(posted by jlsnbe Nov 10. I said I'd get back to him. This can be moved to Christianity if desired.)



Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”





The topic is “Unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell”. This is the belief of a small group of fundamentalist Christians. As promised, here is my statement in opposition to this belief.


It is absurd on its face. The Jesus who said Love Your Enemy would hardly condemn those enemies he loved to eternal punishment in hell. Other sayings of Jesus supporting the erroneous belief are shown to be misunderstandings of one or more of the necessary conditions or mistranslations. I won't go over them again because they have been done to death in previous posts.


Matthew 25. The relevant portion is “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, the righteous to eternal life”. The context can be read in the post above. Jesus is clearly not addressing unbelievers. In fact, he is addressing those who are believers but have failed to carry out those things (works) required of believers.


The Greek word aionios is used in this verse to signify everlasting and is also used in this verse to signify an age – a period of time. The correct reading is “And these will go away to an age (a period of time) of punishment, and the righteous to eternal life.” Also, and importantly, the Greek word kolasis used in this verse means “corrective punishment” - not eternal punishment.

Why the two different uses of the same word? The word aionios has two meanings – eternal and an age (a limited period of time). The mistranslated verse first appears in the 5th century in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The mistranslation has been copied ever since in the KJV and other Bibles.

For those interested, see Young's Concordance, et al.

You just couldn't let it go, could you?

You can't argue your way out of it, either you believe or you don't. If you don't, and you know the argument, you condemn yourself

You just couldn't let it go, could you?

I fulfill my promises.


You can't argue your way out of it, either you believe or you don't. If you don't, and you know the argument, you condemn yourself

Well, that's a cute argument. If I don't believe, I condemn myself. Some things here haven't changed a bit - Fascist Christianity is always with us.

once again you twist the truth to hear what you want to hear

once again you twist the truth to hear what you want to hear

Exactly how was the truth twisted? Or is this just another bit of nuttiness from you?

Quoting only opinions that seem to agree with you doesn't do anythink for you

Quoting only opinions that seem to agree with you doesn't do anythink for you

Not my agreement. but scholarly consensus. This is an area of exegesis you're probably not familiar with. After all, why bother with the truth when you've already decided how and what to believe handed down to you from already ill-informed "believers".

Thank you - whoever moved this from Current Events. This is a much better page even though Current Events was where this thread began.

(posted by jlsnbe Nov 10. I said I'd get back to him. This can be moved to Christianity if desired.)



Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”





The topic is “Unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell”. This is the belief of a small group of fundamentalist Christians. As promised, here is my statement in opposition to this belief.


It is absurd on its face. The Jesus who said Love Your Enemy would hardly condemn those enemies he loved to eternal punishment in hell. Other sayings of Jesus supporting the erroneous belief are shown to be misunderstandings of one or more of the necessary conditions or mistranslations. I won't go over them again because they have been done to death in previous posts.


Matthew 25. The relevant portion is “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, the righteous to eternal life”. The context can be read in the post above. Jesus is clearly not addressing unbelievers. In fact, he is addressing those who are believers but have failed to carry out those things (works) required of believers.


The Greek word aionios is used in this verse to signify everlasting and is also used in this verse to signify an age – a period of time. The correct reading is “And these will go away to an age (a period of time) of punishment, and the righteous to eternal life.” Also, and importantly, the Greek word kolasis used in this verse means “corrective punishment” - not eternal punishment.

Why the two different uses of the same word? The word aionios has two meanings – eternal and an age (a limited period of time). The mistranslated verse first appears in the 5th century in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The mistranslation has been copied ever since in the KJV and other Bibles.

For those interested, see Young's Concordance, et al.


I've given jlsnbe a month to reply. I will take a lack of reply as agreement. He is to be congratulated for changing his mind, and warned not to backslide promoting again his pernicious doctrine of a monstrous Jesus - especially to children.

Just now saw this. You gave me a month. I took twenty minutes.


It is absurd on its face. The Jesus who said Love Your Enemy would hardly condemn those enemies he loved to eternal punishment in hell. Except that condemning people to hell is exactly what He is warning us of in the passage. So you're saying that to believe what the passage says is absurd. That statement would seem to be plainly absurd.


Other sayings of Jesus supporting the erroneous belief are shown to be misunderstandings of one or more of the necessary conditions or mistranslations. I won't go over them again because they have been done to death in previous posts.Which ones?

As to the rest of your analysis, even if I was prepared to accept your ideas, and I am not, can you point to a single translation of the Bible that adopts your view? A quick check on my part showed that the NASB, ESV, Amp, Wyc, and NIV do not follow your lead. They are all very clear. So I am in the position of having to adopt your view, based, it would seem, upon a prejudiced position, or the translations of hundreds of scholars who are fluent in NT Greek and have spent a lifetime looking into the matter. They do not agree with you. For me, that settles the matter.

But even if I was willing to accept your lone interpretation, it would still mean that people are going to be cast into the fire of hell for some relatively long period of time for, as you said, "corrective" punishment. But punishment does not change the heart, and it is the heart that God looks at. Nonetheless, even your translation leaves hell as a very real place to which Jesus is going to send people for a long period of time. Even your view establishes hell as a very real and terrible place.

Jesus is not telling us that people must work to be saved. That would contradict the rest of the Bible. He is saying that those who have a genuine faith in Christ will, as a fruit of His presence in their lives, perform good works. An absence of good works shows an absence of Jesus.

For further clarity, you can refer to Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.

Strong's translation of "kolasis" is as follows: "chastisement, punishment, torment, perhaps with the idea of deprivation." That does not agree with your view as being purely corrective.

Your contention that the punishment of hell is a doctrine believed by some small set of fundamentalists is simply wrong. It is a central belief of evangelical Christianity, and is believed by the Catholic Church as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." I am not a Catholic, but that sure seems pretty clear.

You are free to not believe in hell if you wish. I have no intention of forcing my beliefs on you or anyone else. You are even free to adopt your (in my view) erroneous interpretation of Matthew 25. I don't think you are free to ask to be taken seriously when you basically say that the hundreds and thousands of serious scholars who translated the Bible got it wrong, but you, basically an amateur, got it right.

Except that condemning people to hell is exactly what He is warning us of in the passage. So you're saying that to believe what the passage says is absurd. That statement would seem to be plainly absurd. You are free to not believe in hell if you wish. ....... but you, basically an amateur, got it right.


You have completely misconstrued my position regarding the topic at hand. It was always about UNBELIEVERS. UNBELIEVERS, get it? Your long diatribe here conveniently ignores that part.

Calling someone an amateur is an argument ad hominem. You're good at that. Attributing arguments to me that I have never made is another logical fallacy.

Based on the evidence of your posts in these pages, you exhibit a mean-spiritedness and an ignorance of the essential Biblical message. Like many fundamentalists, you miss the main point of the Bible seeing only the trees and never the forest.

Many words but no real response, so I'll ask again.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

Many words but no real response, so I'll ask again.

Do you believe unbelievers are sentenced to hell for eternal punishment?

That baby you saved from abortion grows up to be an unbeliever and you believe the grown-up is sentenced to hell for eternal punishment? The grandmother in the rice paddy in China helping to feed her family and who never heard of Jesus Christ - does she also go to hell for eternal punishment?

I thought if you don't hear it from the person yourself, it's hearsay, second hand account.

Do you believe unbelievers are sentenced to hell for eternal punishment?

That baby you saved from abortion grows up to be an unbeliever and you believe the grown-up is sentenced to hell for eternal punishment? The grandmother in the rice paddy in China helping to feed her family and who never heard of Jesus Christ - does she also go to hell for eternal punishment?

As usual, you have no answers to questions. You just seem so fearful. Why is that?

For me, in reply to your question, I will stick with the clear teaching of the Bible shown by the many scriptures I referenced which show, without question, that faith in Jesus is the only escape from the judgement of God which quite rightly falls upon sinners and which, quite rightly, would have fallen upon me had it not been for Jesus. John 3:14-17 is such a wonderful passage and teaches the saving ministry of Christ very plainly.

