He didn't make those statements. Weren't part of His thinking process. Were the invention of mortals.
|
He didn't make those statements. Weren't part of His thinking process. Were the invention of mortals.
You're grasping at straws.Quote:
He didn't make those statements.
There is simply no good reason to believe that. The truth is that you only accept what agrees with your own ideas. That's why I am concerned for you. You seem to have a fantasy Jesus, one invented in your own mind and one over which you can exert control. But there is no salvation in a fantasy, and there is no Jesus who is subject to our own whims. The only Jesus is the one of whom we read in the Bible, and every word of it is to be received and believed.Quote:
Were the invention of mortals.
Hope to see you in heaven!
"We love, because he first loved us."Quote:
He knows humans don't want to love and be loved out of fear of hellfire, because it's required.
If we can accept that quote as being reliable, and that has been far from certain, then I would imagine we can all agree with that idea.
I'm always very suspicious of anyone who claims to know what Jesus "knows", and yet is unwilling to accept the testimony of the NT.Quote:
He knows humans don't want to love and be loved out of fear of hellfire, because it's required.
How many times has the NT been translated, parts rewritten, words changed and added and deleted....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's fine if you want to make that point, but it destroys your ability to use what would be, in your view, an unreliable NT to support your ideas. It's either reliable or it isn't. Make up your mind.
All NTs fall into that category. Unfortunately, we don't have the complete original. And even then, you and I both know how unreliable notes and transcriptions and copies can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
OK. So you claim it is unreliable, which makes me wonder how you can claim to know what Jesus "knows", or why you bother to quote from the NT. That makes no sense. Or why didn't you object when DW used a direct quote from that thoroughly unreliable NT ("We love, because he first loved us.")? For that matter, why didn't you object when YOU quoted from the NT?
I said a very similar quote, "love one another." Jesus was (and is still) all about loving ourselves just as He loves us -- so then we can love others. He's shown me throughout my life how true that is.
Except that you have no way, in your approach, of being able to know that since you consider the accounts of his life and words to be unreliable. Thus we have no reliable way, in your view, of being able to say what, "Jesus was (and still is)". Well, unless we are to send people to you and consider you authoritative. Sorry, but that is not even close to being an option. So by your system, we are reduced to personal opinion, and therefore we have nothing.
Love one another.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.Quote:
So by your system, we are reduced to personal opinion, and therefore we have nothing.
"We love because He first loved us."
Unfortunately, some people are more difficult to love than others are. God, give us the strength to show love to everyone.
Is that your opinion, or is it an authoritative statement from your utterly unreliable NT?
I have finally, after much effort, gotten you to the place where you have acknowledged that you do not receive the NT as the source of your "truth". It's a sad place for you to be, for you have no greater authority than your own ideas, but it is what it is. Jesus said whatever happens to agree with your own opinions which were birthed somewhere outside of the Bible. A day is coming when we will find out if the authors of the NT are correct, or if WG is correct. It will not be both.
The NT authors didn't believe in loving one another?
According to you, we can’t know what they believed.
Which NT?
Again, from your point of view it makes no difference. They are all produced from, according to you, an unreliable source.
From many, many sources, translations....
According to you, unreliable. But I'll give you a challenge. Find the translation (even better, Greek manuscript) where Matthew 25 does not speak of judgment coming.
I'll wait.
I'll even give you a hand. This is dozens of translations of Mt. 25:41.
Matthew 25:41 - Bible Gateway
Same for verse 46.
Matthew 25:46 - Bible Gateway
Now you are trying to claim that with all the translations out there, it becomes impossible to know what the original documents said. But as can be seen by anyone willing to put some effort into it, that is simply not true. Are there some points of contention? Of course, but it is very much a small, small sliver of the NT of which that is true, and to suggest that the words of Jesus in Mt. 25 are unreliable because of all those translations out there is just silly. In fact, it is just the opposite that is true.
From Matt. 25:41(KJV) -- Then shall he [Jesus] say also unto them
"When to use shall?
Shall is sometimes used ... to express a threat. You shall regret this. They shall pay dearly."
The Gospel writer is being threatening. He doesn't actually know what Jesus will say. The writer wants to scare his listeners into salvation. The writer believes threats of everlasting punishment in a fiery hell will work better than wussy love.
