Yeah. Of course all of those OTHER Greek experts don't. Too bad. No lexicon, dictionary, or English translation supported that translation of agape. Or at least none of the ones I referenced did. No one else bothered to check.

But this is of much greater importance. You didn't like what Jesus said about hell, so you came up with the objection that we had no recording of Him saying that. But you don't raise that objection when He mentions agape love. Why not? Why do you accept Him saying words about agape love, but not about hell? It certainly appears it's simply because you don't like the teaching about hell, but you do like the teaching about love. So I asked the question below which you have steadfastly refused to answer.

" 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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

" 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?"

---

Please simplify your question.

Quote:

---

It certainly appears it's simply because you don't like the teaching about hell, but you do like the teaching about love

---

So all the Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and even Christians who don't believe exactly correctly (like you do) and even people who lived before Jesus are all going to hell?

You claimed that we had no "recording somewhere" of Jesus speaking on hell in Mt. 25. The last time I checked, we don't have any recordings of anyone speaking in the Bible. That being the case, how do you accept ANYTHING said in the Bible? There are no recordings at all.

Simple enough?

Quote:

---

You didn't like what Jesus said about hell, so you came up with the objection that we had no recording of Him saying that. But you don't raise that objection when He mentions agape love. Why not? Why do you accept Him saying words about agape love, but not about hell? It certainly appears it's simply because you don't like the teaching about hell, but you do like the teaching about love.

---

This is something I sincerely hope you seriously think about. You have a religion of your own making. The parts of the Bible that don't agree with you, you claim they are not to be taken literally or we don't have a "recording somewhere" of those statements. I think you are in a perilous situation.

Quote:

---

So all the Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and even Christians who don't believe exactly correctly (like you do) and even people who lived before Jesus are all going to hell?

---

Sounds like you are trying to change the subject. I would tell anyone to listen to what Jesus said and pay no attention to what JL or WG say.

“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."

Sorry, but no recording of that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Sorry, but no recording of that one.

---

I can't believe you're making such an issue of my comment about recording. Yes, you're definitely a literalist!

Oh well. You are clearly not going to answer or take anything seriously. I wish you would. I sincerely do.

Tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Oh well. You are clearly not going to answer or take anything seriously. I wish you would. I sincerely do.

---

Huh??? You're the one with the reading problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

A few just off the top of my head. I would tell you to just google it, but that's your deal and not mine.

A respect for human life.
Recognition of property rights
Right to self defense
The sanctity of marriage
The importance of family
The need for church to be free from govt. interference
Freedom of religion
The importance of a fair and efficient system of justice
The rule of law

---

This is laughable. You attribute everything you can think of to the Bible. Notably absent is slavery - a definite founding principle taken directly from the Bible. I could cite mass slaughter, also from the Bible - a justification for exterminating Native Americans, or trying to.

How do you explain those principles being found in other nations? The Bible is 2,500 years old. Human civilization is at least 40,000 years old. Don't you think the species was working out those ways to run a society long before the Bible was ever thought of?

The Bible, like all cultural artifacts, inherited what went before it. Each culture added or refined its understanding, but no one culture did it all.

I'll comment on one - The need for church to be free from govt. interference. It is more likely that the government needed to be free from religious interference. Remember the mass movements from Europe to the New World were to ESCAPE religious influence.

Your two anecdotes are pathetic in their unimportance. Sabbath and the year of the Lord. That's the meaning of Anno Domini. AD. When atheists use AD does that mean they're Christian? When stores close on Sunday (or the actual Sabbath day - Saturday) does that mean they're Christian? You tend to make weak arguments, but this may be your weakest.

Your link is typical - something from a police organization, yet you reject information from a Biblical scholar who has been studying ancient and modern Greek for decades.

If you want to debate treaties as proof of the nation being founded on Christian principles, put this one in your pipe and smoke it.

From the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796.

"...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...".

Quote:

---

Huh??? You're the one with the reading problem.

---

Perfect illustration of your lack of seriousness. BTW, do you have an answer yet? I went to the trouble to "simplify" the question, and yet you have passed on it again. "You claimed that we had no "recording somewhere" of Jesus speaking on hell in Mt. 25. The last time I checked, we don't have any recordings of anyone speaking in the Bible. That being the case, how do you accept ANYTHING said in the Bible? There are no recordings at all." Put another way, the evidence for the accuracy of the remarks of Jesus in Mt. 25 is the same as for the rest of the NT, so if you reject Mt. 25 for that reason, then aren't you really rejecting the whole of the NT?