Here is a passage from Exodus 12 for your consideration concerning God's judgement. "12“On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord. 13The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt."

I still have my four questions. It would show some courage for you to answer them.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

There is also this passage from Romans 3. "2 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+2+&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29233a)] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."

And this from Ephesians 2. "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+2+&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29233a)] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God."

I thought if you don't hear it from the person yourself, it's hearsay, second hand account.Actually that's not the case. It's hearsay when I claim I heard another person tell me what a third party said. Direct testimony is when I say I heard the person say it himself.

Oh! Okay!

I wish we had some emojis on this site. I'd give you a "thumbs up".

tal -- I thought if you don't hear it from the person yourself, it's hearsay, second hand account.

JL --
Actually that's not the case. It's hearsay when I claim I heard another person tell me what a third party said. Direct testimony is when I say I heard the person say it himself.

Are you two saying the same thing?
Jim -> Mike -> Rob = hearsay
Jim -> Mike = direct testimony

tal -- I thought if you don't hear it from the person yourself, it's hearsay, second hand account.

JL --

Are you two saying the same thing?
Jim -> Mike -> Rob = hearsay
Jim -> Mike = direct testimony

I don't think we are WG since my post applies to the court of public opinion concerning the bible, not the LAW, so you BELIEVE it or not. YOUR choice.

...faith in Jesus is the only escape from the judgement of God which quite rightly falls upon sinners ...

To repeat, for the umpteenth time - the topic is UNBELIEVERS ARE CONDEMNED TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. Your comment does NOT address the topic.


Here is a passage from Exodus 12 for your consideration concerning God's judgement. "...I will pass through Egypt and ...bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord...."

Not a single word about hell and/or eternal punishment there for unbelievers.


Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?

This a far cry from your original contention that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. Now, instead of "eternal punishment", you have substituted "some period of time". Not exactly eternal, is it?

I have already replied to the many scriptures you have provided over the time of this discussion. NOT A SINGLE ONE CLAIMS ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IN HELL FOR UNBELIEVERS.


There is also this passage from Romans 3. "2 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of ..." etc etc etc.

This long excerpt does NOT mention UNBELIEVERS, HELL, or ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. You are really getting off the track here.


And this from Ephesians 2. "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. ....

This is pretty much identical to your previous quote from Romans. My response is also pretty much identical - not a single word about eternal punishment, or hell, or condemnation of unbelievers.

It is time for you to admit that you were wrong about unbelievers being condemned to hell for eternal punishment. I do not doubt your believing it, I disagree with your contention that such a doctrine is part of Christianity. Almost twenty times now I have shown where you have misread the Bible. I have done this in black and white on these pages, yet you refuse to acknowledge the evidence of your eyes.

I am tired of your constant replies that question my beliefs (irrelevant), go off on tangents that don't address the issue (irrelevant), and just generally distract and divert to avoid coming to grips with the issue (irrelevant).

It is time for you to admit that you were wrong about unbelievers being condemned to hell for eternal punishment. I do not doubt your believing it, I disagree with your contention that such a doctrine is part of Christianity. Almost twenty times now I have shown where you have misread the Bible. I have done this in black and white on these pages, yet you refuse to acknowledge the evidence of your eyes.

I am tired of your constant replies that question my beliefs (irrelevant), go off on tangents that don't address the issue (irrelevant), and just generally distract and divert to avoid coming to grips with the issue (irrelevant).

I don't really care what you're tired of. If you don't like this conversation, then find something else to do. The Romans passage (chapters 2 and 3), the John 3 passage, the Matthew 25 passage, they are all very clear in addition to the ten or so others I listed. The importance of the Romans passage is the fact that it declares all people to be under judgement because of sin, and then presents faith in Jesus as the sole source of deliverance. Now you can accept that or reject it. Your choice.

As is normal for you, you didn't answer any questions, so I'll repeat them.

I still have my four questions. It would show some courage for you to answer them.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

The importance of the Romans passage is the fact that it declares all people to be under judgement because of sin, and then presents faith in Jesus as the sole source of deliverance.

Perfect example of what you don't understand. NOWHERE IN THAT PASSAGE DOES IT REFER TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IN HELL. Yo are putting that in to conform to your error.

As far as including "all people" which you're implying includes unbelievers, tell me this. How in the world could those who never heard of Jesus - before he lived, during his lifetime, and after he lived - could possibly have faith in Jesus as the "sole source of deliverance"? God gave you a brain. Use it, man. The writer is obviously using a figure of speech, never intending the whole human race who ever lived needing to believe in Jesus.

I did not say it referred to punishment in hell. I said it concluded that all were under judgement.

As to answering a question, which I have been doing consistently with you, it's your turn now. I'll repeat my four questions. In the interest of displaying some level of honesty and openness, you should at least take a shot at two or three of them.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

In fact, a really good way to discuss these issues is by "answer a question, and then ask a question". So if you can at least answer one of them, which would be kind of minimal, then maybe we could get some order in this discussion.

I did not say it referred to punishment in hell. I said it concluded that all were under judgement.

Irrelevant. It is NOT the topic under discussion.


As to answering a question, which I have been doing consistently with you,

Too funny. You have yet to address the simple subject of unbelievers condemned to hell for eternal punishment. Your so-called "answers" are Bible quotes as if you have no mind of your own. And you are anything but consistent - you're all over the place with your replies.


I'll repeat my four questions. In the interest of displaying some level of honesty and openness, you should at least take a shot at two or three of them. ................ In fact, a really good way to discuss these issues is by "answer a question, and then ask a question". So if you can at least answer one of them, which would be kind of minimal, then maybe we could get some order in this discussion.

I have no problem with your starting a new thread with your questions. Who knows? You may generate some interest. In the interest of displaying honesty, I suggest you reply in a straightforward manner and not keep trying to divert the discussion.

My favorite diversion of yours was your long post from the Catholic Catechism on hell. You seem to think this discussion is about the existence of hell. It's not.

For your information, the Catholic Church has declared that they make NO claim that ANYONE is in hell. Also, as to unbelievers., the Church has equally declared that UNBELIEVERS do NOT go to hell because of their unbelief. In fact, the Church recognizes the good found in all religions, whether believers or not, although it retains itself as the Church possessing the "fullness" of revelation.

As usual, too afraid to answer questions.

I am not Catholic and don't really care what the Catholic Church says. In addition, I don't really trust what you say after the debacle with your contention about Aquinas' statement on the subject of those who die never having heard the Gospel. You completely misrepresented his views by using only a small section of his writing when the complete quote clearly showed that he had a different perspective.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday. I'll post them again just in case. 1 and 4 are particularly pertinent since they call into open question your knowledge of Greek and your mistaken view of the meanings of the two words. Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions.

As usual, too afraid to answer questions.

This has become a mantra with you. Good way to deflect from the issue. I'm not surprised.



I am not Catholic and don't really care what the Catholic Church says.

Wow, you sure could have fooled me when you took such time and effort to quote the CC catechism!


your contention about Aquinas' statement on the subject of those who die never having heard the Gospel. You completely misrepresented his views by using only a small section of his writing when the complete quote clearly showed that he had a different perspective.

I'm satisfied with my years of studying and reading Aquinas as opposed to your three minutes on Wikipedia.


Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday.

You have this thing on courage. That's simply your way of evading the issue. You're completely transparent.


Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

Who's the amateur now? Your understanding of the Bible is from your childhood. You were given a fundamentalist take and you have never really examined your belief. That's not uncommon for people who believe as you do. There's a fear factor at work here (speaking or courage or the lack of it) that is difficult to overcome. You'll never grow in your faith unless you confront that fear.

Put away the things of childhood and examine the proposition using your God-given wisdom factory. The God of the Bible certainly doesn't condemn his creature to eternal torment for the simple act of never having heard of Jesus. I'm shocked that you can't understand that even after I pointed out how the Bible verses you provided were not what you had hoped. Unfortunately, the Good Book has often been misused for evil purposes.

