A spreadsheet drawn by who? If you, then what is your standard in deciding what is allegorical vs. what is historical?
|
A spreadsheet drawn by who? If you, then what is your standard in deciding what is allegorical vs. what is historical?
Fact A, population genetics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Quote:
Originally Posted by https://biologos.org/series/evolution-basics/articles/mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosome-adam"
There are limits to this theory. It does indeed assume that our DNA originated from one source. The true argument is not in this theory, but in the origination of the first DNA. Secularist assume it came from a diverse population of proto-hominins while creationists assert that it was Adam and Eve as recorded in the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by https://www.gotquestions.org/Chromosomal-Adam-Mitochondrial-Eve.html
Secular limits of y-Adam and m-Eve are in the earliest common ancestor. It cannot tell us anything before that.Quote:
Originally Posted by https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosome-adam-and-adam-and-the-genome/
The claims of evolution are made "truth" according to secularists by showing the DNA similarities in a human fossil, that must be very old.
Not in the theory of y-Adam and m-Eve.
Confrontational today, aren't we!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Examples?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That would be wonderful actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Evasive today, aren’t we?
I offered you a civil discussion but you declined. So be it. I'll play your game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Quote:
I was talking about what Augustine believed, not what some nameless author wrote about him.
Quote:
Do you disagree with my characterization of you? This is how you have described your beliefs in the past. Maybe I missed something
Quote:
If you read further you will understand the meaning of this claim
Quote:
I guess rather than taking on the sources you would rather stab at the dark and complain about your feelings being hurt.
Quote:
I address the historical claims outside the bible in Claim #2, none of which you addressed here. I will get to those things you claim without any sources or specific research.
Quote:
You prove yourself a follower of Science! Oh almighty science! Some religion you got there.
Quote:
its an investigative process, which you seem ill equipped to do for yourself
If you ever decide to be civil, I'll be more than happy to respond to whatever you write.Quote:
More mischaracterization.
In the meantime, please explain to this benighted believer in science exactly how reptiles can speak in Englsh (or Aramaic, or Hebrew, or any other language).
Fact B: There has never been a worldwide flood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The assumptions that there was or was not a flood can be held in full view of the evidences.
The conclusions drawn by secularists are plenty lacking, and the same evidence, when used for a flood is plenty reasonable.
Secularists reject divine intervention, and anything but a naturalistic explanation for all geologic evidences. Thus, their conclusions are biased. The same can be said for creationists, their biases are their initial assumptions when looking at the same evidences.
Lets look at some evidence.
When we look at the geologic column, we find sediments on sediments, containing a record of life on earth.
Aside from radiometric dating, there is no clear evidence as to when these deposits were made. As a matter of fact, radiometric dating is useless, as the sediments are older than the fossils that are contained within them.
For this reason you will find that in many of the studies of archaeology, the rocks are dated to the era that corresponds to the fossils that are contained within them or near them. In other instances, you will find that the fossils have no other evidence for their age, except that they contain certain rocks near them. Can you see the circular logic here?
http://detectingdesign.com/images/Ge...d%20Canyon.jpg
Between these layers, are nice clean lines. You can see that in this photo of the grand canyon. The layers of millions of years, stacked up, then later revealed by the erosion forces of water and wind, to give you this picturesque view. Where is the erosion between the layers? Why have hills and valleys not been carved, and newer sediments been poured in these voids?
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P9Bw-rpe_...ed%2BTrees.jpg
These are called polystrate fossils. They are fossilized trees. They were fossilized standing up, and penetrate several layers of rocks. How can a dead tree be buried, and fossilized, by slow growing sediments over thousands or millions of years? Some of these polystrates penetrate layers that are dated to be more than a million years apart. Its also curious that there is a lack of study of these fossils in the literature. They are noticed and never explained.
https://askjohnmackay.com/wp-content...dolomite-r.jpg
Here are some leaves, fossilized in diatomaceous rock layers in south central Queensland Australia.