As to Athos' rant disguised as a reply, you did not actually address any of the points except for one, and with that one you simply went off in a different direction. The church being independent of the government is very clear from the NT.

Quote:

---

yet you reject information from a Biblical scholar who has been studying ancient and modern Greek for decades.

---

The truth is I accepted information from dozens of Greek scholars who work on lexicons and Bible translations. None of them agreed with WG's definition of agape, a truth which none of you has bothered to follow up on. DW did not attempt to defend his position so that's a dead issue.

I think the fact that Sunday was recognized in the Constitution to NOT be just another day of work is pretty significant.

Some more food for thought.

1. "The Declaration of Independence has many references to God throughout the document. The most famous one is that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”

Here are more references to God found in the document:
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”
Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World”
With a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence”

2. The Paris Peace Treaty was the document which formally ended the Revolution and granted the United States independence from Great Britain. In a real sense, the United States formally became a nation on September 3, 1783.

When the United States became a nation, it was done in the “name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” The preamble to this Treaty states it is based upon the “Holy and undivided Trinity.” The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith. "


http://www.internationalcopsforchris...istian-nation/

Now I don't agree with this site that we were founded as a Christian nation, but it certainly does indicate that they took seriously the teachings of the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

you did not actually address any of the points except for one,

---

Stand by - I'll address some more as time allows.

Quote:

---

The truth is I accepted information from dozens of Greek scholars

---

Dozens? Yeah, right. Name them.

Quote:

---

DW did not attempt to defend his position so that's a dead issue.

---

No, not dead. Very much alive. I'll go with DW instead of your "dozens" of un-named "scholars".

Quote:

---

I think the fact that Sunday was recognized in the Constitution to NOT be just another day of work is pretty significant.

---

That's ridiculous.

Quote:

---

"The Declaration of Independence has many references to God throughout the document. The most famous one is that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”

Here are more references to God found in the document:
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”
Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World”
With a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence”

---

Every reference is a generic God that every religion and/or deists and theists could claim.

Quote:

---

2. The Paris Peace Treaty was the document which formally ended the Revolution and granted the United States independence from Great Britain. In a real sense, the United States formally became a nation on September 3, 1783.

---

Good grief. You'll say anything to suit your case. The United States became a nation on July 4, 1776 when it declared itself to be independent. Read a history book.

Quote:

---

When the United States became a nation, it was done in the “name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.”

---

Total, unmitigated BS! Why do you insist on showing yourself to be so goofy?

Quote:

---

The preamble to this Treaty states it is based upon the “Holy and undivided Trinity.”

---

Then explain how the Treaty of Tripoli which corrected the Treaty of Paris 13 years later says as its first line, ""...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...".

Quote:

---

The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith.

---

It means nothing of the sort. You're so far out in left field, I hope as many as possible read your nonsense. It fits right in with your other bizarre beliefs.

Quote:

---

Now I don't agree with this site that we were founded as a Christian nation

---

You don't agree? After just saying you DO agree? Why am I honoring your craziness by replying? I should know better.

Quote:

---

but it certainly does indicate that they took seriously the teachings of the Bible.

---

That's a far cry from the topic being discussed. Typical.

Quote:

---

Dozens? Yeah, right. Name them.

---

Easy. Here are the translators of the NIV New Testament. You will see fifteen of so of them. They did not render "agape" as "unconditional love". There will be similar lists for the ESV, NASB, and many other major translations which followed the same practice. I tried to post the ESV list, but it is so long that AMHD seems not to allow it to be posted, so I just tried the first dozen names. Look below. I also posted lexicon and dictionary entries earlier in the discussion.

https://www.thenivbible.com/about-th...e-translators/
http://bible-researcher.com/esv-translators.html

See how easy that was? You should try it sometime. You should know by now that I don't make claims I can't support. That's the domain of you and WG.

Quote:

---

Good grief. You'll say anything to suit your case. The United States became a nation on July 4, 1776 when it declared itself to be independent. Read a history book.