That would make for a monstrous Deity. Is God the author of evil? That's what your belief is promoting.


It would be desirable for you to not reply again

Lol. Giving up, eh? That's what you dearly desire, isn't it? But you're too rich a source of misinformation to ignore.

It's a mantra because it is so true. You are still too scared to answer questions. Sad. Your discussion of Aquinas was disgraceful. You intentionally, I think, attempted to misrepresent his position with your selective quote. When I put the quote in full, it completely destroyed your view.

This is all you'll see from me until you get your courage up and enter into a genuine discussion.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday. I'll post them again just in case. 1 and 4 are particularly pertinent since they call into open question your knowledge of Greek and your mistaken view of the meanings of the two words. Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions. Courage is now the watchword for you.

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions. Courage is now the watchword for you.

It's the same tired tune from you - you simply will not answer the question re unbelievers going to hell. You pose questions, not to find the truth but to divert and obscure. Every one of your Bible verses has previously been answered by me. If you need to see them again, check the archives.

You've been running all your life from the truth, but you can't hide from the truth. Sooner or later, it will catch up to you.

This is all you'll see from me until you get your courage up and enter into a genuine discussion.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday. I'll post them again just in case. 1 and 4 are particularly pertinent since they call into open question your knowledge of Greek and your mistaken view of the meanings of the two words. Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions. Courage is now the watchword for you.

This is all you'll see from me until you get your courage up and enter into a genuine discussion.

I think you already said that. Getting a bit confused, are we?

Keep running away - that's what you do best.

This is all you'll see from me until you get your courage up and enter into a genuine discussion.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday. I'll post them again just in case. 1 and 4 are particularly pertinent since they call into open question your knowledge of Greek and your mistaken view of the meanings of the two words. Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions. Courage is now the watchword for you.

This is all you'll see from me until you get your courage up and enter into a genuine discussion.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday. I'll post them again just in case. 1 and 4 are particularly pertinent since they call into open question your knowledge of Greek and your mistaken view of the meanings of the two words. Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions. Courage is now the watchword for you.


I think you already said that. Getting a bit confused, are we?

Keep running away - that's what you do best.

Had an inspiration this morning. Since you are unwilling to answer the questions, I'll answer them for you.


1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?There is no real reply for that. Your definition of "aionios" is clearly incorrect, and since your entire exposition of the Matt. 25 passage hinged on that, then it falls completely apart. You still are faced with Jesus sending people to an eternal, fiery hell. But even if you had been correct, and you very much were not, then it would mean that heaven would also be merely temporary since the same word used to describe hell is used to describe heaven. It is a devastating and irrational mistake.


2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?You would have to agree with that. Of course it is now a moot point since the temporary nature of that situation has been removed in question 1.


3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.It is an overwhelming avalanche that clearly shows a terrible day of judgement by God upon sinners is coming and that there is no escape aside from the wonderful ministry of Christ. I might add, as I have done on several occasions, that people are not judged for unbelief. They are judged for sin. That is very clear in Matt. 25. We are not going to be judged for unbelief, but we can be saved by faith in the powerful work of Jesus, a truth that is repeated almost endlessly in the NT. That is one of the wonderful effects of the Gospel, that no Christian can claim superiority over anyone else since we are saved by the action of another and not by our own goodness or good works.


4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word? Absolutely. You cannot appeal to a definition which is very much a minority one and which plainly does not fit the context of the passage.

So you see that you are still stuck in Mattew 25. Your attempt at an end run has failed.

... people are not judged for unbelief. They are judged for sin. That is very clear in Matt. 25. We are not going to be judged for unbelief,


HALLELUJAH!!!!!!! FINALLY!!!!! You have dropped your belief that unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment!


Well, it's all water under the bridge now. You are to be congratulated.

Go in peace.

HALLELUJAH!!!!!!! FINALLY!!!!! You have dropped your belief that unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment!
You have such a short memory. We've gone through all of this before, but considering your limitations I'll run it by you again. God judges sinners. Those with saving faith in Christ are saved from judgement, Christ having already received their judgement. So who is left? Now if we think even a few seconds about that, it is plain that the unbelievers (non-believers, those absent faith) are left. So yes, unbelievers are condemned to hell, but not because of the unbelief, but rather because of sin.

Can you understand that now?

Still too fearful to answer questions? That's really a mystery to me. You love to ask questions, but are so reluctant to answer them. Seems cowardly to me, but perhaps I am wrong.

Your Matt. 25 problem remains.

Does "unbeliever" mean one who has heard the Gospel but refuses, despite multiple efforts by loving and patient Christians, to believe?

Yet, I was taught "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith." Salvation is the work of God and not man. Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

God judges sinners. Those with saving faith in Christ are saved from judgement, Christ having already received their judgement. So who is left? Now if we think even a few seconds about that, it is plain that the unbelievers (non-believers, those absent faith) are left. So yes, unbelievers are condemned to hell, but not because of the unbelief, but rather because of sin.

Ahh, and you were doing so well.

There's one small flaw in your logic. You are equating unbelievers with sinners. You have no way of knowing whether unbelievers are sinners or not. Please spare me Bible verses that you interpret as "all" being sinners.

And, of course, how does a newborn baby sin?

Oh no. I'm equating EVERYONE with sinners. You, me, WG, Tal, Vac, and everyone else. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." "All we like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way, and the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him." So you see it's no flaw at all, and not even a small one.

Spare the Bible verses? That's actually your territory.

I am not aware if the Bible directly addresses the issue of newborns, but it would seem reasonable that they are incapable of sin until some later period in life.

I still want to know your view of the near unanimous rejection in Bible translations of your view of aionios. Notice I put that in the form of a statement so as not to cause you any undue anxiety.


"Yet, I was taught "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith." Salvation is the work of God and not man. Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile."

WG, you say you were taught that. Do you believe it? Do you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes"?

WG, you say you were taught that. Do you believe it? Do you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes"?
You're cherry-picking again. You forgot to include the part that says it's "the power of God that brings salvation to everyone."

To personalize Eph. 2:8,9: "For by grace am I saved through faith. And this is not my own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, lest I boast."

I cannot on my own by my own power accept God's gift of salvation; the only power I have is to refuse it.

Oh no. I'm equating EVERYONE with sinners. You, me, WG, Tal, Vac, and everyone else. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." "All we like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way, and the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him." So you see it's no flaw at all, and not even a small one.

When this started, unbelievers meant unbelievers. Not able to get out of that corner you worked yourself into, you came up with "all" meaning everyone who ever lived and/or sinned, before and after Jesus. Naturally, you found some verses that fit. Do you seriously believe that the writer of that verse literally meant everyone who ever lived and all of whom the writer decided were sinners?

It's hard to know what to say to you. You have thrown away your reasoning powers to give a slavish interpretation of a verse from the Bible. It was obvious all along that you were a Bible literalist but I truly thought that an exposure to a simple truth would show you that truth.

I'm disappointed that you finagled your way out of the obvious. By changing in midstream, what you did was underhanded and deceitful. I've learned over the years that born-agains tend to be low on ethics but obsessed on belief. Right belief excuses all behavior.

I am truly sorry you cannot see the truth. To be blinded by an inherited unexamined belief is sad, indeed.


I am not aware if the Bible directly addresses the issue of newborns

Yet you were previously - I guess you forgot.


but it would seem reasonable that they are incapable of sin until some later period in life.

You've just put a hole in your house of cards. What other exceptions are possible?


I still want to know your view of the near unanimous rejection in Bible translations of your view of aionios.

My view is that it refers to corrective punishment, not eternal punishment. Near unanimous? How could you possibly know that?

You're cherry-picking again. You forgot to include the part that says it's "the power of God that brings salvation to everyone."

To personalize Eph. 2:8,9: "For by grace am I saved through faith. And this is not my own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, lest I boast."

I cannot on my own by my own power accept God's gift of salvation; the only power I have is to refuse it.

What is it about you guys and answering questions? Why so fearful?