Yet these soft leaves stand upright between many layers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Encyclopedia of Geology, Five Volume Set. Academic Press. 641-649
We have modern evidence of canyons being carved in a matter of days:
Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River
Palouse Canyon
Trilobite fossils have no signs of erosion when carved out of limestone rocks. (I have donated my collection of trilobites to the local highschool a decade ago)
Quote:
Originally Posted by https://www.limestone.com/about-us/limestone-learning-center/how-limestone-is-formed/
Deposition rates of 1-5mm/thousand years...yetQuote:
Cephalopod limestones of this age, deposited on the platform, represent a very diverse facies pattern comprising quartz-rich brachiopod coquinas, crinoidal limestones, thick-bedded cephalopod limestones and nodular limestones. Sedimentation rates ranged from 1 to 5 mm/ 1000 yr.
https://media.kgov.com/files/polystr...-limestone.jpg
These are the types of fossils we find within this deposition.
The secularists have to create several catastrophes to account for the several layers that seem to wipe out all life on earth (kind of like a flood).
I could go on and on...There is plenty of evidence that a flood is at least possible, but the conclusions of people that think the flood was a historical myth, take the same evidences and say otherwise. Its the assumptions present that require millions of years, not the evidence.
Most fossils require rapid deposition...like a flood.
Many fossils contain soft tissues...like bones found today, never mineralized, and containing collagenous material that should decay before millions of years.
I've lived long enough to hear it all now. I wanted to laugh out loud when I read this. Do you really think you are in a position to lecture others on civility?Quote:
If you ever decide to be civil, I'll be more than happy to respond to whatever you write.
George Orwell's novel 1984 is a political allegory that focuses on the effects of a totalitarian government on its citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
This little piggie (a Wall Street tycoon) went to market,
This little piggie (someone quarantining during the pandemic) stayed home,
This little piggie (big, muscular army guy) had roast beef,
This little piggie (a homeless man) had none,
And this little piggie (a manipulative person seeking pity) cried, “Wee! Wee! Wee!”
All the way home.
"Historical allegories: Writing in this category allegorizes historical figures and events. Writers of this kind of allegory may be using symbols to mask the true subject of their writing (for instance, to avoid censorship or punishment), or to effectively distill a complex history into a more simplified and vivid story that will engage readers on an emotional and aesthetic level.
- A good example of this type of allegory is George Orwell's Animal Farm, which corresponds pretty closely to the events of the Russian revolution. "https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/allegory
So this allegorical tale had a moral lesson? Interesting!
Which allegory?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
In your (uncivil) reply to me, you claimed this post had extra-Biblical proof of Genesis. Let's see.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
No one here (including me) ever doubted that the Bible and/or Genesis contain references to actual places, people and events. That's why the Bible is so valuable as a source and resource.Quote:
There are many evidences for the historicity of Genesis, and much of the bible thereafter.
That was never in contention.Quote:
There are references in Genesis to cities that have been discovered.
Here is where you're starting to go wrong. Your list mentions NO names of Biblical people. It mentions Abraham's city but not his name. Same with the other names - what is mentioned are associations with the names, but never the actual names. Strike one. I've included your citations so all can see.Quote:
There are many examples of archeology that have referenced people in Genesis.Ur, Abraham's home, which God commanded him to leave.
One slight correction. It is not the Genesis creation that is mirrored, as you seem to think, but the opposite - the tablet is mirrored in the much later Genesis.Quote:
Hattusa then subsequently, several other Hittite cites were found.
The Nuzi Tablets shed light on near eastern culture and law, not dissimilar to the laws laid out in Genesis. It at least provides a cultural anchor for the patriarchs.
Harran is the city that Abraham's father hailed from, where Abraham lived for some time.
Shechem was the city which Abraham and Isaac built altars to God in.
The Ebla Tablets name many cities including Harran and others mentioned. The Genesis creation is mirrored in the following quote from a tablet found there.
Lord of heaven and earth:
the earth was not, you created it,
the light of day was not, you created it,
the morning light you had not [yet] made exist.
