now?

The silliness above needs no reply other than to say this. People prove negatives all the time. Being asked to produce a manuscript with text missing would certainly demonstrate that the text was not in the original documents. It's done all the time, so I think you don't understand the concept. Besides, providing a manuscript with the statements missing would be positive evidence that the statements are missing. So if a man is accused of slander and the defense produces a video of the conversation in question which proves that the supposed statement did not happen, then they are providing evidence concerning a negative.

To sum up, the question concerned how to distinguish the supposedly genuine attitudes of Jesus from the non-genuine. Here are the arguments put forward in response.

1. It was suggested that in the parables of Christ as well as the sermon on the mount a person sees an overwhelming preponderance of teaching on, "compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness." That was shown clearly to not be true simply by quoting from several places in the Sermon on the Mount where judgment and hell are referred to as well as other topics not pertaining to love and compassion. The same is plainly true of the parables. So that argument fell by the wayside.,

2. Next is the argument, actually first mentioned by me, that if "non-genuine" statements of Christ were added in later centuries, then those statements would be missing from the early manuscripts. That is clearly not the case, so argument 2 bit the dust.

3. A third argument alleged that beliefs in hell and in having a love of your enemy cannot both be true. Now first of all that is nonsense, but even if it wasn't, how would a person know which belief was genuine? Couldn't it be just as possibly true that the teaching on hell was genuine and not the love of enemy?

4. A final argument, and by far the worst, was the suggestion that Jesus and the disciples wanted people to go to hell. Even if it was true, it would not solve the problem of figuring out how to distinguish the genuine from the non-genuine, but it is clearly not true. First of all there is no evidence at all to support that idea. Even worse, the fact that Jesus issued so many warnings plainly indicates He was not willing to stand by and watch that happen without giving warning. In similar fashion, if my wife and I are driving along and see a sign which reads, "Speed Zone Ahead", and I say to her, "Wow! Those state highway people WANT me to get a speeding ticket," she is going to reply, "Don't be stupid. They are WARNING you to slow down so you will NOT get a ticket! If they wanted you to get a ticket, they would not put up the sign." So argument 4, which wasn't pertinent to begin with, also crashes and burns.

Why are hell and eternal damnation often mentioned (by early manuscript scribes?) as the punishment if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?

Why are hell and eternal damnation often mentioned (by early manuscript scribes?) as the punishment if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?Are you suggesting they are not the words of Jesus but rather of the early scribes? If that's the case, then you need to provide some serious justification for saying that. That's what this thread is about to begin with.

Why are hell and eternal damnation often mentioned by Jesus as the punishment if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?

if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?It is not for not showing love. It is judgment for sin.

I'm glad you do acknowledge it is "often mentioned" by Jesus.

Not showing love is sin. Every sin we commit is because we aren't showing love somehow.

Every sin we commit is because we aren't showing love somehow.That's not a bad point, but where does pride fit into your principle? Or how about these, and especially the last one? "lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 (http://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-3.htm)heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 (http://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-4.htm)treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 (http://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-5.htm)having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people."

1. lovers of self - lack of love for others
2. lovers of money - greed, lack of love for others
3. proud - preoccupation with oneself, lack of love for others
4. arrogant - having an exaggerated sense of one's importance, lack of love for others
5. abusive - physically and/or emotionally hurting others, lack of love for others
6. disobedient to their parents - lack of love for one's parents
7. ungrateful - inability to appreciate what others do for you, lack of love for others
8. unholy - sinful in itself, lack of love for others
9. heartless - having no sympathy and/or empathy, lack of love for others
10. unappeasable - inflexible, lack of love for others and their pov
11. slanderous - saying derogatory things about others, lack of love for others
12. without self-control - overindulgent for oneself, lack of love for others
13. brutal - merciless, lack of love for others
14. not loving good - sees only the evil, lack of love for others
15. treacherous - disloyal to and turns against others, lack of love for others
16. reckless - no concern for others' safety and irresponsible, lack of love for others
17. swollen with conceit - in love with oneself, lack of love for others
18. lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - lack of love for others AND God
19. having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power - acting religious and putting on a facade, lacking in love for others

Kind of interesting how you managed to make EVERYTHING end with "lack of love". Still, your point is well taken. Lack of love for others and lack of love for God is the basis of our sin.

John 13:
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Matthew 22:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Romans 2

But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

BTW that was not aimed at you individually.

And what was Paul's (or Barnabas') REAL intent?

John 14:15“If you love me, keep my commands."


And what was Paul's REAL intent?And what was the real intent of Jesus?

We can play this silly game a long time. Or I should say "You" can play this game a long time. I have no intention of doing so. It's another of your strategies. Don't like the plain and clear meaning of a text? Just ask what the REAL intent is.

I'm sure you mean no harm. I just don't like games, so I'd rather you talk with others. I find it too frustrating.

I hadn't realized it was a silly game. Both my heart and soul have been involved in it, hoping for a lively discussion. Okay, I'll post no more in this thread.

Fair enough. We don't seem to play well together anyway. I'm sure a good deal of the fault lies with me.

1. So that argument fell by the wayside.,

2. argument 2 bit the dust.

3. First of all, that is nonsense.

4. argument 4 also crashes and burns.