---

I didn't "say" the comment you were referring to. Notice the link I provided so that I would not be plagiarizing like you have done?

Quote:

---

Total, unmitigated BS! Why do you insist on showing yourself to be so goofy?

---

See the comment above. Same situation. His comment, by the way, had a good point.

Quote:

---

Then explain how the Treaty of Tripoli which corrected the Treaty of Paris 13 years later says as its first line, ""...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...".

---

That's a good question. I would say for you to Google it, but instead I'll look at it tomorrow. The first thing that stands out to me is that it is very much an outlier. We'll see. Might have a lot to do with what "founded on the Christian religion" means.

Quote:

---

The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith.


It means nothing of the sort. You're so far out in left field, I hope as many as possible read your nonsense. It fits right in with your other bizarre beliefs.

---

I've already stated I don't agree with his conclusion. Still, the material is interesting. It certainly means they formally acknowledged the Christian faith in that treaty.

Quote:

---

You don't agree? After just saying you DO agree? Why am I honoring your craziness by replying? I should know better.

---

Where did I say I agreed? Actually, from the very beginning when WG asked, "10. America was founded as a Christian nation," I responded by saying, "No. To say we were founded on Biblical principles would be closer to the truth." So are you making things up again?

You sure are wound up tonight. Have a tough day?

1. Dr. Clifford John Collins, OT Chairman. Associate Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary; S.B., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; S.M., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; M.Div., Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary; Ph.D., University of Liverpool.
2. Dr. Lane T. Dennis, Publishing Chairman. President, Good News Publishers-Crossway Books; B.S., Northern Illinois University; M.Div., McCormick Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Northwestern University.
3. Dr. Wayne A. Grudem. Professor and Chairman, Department of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; B.A., Harvard University; M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Cambridge.
4. Dr. Paul R. House, OT Associate Chairman. Professor of Old Testament, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry; B.A., Southwest Baptist University; M.A., University of Missouri-Columbia; M.Div., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
5. Dr. R. Kent Hughes. Senior Pastor, College Church in Wheaton; B.A., Whittier College; M.Div., Talbot Theological Seminary; D.Min., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
6. Dr. Robert H. Mounce, NT Associate Chairman. President Emeritus, Whitworth College; B.A., University of Washington; B.D., Fuller Theological Seminary; Th.M., Fuller Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
7. Dr. William D. Mounce, NT Chairman. Professor of New Testament, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; B.A., Bethel College; M.A., Fuller Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
8. Dr. J. I. Packer, ESV General Editor. Board of Governors and Professor of Theology, Regent College (Vancouver, BC); B.A., Oxford University; M.A., Oxford University; D.Phil., Oxford University.
9. Dr. Leland Ryken, Literary Chairman. Professor of English, Wheaton College; B.A., Central College; Ph.D., University of Oregon.
10. Dr. Vern Sheridan Poythress. Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Westminster Theological Seminary; B.S., California Institute of Technology; Ph.D., Harvard University; M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary; Th.M., Westminster Theological Seminary; M.Litt., University of Cambridge; D.Th., University of Stellenbosch.
11. Dr. Gordon Wenham, OT Associate Chairman. Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies, The College of St. Paul and St. Mary (Cheltenham, England); B.A., Cambridge University; M.A., Cambridge University; Ph.D., King's College, London University.
12. Dr. Bruce Winter. Warden, Tyndale House (Cambridge, England); B. A., University of Queensland; M.Theo., SEA Graduate School; Ph.D., Macquarie University.

Agape is a Greek noun that means selfless or unconditional love.

I'll let you pursue that with those dozens of Greek scholars I just listed who don't agree with you. That's really the amazing part of this to me, that it doesn't bother you that no one of importance agrees with your definition, nor can you find a single major translation that renders "agape" as "unconditional love". If I was in your shoes it would bother me a great deal. And it's not that I completely disagree with your conclusion. I think that God's love for sinners is unconditional in some sense of it, but to say that "agape" equates to unconditional love just takes it much too far, and especially in your view that it actually leads to unconditional acceptance.

I also don't understand why you would care. You've made it clear that, in your view, we can never be sure of what anyone in the New Testament actually said to begin with. For all anyone can know, they might have been saying the word "hate". We can never be sure of anything.

