Ask Me Help Desk - God of Love

Quote:

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

When a large group of scholars say one thing, and DW says something else, then I'll let you decide who's probably wrong. That's not meant to be ugly, but you are asking a lot for me to believe you when you have no support.

Quote:

What criteria do you use to decide whether they're right or wrong?

Uhm...I think I just answered that. But I'll add that William Vine and Joseph Thayer do fine for me.

Quote:

This is a dodge, nothing more. But it's what you do. I'm done here.

And this is what you do. When your position gets tenuous, you disappear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And this is what you do. When your position gets tenuous, you disappear.

That's what you've done several times.

Never have. Period. But if you can link to it, we can talk about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Never have. Period. But if you can link to it, we can talk about it.

Here's one: Post #64, Genuine Attitudes thread
***I leave it with you. Not interested in this type of "discussion".

My position was never tenuous. Your replies just became too far detached from reality. There was no point to it.

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

You might as well have said, "I don't like what Paul said, so I'll just change it to something suitably ridiculous." It is not possible to hold a discussion in that kind of craziness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

My position was never tenuous. Your replies just became too far detached from reality. There was no point to it.

Ah, it was MY fault! I get it!

I thought you had kids and would understand my premise. Oh, well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe;3875637[/QUOTE

It is not possible to hold a discussion in that kind of craziness.

Every so often JL writes something that is so ironically funny it fits him to a "T".

His statement above is one of those things.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE (except his pal Tomder) has one time or another ended any discussion with JL because of the crazy charges, and conclusions, and comments he makes. Tal, clete, WG, myself and now a very calm, very intelligent, and very friendly Biblical scholar Dwashbur who even he has had enough with JL.

Not only funny ha-ha, but funny in a weird way.

Quote:

I thought you had kids and would understand my premise

I actually understood your premise quite well, far better than you realize.

At any rate, I was referring to DW disappearing for weeks at a time. People can back out of a discussion at any time. These discussion do frequently (always?) end up in an unbreakable headlock and I oftentimes wonder what the point is. No one's mind is ever changed on anything. It's more and more just looking like an utter waste of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I actually understood your premise quite well, far better than you realize.

And that premise was?

Quote:

At any rate, I was referring to DW disappearing for weeks at a time. People can back out of a discussion at any time. These discussion do frequently (always?) end up in an unbreakable headlock and I oftentimes wonder what the point is. No one's mind is ever changed on anything. It's more and more just looking like an utter waste of time.

I've been his friend for years. Plus, you know not of what you speak.

Quote:

And that premise was?

Paul did not agree with WG, so a completely implausible spin had to be put on his words. No translation even comes close to agreeing with your speculation.

Quote:

I've been his friend for years.

Fine. I didn't say anything critical of DW in my post to you. I just made the observation that he disappears for weeks at a time which has, in the past, been true.

Quote:

Plus, you know not of what you speak.

In what way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Paul did not agree with WG, so a completely implausible spin had to be put on his words. No translation even comes close to agreeing with your speculation.

No speculation. That's what Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian parents do -- quote Paul and Jesus and whoever to scare their naughty kids with the threat of hellfire if they don't shape up. That was Paul's message to us too. As I had said earlier:

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

Quote:

No speculation. That's what Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian parents do -- quote Paul and Jesus and whoever to scare their naughty kids with the threat of hellfire if they don't shape up.

I've never witnessed that, and I certainly don't think either one of us knows what those, "Bible believing fundamentalist Christian parents" do. I suppose you can comment on what you've seen from the 0.0001% of them you've actually known have done.

Quote:

That was Paul's message to us too.

There is nothing in the text at all to support that. It's only your prejudices at work. It's just idle (idol?) speculation at work.

Not really sure what the point of all these discussions is. As I said, I don't recall a single occasion where anyone ever changed his or her mind on any topic at all. Maybe you can tell me what purpose all of this back and forth serves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I've never witnessed that, and I certainly don't think either one of us knows what those, "Bible believing fundamentalist Christian parents" do. I suppose you can comment on what you've seen from the 0.0001% of them you've actually known have done.

I grew up with children of Bible-believing fundamentalist Christians. I often heard that and similar rants.

Quote:

There is nothing in the text at all to support that. It's only your prejudices at work. It's just idle (idol?) speculation at work.

That was the long-time prevailing threat in most ancient religions -- behave or you're going to hell.

Quote:

Not really sure what the point of all these discussions is. As I said, I don't recall a single occasion where anyone ever changed his or her mind on any topic at all. Maybe you can tell me what purpose all of this back and forth serves.

Then this website should eliminate any political and religious discussions.