Your "arguments" completely miss the message of Jesus. You wind up, in effect, promoting eternal punishment over the saving message of love. I have a good idea WHY you act in this way, but I've noted it many times before and I don't think it serves any purpose to do it again.

I can only advise you to again read what you've written in placing hell over heaven (so to speak - but you probably won't understand that), and then read the Gospels in an attempt to get the real message (you might want to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance).

I'm quite sure you won't take my advice, but good luck anyway.

Your "arguments" completely miss the message of Jesus. You wind up, in effect, promoting eternal punishment over the saving message of love. I have a good idea WHY you act in this way, but I've noted it many times before and I don't think it serves any purpose to do it againIn this thread I have responded to your points, but I haven't advanced an argument or promoted any message. I simply asked how you felt you could determine the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus. As my summary above plainly shows , you have not been able to describe any logical method. I did have an objective in mind. I wanted to demonstrate to any reader here, and hopefully to you as well, that you are using nothing more substantial than your own intuition and prejudices about the matter. That certainly would appear to be true.

Jesus' "genuine attitudes", core values:


1. Do the right thing for the right reasons - Matthew 6:1-4, 5-8
2. Follow God's agenda, not one's own - Matthew 6:9-13
3. Forgive others - Matthew 6:14-15
4. Prioritize eternal things, not temporal ones - Matthew 6:19-24
5. Do not worry - Matthew 6:25-31
6. Seek the kingdom first - Matthew 6:33-34
7. Do not judge others - Matthew 7:1-5
8. If you want something, keep asking - Matthew 7:7-11
9. Stay true to your convictions - Matthew 7:13- 20
10. Obey God - Matthew 7:21-27
11. Show love to others - John 15:12

How do you know they are the "core values" of His "genuine attitudes"?

Why didn't these passages from Mt. 5 make your list?

20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

21 “You have heard that [k (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23256k)]the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be [l (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23256l)]liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be [m (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257m)]guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘[n (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257n)]You good-for-nothing,’ shall be [o (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257o)]guilty before [p (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257p)]the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be [q (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257q)]guilty enough to go into the [r (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23257r)]fiery hell. 23 Therefore if you are presenting your [s (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23258s)]offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your [t (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23259t)]offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your [u (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23259u)]offering.

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye makes you [w (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23264w)]stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you [x (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23264x)]to lose one of the parts of your body, [y (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23264y)]than for your whole body to be thrown into [z (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23264z)]hell. 30 If your right hand makes you [aa (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23265aa)]stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you [ab (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23265ab)]to lose one of the parts of your body, [ac (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23265ac)]than for your whole body to go into [ad (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23265ad)]hell.


33 “Again, you have heard that [ag (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23268ag)]the ancients were told, ‘[ah (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23268ah)]You shall not [ai (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23268ai)]make false vows, but shall fulfill your [aj (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23268aj)]vows to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or [ak (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23270ak)]by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is [al (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23272al)]of evil.

When I asked a question, you kicked me and said we were playing a "silly game" (yet I was excited because our posts were crisp and clean and not inundated with verbiage). Is there any way to please you?

As I posted earlier in this thread, "Not showing love is sin. Every sin we commit is because we aren't showing love somehow." None of us show love consistently, all the time. Why is that failing a ticket to eternal damnation?

If you don't want to answer, then that's fine. Your choice.

But you might want to go back an look at the question that started this whole thread and see how that might apply to your post.

Thus, I can never give a complete response. There will always be something missing or incorrect, according to you. My responses will never be good enough for you.

I really can't put it any nicer or more accurately than this.

If you don't want to answer, then that's fine. Your choice, but you might want to go back and look at the question that started this whole thread and see how that might apply to your post.

I'll add this. It's not about conclusions. It's about the method you use to arrive at that conclusion. That's why I asked you, "How do you know they are the 'core values' of His 'genuine attitudes?'" It's not a mean question. It addresses the core question of this thread.

"How do you know they are the 'core values' of His 'genuine attitudes?'" It's not a mean question. It addresses the core question of this thread.
You didn't see the Bible reference after each one?

An assortment of scriptures is not a methodology. Why, for instance, did you not include the Mt. 5 scriptures? Why not the Mt. 25 passage?

An assortment of scriptures is not a methodology. Why, for instance, did you not include the Mt. 5 scriptures? Why not the Mt. 25 passage?
Methodology...right. And your questions make no sense.

I tried to avoid this descent into mischief. And why are you "allowed" to ask questions but I'm not?

Because you refuse to answer questions.

Because you refuse to answer questions.
Then why do you ask them?

Hope springs eternal?

Hope springs eternal?
Why don't you answer mine?

Which one?

Which one?
Post #39.

I had posted this text. "But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God."

You then asked this suitably mysterious question, "And what was Paul's (or Barnabas') REAL intent?" So here's my answer. I think it is beyond dispute that he meant that because of their stubbornness and unrepentant hearts, they were storing up wrath for themselves in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God."

BTW, no serious person thinks there is any possibility that Barnabas wrote the book of Romans. Barnabas was not associated with Paul at the time this book was written. You really should have known that.

Now, what was the method you employed to determine what you claimed to be the "core values" or the "genuine attitudes" of Christ?