None of this, by the way, is mean spirited or a "put down". Just trying to inspire some thinking.

You have a son. You love him unconditionally? Or only if he toes your line?

I love him at all times. That is unconditional. However, his acceptance in my house in conditional. He cannot come in and cuss his mother, steal our money, tear the place up, sell drugs, live here without our permission, move in with his girlfriend, set fires, sell the furniture, or other unacceptable acts. We would still love him, but not accept him in our house. Besides, it is only through Jesus that we become a child of God. Or at least that's what the unreliable text (in your view?) of the Gospel of John says.

You really, for your own sake, need to think about this comment. "You've made it clear that, in your view, we can never be sure of what anyone in the New Testament actually said to begin with. For all anyone can know, they might have been saying the word "hate". We can never be sure of anything."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I love him at all times. That is unconditional. However, his acceptance in my house in conditional.

---

He is found guilty of assault and is sentenced to six years in the state pen. Do you continue to love him unconditionally?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Easy. Here are the translators of the NIV New Testament. You will see fifteen of so of them. They did not render "agape" as "unconditional love".

---

Complete nonsense. All you did was go to the Bibles in question and posted the names of the translators. What you need to do is post the discussions each one had re the term "unconditional love". But you can't do that, can you? Why? Because such discussions never occurred. You're fooling no one, except embarrassing yourself again.

Quote:

---

You should know by now that I don't make claims I can't support.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHALOLOLOLOLHAHHALOLO. OH GOD, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

Quote:

---

I didn't "say" the comment you were referring to.

---

Of course, you did - go back and read it.

Quote:

---

That's a good question. I would say for you to Google it, but instead I'll look at it tomorrow. The first thing that stands out to me is that it is very much an outlier.

---

Yeah, like your citation wasn't an outlier.

Quote:

---

It certainly means they formally acknowledged the Christian faith in that treaty.

---

Maybe, maybe not. Hinduism has a trinity of gods. Even so, one citation does not a foundation make. You're stretching again. Btw, did you know other religions don't consider Christianity as monotheistic? They consider it polytheistic because of the three persons/gods in the Trinity.

Quote:

---

Where did I say I agreed? So are you making things up again?

---

Right here, O You, who cannot read his own posts.

When the United States became a nation, it was done in the “name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” The preamble to this Treaty states it is based upon the “Holy and undivided Trinity.” The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith. "

and this in the very same post:

Now I don't agree with this site that we were founded as a Christian nation,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

it doesn't bother you that no one of importance agrees with your definition,

---

If DW who has studied ancient Greek for decades has no importance in your twisted view, then anything you say is complete and utter hogwash in comparison.

Quote:

---

nor can you find a single major translation that renders "agape" as "unconditional love".

---

Can you exercise your own judgment, or are you simply a slave to what others have written? Did you ever consider that maybe the term is modern and not within the purview of your translators? Huh? Did you? That's more to put in your pipe.

Quote:

---

I think that God's love for sinners is unconditional in some sense of it, but to say that "agape" equates to unconditional love just takes it much too far

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you fundies believe that being "born again" is total and forever acceptance by God?

Quote:

---

He is found guilty of assault and is sentenced to six years in the state pen. Do you continue to love him unconditionally?

---

Of course. Would I go about insisting that what he was guilty of was, in fact, wonderful and good behavior? No.

Quote:

---

Complete nonsense. All you did was go to the Bibles in question and posted the names of the translators. What you need to do is post the discussions each one had re the term "unconditional love".

---

Don't be ridiculous. They translated the NT and rendered agape simply as love. Case closed. There are hundreds of these scholars. It is absurd to think that the "discussions" they had are accessible, but we do know what they produced. You are just trying to squeeze out of that box you are in. And in addition, do you have the "discussion" that took place where DW decided the word meant unconditional love? Huh? Do you have that "discussion"? Please don't tell us to google it.

Quote:

---

HAHAHAHAHAHALOLOLOLOLHAHHALOLO. OH GOD, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

---

The usual well-reasoned, logical response.

Quote:

---

I didn't "say" the comment you were referring to.

---

Quote:

---

Of course, you did - go back and read it.

---

And the usual, "Go back and look it up." Any honest person would note that I already did and included the quote in my response. You remember about quotes??