Like I said, I suppose you can comment on what you've seen from the 0.0001% of them you've actually known.

Quote:

That was the long-time prevailing threat in most ancient religions -- behave or you're going to hell.

But not in the Gospel.

Quote:

Then this website should eliminate any political and religious discussions.

So it's all pointless.

Quote:

WG says - Bible believing Christians are threatened with hell

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

But not in the Gospel.

Did you really say that? Right here in black and white? Amazing!!

YOU are the chief promoter of hell from the Gospels ever seen on thses pages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Like I said, I suppose you can comment on what you've seen from the 0.0001% of them you've actually known.

100%. Grew up amongst them. NC and rural NY. Spanking, beating, whipping with belt, locked in bedroom or shed, no supper, no talking/conversation....

Like I've said twice now, I suppose you can comment on what you've seen from the 0.0001% of them you've actually known.

I'll also repeat this. Not really sure what the point of all these discussions is. As I said, I don't recall a single occasion where anyone ever changed his or her mind on any topic at all. Maybe you can tell me what purpose all of this back and forth serves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Maybe you can tell me what purpose all of this back and forth serves.

It goes to expose you for the false belief of Jesus sending people (his creations, humans, sinners, unbelievers - whatever the term du jour is) - for sending these people to hell for eternal punishment.

Since you've been fed that since the cradle, you can't be blamed for believing it, but it's time for you to examine it and not just believe literally whatever is written in the Bible without a careful analysis. If you can't do it, others can do it for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'll also repeat this. Not really sure what the point of all these discussions is.

Why are there discussions during high school and college classes? Why are there discussions at congregational meetings? Why are there family discussions during or after dinner? Why are there discussions by the US Senate and by the House?

You still have not answered the question. What is the point of THESE discussions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You still have not answered the question. What is the point of THESE discussions?

You got your answer - to expose YOU.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You still have not answered the question. What is the point of THESE discussions?

Pontius Pilate said it best.

So we have arrived at a common understanding of truth? When did that happen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So we have arrived at a common understanding of truth? When did that happen?

It hasn't happened. You have a serious problem with truth.

WG, isn't it apparent that we discuss and discuss and no one ever moves an inch?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

WG, isn't it apparent that we discuss and discuss and no one ever moves an inch?

The reason is very simple. It's your blind idolatry to a 2,000 year old series of books that you are unable to read with any understanding. You can hide but you can't ignore.

Most white evangelicals live in a universe that the majority of Christians have long since abandoned. Rather than play contrarian, this is an opportunity for you to learn some home truths about the Bible - a step many of your former co-religionists are gradually taking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

WG, isn't it apparent that we discuss and discuss and no one ever moves an inch?

You and I don't "discuss and discuss." If you disagree with me, you turn to insults rather than explore our differences.

You mean like you just did? You are not following your own moral conviction. Are you "exploring our differences"? I don't think so.

I still don't see the point in these discussions. I've been pondering this for weeks. We never arrive at any point of agreement on anything. They frequently turn ugly. I'll take some of the responsibility for that, but you and others also bear some of the load as your last post clearly shows.

So how can we make any progress?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You mean like you just did? You are not following your own moral conviction. Are you "exploring our differences"? I don't think so.

I was simply answering your question.

Quote:

I still don't see the point in these discussions.

So how can we make any progress?

Keep it simple. Make lists. Number them. Don't go into all sorts of verbiage; stick to the topic.

E.g., Name three historical events recorded in the Bible. What evidence is there that they are historical?

No you weren't. You were being insulting. Take responsibility for it and stop letting yourself off the hook. And why is it that you only direct these comments towards me? Is there anyone else here who is WILDLY insulting and should be corrected by WG? I just have trouble accepting your one-way "correction". When you become more inclusive, including yourself, then it will bear more weight.

I'll name one historical event and give evidence for it. The resurrection of Jesus.

Evidence.
1. change of Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday
2. many extra-biblical references to the resurrection
3. the willingness of the witnesses of the resurrection to undergo lives of great hardship to spread the message of that resurrection
4. the testimony of the NT
5. the incredible conversion of Saul of Tarsus
6. an empty tomb
7. prophesied in the OT
8. oral tradition recorded in 1 Cor. 15 which traces back to within 3 years of the resurrection
9. the absence of writings in the first century contradicting the resurrection
10. extraordinary transformation of the disciples from fearful men into fearless preachers of the Gospel
11. the tomb of Jesus was never turned into a shrine as His burial place
12. The absence of any other plausible explanation. For instance, if His body had still been in the tomb, then the Jewish leaders would simply have paraded it through town and the resurrection account would have been completely discounted.

