Ask Me Help Desk - God of Love

Quote:

I frankly find this offensive to my life's work
Empty "self" and enter into the body of Christ Jesus...life's work is all that is needed.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I've spent the last 50 years searching the Scriptures in their original languages, seeking how to know and love Jesus and be more like Him.

You're telling me it was all wasted, all I need is some emotional experience.

My instinctive response isn't appropriate for this forum, but if you are determined to insult me, I have one thing to say:

bring it on, kid. Let's see what you've got.

Quote:

Speaking as someone with two advanced degrees in the biblical languages, you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.

So they taught you how to make vulgar comments in those two advanced degrees?

Quote:

I gave you both the lexical definition and the contextual definition as set out in both Testaments.

If you gave either one, I didn't see it, so where was that? This is the only post you made prior to today. "I don't know who told you that, but it's wrong. 'Unconditional love' is pretty much the dictionary definition. Always has been." I supplied both lexicon and dictionary entries as you actually copied in your post, and none of it supported your definition of agape as "unconditional love". I have seen nothing from you. Perhaps I missed it.

Quote:

You are quibbling over the fact that none of them used the word "unconditional." You're playing word games, nothing more.

Oh please. That's like saying, "The definition said it meant unconditional love except, of course, that it didn't say it." Did you learn that in your two advanced degrees also?

Quote:

I frankly find this offensive to my life's work. You're trivializing one of the most important ideas in the Bible.

Then you need to get over yourself. This is an internet message board for crying out loud, and you think someone has offended your life's work? HERE??? Well, if you think I'm going to accept your comments because you are full of yourself, then you are sadly mistaken.

Quote:

1 Tim 2:1-2. I want to hear you explain how "all people" doesn't really mean "all people." I want your explanation for how "wants ALL to come to [Jesus] doesn't really mean everybody

All means "all people". And yes, it means everybody. I have not contested that. However, it certainly does not say that all people DO come to Jesus. Jesus, in fact, said that would not happen.

"13“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." So tell me, does "many" mean "many", and does "few" mean "few"?

You might as well stop bragging about your degrees and "life work". That means nothing. If you can defend your positions, then go for it, but I'll tell you right now that I'm not intimidated with your degrees. I respect education as much as anyone, but it should prepare you to be able to make a compelling case for your ideas. Just expecting us to believe your comments because you have two advanced degrees and a "life work" is foolishness.

Quote:

bring it on, kid. Let's see what you've got.

That was uncalled for. Walter said nothing offensive to you. He simply offered his opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So they taught you how to make vulgar comments in those two advanced degrees?

Vulgar? He didn't say anything vulgar. Your imagination is working overtime. The saying is, "You're full of applesauce!"

Quote:

you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.

What do you think he meant by that? Applesauce? Yeah, I'm sure that was it. I know you are fully committed to supporting your buddies at all costs, but that's really excessive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What do you think he meant by that? Applesauce? Yeah, I'm sure that was it. I know you are fully committed to supporting your buddies at all costs, but that's really excessive.

Yes, applesauce.

"Err on the side of kindness." -Kurt Fearnley. And Eph. 4:32a, "Be kind and compassionate to one another."

It came from the same guy who said this. "My instinctive response isn't appropriate for this forum..." So yeah, I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to applesauce. And the scripture you quoted about being kind and compassionate is simply allegorical. It is not meant to be taken literally. Remember?

At any rate, is this your example of how to be kind and compassionate? "This thread so far is a perfect example of why I don't cherry-pick and toss Bible verses around."

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It came from the same guy who said this. "My instinctive response isn't appropriate for this forum..." So yeah, I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to applesauce. And the scripture you quoted about being kind and compassionate is simply allegorical. It is not meant to be taken literally. Remember?

Why are you being mean and making fun of me? Okay. I'm gone.

You always say I'm too literal, don't you? But if I'm being mean, then I do apologize. It's been a stressful afternoon, and then I come home to read DW's diatribe which was aggravating.

But I must confess that I don't understand why you want to lecture me but then not follow your own advice.

I understand John 3:16 as being "SO"-.as So, (thus. just like) John 3:15- like the snake in the wilderness...
All you need is to Look at the Cross, just look!

Quote:

I frankly find this offensive to my life's work

Isaiah 64:6 says that “all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.” The Pharisees had a righteousness, but Jesus asserts that our righteousness must exceed theirs (Matthew 5:20), meaning that we need to have His righteousness imputed to us, which becomes our new covering, our new garment. As we become one with Him and submit to taking on His image, we have a righteousness that does not come from our works but from God's …

All you need is to Look at the Cross, just look!