@jlisenbe, your inner key board warrior is showing, again.
Quit being so combative and obnoxious, there really is no need.
Stick to the topic of the thread rather than petty point scoring.
In your own words from post 67, "How do you know Jesus actually said that?"Quote:
From Matt. 25:41(KJV) -- Then shall he [Jesus] say also unto them
My post #67:
"How do you know Jesus actually said that? Those words definitely aren't His style."
"Matthew" was claiming Jesus said that or would say it
Again, I post:
The Gospel writer (or, more likely, the translator) is being threatening. He doesn't actually know what Jesus will say. The writer wants to scare his listeners into salvation. The writer believes threats of everlasting punishment in a fiery hell will work better than wussy love.
The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of certain original Hebrew and Greek words: sheol, hades, tartarus, gehenna, owlam, aion and aionios, which first occurred when Jerome translated Scripture into the Catholic Latin Vulgate in the early fifth century.
The truth of the matter is that there is not one single word in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts of the Bible that means hell. Hell is a man-invented, pagan, unchristian, heretical belief that was first embraced and christianised by Catholicism and incorporated into the Bible by Jerome through his Latin Vulgate in the early history of Christianity. Also, Jesus Christ never spoke about ‘everlasting’ fire and punishment, as erroneously translated in verses such as Matthew 18:8, 25:41 and 25:46 in popular versions of the Bible that support the doctrine of hell.
God’s love and the doctrine of hell are irreconcilable. It is only twisted Augustinian theology that tries to reconcile God’s love with endless punishment in hell. Hell believing preachers use absurd reasoning to say that eternal torture in hell, for the vast majority of mankind who die as unbelievers, is an act of God’s love demonstrating His perfect justice. This is totally twisted reasoning, beyond all comprehension.
Hell makes absolute mockery of God’s justice. If hell were a true doctrine, then it would be the strangest and cruelest type of justice one could ever imagine. What type of justice would it be for an all-knowing, all-loving God, who knows the end from the beginning and who foreknew that man would sin, then proceed to create multiple billions of people, in His own image, to have them end up being punished by Him eternally for their sins committed in the few years of their temporary existence in this life?
The Bible clearly says that God’s will is to save all men. However, hell makes Satan and man’s fallen free will out to be more powerful than God’s Sovereign will for the salvation of all people. It depicts God as a weak and powerless God who is unable to fulfil His will to save all. The truth of the Bible is that Jesus Christ died on the cross to forgive the sins of the whole world, as the Bible clearly tells us. This is indeed the true Gospel. So, how can Jesus Christ be the Saviour of all men, yet fail to save all men? This simply does not make sense. The doctrine of hell completely negates the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The doctrine of Hell is also a source of anti-semitism, but that's a story for another time.
But how can you know that? Bear in mind that you have claimed the NT is unreliable.Quote:
Matthew was claiming Jesus said that or would say it
Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the several thousand very highly educated scholars who have participated in the translation of many dozens of Bible translations over the past few centuries and disagree with your view.Quote:
The truth of the matter is that there is not one single word in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts of the Bible that means hell.
Your "several thousand" translators came after Jerome's translation and by that time, the doctrine of hell was a totally accepted part of Christianity. In any case, it doesn't matter how many faulty translations there were. The issue is the falsity, not the number of times it occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No, the issue is your claim to know more than hundreds of scholars who were all light years ahead of you. Sorry, but you'll need a lot more than just an "Athos says so". So yeah, "falsity" is truly an issue, but not in the manner you have proposed.
It's also a highly questionable idea to suggest that these people, who were translating from Greek manuscripts and not from Jerome's Latin, an idea that would have been strange since it makes no sense to follow a translation from the Greek when they had the Greek to begin with, would have felt any obligation at all to adhere to his views.
But even if you were right, there is still the context of those passages to deal with. Mt. 25, for instance, describes this place without attaching a name to it. Call it what you will, I don't want to end up there.