Your conclusion at the end is not warranted by your two scriptures. One refers to "those who believe." The other does not appear to be a quote at all, but rather you personalizing the Ephesians passage. None the less, it does not necessarily lead to your conclusion that a person does not have the power in and of themselves to accept the gift of salvation. But since you have professed to believe that, then I assume you are a Calvinist?

At any rate, what does any of that have to do with Matthew 25, and why is it that you cannot answer a very simple question without getting all bent out of shape and accusing me of cherry picking?

When this started, unbelievers meant unbelievers. Not able to get out of that corner you worked yourself into, you came up with "all" meaning everyone who ever lived and/or sinned, before and after Jesus. Naturally, you found some verses that fit. Do you seriously believe that the writer of that verse literally meant everyone who ever lived and all of whom the writer decided were sinners?

It's hard to know what to say to you. You have thrown away your reasoning powers to give a slavish interpretation of a verse from the Bible. It was obvious all along that you were a Bible literalist but I truly thought that an exposure to a simple truth would show you that truth.

I'm disappointed that you finagled your way out of the obvious. By changing in midstream, what you did was underhanded and deceitful. I've learned over the years that born-agains tend to be low on ethics but obsessed on belief. Right belief excuses all behavior.

I am truly sorry you cannot see the truth. To be blinded by an inherited unexamined belief is sad, indeed.

1. Concerning the Romans and Isaiah passages about all have sinned, are you contending that there are some who have not sinned?
2. I have changed nothing in midstream. The problem here is that you seem to get scared and drop out for long periods. By the time you come back you have forgotten most of what has already been written. I am saying now what I have said all along. God judges sinners and anyone outside of faith in Christ will bear their judgement.
3. You come back with a very weak stand on Matthew 25 that has been blown away and you appear too fearful to answer questions about your position. I guess I can understand that. If I had tried to advance that argument, I'd be afraid too.
4. The rest of your statement is a vague discourse on nothing in particular.

Just in case you are ready to put on your big boy britches and step up to the plate, here are the questions again. So far in this "discussion", I have to do all your answering for you.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

What is it about you guys and answering questions? Why so fearful?

What is it about you that you can't answer a simple question? That it took you months to be clear about it. Why so fearful?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Perhaps the exception is when it comes from someone so fearful as you?

Once again.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

1. Concerning the Romans and Isaiah passages about all have sinned, are you contending that there are some who have not sinned?

I am contending that it is impossible for anyone to know who has or hasn't sinned among all humanity before and after Jesus. If you were honest, you would agree.


2. I have changed nothing in midstream.

Of course you have. You went from "unbelievers" which had been carefully defined as unbelief in Jesus to "sinners" - a different word. You of course will say the one means the other, but nobody who knows the language will agree with you.


I am saying now what I have said all along. God judges sinners and anyone outside of faith in Christ will bear their judgement.

You did NOT say that in the beginning. The sinner business came later. And you know damn well it did.

Give it up, you've lost all credibility.

I am contending that it is impossible for anyone to know who has or hasn't sinned among all humanity before and after Jesus. If you were honest, you would agree.You ever meet that person, let me know. I think I'll take Paul's and Isaiah's statement on the matter over your's.


Of course you have. You went from "unbelievers" which had been carefully defined as unbelief in Jesus to "sinners" - a different word. You of course will say the one means the other, but nobody who knows the language will agree with you.The difference is very simple for anyone paying even one ounce of attention. It is sin for which people are judged. Unbelievers, not having their sins forgiven, will face God's judgement. Very, very simple.


You did NOT say that in the beginning. The sinner business came later. And you know damn well it did.I'm saying what I've said all along.

You must have completely lost all confidence in your Matthew 25 defense to be so utterly afraid or unable to answer even two or three questions on the matter.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

Once again.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordanou think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?


It's over Jl. You ended it with your admission of unbelief NOT being cause for damnation. You tried to wiggle out of it, but you got caught. Unfortunately for you, it's there in black and white for all to see as long as these pages exist. THAT you can't wiggle out of.

WG, he's all yours.

Coward. I hate saying that, but it just seems so apparently true. You need to reclaim your manhood and assert yourself. Honestly, you are completely unique. I have never met anyone so fearful in his/her refusal to simply answer questions. It's mystifying to me. Hopefully you will someday prove me wrong.

You must have completely lost all confidence in your Matthew 25 defense to be so utterly afraid or unable to answer even two or three questions on the matter.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

Your conclusion at the end is not warranted by your two scriptures. One refers to "those who believe." The other does not appear to be a quote at all, but rather you personalizing the Ephesians passage.
That's why it's a new paragraph. It's my own statement (not part of a Bible verse) that we cannot accept Christ on our own. That work is done by the Holy Spirit.


None the less, it does not necessarily lead to your conclusion that a person does not have the power in and of themselves to accept the gift of salvation. But since you have professed to believe that, then I assume you are a Calvinist?
See my comment above. And no, I am not a Calvinist.


At any rate, what does any of that have to do with Matthew 25, and why is it that you cannot answer a very simple question without getting all bent out of shape and accusing me of cherry picking?
If you'd stop insulting and shaming me and anyone else who disagrees with you, I won't accuse you of cherry-picking (unless you do).

Okay. I'll quit here and let you and Athos continue. Ooops, just read Athos' post. Guess we're both finished with this thread.

That's why it's a new paragraph. It's my own statement that we cannot accept Christ on our own. That work is done by the Holy Spirit.OK. Fair enough, but then I don't understand your purpose in quoting your two passages and then reaching a conclusion with no supporting scripture. Very strange.


If you'd stop insulting and shaming me and anyone else who disagrees with you, I won't accuse you of cherry-picking (unless you do).I'm not shaming you, but you have to admit that you absolutely refuse to answer the most simple questions and that makes you appear evasive or fearful. Pressing for answers is not shaming. Asking someone to support their arguments is not shaming. It's the way grown-ups do things.


Okay. I'll quit here and let you and Athos continue.Athos is toast. He's as resolute to not answer questions as you are. It's genuinely a perplexing mystery to me. I'm not accustomed to trying to discuss issues with people who refuse to answer questions. I'm amazed. There can be no genuine discussion with that factor.

Hey, WG. He won't answer questions. Maybe you'll take a shot at them.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

I'm not shaming you, but you have to admit that you absolutely refuse to answer the most simple questions and that makes you appear fearful. Pressing for answers is not shaming. Asking someone to support their arguments is not shaming. It's the way grown-ups do things.
See! There you go again with the shaming!

What questions haven't I answered?

WG, you say you were taught that. Do you believe it? Do you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes"?There is my reply to your post with two questions.

1. Do you believe the Romans 1:16 passage?
2. Do you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes"?

Your reply centered around the idea that I was cherry picking.

I'll add a third. In what way do you think I'm shaming you? I don't see it.

3. In what way do you think I'm shaming you? I don't see it.

You said to me, "It's the way grown-ups do things."

That's shaming.

You said to me, "It's the way grown-ups do things."

That's shaming.

My apologies. It was not meant to be.

Now as to some answers???

My apologies. It was not meant to be.

Now as to some answers???
Thank you. Now please don't do it again -- to ANYone on this board.

I'm watching the debate. I probably won't add anything more until tomorrow.

Oh well. As I said, amazing. There is no debate. There is just a largely useless exchange, or more accurately blathering, of meaningless words. With only one person (me) prepared to be open and honest enough to answer questions, there can really be no debate.

Frankly, I'm very disappointed with you. I expected more.

Oh well. As I said, amazing. There is no debate. There is just a largely useless exchange, or more accurately blathering, of meaningless words. With only one person (me) prepared to be open and honest enough to answer questions, there can really be no debate.

Frankly, I'm very disappointed with you. I expected more.
I'm talking about the Democratic debate on TV.

1. Do you believe the Romans 1:16 passage?
What I believe:

It is the Holy Spirit who brings faith to the unbeliever and causes him to see the truth of the Gospel.

Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.