Quote:

---

Maybe, maybe not. Hinduism has a trinity of gods.

---

If you want to believe the founders were referring to the Hindu gods, then go for it. You will, however, be alone in that belief. Beside, Hinduism has millions of gods. Might add that the Christian trinity does not put forward the idea of three Gods.

Quote:

---

When the United States became a nation, it was done in the “name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” The preamble to this Treaty states it is based upon the “Holy and undivided Trinity.” The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith. "

and this in the very same post:

Now I don't agree with this site that we were founded as a Christian nation,

---

Anyone accustomed to being even the least bit careful with their reading would note that the first passage is not from me. It was a quote (Remember those??) from someone else. And that quote was what I said I did not agree with. Pay closer attention and stop making things up. That has become a bad habit of yours. Perhaps WG can give you some counseling on that.

Quote:

---

If DW who has studied ancient Greek for decades has no importance in your twisted view, then anything you say is complete and utter hogwash in comparison.

---

Already answered repeatedly. The count is several hundred to one. You can have your one, and I'll stick with the several hundred.

Quote:

---

Can you exercise your own judgment, or are you simply a slave to what others have written? Did you ever consider that maybe the term is modern and not within the purview of your translators? Huh? Did you? That's more to put in your pipe.

---

Yeah. I do tend to pay attention to how hundreds of Greek scholars render a Greek word. The term is modern and not within the purview of the translators? I laughed out loud at that one. "Hey dude! Don't you realize that the Greek term you are translating, written two thousand years ago, is 'modern' and not within your 'purview'." Oh brother. Desperation, thy name is Athos.

Quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you fundies believe that being "born again" is total and forever acceptance by God?

---

I'm not a "fundie".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Of course. Would I go about insisting that what he was guilty of was, in fact, wonderful and good behavior? No.

---

You will visit him, send him upbeat cards and letters, make sure he gets any needed counseling, be in touch with his lawyer(s), right?

Quote:

---

I'm not a "fundie".

---

Of course you are. And a literalist.

Quote:

---

You will visit him, send him upbeat cards and letters, make sure he gets any needed counseling, be in touch with his lawyer(s), right?

---

Yes, but I would not approve of his conduct or justify it. God did the same thing with Israel in the OT by sending prophet after prophet with the same message. "Repent and turn to God." When they repeatedly refused to do so, He sent judgment.

Quote:

---

I'm not a "fundie".

---

Quote:

---

Of course you are. And a literalist.

---

A completely foolish comment by you. Are you the all-knowing one?

You have asked many questions, all of which have been answered. Now it's your turn.

You claimed that we had no "recording somewhere" of Jesus speaking on hell in Mt. 25. The last time I checked, we don't have any recordings of anyone speaking in the Bible. In other words, the evidence for any one statement is the same as for the others. So that being the case, how do you accept ANYTHING said in the Bible? By your standard, how can you believe any part of Scripture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

A completely foolish comment by you. Are you the all-knowing one?

You have asked many questions, all of which have been answered. Now it's your turn.

---

Aren't you proud of me for the cherrypicking I've been doing?! And so on target! (Yes, she really knows her Bible.)

Quote:

---

You claimed that we had no "recording somewhere" of Jesus speaking on hell in Mt. 25. The last time I checked, we don't have any recordings of anyone speaking in the Bible. In other words, the evidence for any one statement is the same as for the others. So that being the case, how do you accept ANYTHING said in the Bible? By your standard, how can you believe any part of Scripture?

---

Oh, for pete's sake! Stop nitpicking and obsessing over my sarcastic comment. Sheesh!

Quote:

---

(Yes, she really knows her Bible.)

---

Only if silence equates to knowledge. Sadly for you, it does not.

Quote:

---

Oh, for pete's sake! Stop nitpicking and obsessing over my sarcastic comment. Sheesh!

---

OK. I'll rephrase it. You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Only if silence equates to knowledge. Sadly for you, it does not.

---

I know the Bible better than you do! Ha! I've had tons more instruction during my very long lifetime. Plus, just being a PK poured the foundation.

Quote:

---

OK. I'll rephrase it. You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?

---

Stop being discombobulating. Jesus said to love one another. And since you didn't read the link I had posted about hell, this "discussion" is over.