The author's intent was to scare the pants off the reader so that person would give up ungodly ways. Much like a parent who scolds a child for clumsiness or sloppiness with the threat, "If you don't start shaping up and do better than this, you'll end up in hell!"

It doesn’t say that in any way.

I leave it with you. Not interested in this type of "discussion".

I leave it with you. Not interested in this type of "discussion".
Sure it does fit. "you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God."

What's wrong with this discussion? I have a young friend whose Christian parents scold him and threaten him with hellfire because of his clumsiness. (He has Asperger's.) They feel justified because the Bible is on their side.

You are portraying Paul as a pitiful, lying manipulator on the level of the sorry parents you mentioned. I guess that for someone who proposes that Naomi and Ruth were lesbian lovers, perhaps that conclusion comes without much difficulty.

It's always the same situation. You don't like what Paul said so you have to come up with some scheme to change the meaning of his words. Your political and social persuasions trump the Bible. It's why you feel no need to change the Matthew texts you listed above. After all, they agree with your religious prejudices. You are completely unwilling to accept the clear message of much of the Bible, and it's why I don't like these discussions. Run into a scripture you don't like? Well, just morph it into meaning something completely and illogically different. It's a fear-driven, irrational approach which I don't believe I've ever seen before and which I care for none at all. And before you start complaining about meanness, try considering what I've said and see if it's true. There is no intent of meanness, but just of concerned honesty.

I can only hope you see the error of your approach while you still have time.

That was the way of the ancients. Read Greek and Roman and Egyptian mythology. The penalty for wrongdoing was very dire, even death and oblivion. The Hebrews and israelites fell into line with that idea.

In this thread I have responded to your points, but I haven't advanced an argument

By responding to another's points, that is called making an argument.


I simply asked how you felt you could determine the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus.

Simply by reading the Gospels. It's not rocket science, but it does require some discernment.


As my summary above plainly shows , you have not been able to describe any logical method.

Your summary completely omitted the strongest logical argument of all. In the simplest terms possible, why would the Creator send his own creation to an unimaginably horrific hell for eternal torture? Why, in any world of common sense or LOGIC, would the Creator do such a horrendously evil thing? Even given the created one "sins" or disbelieves or some other infraction of your imagination, nothing could justify such a deed. A punishment in this life, a punishment in the next life that is temporary - those are logical conclusions, even tho' they are also subject to argument. But Hell as described in the Bible and as Christians have come to believe it based on Dante and others is not remotely a possibility.


you are using nothing more substantial than your own intuition and prejudices about the matter.

I've got news for you, pay attention. Our own intuition, even our prejudices if true, are part of the God-given wisdom factory we ALL have been given. It includes our brains, our experiences, our feelings, our judgements, and yes, our intuitions and biases. Your own reading of the Bible does not enter into a blank slate, it is subject to all those qualities and more that I have outlined.

That is what it means to be a thinking human being. As much as you want to get away from that fact, you can't. To continually blame me and others for using our brains to understand the Bible (or anything else for that matter) is an assertion without merit. It makes no sense at all since it can't be done.

I've got news for you, pay attention. Our own intuition, even our prejudices if true, are part of the God-given wisdom factory we ALL have been given.Says you.


But Hell as described in the BibleYou are finally starting to come around. Now you can say, if you want, that it makes no sense to you, but you cannot say it is not found in the Bible. And to discount it because you can't understand it is not an argument that is compelling. Truthfully, that is really your objection. The concepts of judgment and hell, found in many places in the Bible, are repugnant and nonsensical to you, and so you discount them on the basis of your own sensibilities. There is no other reason.


To continually blame me and others for using our brains to understand the Bible (or anything else for that matter) is an assertion without merit. It makes no sense at all since it can't be done.If I had done that then I would agree with you, but I haven't done any such thing. I simply asked you to use your brain to describe how you could arrive at the "genuine attitudes" of Christ. You have been unable to provide any logical method by which you were able to reach your conclusions. To say, "Simply by reading the Gospels," is a foolish reply. Many, many intelligent people have spent their lives reading and studying the Gospels and reached completely different conclusions than yours, so that clearly is not a solution.

I'll stick with what I posted earlier.


People prove negatives all the time. Being asked to produce an early manuscript with text missing would certainly demonstrate that the text was not in the original documents. It's done all the time, so I think you don't understand the concept. Besides, providing a manuscript with the statements missing would be positive evidence that the statements are missing. So if a man is accused of slander and the defense produces a video of the conversation in question which proves that the supposed statement did not happen, then they are providing evidence concerning a negative.

To sum up, the question concerned how to distinguish the supposedly genuine attitudes of Jesus from the non-genuine. Here are the arguments put forward in response.

1. It was suggested that in the parables of Christ, as well as the Sermon on the Mount, a person sees an overwhelming preponderance of teaching on, "compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness." That was shown clearly to not be true simply by quoting from several places in the Sermon on the Mount where judgment and hell are referred to as well as other topics not pertaining to love and compassion. The same is plainly true of the parables. So that argument fell by the wayside.

2. Next is the argument, actually first mentioned by me, that if "non-genuine" statements of Christ were added in later centuries, then those statements would be missing from the early manuscripts. That is clearly not the case, so argument 2 bit the dust.