“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels...46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
But you have claimed the NT books are unreliable, so you can't really know what Matthew wrote, and you CERTAINLY can't claim to know what he was claiming. It really comes down to what YOU are claiming.Quote:
"Matthew" was claiming Jesus said that or would say it
Those thousands were pre-disposed to believe what they had been taught from childhood about the Bible. They were hardly critical of accepted dogma like Hell which was not closely examined at nascent Christianity, although many Church fathers never bought into it, and until the last few centuries by those without an ax to grind.
That's your usual ad hominem argument. Why not deal with the argument itself instead of shooting the messenger.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Matthew 25. The relevant portion is “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, the righteous to eternal life”.Quote:
There is still the context of those passages to deal with. Mt. 25, for instance, describes this place without attaching a name to it.
“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels...46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The Greek word aionios is used in this verse to signify everlasting and is also used in this verse to signify an age – a period of time. The correct reading is “And these will go away to an age (a period of time) of punishment, and the righteous to eternal life.”
Why the two different uses of the same word? The word aionios has two meanings – eternal and an age (a limited period of time). The mistranslated verse first appears in the 5th century in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The mistranslation has been copied ever since in the KJV and other Bibles.
When it (aion) was translated into Latin Vulgate, aion became aeternam which means 'eternal'. The first written record of the idea of an eternal Hell comes from Tertullian, who wrote in Latin. It was Tertullian's writings, plus Augustine's views and writings on eternal Hell which overwhelmed the other views of a temporary Hell. Up until the Reformation Augustine's view of Hell as eternal was not questioned.
The following is for dwashbur to examine in case he shows up for this discussion.
About the word aion as having connotations of "age" or "temporal",
Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (peri ouranou, i. 9,15) says: "The period which includes the whole time of one's life is called the aeon of each one." Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life (aion) is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad v. 685; Odyssey v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millennium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history.
The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting. They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidios, which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periodsFinally, the verse in question (Matthew 25:46) is incorrectly thought to prove an endless punishment for evil doers. The faulty logic goes like this, “Since the same adjective (aionios) is used to describe both life and punishment, if eternal punishment isn’t forever, then eternal life also isn’t forever. But if eternal life is forever, then eternal punishment must also be forever.”
Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionios everlasting. Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios, it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated.
If one believes in the idea of eternal Hell, one must either let go of the idea that it is God's wish and desires to save all beings, or accept the idea that God wants to, but will not successfully accomplish his will and satisfy his own desire in this matter.
This argument is lacking. It's as illogical as saying that, “If the adjective ‘tall’ is used to describe both basket ball players and sky scrapers then they must both be the same size. Either the basket ball player is thousands of feet tall, or the sky scraper is only 6-7 feet tall.” The fault with such logic is clear.
You have no way of knowing that. The primary bias I see is with your treatment of aionios.Quote:
Those thousands were pre-disposed
This was discussed at length many months ago. Virtually no one agrees with your definition of the word. No English translation renders it in Mt. 25 as something short of eternal other than, so far as I know, Robert Young. He rendered the passage, quite honestly I think, as follows. "And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during." He fully well understood that when aionios is used in the same manner and in the same context, then it must be translated in the same way. To do otherwise is really questionable. Your explanation for your differing treatment of the word is likewise questionable. Both the building and the man are indeed tall, but tall is a relative term. That is not true of aionios. And certainly you would need some plausible reason for the differing translations other than mere speculation that heaven must surely be eternal while hell must surely be otherwise.
But even at that, if you want to suggest that hell is not eternal but rather is only an enormously long period of time, you still have a hell, and it is still a place of punishment for sin. So you have done nothing to do away with this place which you so earnestly wish not to exist.
Might add that I'm at least glad you are not taking the direction of Wondergirl and trying to argue that the NT is not reliable and so we can't really know who said what.
Well, someone certainly has problems with understanding what the NT is and how it came about.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You certainly do. We agree again!Quote:
Well, someone certainly has problems with understanding what the NT is and how it came about.
Read what Athos wrote. There will be a test next Tuesday.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Of course I do. Are you seriously contending that the thousands of Bible translators were NOT believers in the Bible? Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Naturally you mean no one who is a literal Bible believer. They would not be expected to believe in the definition I provided.Quote:
Virtually no one agrees with your definition of the word.