The Tower of Babel is simply another myth like the Flood that was part of the culture of ancient peoples. Like the Flood, it precedes Genesis and is clearly designed in Genesis as a lesson for the Hebrews.Quote:
The Sibylline Books of Apollos are quoted as following:
And all mankind one language only knew :
A dread commission from on high was given
To the fell whirlwinds, which with dire alarms
Beat on the tower, and to its lowest base
Shook it convulsed. And now all intercourse,
By some occult and overruling power,
Ceased among men. By utterance they strove,
Perplexed and anxious, to disclose their mind,
But their lip failed them ; and in lieu of words
Produced a painful babbling sound : the place
Was thence called Babel ; by the apostate crew
Named from the event. Then severed, far away
They sped, uncertain, into realms unknown :
Thus kingdoms rose, and the glad world was filled.
The Tower of Babylon stele Describes how Nebuchadnezzar II rebuilt the tower and enlarged it (c. 600 BC). It was later destroyed. The foundation which they were building upon was ancient at that time.
Quote:
Theophilus Pinches, renowned assyriologist, connected 3, maybe 4 of the 5 kings listed in Genesis 14 in the Plains of Shinar (Abraham's story) to Babylonian artifacts dating back to 2300 BC.
What does this prove other than the writers of Genesis were aware of 3-5 kings in Shinar?
This indicates that the Adam and Eve and the serpent story was also copied from other sources like the Flood and Babel.Quote:
An Akkadian seal (c. 2300 BC) depicting a man, woman, tree with fruit, and a serpent.
Yes, MYTHS(!) already discussed. None prove the planetary destruction of the human race.Quote:
Not accurate enough to support a world-wide flood. A big local flood, but not planet-wide, obviously.Quote:
It is clear, at least, that these stories of creation and the flood, go back very far, far enough to touch on biblical chronology, and were accurately recorded and preserved through the Jews.
What, specifically, are these "large swaths"? Your claim is not at all clear, if you're suggesting it supports the truth of the Genesis stories I've mentioned.Quote:
It is also clear that large swaths of the Genesis account can be verified by secular sources.
If this is supposed to be proof of Genesis, you have a long way to go.Quote:
Here is a painting from the tomb of Khnumhotep II (c. 1900 BC), "sole friend" to Pharaoh Amenemhat II showing a great many foreigners entering the land of Egypt. They have strikingly Jewish features and have bright colored cloths, bows and arrows, a multitude of livestock, etc. Much the same is recorded in Genesis 37 onward. Harps and goats! Could this be Joseph? Nevertheless, there are the Hyksos and these types of historical images to deal with, that fit the biblical narrative nicely.
I'm not convinced it is Joseph. I personally lean towards Imhotep being Joseph, serving under Djoser, while his reign should be moved up 800 years (c. 1900 BC). It would also explain, why there are no references to him until 1000+ years after the accepted date, aside from that at Djoser's tomb. I also think the Egyptian Chronologies are confounded and far from perfect. To this day, there is endless debate, yet the date of all ancient near eastern cultures is anchored on this chronology. Carbon-14 dates were calibrated using this chronology.
If you're referring to the above paintings, no one is calling it an allegory. As far as I know, no one here has called it anything.Quote:
It cannot be critiqued simply by calling it an allegory,
The allegory consists of those parts you say can be thrown out. The miracles and Adam, etc., etc.Quote:
If you throw out the miracles, and Adam and Eve, you still have a decent account of the near east, with a full understanding of ancient culture and geography. How can one contend that this is simply allegory?
Summary: You have not proven your claim that Genesis was intended to be literal.
Certainly to you!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
Jlisenbe is the troll who believes babies are roasted in hell for all eternity because they didn't believe in Jesus when they died as infants. He claims that all humanity, including babies and innocents, goes to hell unless they believe in Jesus. No exceptions. Keep that in mind when reading anything he says on these pages.