3. A third argument alleged that beliefs in hell and in having a love of your enemy cannot both be true. Now first of all that is nonsense, but even if it wasn't, how would a person know which belief was genuine? Couldn't it be just as possibly true that the teaching on hell was genuine and not the love of enemy? (Note: I'm not suggesting that's the case. I accept both and see no reason not to.)

4. A final argument, and by far the worst, was the suggestion that Jesus and the disciples wanted people to go to hell. Even if it was true, it would not solve the problem of figuring out how to distinguish the genuine from the non-genuine, but it is clearly not true. First of all there is no evidence at all to support that idea. Even worse, the fact that Jesus issued so many warnings plainly indicates He was not willing to stand by and watch that happen without giving warning. In similar fashion, if my wife and I are driving along and see a sign which reads, "Speed Zone Ahead", and I say to her, "Wow! Those state highway people WANT me to get a speeding ticket," she is going to reply, "Don't be stupid. They are WARNING you to slow down so you will NOT get a ticket! If they wanted you to get a ticket, they would not put up the sign." So argument 4, which wasn't pertinent to begin with, also crashes and burns.

One other argument has been put forward. It has been suggested that the text simply doesn't mean what it says. To adopt that position renders all of the Bible to be without meaning. One person might say that agape means unconditional love while another person could say the writer was actually talking about the love of ice cream and a third person could say the author was REALLY referring to racial hatred. And even the very statement that, "The text does not mean what it says," could be taken to REALLY mean, "The text DOES mean what it says." It also falls by the wayside.

The concepts of judgment and hell, found in many places in the Bible, are repugnant and nonsensical to you, and so you discount them on the basis of your own sensibilities. There is no other reason.

I discount them because they ARE repugnant and nonsensical. Who in their right mind thinks they are NOT repugnant and nonsensical? What other reason do you want? You believe in them because they are written in a book. Who has the better reason?


If I had done that then I would agree with you, but I haven't done any such thing.

You have consistently accused me and others of using our brains instead of believing in the Bible. You use different language but that is essentially what you charge us with.


I simply asked you to use your brain to describe how you could arrive at the "genuine attitudes" of Christ. You have been unable to provide any logical method by which you were able to reach your conclusions.

I gave you the best logical argument you will ever hear - the relationship of the Creator with his creature. Bible stories pale in comparison to the logic presented, the Bible being a document of persuasive love and not a philosophical statement.


To say, "Simply by reading the Gospels," is a foolish reply.

It is the definitive reply to your confusion. Thinking it is a "foolish reply" says volumes about you.


Many, many intelligent people have spent their lives reading and studying the Gospels and reached completely different conclusions than yours.

True believers will rarely examine their religions. Religions are accepted without question, or very minor questions, by adherents. It's the nature of religion. Historically, you will find that most religions fade over time and ultimately concentrate at their core when that core guides adherents to ethical and decent life styles. When the religion never reaches that essential core, it disappears entirely.


One other argument has been put forward. It has been suggested that the text simply doesn't mean what it says. To adopt that position renders all of the Bible to be without meaning.

Wrong again! Adopting that position renders SOME of the Bible to be incorrectly understood. Outside of true believers, you won't find many in this day and age who believe every jot and tittle written in the Bible. Very few believe in talking snakes as you do.


One person might say that agape means unconditional love while another person could say the writer was actually talking about the love of ice cream and a third person could say the author was REALLY referring to racial hatred.

That's why discussions take place - to get to the truth of a matter.

You have consistently accused me and others of using our brains instead of believing in the Bible. You use different language but that is essentially what you charge us with.Not really true. I have said that you are drawing conclusions from the Bible that are unwarranted. In other words, you are using your brain inefficiently. Consider, for instance, your continued idea about the supposed impossibility of proving a negative, an idea which has been completely refuted and is actually very easy to refute. Or your contention that you have some means of determining the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus, but being unable to describe any rational means of doing so other than reading the Gospels which is no solution at all as I show clearly below. My real contention is that you are forcing your own beliefs into the Bible. Your beliefs come from you, and not from the Bible. Perhaps we agree on that?


It is the definitive reply to your confusion. Thinking it is a "foolish reply" says volumes about you.It is foolish for the reason I gave you. Many millions of intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels over the centuries and reached different conclusions from yours. In fact the reading of the Gospels would result in many people completely disagreeing with you. You and I have read and studied the Gospels (I guess you have.) and yet have reached completely different positions.


True believers will rarely examine their religions. Religions are accepted without question, or very minor questions, by adherents. It's the nature of religion. Historically, you will find that most religions fade over time and ultimately concentrate at their core when that core guides adherents to ethical and decent life styles. When the religion never reaches that essential core, it disappears entirely.Do you get to decide what that "essential core" is, or what an "ethical and decent life style" is? Aren't we right back to the question I asked at the beginning?


Wrong again! Adopting that position renders SOME of the Bible to be incorrectly understood. Outside of true believers, you won't find many in this day and age who believe every jot and tittle written in the Bible. Very few believe in talking snakes as you do.You missed the point. The passage quoted from Romans was morphed into a meaning far removed from the clear intent of the text. It was on the level of me saying that your REAL meaning was that everyone believes in talking snakes.