For the reasons I have already noted above.Quote:
No English translation renders it in Mt. 25 as something short of eternal
In English, "age-during" is a stilted phrase, which is natural when transliterating. The translator must use his ingenuity and command of language to make it palatable to English speakers. Apparently, that was not Young's intention. The Greek phrase transliterated as "age-during" needs to be seen in various contexts which I have done citing Plato and Homer. This is in order to devise its proper meaning in English.Quote:
Robert Young. He rendered the passage, quite honestly I think, as follows. "And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."
Are you now doing the very thing you have accused WG of doing - knowing the mind of another?Quote:
He fully well understood that when aionios is used in the same manner and in the same context, then it must be translated in the same way.
That is irrelevant. You need to explain exactly WHY a "relative term" matters. In any case, I think you meant "adjective", not "relative term".Quote:
To do otherwise is really questionable. Your explanation for your differing treatment of the word is likewise questionable. Both the building and the man are indeed tall, but tall is a relative term.
You are WAY over your head with this - with all due respect, linguistics is not your forte.Quote:
That is not true of aionios.
I have given you reasons - bad translation, misinterpretation, logical fallacy, and the sheer impossibility of Hell, considering the nature of God and the Gospel teachings of Jesus Christ. .Quote:
And certainly you would need some plausible reason for the differing translations other than mere speculation that heaven must surely be eternal while hell must surely be otherwise.
That's called a Straw-man argument. This entire discussion has been about denying the ETERNAL nature of Hell. Other aspects of Hell may fall by the wayside in examining the claimed eternal nature of it, but those were never the primary focus of the discussion here.Quote:
But even at that, if you want to suggest that hell is not eternal but rather is only an enormously long period of time, you still have a hell, and it is still a place of punishment for sin. So you have done nothing to do away with this place which you so earnestly wish not to exist.
WG is 100% correct. The NT is NOT reliable, but only in isolated, yet important, parts. I don't think WG ever claimed that we can never know who said what, especially since she quotes Christ so frequently.Quote:
Might add that I'm at least glad you are not taking the direction of Wondergirl and trying to argue that the NT is not reliable and so we can't really know who said what.
If you wish, a new thread can examine the NT lack of perfect reliability.
Except that's not what you said. You claimed they were predisposed (biased) to render certain words as "hell". Now you are claiming that a "believer in the Bible" (whatever that means) cannot be an honest, intelligent translator. Well, your two claims are not the same. Might add that it is quite possible that many of the translators were far from being solidly conservative Christians and would hardly have been eager to render any word as "hell".Quote:
Of course I do. Are you seriously contending that the thousands of Bible translators were NOT believers in the Bible? Seriously?
You have been able to find only one scholar used in Bible translations who agrees with you and that is R. Young. Period. And even he only half-way agreed with you.
It is both, so tall is a relative term. The man is tall only when compared to other men. That is not true of aionios, so your comparison, in my view, was not useful.Quote:
I think you meant "adjective", not "relative term".
For a variety of good reasons, I never, ever just accept your opinion about anything. This comment of yours is typical. Athos says something, so it just has to be true. I have found that not to be the case, and even now when you are trying to advance a meaning of a Greek word that is accepted by virtually no one else. Is that your forte?Quote:
You are WAY over your head with this - with all due respect, linguistics is not your forte.
But that is plainly not true. You asked two questions to start the discussion with a wide-ranging array of content. The "entire discussion" has certainly not been limited to the eternal extent of hell. But since it now seems to be accepted that hell is a real place of punishment for sin, and not the garbage dump of Jerusalem, then that is definite progress.Quote:
That's called a Straw-man argument. This entire discussion has been about denying the ETERNAL nature of Hell. Other aspects of Hell may fall by the wayside in examining the claimed eternal nature of it, but those were never the primary focus of the discussion here.
I don't agree with Young's translation of aionios, but I do admire his willingness to be honest and consistent with his treatment of the word. Your rendering (And these will go away to an age (a period of time) of punishment, and the righteous to eternal life) seems to be inconsistent and a little difficult to picture as straightforward. Even worse, if you consider the NT to be so corrupted as to be unreliable, then I have no idea why you would engage in a discussion about the meaning of a particular word when it would be completely impossible to know if Jesus ever used that word or not, thus rendering the entire discussion meaningless.