Your Fight is with Jesus, not me.

I'm out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltero

Your Fight is with Jesus, not me.

I'm out.

This is a familiar refrain from evangelicals. When they leave a discussion with nothing more to contribute, they say, "Your fight is with Jesus, not me". Where have I heard that before?

(Note my civility in replying to W.)

Quote:

I understand John 3:16 as being "SO"-.as So, (thus. just like) John 3:15- like the snake in the wilderness...

That's probably fair enough, and yet the text still says that God loves the world. The 15th verse is a beautiful thought for sure. Emphasizes grace in a wonderful way.

I'm still thinking about your observation about the sermons in Acts and their non-mention of love. Soon I'm going to take each sermon in Acts, one at a time, and try to see what they did emphasize. Was there a pattern?

This is what Paul talked about. Acts 24:25. "As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come..."

Quote:

All you need is to Look at the Cross, just look!

Reminds me of Spurgeon's conversion experience.

I have no idea what got DW so upset. Seemed strange to me. Your remark seemed pretty harmless to me.

One more thing. I spent a little time this morning looking to see if I could find a major translation that used "unconditional" in conjunction with "love". There was not a single one. I then looked at some paraphrases. Nothing. Looked at both the Amplified and Expanded versions. Nothing. Even looked at the old J.B. Philips paraphrase. Still nothing. So it certainly seems fair to say that English translations do not render "agape" as "unconditional love".

Now you can appeal to context, and that might help out some, but not to actual translations, and that seems pretty conclusive to me as far as the simple meaning of "agape" is concerned. But I'm open to the viewpoints of others if they have support from other areas.

There's seem to be no other contributors to Walter's thread, so we are continuing with a somewhat related topic.

This is from WG.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...post-right.png
It's not what I believe. It's what Jesus declared.

Please read that blog post for a better understanding of what hell is.

Too late. I already have. Your statement is just flat wrong. It is widely believed that Revelation was the last of the NT books written and was produced in the final decade of the first century.

Please research this.

Deal. At least you are now admitting that you were, indeed, condescending.

Nope, am just trying to placate you. :-)

This from JL

Nope, am just trying to placate you. :-)

So you are going to stop that which you were not doing? Sorry, but as we say down here, "That dog just won't hunt."

Please research this.

Take your own advice. I've been doing that for the past twenty years. You're just wrong and you don't want to admit it.

Please read that blog post for a better understanding of what hell is.

Pretty sure they don't have a better explanation than Jesus did. I read one article. If that one's a loser like your first one was since, according to you, it was based on a book that's not supposed to be in the Bible, then I'm done.

In John 3:16 it says that whoever believes in Jesus, "would not perish". What do you think "perish" means in that passage? Honest question.

Jesus not only triumphed over hell, but also defeated hell by suffering hell away. Christ himself suffered the dread and horror of a distressed conscience that tasted eternal wrath…to be killed and damned, or to be in death and hell…to have the same consciousness as the damned—that is death, THAT is the descent into hell.
https://www.1517.org/articles/the-su...g-away-of-hell

Quote:

Jesus not only triumphed over hell, but also defeated hell by suffering hell away. Christ himself suffered the dread and horror of a distressed conscience that tasted eternal wrath…to be killed and damned, or to be in death and hell…to have the same consciousness as the damned—that is death, THAT is the descent into hell.

Now if you can just get the Bible to say that, then you'll have a case. But the Bible doesn't say that. Jesus, in contrast, Himself said this. It is a lengthy, clear, detailed passage that completely contradicts your idea.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
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. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I 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.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Now if you can just get the Bible to say that, then you'll have a case. But the Bible doesn't say that. Jesus, in contrast, Himself said this.

And Jesus wrote that down Himself....or there's a recording somewhere?

And He wrote down what you claimed to true? Why are you using different standards? And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said? You render the Bible utterly meaningless.

When was it written down? By whom? As it was spoken? As a memory? By word-of-mouth?

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70. It was written by eye witnesses or people who knew eye witnesses. It was also written in the lifetime of those who could have contradicted the whole story because they were eye witnesses as well. That did not happen. Wonder why?

You did not answer this. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"

Also never answered this. What does "perish" mean as used in John 3:16?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70. It was written by eye witnesses or people who knew eye witnesses.

Maybe.

Quote:

You did not answer this. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"

I have to believe every jot and tittle in the Bible?

