Like I said above. Show me where Jesus said there is no hell and no judgment and we can discuss it. Until then it’s silliness
Read about cherry picking. You don’t understand it. It’s just a silly excuse you’re using.
|
Like I said above. Show me where Jesus said there is no hell and no judgment and we can discuss it. Until then it’s silliness
Read about cherry picking. You don’t understand it. It’s just a silly excuse you’re using.
That's the problem. You refuse to tell your beliefs, and you claim you haven't supported anything. What were all those Bible verses you offered? What were they supporting?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What is truly incredible is your gross inability to understand the plain language of words challenging your belief.Quote:
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.
Of course they contradict. One speaks of love and the other sending unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. Are you blind?Quote:
They don’t contradict. One speaks of love and others of judgment.
I rebutted every single passage you offered as proof. There were 33 in post 22 of yours - not 35. My rebuttal was in post 97. Go read it.Quote:
They are not mutually exclusive.when you refer to two passages and ignore 35 then you are cherry picking.
They were the words of the New Testament which you reject.
I have no argument with the plain language of words.
It is the love of God that provides an Avenue of grace and mercy to avoid judgment. There is no contradiction. Jesus is not the author of a false teaching as you suggested he was.
Your rebuttal was nonsense. It is not possible to rebut 32 plain and clear passages. But I was glad to see you affirm that there is a hell.
Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's obviously not what I'm saying. I've explained it now a number of times.Quote:
you are basically saying that since Matthew 25 does not agree with you, then it surely must have been miscopied.
None of the thirty passages cited affirm the message that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. I've already rebutted every single one in my post #97.Quote:
Your appeal to Augustine is hopeless set alongside more than thirty passages that affirm the basic message of Matthew 25.
Augustine was the one who gave the idea widespread attention. He taught that the salamander who lived in fire was proof of an "unquenchable fire". Only problem is his salamander was mythical. Augustine had brilliance, no question. But he was also a man of his time who had some very weird notions. Some churchmen of the centuries after Jesus - Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Clement, and others who also believed that death is a sleep, taught that the wicked are destroyed forever by fire – their punishment was to be annihilation. These leaders did not teach of an immortal soul to be tortured by fire in hell for eternity. All were prior to Augustine. Iranaeus' position on the issue is debatable, but I don't want to do that here - one issue at a time.Quote:
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.”
If you're referring to unbelievers in hell for eternal punishment, of course there are. I've given you two excellent ones.Quote:
There are no passages that contradict the words of Christ spoken over and over again.
Not supposed - they can be found in post 97. Every single one is tied to a specific verse - every-single-one.Quote:
Your supposed replies aren't even tied to specific verses.
You should be in a textbook on Reading Comprehension. Quoting someone does NOT mean you believe what is being quoted. In this case, I am debunking the idea of an eternal punishment!Quote:
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."
The Bible in toto contradicts your belief re unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment. You just refuse to see it. WHY you refuse is another question. One reason is that you have never been told to examine the Bible. You have been told to accept whatever someone else has told you it said. Your position is not uncommon.Quote:
"There are many Bible verses that contradict Jl's belief." There were, in fact, none.
The horrific false teaching about god having a personal torture chamber for all those who don't like him is something out of Dante. It should be an easy notion to challenge. Most Christians have managed to do it.
Your description of your Matthew mistake is pompous nonsense rejected by every major translation.
After Aquinas, I believe nothing you say about Augustine.
The quote was from you. You said the fire was eternal.
No, they are your interpretation of Matthew that I reject.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's your understanding of plain words where the difficulty lies.Quote:
I have no argument with the plain language of words.
I never suggested Jesus was a false teacher. This is where your reading comprehension problem confuses you.Quote:
Jesus is not the author of a false teaching as you suggested he was.
Of course it is, if they are offered as proof of a false teaching. Some of them had nothing to do with the topic (I made note of those for you).Quote:
It is not possible to rebut 32 plain and clear passages.
I never affirmed that. I understand your frustration being confronted with some home truths that are uncomfortable for you, but that doesn't permit you to lie.Quote:
But I was glad to see you affirm that there is a hell.
The Bible in toto is the desperate excuse used by someone who does not know the Bible and is unwilling to face the simple fact that 32 plain and clear passages cannot be refuted.