It strikes me that WG's objection to the reliability of the NT has nothing to do with a genuine interest in textual criticism and everything to do with a desire to have a NT that can be largely and selectively ignored.
I have read his post. The test answers would all have to be "false".Quote:
Read what Athos wrote. There will be a test next Tuesday.
Your reply is riddled with errors. I will explain why point-by-point so you can understand each error.
Error #1. I never said they were predisposed to render certain words as hell. Here's what I did say, Those thousands were pre-disposed to believe what they had been taught from childhood about the Bible. They were hardly critical of accepted dogma like Hell which was not closely examined at nascent Christianity, although many Church fathers never bought into it, and until the last few centuries by those without an ax to grind.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The gist of that is not debatable - that the Bible translators were already Christians and would accept handed-down doctrine and dogma. The point being translators were not from a neutral group of translators skilled only in ancient languages.
Error #2. I never claimed "a believer in the Bible" cannot be an intelligent, honest translator. Btw, you indicated a lack of understanding by "whatever that means" referring to Bible believers. It means those who believe in the Bible.Quote:
Now you are claiming that a "believer in the Bible" (whatever that means) cannot be an honest, intelligent translator.
Error #3. I never said they were the same, you said that (that I said they were the same).Quote:
Well, your two claims are not the same.
This is a contradiction to your complaint against WG about knowing what others think.Quote:
Might add that it is quite possible that many of the translators were far from being solidly conservative Christians and would hardly have been eager to render any word as "hell".
Error #4. I have not cited a single scholar who "agrees with me". Oddly, YOU are the one who found R. Young, not me! Unless you can read my mind, you do not know whether I have found zero scholars or one scholar or more than one who agree with me. This is your second contradiction referencing your complaint against WG about knowing what others think.Quote:
You have been able to find only one scholar used in Bible translations who agrees with you and that is R. Young.
Error #5. The letter "a" is the second letter in "tall". The letter "a" is the first letter in "anionos", so your claim, in my view, is not useful. Point being, your "relative term" comment is irrelevant as is mine re "a".Quote:
It is both, so tall is a relative term. The man is tall only when compared to other men. That is not true of aionios, so your comparison, in my view, was not useful.
Error #6. There are no good reasons to reject an opinion before seeing the opinion. To never accept an opinion before seeing the opinion is a clear example of bias leading to an invalid conclusion. I could give you two errors on this one, but I'll leave it as one.Quote:
For a variety of good reasons, I never, ever just accept your opinion about anything.
Error #7. I have never said that a comment of mine must be true because I said it. My comments are true because they are backed by evidence OR factual information OR on the internal logic of the comment OR many other reasons.Quote:
This comment of yours is typical. Athos says something, so it just has to be true.
Your use of "forte" is an error, but I'll skip over it. Error #7. Your claim that "virtually no one else" accepts the meaning of a Greek word I am defending is false on its face. You can easily verify the truth of the issue by googling.Quote:
even now when you are trying to advance a meaning of a Greek word that is accepted by virtually no one else. Is that your forte?
Congratulations! That's true.Quote:
You asked two questions to start the discussion with a wide-ranging array of content.
Woops - you're back in the error column again, #8. The PRIMARY FOCUS has ALWAYS been the eternal aspect of hell. Other aspects were discussed without ever denying the primary focus.Quote:
The "entire discussion" has certainly not been limited to the eternal extent of hell.
If you're implying that is my belief, you are wrong. For the record, I do not believe Hell is a real place. Since it's unclear whom you're referencing, I won't cite an error for this one.Quote:
But since it now seems to be accepted that hell is a real place of punishment for sin
The garbage dump of Jerusalem - Gehenna - was a metaphor Jesus used. You're confusing two different words.Quote:
and not the garbage dump of Jerusalem
It is not my rendering although I am in agreement with it or something very like it. I understand that you find it difficult to picture. It's not your fault, but some serious examination will help you understand it.Quote:
Your rendering (And these will go away to an age (a period of time) of punishment, and the righteous to eternal life) seems to be inconsistent and a little difficult to picture as straightforward.