Quote:

Also never answered this. What does "perish" mean as used in John 3:16?

Succumb to spiritual havoc.

Quote:

I have to believe every jot and tittle in the Bible?

That's not an answer. You are being evasive.

Quote:

Succumb to spiritual havoc.

So you would agree that those who do not believe in Jesus succumb to spiritual havoc? What does "spiritual havoc" mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That's not an answer. You are being evasive.

I'm not a literalist.

Quote:

So you would agree that those who do not believe in Jesus succumb to spiritual havoc? What does "spiritual havoc" mean?

As was described in that blog post you refused to read.

So you don’t believe that God literally loves sinners? Interesting.

Again, what is spiritual havoc?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70.

Another disingenuous remark by you. The EARLIEST complete copies of the Gospels are from later centuries, NOT 70 A.D.

Quote:

It was written by eye witnesses or people who knew eye witnesses. It was also written in the lifetime of those who could have contradicted the whole story because they were eye witnesses as well.

That has been rebuked once and for all by almost all scholars except the fundamentalist types. Why do you keep repeating the falsehood?

Quote:

You did not answer this. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"

Easy to do - apply your reasoning powers to the Bible and that way you won't go around believing in talking snakes and other stories that are not literal. Will you never learn?

Quote:

Also never answered this. What does "perish" mean as used in John 3:16?

Perish means to die, whether in John 3:16 or in any other book. When you claim other meanings than the plain meaning of a word, you are far off in another universe.

1. That the Gospel accounts were written in the first century is disputed by virtually no one.

2. Oh? Name some of those "all scholars".

3. Except that your rant did not even come close to answering the question.

4. So you don't agree with WG? At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

1. That the Gospel accounts were written in the first century is disputed by virtually no one.

COMPLETE COPIES is what I said. Not even fragmemts are available from the first century. Stop playing word games. I'm tired of it.

Quote:

2. Oh? Name some of those "all scholars".

Do your own research. Google New Testament scholars. It couldn't be simpler. You can find all the names your heart desires.

Quote:

3. Except that your rant did not even come close to answering the question.

Perish means perish. All your nonsense won't change that.

Quote:

4. So you don't agree with WG?

It's OK to disagree with WG. Did you think she is infallible?

1. But complete copies is not what I said. I simply said they were written in the first century prior to A.D. 70.

2. I don't research your foolish remarks. I find that liberals love to make bold, brash statements UNTIL you ask for some specifics. Then they beat a hasty retreat as you are doing.

3. Thank you for the non-answer.

4. Fine with me. I don't agree with her either. Still, I'll state the question again for your benefit. "At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?" It renders the passage to basically say, "Everyone is going to die, but those who don't believe in Jesus are going to die." So that makes sense to you?

The Greek word apolētai doesn't mean "to die". It has more of the sense of being destroyed.

ἀπόληται

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

1. But complete copies is not what I said. I simply said they were written in the first century prior to A.D. 70.

2. I don't research your foolish remarks. I find that liberals love to make bold, brash statements UNTIL you ask for some specifics. Then they beat a hasty retreat as you are doing.

3. Thank you for the non-answer.

4. Fine with me. I don't agree with her either. Still, I'll state the question again for your benefit. "At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?" It renders the passage to basically say, "Everyone is going to die, but those who don't believe in Jesus are going to die." So that makes sense to you?

Give it up, jl, you're starting to do the repeating thing again. No matter what answer you get, you will deny it if it doesn't agree with your biases. We've all been there, done that.

Remember?

Quote:

I'll state the question again for your benefit. "At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?" It renders the passage to basically say, "Everyone is going to die, but those who don't believe in Jesus are going to die." So that makes sense to you?

Answers just aren't your thing, are they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Remember? Answers just aren't your thing, are they?

I get my answers from Jesus. I asked him about that quote and he said it was inserted later, and that he never said it. Satisfied?

Yeah...except that no one ever claimed that Jesus said it. Oh well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yeah...except that no one ever claimed that Jesus said it. Oh well.

Jesus also said perish means perish.

Quote:

you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.
What do you think he meant by that? Applesauce? Yeah, I'm sure that was it. I know you are fully committed to supporting your buddies at all costs, but that's really excessive.

You're correct, I did not mean "applesauce." The expression I learned was "baloney."

I think we all know what you were thinking. Tell me again who's being vulgar.