***How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ.***

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

2. Do you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes"?
Why only the clause?

Forget it. I'm really not surprised, but still disappointed.

Forget it. I'm really not surprised, but still disappointed.

Jl, to use your style of discussion - you're a pathetic loser. WG is running rings around you and all you do is insult her. You lie and dissemble just like your hero Trump. Yes, imitation is flattery - how well you are proving that.

Jl, to use your style of discussion - you're a pathetic loser. WG is running rings around you and all you do is insult her. You lie and dissemble just like your hero Trump. Yes, imitation is flattery - how well you are proving that.You love to toss out insults, but to be real clear about you, there is still this.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

I would say that all liberals seem to be afraid to answer questions, but that would include Tal, and Tal has the courage to answer questions. I don't always agree with his answers, but at least he, unlike you, is willing.

BTW, I have not insulted WG. I have challenged her, like you, to answer some questions, and you are both completely unwilling, but insults? Nope.

What I believe:

It is the Holy Spirit who brings faith to the unbeliever and causes him to see the truth of the Gospel.

Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.

***How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ.***

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Well, you've got the "T" in TULIP down pat.

I would say that all liberals seem to be afraid to answer questions,

BTW, I have not insulted WG. I have challenged her, like you, to answer some questions, and you are both completely unwilling, but insults? Nope.

Let me be perfectly clear.

You lost all credibility by substituting "sinners" for "unbelievers" (and conflating the two words). You are blinded by your inability to interpret your own Bible even quoting the Catholic Church catechism to bolster your position - a quotation that was irrelevant to the discussion and which you later backtracked by claiming you didn't care anything about the Catholic Church (or words to that effect).

You then denied your original position - which has morphed into a position equally nonsensical. According to you, you claim that, say, an aborigine living in Australia 20,000 years ago was a sinner condemned to eternal punishment in hell simply because he didn't accept a Jesus he never heard of and who didn't even exist then. Do you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously with that bizarre claim?

Then, making matters worse for you, you attempt to justify/prove the claim by offering Bible verses. All you have done is prove, like the marginal Christian sect to which you belong, that an accurate reading of the Bible is way beyond your skill set (amateur).

You should have quit when this ended yesterday, but you came back for more - like a drowning man gasping for breath. Continue to post all your diversions, questions, and foolishness from your self-appointed pulpit, but the pews are empty.

BTW, I have not insulted WG. I have challenged her, like you, to answer some questions, and you are both completely unwilling, but insults? Nope.
I answered two of your questions to me and asked for clarification on the third question.

As for your insults, here's another one from you: "Well, you've got the 'T' in TULIP down pat." You're dubbing me a Calvinist....

So do you disagree with I Cor. 12:3, "no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit"? Or that faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29)?

How did you get faith?

You lost all credibility by substituting "sinners" for "unbelievers" (and conflating the two words). I subbed nothing. I can't help it if you are unable to read and comprehend,

You are blinded by your inability to interpret your own Bible even quoting the Catholic Church catechism to bolster your position - a quotation that was irrelevant to the discussion and which you later backtracked by claiming you didn't care anything about the Catholic Church (or words to that effect).When have I quoted the Catholic catechism?


Then, making matters worse for you, you attempt to justify/prove the claim by offering Bible verses. All you have done is prove, like the marginal Christian sect to which you belong, that an accurate reading of the Bible is way beyond your skill set (amateur).That made me laugh. Coming from the guy who told me to defend my position without using scripture, that's really rich.

I belong to no sect.

And one more time.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

I answered two of your questions to me and asked for clarification on the third question.Which two questions have you answered?


As for your insults, here's another one from you: "Well, you've got the 'T' in TULIP down pat." You're dubbing me a Calvinist....I don't regard referring to someone as a Calvanist an insult. At any rate, when you say, "How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ," then you have the "T" down pat.


So do you disagree with I Cor. 12:3, "no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit"? Or that faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29)?No. I agree with it completely. However, you have, I think, misrepresented John 6:28,29 as saying that faith is what God does. The Amplified renders it, "28 They then said, What are we to do, that we may [habitually] be working the works of God? [What are we to do to carry out what God requires?] 29 Jesus replied, This is the work (service) that God asks of you: that you believe in the One Whom He has sent [that you cleave to, trust, rely on, and have faith in His Messenger]." So the meaning is that belief in Jesus is what God desires us to do.
We certainly have faith in a great many things, so I would think it likely that we all have faith sufficient for salvation. BTW, consider that to be an example of how to answer a question.

But I still want to know where you answered the question of the clause, "to everyone who believes". Or for that matter a direct answer to whether you believe the 1:16 passage you quoted. You gave a rather long, winding discourse, but never answered if you believe the Romans passage, which a simple yes or no would suffice for.

I suspect you are being evasive because you are plenty smart enough to see that if you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes", then you are acknowledging that the rich promises of the Gospel are only for those who believe, and that means, of course, that there would also be those who do not believe, and hence "unbelievers". That would put you, in your view, on the wrong side of this ongoing debate (I use the word loosely since I can't debate someone like Athos who is afraid to answer questions) and you do not want to allow that to happen. Am I on the right track?

I still think we should use the "answer a question, and then ask a question" format. I would be happy to start with a question from you, but only with the assurance that questions will be honestly and directly answered. Deal?

Which two questions have you answered?
See #60 and #61.

I don't regard referring to someone as a Calvanist an insult. At any rate, when you say, "How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ," then you have the "T" down pat.
TULIP is used to explain Calvinist beliefs. Why did you throw that into this discussion?

You don't agree with the "T" apparently.


However, you have, I think, misrepresented John 6:28,29 as saying that faith is what God does. The Amplified renders it, "28 They then said, What are we to do, that we may [habitually] be working the works of God? [What are we to do to carry out what God requires?] 29 Jesus replied, This is the work (service) that God asks of you: that you believe in the One Whom He has sent [that you cleave to, trust, rely on, and have faith in His Messenger]." So the meaning is that belief in Jesus is what God desires us to do.
We certainly have faith in a great many things, so I would think it likely that we all have faith sufficient for salvation. BTW, consider that to be an example of how to answer a question.
So it's up to each one of us to accept the Gospel message. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it?

And your last sentence is another shaming moment.


But I still want to know where you answered the question of the clause, "to everyone who believes". Or for that matter a direct answer to whether you believe the 1:16 passage you quoted. You gave a rather long, winding discourse, but never answered if you believe the Romans passage, which a simple yes or no would suffice for.
I don't "answer" clauses, half-finished sentences.


I suspect you are being evasive because you are plenty smart enough to see that if you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes", then you are acknowledging that the rich promises of the Gospel are only for those who believe, and that means, of course, that there would also be those who do not believe, and hence "unbelievers". That would put you, in your view, on the wrong side of this ongoing debate (I use the word loosely since I can't debate someone like Athos who is afraid to answer questions) and you do not want to allow that to happen. Am I on the right track?
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Here is 60. I asked if you believed the 1:16 passage. You gave a rambling discourse about "What I believe", but no direct answer.

What I believe:

It is the Holy Spirit who brings faith to the unbeliever and causes him to see the truth of the Gospel.

Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.

***How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ.***

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Here is 61. "Why only the clause?" That's an answer? I was taught that statements ending with a question mark are actually...questions.


So it's up to each one of us to accept the Gospel message. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it?Without the Holy Spirit's ability to open our eyes to our sinful condition and the coming judgement of sinners, and His ability to reveal Jesus as the only source of a great, overwhelming salvation, then we cannot be saved. John 16:8. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:


And your last sentence is another shaming moment.Oh get over yourself. I really don't mean that to be ugly, but good grief. If you want to be treated like a weak, silly female, then ask for it and I'll just abandon conversations with you. If you want to be treated like a mature adult with a robust intelligence, which I certainly think is true, then get with the program and DIRECTLY answer some questions. Which do you want?

You have no idea what that is supposed to mean? Honestly, I think you do. Perhaps not, but with you unable to explain why you will not answer the question about "everyone who believes", I am left to fish for reasons.