"Secularists" conclusions are lacking, so WHOSE conclusions are "plenty reasonable"? Not a good start, infojunkie.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
When I see statements like this, I wonder why I'm even having a conversation with this guy. Science is biased? Against what? Oh, divine intervention. Ok, got it. (Twilight Zone music here).Quote:
Secularists reject divine intervention, and anything but a naturalistic explanation for all geologic evidences. Thus, their conclusions are biased.
Yeah, let's.Quote:
The same can be said for creationists, their biases are their initial assumptions when looking at the same evidences. Lets look at some evidence.
I cut all the pictures to save bandwidth. Those interested can see them in the original post.
Not to get too personal infojunkie, but do you seriously believe anyone here (excepting the obvious) is going to buy your lengthy cut-and-paste-with-pictures as proof of a global flood?Quote:
When we look at the geologic column, we find sediments on sediments, containing a record of life on earth.
Aside from radiometric dating, there is no clear evidence as to when these deposits were made. As a matter of fact, radiometric dating is useless, as the sediments are older than the fossils that are contained within them.
For this reason you will find that in many of the studies of archaeology, the rocks are dated to the era that corresponds to the fossils that are contained within them or near them. In other instances, you will find that the fossils have no other evidence for their age, except that they contain certain rocks near them. Can you see the circular logic here?
Between these layers, are nice clean lines. You can see that in this photo of the grand canyon. The layers of millions of years, stacked up, then later revealed by the erosion forces of water and wind, to give you this picturesque view. Where is the erosion between the layers? Why have hills and valleys not been carved, and newer sediments been poured in these voids?
These are called polystrate fossils. They are fossilized trees. They were fossilized standing up, and penetrate several layers of rocks. How can a dead tree be buried, and fossilized, by slow growing sediments over thousands or millions of years? Some of these polystrates penetrate layers that are dated to be more than a million years apart. Its also curious that there is a lack of study of these fossils in the literature. They are noticed and never explained.
Here are some leaves, fossilized in diatomaceous rock layers in south central Queensland Australia.
Yet these soft leaves stand upright between many layers?
We have modern evidence of canyons being carved in a matter of days:
Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River
Palouse Canyon
Trilobite fossils have no signs of erosion when carved out of limestone rocks. (I have donated my collection of trilobites to the local highschool a decade ago)
Deposition rates of 1-5mm/thousand years...yet
These are the types of fossils we find within this deposition.
The secularists have to create several catastrophes to account for the several layers that seem to wipe out all life on earth (kind of like a flood).
I could go on and on...There is plenty of evidence that a flood is at least possible, but the conclusions of people that think the flood was a historical myth, take the same evidences and say otherwise. Its the assumptions present that require millions of years, not the evidence.
Even YOU say at the end, 'a flood is at least possible". That's not exactly proof, is it? In fact, "at least possible" is about as low a bar as possible for any proof of anything.
Your anti-science bias is palpable, yet you cite loads of science in your disquisition.
Using your brainpower like a thought experiment, how does this anti-scientific conclusion stack up against millions of years occurring within the 6,000 years since creation?
I understand your need to defend a literal Bible, but it's not necessary to defend a literal Bible to believe in God.
It's not necessary, you're absolutely correct. However, there has been scientific bias against the bible since it's inception. 150 years of archaeology have confirmed all but the very beginning of Genesis. In time those things will be revealed also. The scientists have had to concede age after age. Once upon a time David was a myth, Solomon was a myth, Pontius Pilot was a myth... On and on it goes.
You have yet to engage the content. If you don't like my flood story, maybe take a look yourself at the evidences. I have more, I've been researching these things for more than a decade. As time goes on, there are more and more people that have been revealed to have existed.
You should look into the work of Bill Cooper, and his work on the table of nations. He explored European and near east chronologies and is able to connect them to the table of nations.
The creationists have established quite a repetior of geologists, geneticists, philosophers, and other such scientists. They have published articles in several journals, they have done extensive research on the flood. If you prefer though, you don't have to engage with the content. You can dismiss them like the majority of the scientific community, just don't pretend you follow the facts, they might be inconvenient.
I set the bar low when I talk to skeptics, is the best chance of finding common ground.