Quote:

One more thing. I spent a little time this morning looking to see if I could find a major translation that used "unconditional" in conjunction with "love". There was not a single one. I then looked at some paraphrases. Nothing. Looked at both the Amplified and Expanded versions. Nothing. Even looked at the old J.B. Philips paraphrase. Still nothing. So it certainly seems fair to say that English translations do not render "agape" as "unconditional love".

That proves that they didn't translate it in a pleonastic fashion, it's understood from the context. You can't prove anything with translations.

Quote:

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70.

I don't know what JL's source for this is, but those who want to read an interesting defense of it might check out John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. Those familiar with the name will know he was anything but a raving conservative, so I found his approach fascinating. You might as well.

Quote:

1. That the Gospel accounts were written in the first century is disputed by virtually no one.

2. Oh? Name some of those "all scholars".

1. Pretty much all non-evangelical scholars put Matthew and some others after the close of the first century. They make fun of evangelicals for their lack of solid evidence for their side. I'm not saying I agree with them, but the statement that virtually nobody disputes what JL said is incorrect.

2. Bart Ehrman. NT Wright. Marcus Borg. James Dunn. John Dominic Crossan. To name just a few.

Quote:

You can't prove anything with translations.

If that's so, then why did you get so wrought up about the meaning of agape? For that matter, if that's true, then why do we have translations?

Quote:

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70.

I don't know what JL's source for this is, but those who want to read an interesting defense of it might check out John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. Those familiar with the name will know he was anything but a raving conservative, so I found his approach fascinating. You might as well.

That's true. There are those who want to date some books past that point, but there are good reasons to believe otherwise. And the late dates cannot be applied without a major assumption that the Gospels were basically fraudulent accounts written by liars.

Quote:

you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.
What do you think he meant by that? Applesauce? Yeah, I'm sure that was it. I know you are fully committed to supporting your buddies at all costs, but that's really excessive.

You're correct, I did not mean "applesauce." The expression I learned was "baloney."

I think we all know what you were thinking. Tell me again who's being vulgar.

It was an ugly, irreverent statement. Slice it any way you want, and that's still what you have. Besides, what makes you think I was not thinking of "baloney"? And wouldn't that make you vulgar?

You guys are sure experts at knowing what someone else is thinking. Interesting.

Quote:

It was an ugly, irreverent statement. Slice it any way you want, and that's still what you have. Besides, what makes you think I was not thinking of "baloney"? And wouldn't that make you vulgar?

You guys are sure experts at knowing what someone else is thinking. Interesting.

Surely you jest. You consider "baloney" and "applesauce" vulgar? The fact that you considered the statement vulgar is solid evidence of what you were thinking. We didn't have to suss anything out, you told us in plain words.

As for translations, they're better than nothing. But you can't prove the meaning of a word or phrase in the original using translations. You have to know the language. Intimately.

Part of my life's work has been taking some of the incredibly lofty concepts found in the original languages and making them available in plain English (as opposed to Scholarese, a dialect that people only write for each other). Some of the most amazing things can be found in the scholarly literature, and most people don't have the vocabulary or background to follow it. That's where I come in.

Referring to your comment, I said, "It was an ugly, irreverent statement. Slice it any way you want, and that's still what you have." It did, however, have the very distinct appearance of vulgarity. That should have been sufficient reason for you to have avoided it, especially considering your comment that, " "My instinctive response isn't appropriate for this forum..." So "baloney" isn't appropriate for this board? That's what we're to believe?

It was simply a hateful comment, and I would suggest you avoid using a reference to the Holy Spirit in such insults. Now you are trying to dig yourself out of it. Still, it it was many weeks ago, so I'd suggest you forget about it.

Quote:

As for translations, they're better than nothing. But you can't prove the meaning of a word or phrase in the original using translations. You have to know the language. Intimately.

Is that how you decided "agape" meant "unconditional love", despite the fact that no translation or lexicon agrees with you?

Quote:

As for translations, they're better than nothing. But you can't prove the meaning of a word or phrase in the original using translations. You have to know the language. Intimately.

Or you could go to works published by legitimate scholars and read what they have to say. That's the practice I employ.

Quote:

Is that how you decided "agape" meant "unconditional love", despite the fact that no translation or lexicon agrees with you?

I didn't "decide" anything. Context did. Translations and lexicons are a starting point, not the end. And they're often wrong.

Quote:

Or you could go to works published by legitimate scholars and read what they have to say. That's the practice I employ.

Who are they? What are their credentials? What criteria do you use to decide whether they're right or wrong?
This is a dodge, nothing more. But it's what you do. I'm done here.