Here is 60. I asked if you believed the 1:16 passage. You gave a rambling discourse about "What I believe", but no direct answer.

Rambling?????????


Here is 61. "Why only the clause?" That's an answer? I was taught that statements ending with a question mark are actually...questions.
Yes, it's not rambling. It's my counter question to you.


Without the Holy Spirit's ability to open our eyes to our sinful condition and the coming judgement of sinners, and His ability to reveal Jesus as the only source of a great, overwhelming salvation, then we cannot be saved. John 16:8. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Talking about a rambling response. A simple yes or no would have sufficed!


Oh get over yourself. I really don't mean that to be ugly, but good grief. If you want to be treated like a weak, silly female, then ask for it and I'll just abandon conversations with you. If you want to be treated like a mature adult with a robust intelligence, which I certainly think is true, then get with the program and DIRECTLY answer some questions. Which do you want?

Directly -- like you do?


You have no idea what that is supposed to mean? Honestly, I think you do. Perhaps not, but with you unable to explain why you will not answer the question about "everyone who believes", I am left to fish for reasons.

You're on quite a roll today!

Well, you still haven't simply said whether or not you believe the 1:16 passage and I suspect you never will. You are incredibly unable to answer if you accept the "everyone who believes" clause. I zeroed in on that clause since it has a lot to do with question of the fate of unbelievers. I doubt you will answer, however. "Evasive" is your middle name. And yes, I'm shaming you again. You should be. But perhaps you will surprise me and use that robust intelligence to actually directly answer simple questions, but I really have no hope of that happening.


So it's up to each one of us to accept the Gospel message. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it?You want direct? OK. Here's how it's done. Yes, it's up to us to accept the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit has an essential lot to do with it as I outlined above. Is that direct enough? See how it works?

Well, you still haven't simply said whether or not you believe the 1:16 passage and I suspect you never will. You are incredibly unable to answer if you accept the "everyone who believes" clause.

Please ask a complete question.


You want direct? OK. Here's how it's done. Yes, it's up to us to accept the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit has a lot to do with it as I outlined above. Is that direct enough? See how it works?

I totally disagree with you. That's not how it works.

Amazing. Just completely refuses to answer questions. You and Athos must be brother and sister. I guess Chicago is just a different kind of place.

Amazing. Just completely refuses to answer questions. You and Athos must be brother and sister. I guess Chicago is just a different kind of place.
I answered. Can't you read? (Yes, insulting, isn't it!) So you refuse to answer my questions! Athos is nowhere near Chicago.

You tell me the question of yours I have not answered.

You tell me the question of yours I have not answered.

Here is #61. "Why only the clause?" I was taught that statements ending with a question mark are actually...questions.

And here is the answer from 74. " You are incredibly unable to answer if you accept the "everyone who believes" clause. I zeroed in on that clause since it has a lot to do with question of the fate of unbelievers. I doubt you will answer, however." It was not, however, "only the clause". I also asked if you believed the entire passage as a separate question.

And I was right about getting no answer. Still no answer from you. Crickets. Zero. Nada. Shameful. nuttin. fear. trembling. angst. confusion. listlessness. terror. Typical Chicago zip? No courage. alarm, trepidation, dread, apprehension, fright, horror, dismay, consternation, panic. Robust intelligence? I don't know now. I really thought so, but now I'm not sure.

Call it shaming if you want. In Mississippi we call it "calling someone out". We usually respond to that by showing an utter lack of fear and answering questions fully. I guess we can't expect such things out of Chicago??? Maybe so???

When have I quoted the Catholic catechism?


You quoted the Catholic Church on Feb.11, your post #11. That section specifically omits any mention of unbelief and only refers to mortal sin. Now you will say that your "sinning" explanation really only means grevious sin like the Church mortal sin. You're very predictable. Be interesting to see how you get out of this one.


The below was to Wondergirl.


...but good grief. If you want to be treated like a weak, silly female,


Fascinating how you unknowingly reveal yourself in little snippets here and there.

You are correct that I did refer to it. It was said in reply to this statement of yours. "The topic is “Unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell”. This is the belief of a small group of fundamentalist Christians. As promised, here is my statement in opposition to this belief."

Here is my reply.

"Your contention that the punishment of hell is a doctrine believed by some small set of fundamentalists is simply wrong. It is a central belief of evangelical Christianity, and is believed by the Catholic Church as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." I am not a Catholic, but that sure seems pretty clear."

As any schoolchild can see, I was responding to your silly suggestion that punishment in hell was believed by some small set of fundamentalists. The Catholic position clearly says hell is eternal and is intended for those "who die in a state of mortal sin" where, it says, they suffer punishment. So once again you were called on the carpet for your sloppy theology.

And not to mention your fearful approach to answering questions.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

"The topic is “Unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell”. This is the belief of a small group of fundamentalist Christians. As promised, here is my statement in opposition to this belief."

Here is my reply.

"Your contention that the punishment of hell is a doctrine believed by some small set of fundamentalists is simply wrong.

You quoted me correctly at first, then you INCORRECTLY restated it. Amazing!


As any schoolchild can see, I was responding to your silly suggestion that punishment in hell was believed by some small set of fundamentalists.

The silliness is all yours. That was NEVER my position as you know very well. Your tendency to change meanings of positions held, phrases and even words is common to those who practice deceit.


you were called on the carpet for your sloppy theology.

In this case, my theology was accurate. The difficulty comes from you incorrectly citing my position.

This could go on forever. I am very, very comfortable and satisfied with my position and my defense of it, but I imagine you two feel the same way, so this bitter diatribe could go on unproductively forever.

I suggest we go to "answer a question, ask a question". The guidelines are very simple. Someone poses a question to another member. I'll volunteer to go first, receiving a question from one of you or both of you. That person then answers the question honestly and openly. The questioner can then ask one or two more questions for the sake of clarity. After that, the first question recipient then becomes the next questioner. Each person must fully agree to: 1. Answer honestly and openly. 2. Restrain from personal insult.

Anyone up for it???

Start new threads on this board under this topic?

We can go from right here as far as I'm concerned, just as soon as we all agree to the two conditions. I will agree.

We can go from right here as far as I'm concerned, just as soon as we all agree to the two conditions. I will agree.
Not sure what your "honestly and openly" means, but sure, I agree to your two conditions.

Best thing to do is start a new question as its own thread (don't hide it on this thread). That way, other members might post a response.

Not sure what your "honestly and openly" means, but sure, I agree to your two conditions.Too vague a response. Must be unconditional.


Best thing to do is start a new question as its own thread (don't hide it on this thread). That way, other members might post a response.Other members cannot participate. It is between a questioner and a question recipient. Otherwise it's too many cooks in the kitchen.

Other members cannot participate. It is between a questioner and a question recipient. Otherwise it's too many cooks in the kitchen.
That doesn't work on this site. I'm out.

I'm disappointed but not surprised. Still, it's your decision so I respect that. I knew Athos would not do it, but I thought you might. I have found that people who are genuinely interested in true discussion are rare. I know of precisely one at this point. It requires a significant degree of honesty and discipline.

I'm disappointed but not surprised. Still, it's your decision so I respect that. I knew Athos would not do it, but I thought you might. I have found that people who are genuinely interested in true discussion are rare. I know of precisely one at this point. It requires a significant degree of honesty and discipline.
Stop damning me!!! That method is NOT appropriate for this site.

Of course it is. It's appropriate for anyone who cares to do it. The site means nothing. You don't want to do it and that's fine by me. There's no compulsion here. My remark about knowing one person willing to engage in this discipline of discussion wasn't aimed at anyone. It's simply true. He's a local friend and grad of a Baptist seminary. We have good discussions and kind of informally follow those two guidelines.

Good grief! I DID refer to Scripture. You refused to read it. The internet reference had TONS of Scripture material for you in answer to your question. BUT YOU REFUSED TO READ IT.In your belief statement there was no scripture. I did not criticize you. I simply pointed out that your beliefs seem to be based upon your own opinions but nothing more. That being the case, there is no compelling reason for anyone else to accept them. That is not criticism but simple truth.


