Ask Me Help Desk - Medicare for ALL with money left over to buy an aircraft carrier or two

The idea that Revelation was written about 65 A.D. is, I think, a minority view. The more common date for that book is in the last decade of the first century. Nero died in 68 A.D. so if the later date is correct, then the Nero connection won't work. At any rate, saying that Revelation was "written in code" is kind of far-fetched. None of the other NT authors wrote in code, and they were under constant pressure from the Romans. Not to say that's it is impossible, but it just would not seem likely. For sure you would think the early church fathers would have mentioned it.

Revelation almost didn't make the cut into the canon partly because of what I said.

And where have you found that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And where have you found that?

Because millennialists had traditionally used Revelation as the main source of their teachings, "the Church was slow to accept Revelation as scripture." ₁Origen, an early Christian theologian, used the term antilegomena to describe those books -- including Hebrews, James 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation -- whose inclusion in the official canon of the Bible was actively disputed. In the fourth century CE, when the canon of the Bible was assembled from among the approximately 50 gospels and hundreds of epistles then in use by the Christian movement, Revelation was only reluctantly included. "To this day, Orthodox churches do not use Revelation for scripture readings during worship."
The biblical book of Revelation: acceptance and dispute

"As a source, the book of Revelation is something of an outlier for a book of the Bible that got accepted into the canonical New Testament of most branches of Christianity: it is the only explicitly eschatological work in the New Testament, its date of composition is generally taken to be far later than the other books, its content is dramatic, and its author is not certain."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...most-christian

Quote:

In the fourth century CE, when the canon of the Bible was assembled from among the approximately 50 gospels and hundreds of epistles then in use by the Christian movement,

Lost me there. That is a highly speculative statement. There were a large number of gospels and epistles in existence, but the vast majority were not accepted by the church and very few survive to this day.

Jesus said to give Caesar his due? Then stop complaining when you are taxed so the poor, old, and children are taken care of.

Quote:

Jesus said to give Caesar his due? Then stop complaining when you are taxed so the poor, old, and children are taken care of.

Why do you accept what Jesus said there, but not what Jesus said concerning judgement?

I neither accept or reject either premise, but the former is more logical, and fits my own moral compass, is my answer. The later calls into question the language and circumstances that surrond what is/was said, and at this time admittedly is beyond my own sensibility. Apologies if my flaws in understanding undermines your complete faith in these matters. I have a problem accepting the words of ancient man completely, though I do not question yours.

Quote:

fits my own moral compass,

Does everyone get to do that, which is to follow his/her own moral compass?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Does everyone get to do that, which is to follow his/her own moral compass?

God gave us free will. Apparently, everyone uses it.

Quote:

Apparently, everyone uses it.

Free will versus individual moral compass... not the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Free will versus individual moral compass... not the same thing.

Please define each and tell how they are different.

Free will means I get to make my own decisions, such as how to spend my money as opposed to the tyranny of the feds taking my money to spend on charity. (Sorry... couldn't help but add that last part.)

An individual moral compass means everyone is his/her own moral master. There is no external point of moral reference. So I might kill some innocent person, but in my mind I have done nothing wrong since I met my own moral code.

A person can exercise his/her free will in doing an action which that person might admit is actually morally wrong, so the two cannot be the same.

Quote:

An individual moral compass means everyone is his/her own moral master. There is no external point of moral reference. So I might kill some innocent person, but in my mind I have done nothing wrong since I met my own moral code.

This is also called free will. Questions? Ask Cain.

Jesus had free will, but even He did not operate on His own moral compass during His time on earth. Neither did Paul, Peter, John, James, Priscilla, Aquila, etc. Come on. They are plainly not the same thing.

Ask Cain? I think he would tell you that he operated his own free will to follow his own moral compass, and that is where he failed. Abraham, on the other hand, learned not to.

For that matter, I have my own free will, but I choose to submit my will to God's moral compass, as you also profess to do. I exercise my free will to follow someone else's moral compass, and not mine, so they are plainly not the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Does everyone get to do that, which is to follow his/her own moral compass?

YES!

Quote:

Free will means I get to make my own decisions, such as how to spend my money as opposed to the tyranny of the feds taking my money to spend on charity. (Sorry... couldn't help but add that last part.)