I will say it one more time for the thinking impaired. I have offered no interpretation of the Matthew passage.
you said the teaching of hell clearly affirmed by Jesus on several occasions was a false teaching. You just said it again above!!
You did affirm that the fires of hell are eternal.
But this can be settled easily. Just show us where the New Testament affirms your idea of no hell or judgment. Must be specific.
The Matthew verse you rely on is a copy of a copy of a copy going back to Jerome. Very few preachers outside of the evangelical fundamentalists will take that verse as you take it. The rest of Christianity denies a hell for unbelievers for eternal punishment. Ask around. You'll find it's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's apparent you believe nothing I say about anything. That's your problem and places you in a very weak position. Take what I say by the content, not by who is saying it. You'll learn more that way.Quote:
After Aquinas, I believe nothing you say about Augustine.
Our posts may have passed each other. Refer to my post above this one for your answer to that.Quote:
The quote was from you. You said the fire was eternal.
PS - Just in case you missed, here it is again : You should be in a textbook on Reading Comprehension. Quoting someone does NOT mean you believe what is being quoted. In this case, I am debunking the idea of an eternal punishment!
Then how do you explain that they were refuted?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Then why did you post all those Bible verses? What where you supporting?Quote:
I will say it one more time for the thinking impaired. I have offered no interpretation of the Matthew passage.
Reading comp again. I never said that false teaching was affirmed by Jesus.Quote:
you said the teaching of hell clearly affirmed by Jesus on several occasions was a false teaching.
You are about as dense as they come.Quote:
You just said it again above!
No, I affirmed that the eternal punishment was not for the one "cast in". Tell me the truth - Were you really a high school principal?Quote:
You did affirm that the fires of hell are eternal.
When Jesus says "Love your enemy" and "Love your neighbor" and "Father, forgive them". This requires thought beyond the surface meaning of the words. But by now, I'm not sure you are capable of that. I can't decide whether you're thinking-challenged or live in such fear of having your Bible challenged that you can't think straight.Quote:
But this can be settled easily. Just show us where the New Testament affirms your idea of no hell or judgment. Must be specific.
I have posted 32 passages where judgment and hell are specifically mentioned. You have posted...none. So the score is 32-0. If you can post some passages where it is specifically stated that hell and judgment do not exist, then we can continue. Until then, your pseudo intellectual, mumbo jumbo is accomplishing nothing. Paragraphs like this are just absurdities. "Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you." You blindly overlook the fact that no one agrees with you. Should I notify the translators of the major translations of the NT and let them know that we have an accomplished exegetical specialist on AMHD that needs to tell them how to translate Matthew 25??? Should I call them tomorrow??? Better yet, let's let YOU call them. Tell us how that goes. I assure you they will find it to be amusing.Quote:
When Jesus says "Love your enemy" and "Love your neighbor" and "Father, forgive them". This requires thought beyond the surface meaning of the words. But by now, I'm not sure you are capable of that. I can't decide whether you're thinking-challenged or live in such fear of having your Bible challenged that you can't think straight.
Complete absurdity. There are a number of manuscripts of Matthew from the third century, predating Jerome. Parts of Matthew are dated from the second century. Virtually no one contends that Matthew was not written by Matthew in the first century. Your suggestion is yet another reason I believe very little of what you say.Quote:
The Matthew verse you rely on is a copy of a copy of a copy going back to Jerome.
Until you can man up and provide legitimate passages which specifically mention the non-existence of hell and judgment, you are dead in the water. You are welcome to believe what you will, but until you can provide evidence for your position that surpasses the laughable "in toto" argument, I'll let you argue with yourself. I'm going with the plain and clear statements of Christ whose words you reject.
Which New Testament?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Well, in all reality there is only one, but if you want to look at that way, take your pick. Any major translation will do. But I have bad news for you. You have an impossible task. How would I know that? Because you would already have done it long ago if you could. You don't accept the words of Christ, so you are stuck in neutral. No answers.
Even worse, my list has expanded to 46. I'll post it again soon. I'll simply attach it as a Word doc if I can figure out how.
Nope, not true at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Oh, but I do -- just not YOUR interpretation.Quote:
You don't accept the words of Christ....