I am confident I have more knowledge of the historical significance of the Bible than you will ever have.
I have seen no evidence of that. Now it could very well be true, but so far I haven't seen it.


In your world, the Jesus who said Love Your Enemy is the same Jesus who condemns that enemy to hell for eternal punishment. The contradiction escapes you.
Calling Jesus gentle and loving is a common expression.How can you believe Jesus said anything or was anything? Is that all it is to you, a "common expression"? You seem to believe the Bible is unreliable and that we can't really know what Jesus said. If that is not the case, then please give further explanation. BTW, there is no contradiction.


There's no perhaps about it! You read it on a surface level, taking the words literally and missing the essence.If the Bible is not literal, then who determines what this mysterious "essence" is? You? The authors of the Bible did not have that approach. In John 20:31 we read, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." There is no need to find a "knower of essence" to understand that. It is plainly a literal statement. It is by believing in Him that we have life in His name.

I often think that your problem is you are under conviction of your need for Christ. I well remember how uncomfortable that can be.

Especially if you agree with many who have read the earliest Mark that the disciples are portrayed as unbelieving, demanding of truth, and the true believers were Mary and Martha.What "earliest copy of Mark" are you referring to? The earliest copy of Mark I could find was P45, a manuscript containing parts of all four gospels and so far as I could find, not different in any remarkable way from later copies.

If the Bible is not literal
Are Genesis 1 and 2 literal? Is Genesis 3 literal? Is Genesis 7 literal?

Now I will answer this question if you PROMISE to answer my following question. Deal?

Now I will answer this question if you PROMISE to answer my following question. Deal?
I wasn't asking just you. I figured tal and Athos and even 'clete might want to respond. This isn't a thread with the rule, "I'll answer your question if you answer mine."

This isn't a thread with the rule, "I'll answer your question if you answer mine You were responding to my quote, so I find it odd that you say you were not asking the question of me. Still, the rule is in effect if you want me to answer, but that's alright. I knew you wouldn't agree. The past is a good teacher for those who pay attention. But it's OK if you don't want to. It's a somewhat free country.

You were responding to my quote, so I find it odd that you say you were not asking the question of me. Still, the rule is in effect if you want me to answer, but that's alright. I knew you wouldn't agree. The past is a good teacher for those who pay attention. But it's OK if you don't want to. It's a somewhat free country.
I quoted your very thought-provoking comment, while giving you proper attribution, to stimulate responses. In the future, I will quote you without attribution.

Won't you still be quoting me, one way or the other?

It's OK. We can move on. I do hope you're feeling better. You mentioned several weeks ago that you were having health problems. Get well!

Won't you still be quoting me, one way or the other?
Like this.


It's OK. We can move on. I do hope you're feeling better. You mentioned several weeks ago that you were having health problems. Get well!
I have aplastic anemia, the rarest of the anemias. (For those who refuse to google, aplastic anemia is a rare, potentially fatal disease in which the bone marrow doesn't make enough blood cells.) In my case, it's a long-term problem, no known cause, currently in remission.

Glad you are at least in remission.

Glad you are at least in remission.

Me too!

@JL

You never did clarify those folks who decided what was to be put in the bible. We know it wasn't the copy guys, or the guys that chose what to be copied, and do we know the individual writers of every book? Did they deciples write their own stuff or tell a writer what they experienced?

Actually, I posted this earlier. "Irenaeus in the second century mentions 21 books as being accepted in the churches, all 21 of which ended up in the 4th century canon. At about the same time the Muratorian fragment mentions a very similar set of accepted books." It seems likely that there was settled agreement on what we now call the canon by the end of the second century in that they recognized most of what we have now. There was agreement on the four Gospels, Acts, nearly all of Paul's works, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, and Revelation. By the end of the fourth century, the canon was formalized in the sense that councils acknowledged what was already widely believed. It is believed that Paul dictated his letters to a secretary. None of the epistles are generally thought to be the work of another individual. Luke and John are clearly the authors of their gospels. Matthew and Mark are named by tradition and are widely accepted as authentic.

The early church fathers frequently quoted from the New Testament, so much so that even if the NT was completely lost, it could be found in their writings with the exception of a very minimal group of verses.

Wondergirl, it won't let me send you the test message. Your mailbox is full. Delete some stuff. Since I can't send it, and since I don't want to go over it again, here it is.

1. What are the names of the three waterfalls that comprise Niagara Falls?American, Horseshoe, and Bridal Veil Falls.
2. What is the name of the island that lies between two of the falls? Goat Island
3. Why was the island given this name? A herd of goats once roamed there.
4. Which Frenchman discovered Niagara Falls in 1678?Louis Hennepin
5. Who is credited with starting Niagara Falls’ honeymoon tradition in 1804? Brian and Wendy Honeymoon.
6. Which tightrope walker crossed Niagara Falls on June 15, 2012, on a live ABC special, following a two-year legal battle involving both sides of the Canada–United States border to gain approval, and was required to wear a safety harness for the first time in his/her life?Pretty sure that was Donald Trump.
7. Who was the first person, on his/her 63rd birthday on October 24, 1901, to go over the Horseshoe Falls in a custom-made (padded with a mattress) wooden barrel intentionally and survive? You know, I think that was Joe Biden. That might explain several things.
8. The Niagara River flows over the Falls from which Great Lake? Lake Erie
9. The Niagara River flows into which Great Lake? Lake Ontario
10. What is the name of the ship canal that enables ships to ascend and descend the Niagara Escarpment and bypass Niagara Falls? Donald Trump Canal

Hey, Teach. I was not well prepped for this test!

Sorry about a full mailbox. You got 6/10 correct, 60%. Hmm....

Added: mailbox has been cleaned out and sterilized

I still think I got numbers six and ten correct.

According to Daniel Wallace, 43% of the NT is contained in manuscripts from the second century.


The is hardly accepted by the majority of scholars. The first complete Gospel is from the 4th century. Prior to that are fragments only.

I would be happy to go with this scholar.
https://voice.dts.edu/article/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/


Likely? Largely settled? Are you making this up? The Bible was canonized in the late 4th century (Council of Laodicea). Read Iraneus. He's second century and one person removed from the Apostle John.


At the time, there were over 50 gospels and over 100 epistles being used in churches.


Evidence for that?


There is also no evidence that the text of the NT has been changed in any substantial way since the autographs, and certainly in no way that suggests it has "evolved" in meaning or content.

70 books, almost one million words, 40-50 different authors, composed over millenia, passed down by hand-written copies until the printing press, etc. Do you seriously maintain no changes have occurred? 70 books in the NT? 50 authors? What??

Read carefully. My assertion was, "...in no way that suggests it has "evolved" in meaning or content." I'll be happy to stick with that. I never suggested there were no changes, but I would suggest that finding meaningful ones is not easy,

Changes, additions, and ommmissions depending on which version or account.

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/bible

There are no changes of great consequence. If you have 18 free minutes, this video does a nice job of showing the reliability of the New Testament text. The site you linked was not written by a New Testament scholar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIdCRanZZyw

No it was not written by NT scholars, but historians who point out that many regions had writings they put together and were rejected for whatever reasons by one or another for varying reasons. You cannot miss the historical value of others that came along later and revised and changed things (Kings of Euro nations, the Catholics and Protestants) for their particulars sects, and Christianity (Most religions) has as many as any in teachings, interpretations, traditions and customs.

The writings of Judas and the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrate that the writings of ancient man on those times and events can have additions and differing views and perspectives worth noting, even if they didn't make it into the final version whichever that is.

I can see being loyal to whatever sect you belong to. I suppose that's why we have so many churches today with nuances unique to themselves.