By "inception", do you mean since the Bible reached its present form around the 4th century AD? I don't think your statement is true. Scientific evidence challenging Genesis began around Galileo after more than a thousand years of wide-spread acceptance in Christendom.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
By "confirmed", and based on your last post, I assume you mean verifying the existence of cities mentioned in Genesis. In no way does that confirm the events specific to Genesis - if that's what you're claiming.Quote:
150 years of archaeology have confirmed all but the very beginning of Genesis.
Are "those things" the creation stories, et al? If that's what you mean, what is your reason for making such a claim? As you can tell by my questions, your comments were a bit vague.Quote:
In time those things will be revealed also.
What have the scientists had to concede age after age? Specifically.Quote:
The scientists have had to concede age after age.
I was unaware that David or Solomon or Pontius Pilate were ever considered myths. Certainly Pilate is attested from documents other than the Gospel and was never considered a myth. David and Solomon always seemed like historical characters. Who are the others, "on and on it goes"?Quote:
Once upon a time David was a myth, Solomon was a myth, Pontius Pilot was a myth... On and on it goes.
There is no need to. Once you admitted the story is "at least possible", that removed any possibility of real evidence in your study. You clearly imply with that comment that you don't believe the flood story, or at best, that you reserve belief until evidence is forthcoming.Quote:
You have yet to engage the content
See above. After a decade of research, you still can't provide evidence of the Flood. There's nothing to take a look at. Again, see above and your own conclusion of maybe it happened. At least it was possible, you wrote. Hardly a ringing endorsement of proof.Quote:
If you don't like my flood story, maybe take a look yourself at the evidences. I have more, I've been researching these things for more than a decade.
I don't doubt that there are Biblical figures who have been identified extra-Biblically, but how does that make the Genesis myths not myths?Quote:
As time goes on, there are more and more people that have been revealed to have existed.
If you know their extensive research, why didn't you provide it here and overcome your "at least possible" thesis?Quote:
The creationists have established quite a repetior of geologists, geneticists, philosophers, and other such scientists. They have published articles in several journals, they have done extensive research on the flood.
I did engage - all the way to your conclusion of it being at least possible.Quote:
If you prefer though, you don't have to engage with the content.
I DID follow the facts, at least the facts you presented. And, for the third time, your conclusion was the flood might have been possible.Quote:
You can dismiss them like the majority of the scientific community, just don't pretend you follow the facts, they might be inconvenient.
I'm still wondering how reptiles can speak. Did your creationists have any research on that?
Jl contends Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. He quotes the Bible verses below as proof of his contention.
There are 36 more (!) but they are not copied here to make the reply manageable. They can be seen by the reader at Post #22 in this thread above. I will refer to them by Jl's number.Quote:
Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Matthew 5:22. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
I contend the opposite – that Jesus does NOT condemn unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. I will rebut Jl's verses and add some of my own to support my contention.
Verse Omits One Or More Of Three Essentials (unbelievers, hell, eternal punishment).
- A metaphor designed to frighten sinners by threat of punishment. Omits, unbelievers, hell, and eternal.
- Omits unbelievers and eternal punishment.
- Omits unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment.
- Omits unbelievers and eternal punishment.
- Another metaphor and irrelevant. One wonders why this was included.
- Omits any mention of unbelievers or eternal punishment.
- Omits unbelievers. Note the fire is eternal, not the one cast.
- Omits unbelievers.
- Completely irrelevant.
- A repeat of #1. See above.
- Omits unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment.
- The Parable of Lazarus – clearly a metaphor to support helping others while alive.
- Omits unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment.
- Completely irrelevant to topic.
- Also irrelevant.
- Also irrelevant. Jl is throwing verses in just to throw verses in.
- A clear description of unbelievers being punished, “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our LORD Jesus “. I don't know why Jl included this one since it supports my contention.
- Omits unbelievers and eternal punishment. Hell here seems to a temporary holding place for bad angels.
- Another metaphor – Lot's wife becomes a “pillar of salt”.
