 |
You're reading that into her posts. Her obvious point is that Jesus was first and foremost about love.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And just yesterday you denied this very thing when I said it was your belief. So much for honest dialogue on these pages.Quote:
Himself in Matthew 25 where He lovingly welcomes those who belong to Him, but condemns those who don't to eternity in hell, a truth repeated several dozen times in the NT (My -ATHOS- emphasis)
You have inside information they weren't?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's EXACTLY what you do, Mr. Cherrypicker! And that's another reason I don't spout suportive Bible verses on this site (or any other site).Quote:
It's like I've said many times. You make up your mind about what you believe, and then you look for any little scrap of scripture that might in some small way support it.
The Bible is not the same book written by the ancient scribes (who were human just like you and me). E.g., the word "homosexual" wasn't in the Bible until 1946 (hmm, wonder how THAT happened??). The word Paul used meant pedophile.Quote:
You really have no concern about what the Bible says. You said that everything Jesus did was about love. I pointed out many places where that was not true.
If you say something worth responding to (incorrect, outrageous, ignorant), I'll respond, and I have done so many times.Quote:
Your response is to just breezily move on to something else.
Terrific response, Athos! For instance, my very loving and Christian materal grandfather whipped his sons with a belt if he heard about or caught them sinning. After each beating, he hugged each son and made sure they understand why he had beaten them and that he still loved them. All of the sons, my uncles, turned out to be faithful husbands, loving fathers, and honest, hard-working employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
You're lying again. What I denied was a belief about CHILDREN going to hell. Learn to tell the truth.Quote:
And just yesterday you denied this very thing when I said it was your belief. So much for honest dialogue on these pages.
I don't have any inside information that you and Athos aren't gay, or Joe Biden, or AOC, or practically anyone you can name. That doesn't mean I'm going to make the stupid and irresponsible accusation that you are gay, or pedophiles, or bank robbers, or communists, or anything else for that matter. That's not how it works.Quote:
You have inside information they weren't?
His response was largely absurd. Jesus was not correcting, for instance, the Pharisees. Read it in Mt. 23. You will readily see that He was condemning them. " So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?"Quote:
Terrific response, Athos!
But I am glad to find out that you are in favor of corporal punishment for children.
Show me where. You mean like the 24 passages I posted about hell that even a low performing third grader can see is not cherry picking but a tidal wave of evidence? Go to court with 24 reliable witnesses and see how fast you can win your case.Quote:
That's EXACTLY what you do, Mr. Cherrypicker!
The word used prior to 46 was "sodomite", which is a synonym for homosexual. Tell the truth. The Greek word translated "homosexual" does not mean pedophile. No one outside of you and one supposed scholar believes that. It is EVERYWHERE translated as homosexual, sodomite, or some synonym of those words. No Greek lexicon in existence translates it "pedophile". That's ridiculous.Quote:
The Bible is not the same book written by the ancient scribes (who were human just like you and me). E.g., the word "homosexual" wasn't in the Bible until 1946 (hmm, wonder how THAT happened??). The word Paul used meant pedophile.
I noticed that neither of you bothered to address how Jesus clearly described Himself as a judge at the end of time who will send people to an eternal hell.
You're quick to call others liars when YOU are the liar-in-chief. Either by outright falsehoods or changing what someone said by adding or deleting a word or otherwise changing the meaning to suit your belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This is done so often by you that I wonder why you feel no shame doing it when it's so obvious. Then I realize it's part of your admiration and imitation of Trump the master dissembler who lives by the dictum of Roy Cohn - deny or lie until you're blue in the face.
For over two years you have claimed time and again that those who do not believe in Jesus spend all eternity in hell being eternally punished. In fact, you supported the claim by citing many Biblical verses which you claim to be proof of the statement. No matter that I debunked those verses as being misinterpreted by you, that's your right to refuse any claim I may make even in the face of irrefutable logic.
Now you are denying you believe that statement about Jesus and hell, at least when it comes to children.