I don't characterize nor consider our government as a tyranny, though I disagree with some things they do, but I support it with taxes and voting of my own free will, guided by a moral compass both learned and taught within the boundaries of good behavior which I would hope every one would follow for the common good.

Quote:

An individual moral compass means everyone is his/her own moral master. There is no external point of moral reference. So I might kill some innocent person, but in my mind I have done nothing wrong since I met my own moral code.

While this may be true killing is against the law in most cases and does it matter what's in your mind when it comes to others? If your moral compass sends you over the line of good behavior, then you deal with the laws of the land in the court of law. That's how it should work and everybody knows that.

Quote:

A person can exercise his/her free will in doing an action which that person might admit is actually morally wrong, so the two cannot be the same.

Eyes and ears are not the same but they work together, though you can live without one or the other, as without a moral compass free will can land you in big trouble as can a free will without a moral compass. It's a moot circular argument to point out the difference.

You can always choose to do right, or wrong depend on where your moral compass is, unless somebody locks you up and you can do neither.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Jesus had free will, but even He did not operate on His own moral compass during His time on earth. Neither did Paul, Peter, John, James, Priscilla, Aquila, etc. Come on. They are plainly not the same thing.

Ask Cain? I think he would tell you that he operated his own free will to follow his own moral compass, and that is where he failed. Abraham, on the other hand, learned not to.

For that matter, I have my own free will, but I choose to submit my will to God's moral compass, as you also profess to do. I exercise my free will to follow someone else's moral compass, and not mine, so they are plainly not the same thing.

I disagree, they all chose the path they took and there is NO evidence otherwise. Now talking of the individual actions and the COLLECTIVE actions may not be the same.

Quote:

If your moral compass sends you over the line of good behavior,

Who are you to tell someone their moral compass is not producing "good behavior"? It's good to them, so why would you feel free to inflict your own, personal moral code on someone else? If you are, then they really aren't free to have their own moral code. You said they are, but now you suggest they are, but only so long as it produces what is, to you, "good behavior".

Quote:

"..as without a moral compass free will can land you in big trouble as can a free will without a moral compass.."

You are saying the same thing twice!! It makes no sense at all. You admit they are different and then say it's a circular argument. That is not what a circular argument is.

Quote:

I disagree, they all chose the path they took and there is NO evidence otherwise. Now talking of the individual actions and the COLLECTIVE actions may not be the same.

You have no idea of what I was saying. Of course they chose the path they took, but the path was given to them by God. It was His moral compass that they freely chose, though they could have persisted with their own. Not everyone does that, so plainly and obviously they are not the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Who are you to tell someone their moral compass is not producing "good behavior"? It's good to them, so why would you feel free to inflict your own, personal moral code on someone else? If you are, then they really aren't free to have their own moral code. You said they are, but now you suggest they are, but only so long as it produces what is, to you, "good behavior".

I inflict nothing on anyone, but the LAW does, not me, so I gather it's okay to inflict YOUR moral code on someone else through laws that restrict their freedoms according to YOUR moral code.

Quote:

You are saying the same thing twice!! It makes no sense at all. You admit they are different and then say it's a circular argument. That is not what a circular argument is.

A moral compass is but the guide to get you to the path your free will takes you... within confines of the laws of good behavior. Granted laws change as conditions and attitudes change, and history is that those changes come with more freedoms for those that didn't have it before. What makes your argument circular is your constant insistence that expressing ones position is a restriction on another's freedom when it is NOT.

Quote:

You have no idea of what I was saying. Of course they chose the path they took, but the path was given to them by God. It was His moral compass that they freely chose, though they could have persisted with their own. Not everyone does that, so plainly and obviously they are not the same thing.

By now you should have gotten the point that I really don't care about what ancient man did or why but remain fascinated by the fact that they did it. Martyrdom is always a fascinating thing that has moved humans throughout existence to this day across many cultures, tribes, and societies.

Quote:

I inflict nothing on anyone, but the LAW does, not me, so I gather it's okay to inflict YOUR moral code on someone else through laws that restrict their freedoms according to YOUR moral code.

Correct, which means that you are not free to have your own moral code. It is a limited arrangement.

Quote:

within confines of the laws of good behavior. Granted laws change as conditions and attitudes change, and history is that those changes come with more freedoms for those that didn't have it before. What makes your argument circular is your constant insistence that expressing ones position is a restriction on another's freedom when it is NOT.