- Omits unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment. This long section from Revelation is filled with fantasy pictures as is the entire book and should be read as a comment on the Rome of Nero.
- Omits unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment.
Quote:
The following scriptures show God as the one who is coming to judge the earth.
I have not rebutted any of these since not one addresses the topic being discussed. Each one omits unbelievers, hell, and eternal punishment. I don't know why Jl cited them in support of his belief.
A word on “Hell”. The word does not exist in the Old Testament. There hell has as its source “Gehenna, Hades and Sheol”, none of which carry a connotation of eternal punishment for unbelievers. The author of Matthew has mistranslated, or miscopied, it from his source. Not until Augustine does Hell become a place of eternal punishment. Before that, the early Church fathers thought of hell as a place for the wicked to be annihilated.
There are many Bible verses that contradict Jl's belief. A quick sampling is Jesus' commandment to "Love the neighbor as thyself". On the cross, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do". These are diametrically opposed to Jl's belief.
I do not contend Jesus does anything. JESUS himself says it, and says it clearly. Matthew 25 by itself is plenty of evidence where it is clearly stated, but with 35 passages that mention either hell or judgment, your task is impossible.
To suggest that the Matthew passage has been miscopied is absurd. You would have to see the original to know that, and clearly you don't have it. It's a ridiculous claim and you are basically saying that since Matthew 25 does not agree with you, then it surely must have been miscopied. It's laughably ridiculous. Your appeal to Augustine is hopeless set alongside more than thirty passages that affirm the basic message of Matthew 25. Besides, Iranaeus, who predated Augustine by two centuries, said this. "The judge … will send into eternal fire those who alter the truth, and despise his Father and his coming.”
There are no passages that contradict the words of Christ spoken over and over again. To love your neighbor certainly does not abrogate the judgement of God. Jesus praying for the forgiveness specifically of those who crucified Him doesn't either. That was pretty weak.
Your supposed replies aren't even tied to specific verses. Nonsense. This one is my favorite. Here you contradict yourself by admitting that the fires of hell (and thus hell itself) are indeed eternal. "Omits unbelievers. Note the fire is eternal, not the one cast."
When you have something reasonably well thought out, then come back and try again.
One more thought. I have no delight at all in the teaching of hell and certainly don't claim to understand it all, but I will not back away from a plain and clear principle of the Bible simply because you find it to be offensive. Nor do I intend to argue endlessly about it when you can note nothing more significant to contradict it than the two passages you quoted, neither of which had anything whatsoever to do with the subject and were preceded by this claim which you could not at all demonstrate. "There are many Bible verses that contradict Jl's belief." There were, in fact, none.
So who is going to end up in hell?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Read the Matthew 25 passage to find out. Read John 3:16 to find out. Read the list of scriptures I posted to find out.
Like I said, I have no intention of endlessly arguing this one. If you can find the place where Jesus said, "Just kidding about that hell stuff, guys," then we can discuss it. Otherwise you must read your Bible and either believe it or throw it in the trash. When someone is reduced to making statements such as, "The author of Matthew has mistranslated, or miscopied, it from his source," when he doesn't have the source and thus doesn't have a clue as to whether it was miscopied, then the person is just grasping at straws and in reality has no case to make.
After they read literalist JL's pronouncement, the mountains and hills burst into song, and all the trees of the field clapped their hands. (Is. 55:12)Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Oh come on. You’re not stupid. Making a statement figurative simply because you don’t like it is nonsense. You know better. You’re making yourself look silly.
Matthew 25 is plainly not meant to be taken figuratively. It’s a sign of desperation to suggest it is. Same is true of John 3:16.
It’s just another failed use of being unable to answer the message, you attack the messenger. Sad. I expected more from you.
As Jonathan Swift so eloquently said in “Polite Conversation”, “There are none so blind as JL and those who will not see” -- paraphrased from Jeremiah 5:12: “Hear now this, oh foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears and hear not.”Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And again. No answers to serious questions, so you resort to silly personal attacks. Won’t work. People are smarter than that. You abandoned the texts in question to chase rabbits. Given the choice between believing you or believing Jesus, I’m going with Jesus.