Quote:

---

I know the Bible better than you do! Ha! I've had tons more instruction during my very long lifetime. Plus, just being a PK poured the foundation.

---

Does that explain why you cannot support your beliefs with the Bible? And why are you judging me? Aren't you supposed to accept me as I am?

Quote:

---

Stop being discombobulating. Jesus said to love one another. And since you didn't read the link I had posted about hell, this "discussion" is over.

---

The usual non answer. You paint yourself into a corner, and then are afraid to try to defend your plainly wrong position. It would be much better to simply admit you messed up. Instead, you want to just back out and label the discussion as "over".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Does that explain why you cannot support your beliefs with the Bible? And why are you judging me? Aren't you supposed to accept me as I am?

The usual non answer. You paint yourself into a corner, and then are afraid to try to defend your plainly wrong position. It would be much better to simply admit you messed up. Instead, you want to just back out and label the discussion as "over".

---

Can you sing "Twist and Shout"?

You might as well admit that you are afraid to answer the question lest the foolishness of your position become even more apparent than it already is. But I'll post it again just in case.

You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You might as well admit that you are afraid to answer the question lest the foolishness of your position become even more apparent than it already is. But I'll post it again just in case.

You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?

---

You have shown us that you have no idea what hell is. Or unconditional love.

Uh oh. You are judging again! So is Mt. 7:2 the "for everyone except WG" passage now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Uh oh. You are judging again! So is Mt. 7:2 the "for everyone except WG" passage now?

---

You have shown us. No judging was necessary.

Quote:

---

You have shown us.

---

And there you go, judging again. Amazing how many of your standards are for every one but you. Why is that?

And even this, "No judging was necessary," is itself a judgment. I think you have painted yourself into a corner. But there is a way out, if you can see it.

My most favoritest verse: "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Why are you changing the subject?

I like that scripture as well. There are many good ones.

And this was another VERY judgmental remark, not to mention being pretty prideful.

Quote:

---

I know the Bible better than you do! Ha! I've had tons more instruction during my very long lifetime. Plus, just being a PK poured the foundation.

---

How could you know that? Do you know how much instruction I've had during my also very long lifetime? And being a preacher myself would give me, I think, and advantage, would it not?

I hope you know I'm just trying to illustrate how unworkable your understanding of Mt. 7:2 is. You judge, I judge, and everyone on this site judges. You can't live without making judgments concerning right and wrong. I don't think Jesus meant it the way you think He did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

They translated the NT and rendered agape simply as love. Case closed.

---

Only in your closed mind is the case closed.

Quote:

---

It is absurd to think that the "discussions" they had are accessible

---

Then don't quote them as if you know what they discussed or did not discuss.

Quote:

---

The usual well-reasoned, logical response.

---

Your ridiculous invites my ridicule. Get used to it. It ain't going away.

Quote:

---

I already did and included the quote in my response.

---

WHY did you include it in your quote? Are you now saying the nation was NOT founded on Christianity? You are very confused, my friend.

Quote:

---

Might add that the Christian trinity does not put forward the idea of three Gods.

---

Sure looks that way to reasonable people who do not profess the Christian faith.

Quote:

---

the first passage is not from me. It was a quote from someone else. And that quote was what I said I did not agree with.

---

Then why did you post it? What was your point? Are you retracting your belief that the nation was founded on Christianity? We all await your answer.

Quote:

---

I do tend to pay attention to how hundreds of Greek scholars render a Greek word. The term is modern and not within the purview of the translators? I laughed out loud at that one

---

Well, laugh at this one. The term I referred to is NOT the Greek word, it is the modern term "unconditional love" that your scholars never considered in connection with the Bible. Still laughing?

Quote:

---

. "Hey dude! Don't you realize that the Greek term you are translating, written two thousand years ago, is 'modern' and not within your 'purview'." Oh brother. Desperation, thy name is Athos.

---

You claim that is a quote from me, yet anyone can refer to my post #58 and see how badly you have misquoted me since you have no idea how to quote anyone. Normally, your plagiarism is limited to what I have previously posted and which you copy for your own purposes without attribution. You have two related diseases, shoot-in-foot and foot-in-mouth. Idiot, thy name is Jlisenbe.