The silly excuse of which NT has not stopped me or anyone else serious about what is going on. And for the tenth time, I have posted no interpretations. I have posted the words of Christ and of the NT which you reject. I have 46 passages now which explicitly refer to hell of judgment. Evidently I am no allowed to post them. In reply, you have...zero. So when you are prepared to do the very simple job of showing us where the NT says there is no hell and no judgment, let me know. Until then, I'm weary of this. I wish you well.
You're not a storyteller, are you. You're a literalist all the way. And Athos has previously described how hell got into the Bible teachings -- Gehenna, Hades, Sheol.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So when you are prepared to do the very simple job of showing us where the NT says there is no hell and no judgment, let me know. Until then, I'm weary of this. I wish you well.
I will answer these point by point to make it easier for you to comprehend. (I note you have not answered all MY points in Post # 129).
Every one of your bible passages has been rebutted by me in post #97. So the REAL score is in my favor. It is your job to defend what you posted as your belief. Start defending. A blanket dismissal is not a defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
My contention is that UNBELIEVERS are not condemned to hell for eternal punishment. As stated elsewhere, you are trying to move the goalposts.Quote:
If you can post some passages where it is specifically stated that hell and judgment do not exist,
You threaten this often, yet you have yet to carry out the threat. You keep coming back. It's been, what? 2 or 3 years, now? In any case, you do not dictate the terms of the conversation.Quote:
then we can continue
Your nasty name-calling is directly proportional to how befuddled and unable to answer that your position is becoming. In other words, the more you lose, the louder you get.Quote:
Until then, your pseudo intellectual, mumbo jumbo is accomplishing nothing.
Like I said, it's an area you don't understand as witnessed by your calling it an “absurdity”. If you don't understand such basic exegesis, you really shouldn't be discussing the Bible from any point of view other than the surface meaning. You've been told this again and again, but you, like Pharoah, have hardened your head (heart) against the truthQuote:
Paragraphs like this are just absurdities. "Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you
No, it was your idea to call so you can do it. Let us know what happens.Quote:
You blindly overlook the fact that no one agrees with you. Should I notify the translators of the major translations of the NT and let them know that we have an accomplished exegetical specialist on AMHD that needs to tell them how to translate Matthew 25??? Should I call them tomorrow??? Better yet, let's let YOU call them.
Bible versions are a deflection from the point. I will say, however, that most NT translations rely on Jerome's Vulgate. Jerome translated Matthew's Greek into Latin. Jerome tells that the original Matthew was in Hebrew (lost). The early “parts” you mention are fragments, none of which address the issue being discussed.Quote:
Complete absurdity. There are a number of manuscripts of Matthew from the third century, predating Jerome. Parts of Matthew are dated from the second century.
This is an interesting bit of sophistry on your part. The issue is whether the received Matthew centuries later is the same as the autograph. The first century autograph is long gone. No one contends that we have the originalQuote:
Virtually no one contends that Matthew was not written by Matthew in the first century.
That is your loss. Every one of my rebuttals in post #97 can be verified.Quote:
Your suggestion is yet another reason I believe very little of what you say.
See this point addressed above re defending your position. You apparently want me to say, “Jesus said, Unbelievers will not be sent by me to hell for eternal punishment. I mean, how could I do that to people who lived a thousand years before me? In fact, I like people who live good lives even if they never heard of me”.Quote:
Until you can man up and provide legitimate passages which specifically mention the non-existence of hell and judgment, you are dead in the water
I'm going to conflate a couple of posts because they're related, and they relate to my field.
So in Matthew 25 we're talking about literal sheep and literal goats, no people, right? I never trusted those sneaky goats anyway!Quote:
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.
News flash, my dude: they're not the ones who look silly.
I don't know who told you that stuff, but they're wrong. We don't have <i>manuscripts</i> from the second and third centuries, we have <i>papyrus fragments</i> of manuscripts. There are no second-century fragments of Matthew. There are precisely two papyri that can be confidently dated to the second century, P52 and P90. Both are fragments of John.Quote:
Complete absurdity. There are a number of manuscripts of Matthew from the third century, predating Jerome. Parts of Matthew are dated from the second century. Virtually no one contends that Matthew was not written by Matthew in the first century
And I have bad news for you: outside the evangelical bubble, <i>virtually nobody</i> believes it was written by Matthew in the first century. If you were to go to an SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) meeting and say that you would probably not be invited back. They'd be courteous because that's how they are, but they'd never take you seriously again.