Quote:

No you weren't. You were being insulting. Take responsibility for it and stop letting yourself off the hook. And why is it that you only direct these comments towards me? Is there anyone else here who is WILDLY insulting and should be corrected by WG? I just have trouble accepting your one-way "correction". When you become more inclusive, including yourself, then it will bear more weight.

Call it what you want, stop pretending you can see into my mind because you can't. And these things get directed at you because you're the one making the erroneous statements. It's that simple. Stop saying wrong things and that'll solve it.

Quote:

Call it what you want, stop pretending you can see into my mind because you can't. And these things get directed at you because you're the one making the erroneous statements. It's that simple. Stop saying wrong things and that'll solve it.

Calm down. I haven't said anything about you. Where you think I'm wrong, point it out. We can discuss it.

As to seeing into your mind, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Calm down. I haven't said anything about you. Where I'm wrong, point it out. We can discuss it.

As to seeing into your mind, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Your post #81

This is my post 81.

Quote:

When a large group of scholars say one thing, and DW says something else, then I'll let you decide who's probably wrong. That's not meant to be ugly, but you are asking a lot for me to believe you when you have no support.

Uhm...I think I just answered that. But I'll add that William Vine and Joseph Thayer do fine for me.

And this is what you do. When your position gets tenuous, you disappear.

What are you upset about?

I wish you would answer this. "And why is it that you only direct these comments towards me? Is there anyone else here who is WILDLY insulting and should be corrected by WG?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'll name one historical event and give evidence for it. The resurrection of Jesus.

Evidence.
1. change of Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday
2. many extra-biblical references to the resurrection
3. the willingness of the witnesses of the resurrection to undergo lives of great hardship to spread the message of that resurrection
4. the testimony of the NT
5. the incredible conversion of Saul of Tarsus
6. an empty tomb
7. prophesied in the OT
8. oral tradition recorded in 1 Cor. 15 which traces back to within 3 years of the resurrection
9. the absence of writings in the first century contradicting the resurrection
10. extraordinary transformation of the disciples from fearful men into fearless preachers of the Gospel
11. the tomb of Jesus was never turned into a shrine as His burial place
12. The absence of any other plausible explanation. For instance, if His body had still been in the tomb, then the Jewish leaders would simply have paraded it through town and the resurrection account would have been completely discounted.

Most Christians believe in a literal resurrection, for some Christians it's a spiritual resurrection, and for a handful it's a literary resurrection.

In any case, there is no “evidence” for the resurrection. It is a matter of faith.

Citing the NT as evidence/proof of itself is not evidence. Although your instances of heroic early Christians is certainly praiseworthy as a demonstration of their faith, it is not evidence of the resurrection.

Absence of writings denying the resurrection is obviously not evidence. It's not clear why you would claim that.

Your mention of “many extra-Biblical references to the resurrection” is definitely interesting. They would not necessarily be evidence, but they would surely be an indication that the resurrection was independently known outside of the disciples. But contemporary extra-Biblical references are almost non-existent as far as I can determine, certainly not “many”. If you have information about any, please let us know what they are.

You can start with Josephus. You can also go with Tacitus and Pliny. They don't agree that there was a resurrection, but they do attest that early Christians believed it to be so.

Not sure what you want for evidence. Everything I listed is valid historical evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

This is my post 81.

You were addressing DW, not me.

Then why are you concerned about it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You can start with Josephus. You can also go with Tacitus and Pliny. They don't agree that there was a resurrection, but they do attest that early Christians believed it to be so.

You saved me the time. Yes, they don't agree that there was a resurrection.

Several generations after the fact, they are reporting the existence of Christians and, in the case of Pliny and Tacitus, I can find no attestation they reported that Christians believed in the resurrection. Tacitus' words have been interpreted as such by some, but they are not considered evidence of the resurrection. Tacitus is reporting what others believe, not an evident fact.

As to Josephus who also lived much later, he was initially cited as a believer in the resurrection, but those words were shown to be a later interpolation by Christians so that he, too, is left as a reporter of what others believed.

All three fail as evidence of the resurrection. The best that can be said is that all three wrote about the beliefs of others, not themselves.

Quote:

Not sure what you want for evidence. Everything I listed is valid historical evidence.

No, it is not valid historical evidence for the resurrection. If the report of someone believing in something were all that was needed for evidential proof, then all the believers of Zeus or Jupiter or some other god would be considered evidence of those gods. That is obviously not the case.

With something as remarkable as the resurrection, more is required than someone's say-so. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. It is a matter of faith.