That's an excellent example of your inability to see the logic involved. It's very simple. If unbelievers go to hell, and some children do not believe (maybe they never heard of Jesus since they lived far away or even before Jesus walked the earth) they would still be condemned to hell by your own logic.Quote:
What I denied was a belief about CHILDREN going to hell.
There were other examples - the Chinese peasant woman who lived 10,000 miles away from Jesus and who never heard a single solitary thing about him. She went to hell.
For every example I gave you, you simply quoted another verse from the Bible.
As you got hemmed in by your own logic, you started to backtrack a bit, probably because you began to see the absurdity of your claim. When I asked you yesterday to state your belief in the matter, you failed to do so. Your reply was to call me a liar as I quoted above. And I note there is still NO DENIAL of your claim re unbelievers.
You will probably reply to this post with your usual "blah, blah, blah", indicating no interest on your part. But you've overused that reply too, so don't expect too much credence with that tactic.
Very simple. I have never said children go to hell. You lied when you said I did. End of story.
This is the statement in question where you lied. "According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus." I have never stated that...period.
Your outrageous statements? How about this, one that WG, as usual, passed on.Quote:
You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you? Some would say it's your passive-aggressive way of getting even with all those who were more successful in life than you. It's never about God satisfying his justice. It's about you getting revenge.
If unbelievers go to hell, and children are unbelievers....................................... ....................????Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Your only defense is to charge lying. Pretty weak.
Nitpick much?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you believe that children who are not believers go to hell? Yes or no. No one is holding their breath waiting for your answer.
Quote:
Your outrageous statements? How about this, one that WG, as usual, passed on.
What has WG got to do with it?Quote:
You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you? Some would say it's your passive-aggressive way of getting even with all those who were more successful in life than you. It's never about God satisfying his justice. It's about you getting revenge.
I stand by that statement. It's true of many fundamentalists of the stripe who condemn others to hell for believing differently. You yourself do it. Is it about revenge for you?
You…lied…period.
Still no answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You…lied…period.
Repeating something doesn't make it true. Only children do that until they grow out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Against my better judgement, I'll give you a lesson in English sentence construction as to meaning.
The content of my statement is absolutely true.
For years you have been saying unbelievers go to hell. Many times I have asked you does that include people who never heard of Jesus, like babies and children and an old peasant women working in a rice paddy in China. As an answer, you quoted another Bible verse supporting your claim as I described it.
Anybody who has been around here for those years would know immediately what I'm referring to and that the statement is correct. What probably confused you and led you on a tear was that I could have put it in italics or bolded it instead of putting it in quote marks. Quote marks are less preferable, but even so your reaction was over the top, completely ignoring the meat of the sentence.
Classic definition of picking a nit.
All together now - You...lied...period.
How do you get that out of my story about my grandfather?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Jl gets whatever he wants out of stories/posts. He doesn't hold much for facts - they get in the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But you have not explicitly said they don't. Athos has asked you multiple times to just say it out loud, and you seem reluctant to do so.Quote:
This is the statement in question where you lied. "According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus." I have never stated that...period.
Your outrageous statements? How about this, one that WG, as usual, passed on.
You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you? Some would say it's your passive-aggressive way of getting even with all those who were more successful in life than you. It's never about God satisfying his justice. It's about you getting revenge.
Jun 30, 2021, 03:56 PM
jlisenbe
Very simple. I have never said children go to hell.
What is one supposed to conclude under such circumstances?
Romans 1 teaches that everyone is judged by what they do with how much (or little) they know. Children know diddly. So they're judged on their innocence and God welcomes them.
See? That's not so hard. Now you try it.
James 2:
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
Already have. I have very explicitly stated in the past that I do not believe children or infants go to hell.Quote:
But you have not explicitly said they don't. Athos has asked you multiple times to just say it out loud, and you seem reluctant to do so.
What is one supposed to conclude under such circumstances?
Romans 1 teaches that everyone is judged by what they do with how much (or little) they know. Children know diddly. So they're judged on their innocence and God welcomes them.
See? That's not so hard. Now you try it.
Athos lied when he said this. "According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus." I've never said that.