I do acknowledge a place or state that we choose to call hell. I don't believe it's a place of fire and brimstone (why do we keep saying that instead of "sulfur"?), or darkness and chains and wailing and all that. Just like the images of heaven, those are attempts to describe the indescribable, falling back on familiar images of either good or bad things. AC/DC says "all my friends will be there" but there's no guarantee they'll be able to see each other. What sends people there? My conclusion is, deliberate disbelief. Example: an isolated tribe comes upon a huge tree whose fruit, shade, and moisture meets all their needs. The most reasonable thing to do would be to seek out and be grateful to whoever put the tree there, even though they don't know its name. Instead, the tribe worships the tree as a deity. That I consider deliberate rejection of the light they have.
I know a lot of people who, for whatever reason, just can't quite sort this all out. They don't know what to think of Jesus, but they're okay with him. I have a feeling those people will probably slide by.
While I do acknowledge the existence of hell, I don't think it's anything like the fundamentalists say, and I don't think it's nearly as full as they say, either.
To be fair to the other side, the verse in question is Verse 46.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Begging the question, what DO you acknowledge what hell is like?Quote:
While I do acknowledge the existence of hell
Fair enough. Now give support for it. Show where the Bible says that unbelievers are not condemned to hell. Should be simple to do.Quote:
My contention is that UNBELIEVERS are not condemned to hell for eternal punishment. As stated elsewhere, you are trying to move the goalposts.
No, my dude. It's you. A very simple reading explains the sheep/goats. "All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as (JL like, similar to) a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." Now I suppose you are trying to be clever in showing that Jesus is not literally speaking of sheep and goats. Really? Did anyone claim to believe that to begin with? The use of a simile makes it obvious, and that's really the point. That the ENTIRE PASSAGE should be taken figuratively is the point in question, not some small part of it.Quote:
So in Matthew 25 we're talking about literal sheep and literal goats, no people, right? I never trusted those sneaky goats anyway!
News flash, my dude: they're not the ones who look silly.
Your opinion is not held everywhere.Quote:
I don't know who told you that stuff, but they're wrong. We don't have <i>manuscripts</i> from the second and third centuries, we have <i>papyrus fragments</i> of manuscripts. There are no second-century fragments of Matthew. There are precisely two papyri that can be confidently dated to the second century, P52 and P90. Both are fragments of John.
"It is sometimes alleged, even by scholars who know better,1 that we have to wait hundreds of years after the completion of the New Testament before we get any extant manuscripts of it. This is clearly not the case, for we have several manuscripts from within a century of the completion of the NT. To be sure, these manuscripts (all but one of which are papyri) are all fragmentary, but they may not be as fragmentary as some might suppose, and there are more of them than is often realized.These manuscripts include P52 (100-150), P90, 104 (2nd century), P66 (c. AD 175-225), P46, 64+67 (c. AD 200), P77, P103, 0189 (2nd or 3rd century), P98 (2nd century?). These ten manuscripts are the extent of those that the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung has identified as possibly or definitely from the second century.
In addition to these, there are a few other candidates. Comfort and Barrett argue for at least half a dozen other manuscripts as possibly from the 2nd century.2 Their method, however, is generally to take the earliest date possible. Nevertheless, the date they suggest for P4 (second century) is probably correct in light of some recent work done by T. C. Skeat of the British Library,3 and the date they offer for P32 (late second century) is quite possible. In addition, renowned papyrologist Herbert Hunger considered P66 to be from no later than the middle of the second century.4 The original editors of P75 also thought this manuscript should be dated late second to early third century.5
This means that there are at least ten and as many as thirteen NT MSS6 that are possibly or definitely from the second century."
https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2...t-manuscripts/
I'm also pretty sure you realize that manuscript fragments are frequently simply referred to as "manuscripts". The vast majority of early manuscripts are incomplete. I have no idea why you want to make an issue out of that. At any rate, the point was that Matthew greatly predates Jerome and hence could not have arisen from him.