Error #9. This is a BIG error. I never said I consider the NT to be so corrupted as to be unreliable. I never said anything remotely like that. In fact, I resent you defaming me like you have with no evidence. Here's what I said, "The NT is NOT reliable, but only in isolated, yet important parts". To repeat with emphasis, "...but only in isolated, yet important, parts". Key words obviously, are ONLY and ISOLATED. How could you possibly miss that?Quote:
Even worse, if you consider the NT to be so corrupted as to be unreliable
That's not an error, but it is a deeply flawed understanding how discussions can be carried out when the participant's words are not on an audio or video recording. We know Jesus' words are not always rendered word-for-word perfectly. We know this because the Gospels quote Jesus differently depending on author. But we can still get the meaning by examining the whole picture (the forest) and not getting bogged down in the details (the trees).Quote:
then I have no idea why you would engage in a discussion about the meaning of a particular word when it would be completely impossible to know if Jesus ever used that word or not, thus rendering the entire discussion meaningless.
That is a terrible thing to say about a fellow Christian, one who demonstrates the Gospel message of Jesus far better than you do.Quote:
It strikes me that WG's objection to the reliability of the NT has nothing to do with a genuine interest in textual criticism and everything to do with a desire to have a NT that can be largely and selectively ignored.
That is not nearly as bad as your comment about WG, but it is still an unnecessary slam coming from a self-identified Christian. You would do well to follow the example of WG.Quote:
I have read his post. The test answers would all have to be "false".
Summary: 9 errors and two contradictions.
Nope. You brought him up many months ago when we first discussed all of this.Quote:
Error #4. I have not cited a single scholar who "agrees with me". Oddly, YOU are the one who found R. Young, not me!
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...80#post3847480
For all the multiplied responses at the top, I was referring to this statement of yours. "Those thousands were pre-disposed to believe what they had been taught from childhood about the Bible. They were hardly critical of accepted dogma like Hell which was not closely examined at nascent Christianity, although many Church fathers never bought into it, and until the last few centuries by those without an ax to grind." You claimed they had a bias because of their Christian faith and that, incredibly enough, would explain how many hundreds of translators would come to the same conclusion over several centuries. I would instead suggest that honest people tend to come up with honest results.
You have a history. Nuff said.Quote:
Error #6. There are no good reasons to reject an opinion before seeing the opinion. To never accept an opinion before seeing the opinion is a clear example of bias leading to an invalid conclusion.
I'm the only one who has. No English translation follows your idea other than Young, and he followed just half of your "rule".Quote:
Error #7. Your claim that "virtually no one else" accepts the meaning of a Greek word I am defending is false on its face. You can easily verify the truth of the issue by googling.
Oh? So we should do as you have done on this critical comment? Follow your example?Quote:
That is a terrible thing to say about a fellow Christian, one who demonstrates the Gospel message of Jesus far better than you do.
It was a joke. I made that clear in my original post which was deleted by the watchful eye of whoever for who knows what reason. That has happened to several of my posts in the past few days. It started when I quoted a vulgar comment by you. I was told it was deleted because it was a cross thread reference. Right.Quote:
That is not nearly as bad as your comment about WG, but it is still an unnecessary slam coming from a self-identified Christian. You would do well to follow the example of WG.
That's a fair criticism. I did not read your response carefully enough. It is, however, not a fair summary of WG's views on the subject. I have questioned her about it several times and she has agreed that she considers the NT unreliable. She has not gone beyond that.Quote:
Error #9. This is a BIG error. I never said I consider the NT to be so corrupted as to be unreliable. I never said anything remotely like that. In fact, I resent you defaming me like you have with no evidence. Here's what I said, "The NT is NOT reliable, but only in isolated, yet important parts". To repeat with emphasis, "...but only in isolated, yet important, parts". Key words obviously, are ONLY and ISOLATED. How could you possibly miss that?
I'll also add this. You posted a number of months ago that you had an ability to tell which of the statements of Jesus were authentic. You claimed you had developed this ability over years of reading the NT. Correct?
Summary. 1 error and no contradictions.
Meaningful summary. You have presented no support for your contention about the meaning of aionios other than Robert Young. But even at that, it still leaves hell a very real place of punishment for a very long period of time. I think your criticism of NT scholars is more a reaction about your own biased view of aionios than it is a valid observation.
No, she hasn't. You're generalizing what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:54 AM. |