Completely untrue. I have actually said your conclusions are illogical. It is foolish for the reason I gave you. Many intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels for decades and reached different conclusions. untrue.
You missed the point. The passage quoted from Romans was morphed into a meaning far removed from the clear intent of the text. It was on the level of me saying that your REAL meaning was that everyone believes in talking snakes.

None of this is worth replying to. Try again. Or try reasoned analysis instead of deny, deny, deny. You'll feel better.

None of this is worth replying to.I understand. You have no answers. This was especially troublesome for your position. "Many intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels for decades and reached different conclusions." There really is no rational answer you can give for that. I guess you could say, "All those millions of people are wrong and Athos is right."

This was also a real problem for you. "Do you get to decide what that "essential core" is, or what an "ethical and decent life style" is? Aren't we right back to the question I asked at the beginning?"

I understand. You have no answers.

More denial.

I gave you the best answers you will ever get. Denying them doesn't speak well for you.

But I understand why you deny them.

I gave you the best answers you will ever get.Then your case is lost.

It's funny to me that you somehow think that YOU have the "best answers" anyone could ever supply. I really doubt that. A little arrogant, perhaps?

Perhaps you missed this.

This was especially troublesome for your position. "Many intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels for decades and reached different conclusions." There really is no rational answer you can give for that. I guess you could say, "All those millions of people are wrong and Athos is right."

This was also a real problem for you. "Do you get to decide what that "essential core" is, or what an "ethical and decent life style" is? Aren't we right back to the question I asked at the beginning?"

g?"[/QUOTE]

"Many intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels for decades and reached different conclusions."
...far different conclusions from those of JL and his fellow literalists."

Reading between the lines, I know that WG actually means that she agrees with me completely.

Reading between the lines, I know that WG actually means that she agrees with me completely.
At times, you and I agree. But not all the time. (You're being sweet because you've missed arguing with me and want more fun than with just Athos, right?)

It's funny to me that you somehow think that YOU have the "best answers" anyone could ever supply.

What I said was -- I gave you the best logical argument you will ever hear - the relationship of the Creator with his creature. Bible stories pale in comparison to the logic presented, the Bible being a document of persuasive love and not a philosophical statement.

As usual, you have rephrased what I wrote so that the meaning is slightly changed. Don't you realize that others here see your attempted tricks and read you accordingly?


"Many intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels for decades and reached different conclusions.(than you - Athos - have)" There really is no rational answer you can give for that.

I gave you the best rational answer you will ever get. Since you don't seem to understand it, I'll try a second time to explain it.

All those millions who have read and studied the Gospels (and the Bible) came from a point of view of accepting the Gospels in advance. In other words, they brought a bias in favor of what was already presented in the Gospels. That can't be denied.

Only in modern times, have the Gospels began to be read and studied with a non-biased critical eye. Some have been Christians and some have been non-Christians.

The modern readings include many questions including the clearly absurd notion of a hell as described as infinite torture. This last I explained to you previously in my observation of the Creator and his creation which you have notably failed to answer.


This was also a real problem for you. "Do you get to decide what that "essential core" is, or what an "ethical and decent life style" is?

Lol. Not a problem at all. The essential core of religions is quite similar - living an ethical and decent life. The Golden Rule. Love your neighbor. I don't know why you consider that fact of life a mystery.


Aren't we right back to the question I asked at the beginning?

Yes. You always return to the beginning. You have no option but to do that. Repeating the same questions shows that you need answers again and again. The answers are starting to sink in and make you think. Little by little, when our beliefs (yours and mine) are challenged by the truth (ours), the truth has a way of nibbling away at the shell of untruth.

You can't even quote yourself accurately. This is what you said. "I gave you the best answers you will ever get." It is in post 74. You restate it in 80. "I gave you the best rational answer you will ever get." Good grief.


All those millions who have read and studied the Gospels (and the Bible) came from a point of view of accepting the Gospels in advance. In other words, they brought a bias in favor of what was already presented in the Gospels. That can't be denied.My my. How widespread your knowledge is that you know what MILLIONS of people have done. Could your conclusion also apply to you?


The modern readings include many questions including the clearly absurd notion of a hell as described as infinite torture.Oh? Where?


The Golden Rule. Love your neighbor. Oh yes. The parts of the Bible that you accept since they agree with your ideas.


Yes. You always return to the beginning. You have no option but to do that. Repeating the same questions shows that you need answers again and again. The answers are starting to sink in and make you think. Little by little, when our beliefs (yours and mine) are challenged by the truth (ours), the truth has a way of nibbling away at the shell of untruth.Some well thought out answers would be good to see for sure. But at least you have now agreed that the concept of hell is found in the Bible.


This last I explained to you previously in my observation of the Creator and his creation which you have notably failed to answer.Failed to answer? I certainly did when I pointed out that your inability to understand God is not a compelling argument.

You can't even quote yourself accurately. This is what you said. "I gave you the best answers you will ever get." It is in post 74. You restate it in 80. "I gave you the best rational answer you will ever get."

It's still the best answer you ever got.


How widespread your knowledge is that you know what MILLIONS of people have done.

YOU are the one who mentioned MILLIONS. Did you forget already?


Oh? Where?

Google it.


Oh yes. The parts of the Bible that you accept since they agree with your ideas.

What's wrong with that?