Exegesis has to do with interpretation rather than translation. No one should translate the Bible by changing the clear meaning of a text to suit someone else's (like yours) opinions. But if you want to see this for sure, here you go. This is Mt. 25 in interlinear. You can read it for yourself.Quote:
Like I said, it's an area you don't understand as witnessed by your calling it an “absurdity”. If you don't understand such basic exegesis, you really shouldn't be discussing the Bible from any point of view other than the surface meaning. You've been told this again and again, but you, like Pharoah, have hardened your head (heart) against the truth.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/25.htm
It is your contention that Jesus sends unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. It is up to you to show where the Bible says that. If the Bible never said that, how could the Bible be quoted as not saying what it never said? Think about that. I'm only trying to help.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
DW's opinion is that of a scholar who has studied the issue. Your position shown below is far weaker than DW's.Quote:
Your opinion is not held everywhere.
Note that Jl's citations include "probably", possibly" and are misleading by referring to fragments as manuscripts as though the fragments are complete mss. See next.Quote:
we have several manuscripts from within a century of the completion of the NT. To be sure, these manuscripts (all but one of which are papyri) are all fragmentary,.....These manuscripts include P52 (100-150), P90, 104 (2nd century), P66 (c. AD 175-225), P46, 64+67 (c. AD 200), P77, P103, 0189 (2nd or 3rd century), P98 (2nd century?). These ten manuscripts are the extent of those that the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung has identified as possibly or definitely from the second century.
In addition to these, there are a few other candidates. Comfort and Barrett argue for at least half a dozen other manuscripts as possibly from the 2nd century.2 ....... the date they suggest for P4 (second century) is probably correct in light of some recent work done by T. C. Skeat of the British Library,3 and the date they offer for P32 (late second century) is quite possible. In addition, renowned papyrologist Herbert Hunger considered P66 to be from no later than the middle of the second century.4 The original editors of P75 also thought this manuscript should be dated late second to early third century.5This means that there are at least ten and as many as thirteen NT MSS6 that are possibly or definitely from the second century."
Fragments are NOT complete manuscripts. That should be prominently noted - it was NOT.Quote:
I'm also pretty sure you realize that manuscript fragments are frequently simply referred to as "manuscripts"
Now you're agreeing with me - almost. Change "vast" to "all", and you have the truth.Quote:
The vast majority of early manuscripts are incomplete.
Because that is the major and only point of contention - that the verse in question was not in any of the fragments/manuscripts cited.Quote:
I have no idea why you want to make an issue out of that.
Wrong. No one claimed the author of Matthew used Jerome as a source. It was was the other way around.Quote:
At any rate, the point was that Matthew greatly predates Jerome and hence could not have arisen from him.
Ok by me. You use Eisegesis - look it up.Quote:
Exegesis has to do with interpretation rather than translation
It was done more than once before being accepted as the canon in the 4th century. Matthew 25:46 is a good example since it appears nowhere in the fragments you cited (using your own argument).Quote:
No one should translate the Bible by changing the clear meaning of a text to suit someone else's opinions.
Sorry, Jl, you're missing the point - again! Bigly. Your interlinear is the version/verse under contention. Not germane to the issue.Quote:
But if you want to see this for sure, here you go. This is Mt. 25 in interlinear. You can read it for yourself.
And you know this how?Quote:
Your position shown below is far weaker than DW's.
I have made no contentions at all. So the fact that you have understood that from the passages I posted speaks volumes. Glad you finally understand itQuote:
It is your contention that Jesus sends unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment
No one has said fragments are complete manuscripts. And I if changed it to "all", I would be making a false statement. Codex Sinaiticus is a complete NT manuscript dated fourth century.Quote:
Fragments are NOT complete manuscripts. That should be prominently noted - it was NOT.
Now you're agreeing with me - almost. Change "vast" to "all", and you have the truth.
Who said it was?Quote:
that the verse in question was not in any of the fragments/manuscripts cited.
Thankfully you are finally learning something. It's good to see you see the error in your statement. ""Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you"Quote:
Exegesis has to do with interpretation rather than translation
Ok by me. You use Eisegesis - look it up.