Quote:

---

I'm not a "fundie".

---

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck........................(It's probably a fundie).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Can you sing "Twist and Shout"?

---

ha ha - good one!

Quote:

---

Then don't quote them as if you know what they discussed or did not discuss.

---

I haven't quoted them. That "quoted" thing gives you trouble, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

WHY did you include it in your quote? Are you now saying the nation was NOT founded on Christianity? You are very confused, my friend.

---

It's what I've said from the beginning.

Quote:

---

Sure looks that way to reasonable people who do not profess the Christian faith.

---

But those who understand the Christian faith know the truth. I realize that seems not to include you.

Quote:

---

Well, laugh at this one. The term I referred to is NOT the Greek word, it is the modern term "unconditional love" that your scholars never considered in connection with the Bible.

---

How do you know they never considered it? Besides, the ESV is VERY recent, and it also did not render agape as "unconditional love". The NASB was updated in 1995. Pretty sure the term "unconditional love" was around then, but they likewise did not use it. Sorry, but you're out on that one as well.

Quote:

---

You claim that is a quote from me, yet anyone can refer to my post #58 and see how badly you have misquoted me since you have no idea how to quote anyone. Normally, your plagiarism is limited to what I have previously posted and which you copy for your own purposes without attribution. You have two related diseases, shoot-in-foot and foot-in-mouth. Idiot, thy name is Jlisenbe.

---

No I didn't. I never attributed the quote to anyone, so would that make you the "idiot"? This business of "quotes" just gives you fits. Did you fail fourth grade?

Quote:

---

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck

---

Oh? So I can call you an atheist now? Well, that makes life a little easier and certainly clearer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I haven't quoted them. That "quoted" thing gives you trouble, doesn't it?
It's what I've said from the beginning.

---

Not a bit. You can quote someone without putting it in quotes. Go back to school.

Quote:

---

But those who understand the Christian faith know the truth. I realize that seems not to include you.

---

Other faiths make the exact same claim - including you.

Quote:

---

How do you know they never considered it?

---

How do you know they did? Please cite chapter and verse showing their discussion.

Quote:

---

but they likewise did not use it. Sorry, but you're out on that one as well.

---

They did not use it because they did not consider it. Sorry, but you're batting ZERO.

Quote:

---

Did you skip fourth grade?

---

Don't try to be funny. You're not equipped. Witty from you is even worse.

Quote:

---

Oh? So I can call you an atheist now?

---

It matters not what you call me. What matters is the truth - a quality that gives you fits.

Quote:

---

Not a bit. You can quote someone without putting it in quotes. Go back to school.

---

I never quoted them in any way. You are making it up again as you go. That's a bad habit you have.

Quote:

---

Other faiths make the exact same claim - including you.

---

No, they don't.

Quote:

---

How do you know they did? Please cite chapter and verse showing their discussion.

---

I didn't comment either way. You did, so it's up to you to support your hilariously foolish comment which you promptly, right on cue, repeat below.

Quote:

---

They did not use it because they did not consider it.

---

And again, how do you know that? Pretty sure you weren't there.

Quote:

---

It matters not what you call me.

---

Good. From now on, you are the site atheist. Come to think of it, "athos" and "atheist" sure do look a lot alike, don't they? Freudian slip?

Actually, I'm not going to call you the site atheist. It's too serious an issue to make fun of, and it would make me like you and WG in insisting that someone is something he claims he is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Actually, I'm not going to call you the site atheist. It's too serious an issue to make fun of, and it would make me like you and WG in insisting that someone is something he claims he is not.

---

Plus, you'd be judging.

You don't know who Athos was?

Quote:

---

Plus, you'd be judging.

You don't know who Athos was?

---

You mean like when you called me a "fundie"??? That kind of judging? So again, why is it OK when you do it? Now I know you won't answer that since you never do, but it is quite a mark against you.

You mean the Athos of the Three Musketeers? There is also a Mount Athos. I'd be amazed if there was not a city or village named "Athos". And then, of course, there is the famous Athos of Persian mythology who was bedeviled by a strange inability to understand direct quotations! (For the humor impaired, that was a joke.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You mean like when you called me a "fundie"???

---

Aren't you? I used to be one and know what they look and sound like.