Some well thought out answers would be good to see for sure.

How about starting with talking snakes?


But at least you have now agreed that the concept of hell is found in the Bible.

I have never denied the concept of hell is in the Bible. I even traced it from the OT through the Persians to the NT. Forgot that, too?


Failed to answer? I certainly did when I pointed out that your inability to understand God is not a compelling argument.

Yes, failed to answer. Tell me specifically where my inability to understand God is. (I can't wait for this one).

This is just more of your non answers. You are the promoter of talking snakes and you dare to tell others about the Bible and God. The irony is delicious.

I really wish you would stop bothering me and others here unless you change your attitude and discuss issues like an adult, not like a whiny schoolboy.

It's still the best answer you ever got.I would agree, which makes me glad I don't have to defend your position. Your "best" answers are completely filled with holes.


YOU are the one who mentioned MILLIONS. Did you forget already?And YOU are the one who claimed you know what their motives were which was absurd.


Google it.Your usual answer when you have no clue.


Some well thought out answers would be good to see for sure.

How about starting with talking snakes?That's a well reasoned answer to you? Oh well.


Yes, failed to answer. Tell me specifically where my inability to understand God is. (I can't wait for this one).Your inability to understand the connection between God's love for sinners and hell.


This is just more of your non answers. You are the promoter of talking snakes and you dare to tell others about the Bible and God. The irony is delicious.I have never promoted talking snakes.


I really wish you would stop bothering me and others here unless you change your attitude and discuss issues like an adult, not like a whiny schoolboy.Again, the response of a person with absolutely, positively, no answers, so you're reduced to referring to attitudes and issues. But if you can't handle it, then go somewhere else. I hope you don't, but it's your option. If you decide to continue, just be aware that no one pays any attention to your incessant complaining.

I would agree, which makes me glad I don't have to defend your position. Your "best" answers are completely filled with holes.

Specifics, please. Put up or shut up.


And YOU are the one who claimed you know what their motives were which was absurd.

(Why am I doing this?) Their motives couldn't be more obvious. Are you now saying they are not believers to begin with? Get real.


That's a well reasoned answer to you? Oh well.

Talking snakes? Dear Lord!


Your inability to understand the connection between God's love for sinners and hell.

THANK YOU, JAYZUZ. We have a discussion!!!!!!!! Please enlighten us just how God's love for sinners and hell is connected. (I can't wait).


I have never promoted talking snakes.

Are you now denying you believe in talking snakes? Or is this just another word game for you.


Again, the response of a person with absolutely, positively, no answers,

I've given you more answers than you can shake a stick at. OBVIOUSLY.


But if you can't handle it, then go somewhere else. I hope you don't, but it's your option. If you decide t r option. If you decide to continue, just be aware that no one pays any attention to your incessant complaining.

Ah, to quote you, Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. When you offer my words as your own, don't make it so obvious. It makes you look foolish. Should I remind about your plagariasm accusations?

Specifics, please. Put up or shut up.I have done so twice already. Keep up! Post 69 was the SECOND time, while post 28 was the FIRST time.


(Why am I doing this?) Their motives couldn't be more obvious. Are you now saying they are not believers to begin with? Get real.Yeah. You know the motives of millions of people you have never met. It's just unbelievable that you honestly believe such foolishness.


THANK YOU, JAYZUZ. We have a discussion!!!!!!!! Please enlighten us just how God's love for sinners and hell is connected. (I can't wait).Google it. (Just had to do that. For once I have copied you and your mentoree, WG.) But you really don't have to do that. I've already answered that as well more than once. If you will read John 3:16 even semi-carefully, you will find your answer. It's where the judgment of God and the love of God meet.


Are you now denying you believe in talking snakes? Or is this just another word game for you.Of course I deny it which is exactly what I have consistently said. Never said otherwise.


I've given you more answers than you can shake a stick at. OBVIOUSLY.Not true. I've shaken a stick at ALL of your answers. They plainly deserve it. In fact they deserve to have sticks thrown at them, as my summary, posted twice now, shows clearly.


Ah, to quote you, Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. When you offer my words as your own, don't make it so obvious. It makes you look foolish. Should I remind about your plagariasm accusations?Would make sense if it was true. Sadly for you, it's not.

Jl says my best answers are "filled with holes". I ask him for specifics but he can't give specifics, saying he's already done so. So much for that one.


Yeah. You know the motives of millions of people you have never met. It's just unbelievable that you honestly believe such foolishness.

When I reply that "millions" of people defend the Gospels because they are believers, JL says it's "unbelievable that I honestly believe such foolishness". I'm still shaking my head over this one. Does Jl think the millions reading the Gospels are NOT Christian believers? Note how his answers lack "answer-ship" quality. He insults rather than actually answers.


If you will read John 3:16 even semi-carefully, you will find your answer. It's where the judgment of God and the love of God meet.

THANK YOU, JL. Finally, a specific.

Ok, here's John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Reading carefully, I'm looking for the part where Jl says the love of God for sinners and hell is connected. Hmm, this is the New International Version. Maybe it's in the KJV. Nope, not there either.

It talks about God, love, the world, his son, belief in his Son, and that the believers shall not perish but have eternal life. So far, not a word about how the love of God for sinners and hell is connected. No mention of sinners. No mention of hell.