Besides, I am choosing to take your statement figuratively to mean that you fully agree with my view of the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Jesus said the second commandment - Love thy neighbor as thyself - was like the first which was to Love God with your whole mind, heart, and soul.
Every person who has ever read this knows instantly that "neighbor" means all other people. Especially when "as thyself" is prominently included in the commandment. In spite of this commandment to love your neighbor, you have Jesus condemning to hell for eternity those neighbors who believe differently than you. They may have never heard of Jesus, lived before Jesus lived, or simply didn't believe in Jesus. Jesus condemning these people to eternal punishment in hell is as far from an act of love as is possible. If you maintain that God the Father is the ultimate judge who does the condemning, than you are faced with the contradiction of God the Father denying the commandment of God the Son.
On the cross, Jesus, God the Son, asked his father, God the Father, "to forgive them, for they know not what they do".Quote:
Jesus praying for the forgiveness specifically of those who crucified Him doesn't either. That was pretty weak.
According to you, when these unbelievers died Jesus would condemn them to hell for eternal punishment. If Jesus asked they be forgiven and God the Father already forgave them, why would God (the judge) or Jesus (God the Son) send them to hell?
I haven’t condemned anyone to anything. Nothing is according to me. I have quoted Jesus whom you do not believe. Posting the two great commandments does nothing to amend his statements. I have no regard for what you think. I have regard for the words of Christ. The one who established the two great commandments also spoke of hell and judgment as very real. You are cherry-picking only what you like. Thanks for giving WG a demonstration of the real thing.
No, you've cherry-picked Jesus' words and tweaked His meaning to fit your personal beliefs and hopes.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I haven’t ascribed meaning. I have provided a tidal wave of the words of Jesus and the New Testament. You have rejected it since it does not agree with you. Too bad. There’s really nothing else to be said. Pitiful excuses don’t amount to clear thinking.
I have rejected your understanding of Jesus' words.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I haven’t given you my understanding. I simply supplied his words. You reject them.
Your LITERAL understanding....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have given you no description at all. You have rejected his words.
Your LITERAL understanding of the verses you've cherrypicked to prove your point....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have not given you my understanding literal or otherwise. You have rejected Christ.
And your cherry pick contention of 35 verses is simply stupid. You know better than that.
But I tell you what. You post all the verses that say there is no hell or judgment and we can discuss it. Until then there is nothing left to discuss.
Okey doke. I'll wave to you from heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Typical reply.
And he always wants the last word....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You support the false teaching on hell. Same thing. You are quick to call others cowards, yet you yourself refuse to explain your belief other than "The Bible told me so". Nothing is more cowardly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
They amend YOUR support of eternal punishment in hell for unbelievers. The two great commandments are the exact opposite of your belief. How do you explain the contradiction between Jesus' commandment and Matthew's line you love to quote? Both can't be true. You can go along with Matthew. I'll follow Jesus.Quote:
Posting the two great commandments does nothing to amend his statements.
Then explain why the two contradict each other. You can't, can you? I'm not trying to embarrass you. I'm trying to open your eyes.Quote:
I have regard for the words of Christ. The one who established the two great commandments also spoke of hell and judgment as very real.
No, my Bible verses represent the main thrust of Jesus' message, no way are they cherry-picking. They also represent the long evolution of the OT to the NT of Christ.Quote:
You are cherry-picking only what you like.
I haven’t supported anything. I haven’t told you my beliefs. I have posted the MANY passages where Jesus spoke on the subject. You reject him so you reject his word and even characterize it as a false teaching. So the words spoken by Christ are a false teaching since it doesn’t agree with you. Incredible.
They don’t contradict. One speaks of love and others of judgment. They are not mutually exclusive.
when you refer to two passages and ignore 35 then you are cherry picking.
When you refer to 35 verses and ignore the remaining 31,067 and what God was telling us in them, you are cherry picking.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:29 AM. |