I have not stated my belief about hell and judgment for a simple reason. If he will not accept the words of Jesus, then why should he accept my words?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
The problem Jl has with agreeing that children do not go to hell (and saying it out loud) is that it brings down his house of cards which is his false belief that Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment.
If children are not included in his "unbelievers", it is a simple step to others not being included like the millions who lived before Jesus and those who never heard of Jesus like that peasant woman working in a rice paddy in China who lived an exemplary life.
You've left Jl in a conundrum of his own making.
For the fifteenth time, I have not said that. It is the clear teaching of the NT. Should I post the passages again?Quote:
his false belief that Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment.
No one has live an "exemplary" life but one.
Exemplary -- serving as a desirable model; representing the best of its kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I know lots of people who lived and who are living exemplary lives full of love and a giving spirit.
By whose standard? Paul spends an two chapters in Romans 2 and 3 disagreeing with you. He spends eight chapters in Romans showing that good works do not make a person right with God.Quote:
I know lots of people who lived and who are living exemplary lives full of love and giving.
Have you ever read the Bible?
James 2:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
You do realize that the founder of your Lutheran faith did not want James included in the NT because he realized that people like you would misuse it?
If you include verse 20, it makes more sense. "20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" James is arguing that an empty, lifeless faith that produces no fruit is really not faith. Verse 26 (which you left out) shows the same thing. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." Verse 14, which introduces the passage, says it clearly. "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? "
Oh, but I was cherrypicking like you so love to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Luther didn't understand the book of James. Luther taught that the Book of James contradicted the doctrine of sola fide, or justification by faith alone. If he’s right about this, then either the Bible is wrong, or Protestants are wrong.
Hmmm, wonder which one is wrong
Yes, you were cherry-picking. It can easily be shown to be the case by the use of context (which I did) and the use of other texts showing that your approach was wrong which I did earlier by referring to Romans. So you can't just allege cherry-picking. You have to demonstrate it.
See how that works?
I think you are right that Luther did not understand the book of James, but I'm hesitant to become too critical with the man. His contributions to the faith were enormous.
Yes, I know how it works, have watched you for a long time as you've cherrypicked and ignored context.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Luther had a lot of gastrointestinal problems. Hmm........Quote:
I think you are right that Luther did not understand the book of James, but I'm hesitant to become too critical with the man. His contributions to the faith were enormous.
You continually allege it, but you are never able to demonstrate it. And the reason is, as I have told you, that 32 separate passages which carry the same message cannot amount to cherry-picking in any known universe.Quote:
Yes, I know how it works, have watched you if a long time as you've cherrypicked and ignored context.
Have a good day. I'm gonezo.
Only 32??? Surely you jest!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I thought we talked about how to correctly use "which" and "that".
Time to think of an idea for a new thread that will intrigue Mr. JL.Quote:
Have a good day. I'm gonezo.
Nope. You have an easy, first grade level task. You simply find all the places in the NT where it says there is no hell and no judgment. So far you haven't found...one. Would four or five be too much to hope for? Two??? Two thirds of a passage?? Two words even??? BTW, I actually have 46 now, and that is by no means exhaustive. Would you care to see them?Quote:
Only 32??? Surely you jest.
I leave you to your task.
I'm not the one arguing with you about hell and judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
P.S. Proof passages are NOT the way to make your point.
They are certainly not a method you can employ. But I'm glad to hear you have dropped out.
Here's the crux of the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Every time I try to get Jl to acknowledge that he believes Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment, he replies, "Jesus said that, not me. Your argument is with Jesus." Yet, he calls it the "clear teaching of the NT".
Since Jesus is not available for comment, Jl refuses to defend what Jesus supposedly said even though he believes it is the clear teaching of the NT.
After two+ years, he finally loosened a bit due to being placed in a logical corner and denied that children go to hell. That was at least a beginning.
He later described Jesus as a "judge who will send people to hell at the end of time." He's backsliding a bit here, by not excluding children under the word "people".
There were other examples - the Chinese peasant woman who lived 10,000 miles away from Jesus and who never heard a single solitary thing about Jesus. She went to hell.
For every example I gave, Jl simply quoted another verse from the Bible. Your loyalty to a false reading of the Bible, JL, is admirable, but misplaced.