It seems to imply that believers shall not perish, so therefore non-believers SHALL perish? That would seem to mean that a little old lady in China in a rice paddy planting rice seedlings who never heard of his Son and therefore couldn't believe in someone she never heard of, WILL perish. That doesn't seem right - especially when that little old lady is multiplied by the BILLIONS who also never heard of his Son will also perish. Reading the whole chapter does not shed any light on why those who never heard of the Son and so cannot believe should perish.

When an assertion is made that the word "perish" means to be a sinner and spend eternity in torture in hell, certainly nothing remotely implying such a thing is expressed or implied. Perish means to die, to end, to stop life. One doesn't have to be a sinner to perish - everybody dies. And there's certainly not a single word about hell or punishment. Finally, no connection is drawn about how the love of God for sinners and hell is connected. None whatsoever. Maybe it's all a figure of speech.


Not true. I've shaken a stick at ALL of your answers. They plainly deserve it.

More non-answers. When you are ready to have a discussion, send up a flare. You DID initiate a discussion with John 3:16, but even tho' that didn't pan out as you had hoped, still it was a good start.

If you can tell us how the love of God for sinners and hell is connected, we would be most grateful. It doesn't have to be John 3:16. Your own words are fine. If you can't, no problem, we understand.

Jl says my best answers are "filled with holes". I ask him for specifics but he can't give specifics, saying he's already done so. So much for that one.Fourth time? Fifth time? Sixth time? How many times must it be said? " Keep up! Post 69 was the SECOND time, while post 28 was the FIRST time."


When I reply that "millions" of people defend the Gospels because they are believers,For the second time on this page alone, you have managed to misquote yourself. This was your comment. "In other words, they brought a bias in favor of what was already presented in the Gospels." So they believed the Gospels, and then afterwards accepted the Gospels as true because of a bias? What??? Perhaps they actually accepted the Gospels as true because of their reading and study. You should try it.

So you have brought in no bias? Of course you have. It's how you have managed to concoct the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus.

John 3:16 presents man as perishing. The love of God brings forth a plan of rescue. How? He sent His only begotten Son, so that whoever places his/her faith in Christ will not perish. Perfect.

Perish means physical death? Don't be ridiculous. You have Jesus saying that anyone who believes in Him will not physically die. It's an absurd mistake on your part. And the fact that perishing is contrasted with "eternal life" clearly shows it does not mean physical death.

As to the little old lady in China, your friend Aquinas answers it quite well. "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)."

you have managed to misquote yourself.

So we're back to misquotes. What's next? Misspellings again? Punctuation? Jl, I know you have a hard time sticking to the issue with all your tangents, but this is ridiculous.


John 3:16 presents man as perishing. The love of God brings forth a plan of rescue. How? He sent His only begotten Son, so that whoever places his/her faith in Christ will not perish.

How in the world does this prove your contention that the love of God for sinners and hell is connected? I'm sorry to say you are spinning in a world of your own. It's actually getting embarrassing for members here.


Perish means physical death? Don't be ridiculous.

Yes, Jl, perish means physical death. No, Jl, it's not ridiculous. If you weren't averse to googling, you would find the meaning of perish in every dictionary on the planet. It means to die, to end life, PHYSICAL DEATH !


You have Jesus saying that anyone who believes in Him will not physically die.

I said nothing like that. Did you mean John said that? Whoever said it or didn't say it, what does it have to do with the love of God for sinners and hell is a connection?


It's an absurd mistake on your part.

Now I'M the absurd one here???? Jl, this whole post is showing you to be a , well..... _____________others can fill in the blank.


And the fact that perishing is contrasted with "eternal life" clearly shows it does not mean physical death.

Believe whatever nonsense you want, but we are still waiting for your "...the love of God for sinners and hell is a connection".


As to the little old lady in China, your friend Aquinas answers it quite well.

That doesn't fit your requirement for it to be in the Bible. Anyway, how is this a proof of the love of God for sinners and hell is connected. We're still waiting for you to explain that. But no explanation has yet been offered.

I can only surmise from your words that you believe God loves hell. Or, to put it another way, God delights in seeing the human beings he lovingly created being tortured for every second in the most painful possible manner for ALL ETERNITY.

This is the God of PERFECT SADISM. And you worship this God !!

Tell me, JL. Did you pick the wings off flies when you were a little child?

Yes, Jl, perish means physical death. No, Jl, it's not ridiculous. If you weren't averse to googling, you would find the meaning of perish in every dictionary on the planet. It means to die, to end life, PHYSICAL DEATH !So you want to stick with your understanding that faith in Christ prevents physical death? Well...OK, but the passage plainly does not support such an interpretation.


Believe whatever nonsense you want, but we are still waiting for your "...the love of God for sinners and hell is a connection".Sinners are heading for judgment, but the love of God sent a Savior that by believing in Him, they might be saved. John 3:16 in a nutshell.


I can only surmise from your words that you believe God loves hell.I am in no way bound by your surmising, a truth concerning which I am gloriously happy.

This has gone far enough. You have described no plausible method for determining the supposed "genuine attitudes" of Christ which was the question this thread started with. Your complaint that you cannot understand judgment and hell is well taken, but it is not a reliable method. It simply says you don't understand. Perhaps God understands it all quite well.