The writings of Judas and the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrate that the writings of ancient man on those times and events can have additions and differing views and perspectives worth noting, even if they didn't make it into the final version whichever that is.There are no writings of Judas. As to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they have basically nothing to do with the New Testament. They do, however, give great testimony to the accurate transmission of the OT.

https://differentspirit.org/evidence/dead-sea-scrolls.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

Forgive my mischaracterizations or the ignorance of not separating the old and new testements. You can chalk it up as an outsider just looking at ancient man in an objective manner as a period piece of the times and conditions rather than a divine law. If Jesus was a Jew, and the Jewish hierarchy had it in for him, which lead to torture and death, then I can certainly understand his followers establishing a new religion around HIM, while separating themselves from the Jewish foundations. Thus the NT and Christianity.

http://www.religionfacts.com/charts/christianity-islam-judaism



Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are three of the most influential world religions in history. While Judaism isn't as large as Christianity and Islam, its impact on the world has still been as profound. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are sometimes called "Abrahamic religions" because they trace their history to the ancient figure of Abraham, first mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.


Branches from the same tree?

No one suggests that Judas wrote the Gospel of Judas.

The followers of Jesus did not establish a new religion. Jesus Himself did that. Read the gospels and you can see for yourself.

There is no other religion in the world similar to Christianity, or at least any that I know of.

No one suggests that Judas wrote the Gospel of Judas.

Nor did I just acknowledged it's existence.


The followers of Jesus did not establish a new religion. Jesus Himself did that. Read the gospels and you can see for yourself.

Jesus proclaimed he was the fulfilment of the messianic prophesy. The establishment disagreed. To this day they still do. He did not establish a new religion, he never broke from the Jewish faith, but his followers did.


There is no other religion in the world similar to Christianity, or at least any that I know of.

To me they all look alike and the followers say the same as you. I don't judge which is right, or one from another, but respect them all and the humans who make their own choice. My own choice is the relationship with the God I understand and to put nothing between us. It answers my questions and guides my path. What more can I ask for?

Jesus proclaimed he was the fulfilment of the messianic prophesy. The establishment disagreed. To this day they still do. He did not establish a new religion, he never broke from the Jewish faith, but his followers did.Like I said, read the Gospels and see for yourself. It's very clearly stated in the passage below. You cannot put new wine (faith in Christ) into an old wineskin (Judasim).

Mark 2:18ff. 18 (http://biblehub.com/mark/2-18.htm)Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”19 (http://biblehub.com/mark/2-19.htm)Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. 20 (http://biblehub.com/mark/2-20.htm)But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.21 (http://biblehub.com/mark/2-21.htm)“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22 (http://biblehub.com/mark/2-22.htm)And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”

It is in a multitude of other places as well.

Only the Christian faith, of all the world's major religions, tells of a Savior that, by having faith in Him, will bring salvation to a person completely aside from his or her own good or bad works.

Mark 2:18ff. 18 (http://biblehub.com/mark/2-18.htm)Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”19 (http://biblehub.com/mark/2-19.htm)Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. 20 (http://biblehub.com/mark/2-20.htm)But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.21 (http://biblehub.com/mark/2-21.htm)“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22 (http://biblehub.com/mark/2-22.htm)And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”
That is Jesus telling his followers to have common sense, not that He's starting a new religion.

Jesus created the teachings of the Gospel, but Paul implemented them throughout the ancient world, spreading a religion that may have originally been meant as a new, improved Judaism.

That is Jesus telling his followers to have common sense, not that He's starting a new religion.You really believe that Jesus talks about cloth and wineskins just to tell his disciples to have common sense??? Find any Bible commentary that agrees with you and we can discuss it.


Jesus created the teachings of the Gospel, but Paul implemented them throughout the ancient world, spreading a religion that may have originally been meant as a new, improved Judaism.Find any place where Jesus tells his disciples that he has come to refine and improve the Jewish faith and we can discuss that as well. No, His consistent message was that all of mankind, Jews and Gentiles, were to trust in Him for their salvation. That is far, far removed from a Jewish refinement.

Why haven't you addressed my grammar question?

Why haven't you addressed my grammar question?
??? What grammar question ???

I messaged you yesterday about how to punctuate parenthetical expressions.

I'll resend it.

Find any place where Jesus tells his disciples that he has come to refine and improve the Jewish faith and we can discuss that as well. No, His consistent message was that all of mankind, Jews and Gentiles, were to trust in Him for their salvation. That is far, far removed from a Jewish refinement.


That actually makes sense taken that the fulfillment of messianic prophesy puts an end to the old way of doing things for a new way and the old guard wasn't having it, supposedly since they claim Jesus couldn't meet the requirements for such fulfillment. Can you blame them? The overarching condition of that day was the Roman occupation. By all accounts the Pharisees held power as long as they appeased the Roman rule. The popularity of Jesus among the people was a direct threat to the old guard, from the Romans and the people, so they reacted as any authority would to eliminate that threat.

That's a pretty good description as far as it goes, but the even greater concern for Jesus was the will of God and the introduction of the New Covenant (New Testament) by which lost mankind could be saved. A fascinating description of this could be found in Jer,, 31:31. “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, [h (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NKJV&search=Jeremiah+31#fen-NKJV-19724h)]though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their [i (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NKJV&search=Jeremiah+31#fen-NKJV-19725i)]hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Compare that with Hebrews 8:8 where it is quoted and explained.

I don't doubt the commitment of the Christ to his God or mission, nor any other for that matter, but I read what Jesus was proclaiming as a BETTER deal, rather than a different deal. Now why would the Pharisees be opposed to that?

Because their affections were set upon this present age, but not upon the will of God or upon the love of God. "And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me."

From current events discussion.

There were many bibles and from which whomever had the best sway adopted as the official sanctioned version for the masses. Back (As NOW) then religious leaders were like politicians, always trying to keep ahead of the competition for followers and supporters. Indeed the whole history of religion is more domination and power than divinity.




There is some truth in that, but not in the way you think. It largely did not happen that way.

Could you expand on that please?

There has always been a struggle in the organized church between those (some, but not all) who want to dictate their own ideas to the masses versus those who want individual Christians to read the Bible and follow Jesus on a personal level. You see this clearly in the struggle to propagate an English (as opposed to Latin) version of the Bible. Wycliffe was the first to translate the Latin Bible, which was all he had access to, to English. This was prior to the printing press, so every copy was hand-written. His bones were later dug up and burned by the Catholic Church as reward for that effort, but his efforts started a sequence of events which, despite great opposition, resulted in an explosion of English versions in the sixteenth century. And that is not to mention Luther's German translation in that same century.

The Gospel has always been a minority enterprise and has been resisted by those who want to live in luxury and dominate those in the "church", but God eventually comes out victorious, and that is certainly the case with the Bible.

You can read a pretty good summary of it here. https://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

That certainly bolsters my position of religion being more like politics than divinity, at least among the learned men, scholars, and leaders of that day. They still do to this day, as they make and define the policies of good behavior for whatever the society is. I believe that to be true of ancient man as well, as one big shot competed with another for followers and monied supporters, and the many conflicts and all out wars a product of that competition. Costs money to raise an army against those other religious faction and clearly every religion has their different factions know as sects. Indeed Christians have squabbled amongst themselves as much as they have with other religions throughout history with the winner claiming converts whether they liked it or not.

It's just historical data that shows the bloody evolution of Christianity as it separated itself from its Judaic roots followed a few centuries later by Islam's rise in bloody conversions, leaving the Jews behind them both. All those religions of the loving single God killing each other over the notion of domination. Like I said pure politics in Gods name.

It's just historical data that shows the bloody evolution of Christianity as it separated itself from its Judaic roots followed a few centuries later by Islam's rise in bloody conversions, leaving the Jews behind them both.Bloody yes, but to refer to a supposed "evolution" of Christianity is not accurate. It would be accurate to describe the absolute resistance of those who defended the truth of the Christian faith in refusing to bow to any change imposed upon it by the organizations of false religions, to remember those who regarded that truth to be of greater value than their own fortunes and lives, and to honor the amazing triumph of the accurate transmission of the New Testament up to our modern age. The perseverance of those brave men and women, many of them to the point of death, is an absolute story of courage bolstered by the presence of God. Their motivation was to PREVENT any "evolution" of the faith.