That's an excellent example of his inability to see the logic involved. It's very simple. If unbelievers go to hell, and some children do not believe (maybe they never heard of Jesus since they lived far away or even before Jesus walked the earth) they would still be condemned to hell by his own logic.Quote:
from JLisnbe
Athos lied when he said this. "According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus." I've never said that
This is a first - an admission that he has not stated his belief about hell and judgement. The reason? Athos will not accept the words of Jesus, so why should he accept the words of Jl?Quote:
I have not stated my belief about hell and judgment for a simple reason. If he will not accept the words of Jesus, then why should he accept my words?
Answer: I, Athos, have never said I don't accept the words of Jesus. What I don't accept are the words of the author of Matthew interpreted as saying Jesus condemned unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. Jl believes those words. I don't.
Finally, Jl HAS stated his belief in hell and judgement by saying it is the clear teaching of the NT.
You understand the meaning of what I have posted. I have not said, "I believe xxx," and yet, from the texts I have posted, you understand what the Bible teaches. That's what posting many texts do for a person. The meaning becomes clear. Your argument is indeed with Jesus and the NT, and is exactly why I have not attempted to interpret the scriptures. The meaning is clear and you cannot say, "I don't like what JL thinks," because I haven't posted what I think but what the Bible, in many, many places, clearly teaches. That's why you are aggravated. You realize very clearly your dilemma.
The older I get, the less interested I become in telling people what I think. I speak the Bible and point people to Jesus, and it is to Him I point you.
That's definitely not the Jesus I've known and loved all my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Then it's not the Jesus of the Bible. You can't just make up your own Jesus, you know.
I'm amazed sometimes at you guys at how offended you are at what Jesus said about Himself and about us. I have not said these things. It is not my interpretation. It is what He has said.
My Jesus is the living, breathing Jesus who rejoiced with me when I got married, when I had our two beautiful babies, a Jesus who comforted me when our younger son unexpectedly died, again when my dad died between sentences at a congregation meeting, yet again when my mom died of Alzheimer's, and was there for me each time I was diagnosed with a possibly deadly disease -- cancer, cellulitis, aplastic anemia. He's here with me right now as I come to the end of this day.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm not sure what this even means.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Posting many texts in lieu of personal testimony is a fools' way out.Quote:
That's what posting many texts do for a person.
No, my argument is with YOU, Jl.Quote:
Your argument is indeed with Jesus and the NT
Every time you say the meaning is clear, you are approving the Bible passage in question. You can't get around it, my friend.Quote:
and is exactly why I have not attempted to interpret the scriptures. The meaning is clear
Of course I can say it. Watch - "I don't like what Jl thinks"Quote:
and you cannot say, "I don't like what JL thinks,
Jl, you're famous for making weak arguments, but this one is over the top. Not a member here doesn't know what you think.Quote:
" because I haven't posted what I think but what the Bible, in many, many places, clearly teaches.
Here's another common tactic of yours. Call your opponent aggravated, weak, liar, angry, hates Christ, and any other malice hiding in that head of yours. Sorry, Jl, that's never the way to win an argument.Quote:
That's why you are aggravated. You realize very clearly your dilemma.
You sure couldn't prove that by your activity here!Quote:
The older I get, the less interested I become in telling people what I think.
In the end, it all comes down to Bibliolatry for Jl.Quote:
I speak the Bible and point people to Jesus, and it is to Him I point you.
The Jesus of the Bible is the only Jesus. Not saying you don't know Him, but when you don't accept what He said about Himself, you are engaged in foolishness.Quote:
My Jesus is the living, breathing Jesus who rejoiced with me when I got married, when I had our two beautiful babies, a Jesus who comforted me when our younger son unexpectedly died, again when my dad died between sentences at a congregation meeting, yet again when my mom died of Alzheimer's, and was there for me each time I was diagnosed with a possibly deadly disease -- cancer, cellulitis, aplastic anemia. He's here with me right now as I come to the end of this day.
Athos, if you have a belief, then support it with the Bible the way I have done. If you can't, then it's just opinion.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:37 AM. |