However, I'm sad you still don't see, despite having it explained to you a dozen times, that I have offered no interpretations, and thus cannot be guilty of eisegesis. Do you understand now?
I tell you what. I have attached the now 46 passages below. I have given you and WG the same task. Find those passages that say there is no hell and no judgment. Until you do, there really is nothing left to discuss. Either find them or man up and admit you can't. (Note. I already know you can't since they don't exist.)
Scriptures Concerning the Biblical Teaching of a Day of Judgement and Hell
- 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.”
- Matthew 5:29,30. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
- Matthew 8:11,12. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
- Matthew 10:28. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
- Matthew 13:30. (This is the conclusion of the parable of the wheat and tares.) “Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.”
- Matthew 13:49,50. “This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
- Matthew 18:8. “It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.”
- Matthew 23:33. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
- Matt. 25:31-48. This lengthy passage clearly sets forth the existence of a fiery hell. The people sent to hell were judged, not for what they did, but for what they neglected to do. The inference is that Christ was not Lord.
- Mark 8:38. “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”
- Luke 3:17. “His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
- Luke 13:2. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
- Luke 16:19ff. “In Hades, where he (the rich man) was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’”
- John 3:16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have life everlasting.
- John 8:24. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
- Acts 24:15. “and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” Again, not a reference to hell, but the teaching of a resurrection “of both the righteous and the wicked,” would certainly agree with such a reference.
- Colossians 3:5,6. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.
- 1 Thessalonians 1:10. “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”
- 1 Thessalonians 5:9. “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
- James 3:6. And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.
- 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10. “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our LORD Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the LORD and from the glory of his might…”
- 2 Peter 2:4ff. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
- Jude 7. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
- Rev. 20:11ff. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
- Psalm 21:8-9. You will capture all your enemies. Your strong right hand will seize all who hate you. You will throw them in a flaming furnace when you appear. The LORD will consume them in his anger; fire will devour them.
Well, there are so many that the site cannot accept them all. I'll try waiting a bit and posting the final twenty.
In the meantime, maybe you can come up with three or four? Until you do, I'll just let you work on it. If you want to see the final twenty, then just let me know.
From what DW and you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You have supported the contention that Jesus condemned unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. No use denying it at this late stage.Quote:
I have made no contentions at all.
I said, "...BEFORE the 4th century". We're back to reading comp.Quote:
No one has said fragments are complete manuscripts. And I if changed it to "all", I would be making a false statement. Codex Sinaiticus is a complete NT manuscript dated fourth century.
Not only is there no error in my statement, you don't even point out the error that you claim is there.Quote:
It's good to see you see the error in your statement. ""Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you"
That's NOT what EISEGESIS is. It's not about interpretation - that's EXEGESIS. Eisegesis is examining the Bible from a preconceived point of view. It's frowned upon by scholars. It is the main problem with evangelical/fundamentalist Biblical examination. Do you understand now?Quote:
However, I'm sad you still don't see, despite having it explained to you a dozen times, that I have offered no interpretations, and thus cannot be guilty of eisegesis. Do you understand now?
Moving the goalposts again? Here's the argument - you claim Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. I deny Jesus said that. As far as your passages go, they have been debunked by me in post #97. Every single one. You previously gave them a blanket dismissal without challenging a single one. Why you are posting them again is a mystery.Quote:
I have attached the now 46 passages below. Find those passages that say there is no hell and no judgment.
Followed by 46 passages from the Bible.Quote:
Scriptures Concerning the Biblical Teaching of a Day of Judgement and Hell
This is called a strawman argument. Jl pretends to attack my contention, while in reality he is actually attacking a distorted version of my contention by omitting "unbelievers". It's commonly done by Jl.
I have said no such thing. I have quoted the NT. You have debunked nothing, and you can point to nothing to support your contentions. Your arguments are a collection of, well, nothing.Quote:
Here's the argument - you claim Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. I deny Jesus said that. As far as your passages go, they have been debunked by me in post #97. Every single one. You previously gave them a blanket dismissal without challenging a single one. Why you are posting them again is a mystery.