Sinners are heading for judgment, but the love of God sent a Savior that by believing in Him, they might be saved. John 3:16 in a nutshell.
"Might be"???

And those who have never heard of Him?

Why is mankind cursed by a mistake Adam and Eve made?

"Might be"???In the sense of "made possible".


And those who have never heard of Him?Already answered by Aquinas.


Why is mankind cursed by a mistake Adam and Eve made?Good question. Not sure I understand that. However, that mankind is sinful is the most clearly and obviously true doctrine I can find in the Bible.

Does the Bible say that, "mankind (is) cursed by a mistake Adam and Eve made?"

Does the Bible say that, "mankind (is) cursed by a mistake Adam and Eve made?"
Psalm 51:5 -- "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me"

Romans, 5:12-21 -- "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all have sinned....

So you want to stick with your understanding that faith in Christ prevents physical death?

Huh? I never said "faith in Christ prevents physical death". Please stop fabricating things that plainly are not true. Please.


Well...OK, but the passage plainly does not support such an interpretation.

So you falsely quote me anyway ???


Sinners are heading for judgment, but the love of God sent a Savior that by believing in Him, they might be saved. John 3:16 in a nutshell.

Jl, READ MY LIPS, PLEASE. What does this have to do with your statement that "God's love for sinners and hell is connected" Do you now wish to retract that crazy statement?


I am in no way bound by your surmising, a truth concerning which I am gloriously happy.

A surmise means a conclusion based on what has been said - it has nothing to do with being bound. I doubt you're gloriously happy - I think you've gone over the edge.


This has gone far enough. You have described no plausible method for determining the supposed "genuine attitudes" of Christ which was the question this thread started with.

The plausible method is the same method any exegesis concerns itself with. It's ok for you to disagree but not to deny the methodology.


Your complaint that you cannot understand judgment and hell is well taken,

More false comments - (Dear God !!!). I NEVER complained I cannot understand judgement and hell. I understand it far better than you ever will, unless you open your mind.

Does the Bible say that, "mankind (is) cursed by a mistake Adam and Eve made?"



Psalm 51:5 -- "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me"

Romans, 5:12-21 -- "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all have sinned....You are taking those texts literally?????


Huh? I never said "faith in Christ prevents physical death". Please stop fabricating things that plainly are not true. Please.According to you, the text reads in this manner. "...that whosoever believeth in Him will not perish (die physically)..." That is the meaning you have attached to "perish".


Jl, READ MY LIPS, PLEASE. What does this have to do with your statement that "God's love for sinners and hell is connected" Do you now wish to retract that crazy statement?No. Perfectly happy with it. This, I believe, was my statement. "If you will read John 3:16 even semi-carefully, you will find your answer. It's where the judgment of God and the love of God meet."


The plausible method is the same method any exegesis concerns itself with. It's ok for you to disagree but not to deny the methodology.
Blah, blah, blah. The methodology has been dismantled previously. Game over.


A surmise means a conclusion based on what has been said.Surmise all you want. I have no connection with your inaccurate conclusions. My meaning was plain.


I NEVER complained I cannot understand judgement and hell. I understand it far better than you ever will, unless you open your mind.Yes, you have.

You are taking those texts literally?????
Isn't that your requirement?

Isn't that your prohibition?

Isn't that your prohibition?
Depends. The Bible contains poetry, allegories, history, wise sayings, sermons, and, yes, literal truth.

It also contains scripture which makes you uncomfortable, and those must NEVER be taken literally. So I'll let you investigate this on your own. I don't care for the backdoor you give yourself. And that is not unkind or mean. It's just, as you well know, very true.

It also contains scripture which makes you uncomfortable, and those must NEVER be taken literally. So I'll let you investigate this on your own. I don't care for the backdoor you give yourself. And that is not unkind or mean. It's just, as you well know, very true.
Nothing in the Bible makes me uncomfortable. Backdoor?

The 66 books of the Bible were written by many authors for various reasons at different times in history, and, in addition to some of it being literal, within those books is also a variety of figurative genres -- metaphor, imagery, hyperbole, irony, personification, allegory. Do the hills really sing and the trees really clap their hands? (Psalms) Are believers really the salt of the earth? (Matthew) Does the devil really prowl amongst us like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour? (1 Peter) Does God really raise the poor from the dust and lift the needy from the ash heap? (Psalms)

When this ("But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.") can be morphed into an absurdity like this, (The author's intent was to scare the pants off the reader so that person would give up ungodly ways. Much like a parent who scolds a child for clumsiness or sloppiness with the threat, "If you don't start shaping up and do better than this, you'll end up in hell!"), then it has nothing to do with metaphors, imagery, and so forth. It's pure prejudice at work. That's why I leave it with you.

When this ("But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.") can be morphed into an absurdity like this, (The author's intent was to scare the pants off the reader so that person would give up ungodly ways. Much like a parent who scolds a child for clumsiness or sloppiness with the threat, "If you don't start shaping up and do better than this, you'll end up in hell!"), then it has nothing to do with metaphors, imagery, and so forth. It's pure prejudice at work. That's why I leave it with you.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say, what your point is.

Again: "Nothing in the Bible makes me uncomfortable. Backdoor?" What to you is the front door?