You need to read it again. DW is very knowledgeable, but his contention that there are only two second century manuscript fragments is hardly widely held. This is from Daniel Wallace, an acknowledged expert in the field. "These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century...Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts."Quote:
From what DW and you posted.
https://voice.dts.edu/article/wallac...first-century/
Good Lord! How dense can you be? Quoting the NT to support your belief is supporting your belief! Your contention, supported by constantly quoting the author of Matthew, is that unbelievers are sent to hell by Jesus for eternal punishment. Are you now denying that is your contention? If it is NOT your belief, why do you post it in support?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have debunked every-single-one of your Bible "proofs" that you listed by number. Using the same numbering system, I debunked every single one on your list. Every-single-one. For each one, I gave a reason(s) for why I debunked it. These can all be found at post #97 in this thread.Quote:
You have debunked nothing, and you can point to nothing to support your contentions. Your arguments are a collection of, well, nothing.
You, on the other hand, have not responded or challenged a single one of my numbered replies. Not ONE! You simply say they are a collection of nothing. That is NOT an argument. You previously gave them a blanket dismissal without engaging with a single one on the list.
I am trying VERY HARD not to call you a liar, unlike you who is quick to use that term when you are confronted with the truth.
I'm standing with DW.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The authenticity of the content of the books of the NT should not be a question. The same is true with the OT writings, albeit, to a lesser degree.
It is widely accepted that the dates of authorship of all the NT books was prior to the close of the first century. This places them very close to the proximity of Christ himself, within the memory of that generation.
There are no known rebuttals to any of the contents of the NT with early dating. You would think that such popular texts would have rebuttals if their accuracy was in question then. The people of the time would have held these events as consistent with the histories they were taught at the time.
As far as miscopied, or mistranslated goes, there is no such evidence. We have portions of John, manuscript fragments, that date to 125 AD (John Rylands Fragment). Portions of 8 other manuscripts dated to 200 AD (Chester Beatty Papyrus), plus John (Bodmer Papyrus), and Matthew (Papyrus 67). They all agree with later manuscripts in content with over 99% accuracy, including errors in punctuation, differences of footnotes, etc.
These are enough to verify later documents' authenticity. To state that the unfounded portions of those documents don't necessarily compare to those founded at later dates is pure conjecture. With further study, you will find that you can construct the most ancient of manuscripts, by using the copies' traditions through the ages. A difference in text can be traced back to where it split from the original, then you have clues as to what the original says. (See textual criticism or eclectic method)
You cannot reject these things, without also rejecting the many great names and their acts attributed to them wholesale. There is far more evidence and textual lines for all the NT documents than any other text in all of history.
You claiming, that we cannot know the original is tantamount to saying, "we can't look at it, so it musn't exitst."
Note: This guy has quite the credentials, including dwashbur's Society of Biblical Literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel B Wallace
dwashbur, have you considered P67 (P4, P64, P67) as a valid candidate for early 3rd century Matthew?
It seems to me there are several early 3rd century fragments that can be reliably dated.
Furthermore, what are your justifications for dating Matthew so late? I would think in context, an early date fits. The mention of a temple tax in Matthew 17 would allow for it to be prior to the temple destruction (70 AD), along with other mentions of "swearing by the alter" and all the temple references being in the present tense. I would add further conjecture by noting that Irenaeus of Lyons places the writing of the gospel of Matthew "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome."(Ag. Her. 3.1) Also, it is fairly widely accepted that Matthew was martyred at the age of 60 (70 AD +/-10 years).
This leads me to believe you doubt the authorship of Matthew, being by the apostle Matthew...again why?
Welcome back, infojunkie. I will try to answer the points you made in this post. I hope you will do me the courtesy of doing the same to my last reply to you from several days ago before you left.
It is also accepted (without a doubt) that those original books are no longer available.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Just as there are no known originals there are no known rebuttals. 2nd sentence: On the contrary, any rebuttals would have been destroyed or incorporated into the later editions of the originals. In any case, the question is moot.Quote:
There are no known rebuttals to any of the contents of the NT with early dating. You would think that such popular texts would have rebuttals if their accuracy was in question then.
You have no way of knowing that. Pure conjecture.Quote:
The people of the time would have held these events as consistent with the histories they were taught at the time.
There cannot be "evidence" of comparison since the original is lost. It is important to remind you that this discussion pertains to the Matthew verse where the author has Jesus saying unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. The interpretation of that verse can be challenged as I have done repeatedly.Quote:
As far as miscopied, or mistranslated goes, there is no such evidence.
The papyrus fragments of Matthew contain 15-17 lines and none refer to the verse being discussed.Quote:
We have portions of John, manuscript fragments, that date to 125 AD (John Rylands Fragment). Portions of 8 other manuscripts dated to 200 AD (Chester Beatty Papyrus), plus John (Bodmer Papyrus), and Matthew (Papyrus 67). They all agree with later manuscripts in content with over 99% accuracy, including errors in punctuation, differences of footnotes, etc.
Certainly not in the case of Matthew.Quote:
These are enough to verify later documents' authenticity.
Conjecture (pure or partial) is unavoidable when examining ancient documents. You yourself do it in this post.Quote:
To state that the unfounded portions of those documents don't necessarily compare to those founded at later dates is pure conjecture.
Not if the copies are in error. You will learn that with further study.Quote:
With further study, you will find that you can construct the most ancient of manuscripts, by using the copies' traditions through the ages.
"These things" have nothing to do with the discussion re the Matthew verse.Quote:
You cannot reject these things, without also rejecting the many great names and their acts attributed to them wholesale. There is far more evidence and textual lines for all the NT documents than any other text in all of history.
Infojunkie, I'm sorry you wrote this sentence about me. It shows you to be either very stupid or very ignorant. I'm sorry, but you walked right into it.Quote:
You claiming, that we cannot know the original is tantamount to saying, "we can't look at it, so it musn't exitst."
I will stick with DW.Quote:
Note: This guy has quite the credentials, including dwashbur's Society of Biblical Literature.
The rest is addressed to DW.
I have posted the statements of Jesus and the NT authors on hell and judgment. You can make up your own conclusion. It would be nice if you would support YOUR contention that unbelievers do NOT go to hell. You won't because you can't, but it would be nice at least to try.Quote:
Good Lord! How dense can you be? Quoting the NT to support your belief is supporting your belief! Your contention, supported by constantly quoting the author of Matthew, is that unbelievers are sent to hell by Jesus for eternal punishment.
You have refuted none of the scriptures I posted. You attempted to but failed.
The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal beliefs. That and some business about exegesis which does not really enter into the area of translation but rather interpretation, a fact which he later agreed with.Quote:
As far as miscopied, or mistranslated goes, there is no such evidence.
It is actually very easy to not call a person a liar when that person is not lying. Can't imagine how that would be hard.Quote:
I am trying VERY HARD not to call you a liar,
I have posted it several times.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
*sigh*Quote:
You have refuted none of the scriptures I posted. You attempted to but failed.
I have refuted every single one! For the 5th time, the refutation is in post #97. Every time you bring this up, you never defend your examples - never. All you do is make a general comment like you've done here. "You attempted but failed".
Careful, you're treading on that liar thing again.Quote:
The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal beliefs.
"That business" was explaining to you the difference between EXegesis and EIsegesis. You need to know that.Quote:
That and some business about exegesis
I'm still confused about you, Jl. Are you a liar or just have difficulty reading with understanding. If the latter, it's not your fault.Quote:
It is actually very easy to not call a person a liar when that person is not lying. Can't imagine how that would be hard.
You posted two texts that had nothing to do with hell or judgment. That has already been pointed out repeatedly.Quote:
I have posted it several times.
You have refuted nothing.
If you want to suggest where I'm supposedly lying, then go for it. Otherwise it's just so much smoke and garbage.
Please define your use of unbeliever -- one who has never heard the Gospel message, one who has said "no thanks" to the Gospel message, or something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Please read Post #97.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Not my job. That's the statement of Athos.
Unbeliever??? You've been ranting and raving about them since you arrived here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have? Where?
Read post 97. Meaningless.
Do a site search using that word.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You do a site search. I'm not your research assistant.
You asked where. I told you how I found your "unbeliever" comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You claimed I said it. Show me where. Otherwise, it's just more smoke and garbage. You're following the lead of your hero.
My hero??? If you only knew....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:14 PM. |