1. You still don't understand what a circular argument is.
2. I have never said that merely expressing your position is a restriction on another's freedom, but when you IMPOSE your position on others, which happens all the time with law, or with an employer, or within families or organizations, then you do restrict the freedoms of others.

Quote:

A moral compass is but the guide to get you to the path your free will takes you

Thereby demonstrating they are not the same thing. The moral compass advises and guides, but the free will makes decisions.

If you don't like the laws which set the boundaries of good behavior, and protect you from the behavior of others then change them through the lawful process afforded to you. That seems to supersede any of the moral compass and free will arguments you have and who cares if the debate is circular or not? The difference between MC and FW one and the same to me and that's all that matters... TO ME!

That doesn't mean you're wrong, just have a different view which I have no problem accepting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You're being evasive. The clear and obvious implication is that all are perishing, but that through believing in Christ, believers "shall not perish", obviously meaning that non-believers will. A second grader could see that.

Then you are a second grader seeing what is not there. Hoisted by his own petard!!

Quote:

So where in the Bible does it tell us that non-believers are not going to be judged? I have provided a half-dozen or so quotes from Jesus where He disagrees with you, so I guess I'm going to stick with what He says.

You misquote me. Your position is non-believers will suffer eternal punishment in hell. Please stick to the issue. It is not Jesus that disagrees - it is YOU who disagrees.

Quote:

The statements of Jesus are plain.

Yes, they couldn't be plainer. Yet you add to his statements to support your position.

Quote:

You have made no references to scripture at all

I have referenced every scripture you presented and shown you the error of your ways by my reading of the exact words of Christ without adding my own ideas.

Quote:

But just to take one more stab at it, in Revelation 20 we read, "And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." Now just for the record, I find that concept troubling, but since I didn't write the Bible, and since it is clear that God's wisdom far exceeds mine, I just simply accept it.

Stab, indeed! If you think these words are to be taken literally, that may be a large part of your problem. Even if they ARE taken literally, they do not prove the existence of an everlasting punishment in hell for those who do not believe as you do.

Quote:

I have referenced every scripture you presented and shown you the error of your ways by my reading of the exact words of Christ without adding my own ideas.

I went back and looked over the four pages prior to this one. You scarcely quote scripture. Your approach is more akin to running around, waving your arms, and offering your opinions. I'm just not sure how you handle the Matt. 25 passage which reads, "41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

Slice it any way you want, but Jesus is plainly stating that judgement is coming. If you want to say, as you did, that Jesus is commending good works as the path of salvation, then fine. There are good reasons to decide against that view, but there is still judgement coming.

Quote:

If you think these words are to be taken literally, that may be a large part of your problem

The problem is that you don't think any scripture should be taken literally. I'll just stick to the words of Jesus.

Jesus didn't come to have us all in agreement but to have us see the issues and respond to his actions, as Solomon said everything else is just vanity

Quote:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed

Who is cursed? And why?

Quote:

into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

And that "eternal fire" is...?

Can we first agree that there will be those are "cursed" and condemned to judgement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Can we first agree that there will be those are "cursed" and condemned to judgement?

For what will they be cursed?

Not yet. Do we agree?

My understanding of "cursed" and "judgement" and "who" I'm sure are different from yours. And I know you, like I did for years, very much want "evildoers" (who are not at all Christlike) to be cursed and judged. I don't think we can agree until we define terms in the same way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I went back and looked over the four pages prior to this one. You scarcely quote scripture. Your approach is more akin to running around, waving your arms, and offering your opinions. I'm just not sure how you handle the Matt. 25 passage which reads, "41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

Here is the full quote which you originally posted.

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the [c]holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did itto one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

I will answer it the same way I did the first time.

Nowhere in this lengthy section quoting Jesus does he condemn non-believers to eternal punishment in hell.

In fact, his judgment is against the "righteous" (believers), and not for unbelief but for inaction - not feeding the hungry, not helping the sick, not clothing the naked, etc.

The words of Jesus are perfectly clear.

Quote:

Slice it any way you want, but Jesus is plainly stating that judgement is coming.

I never denied Jesus stated judgment is coming. What I DO deny is your belief that non-believers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell. How many times do I have to repeat that? It's a simple statement.

Quote:

The problem is that you don't think any scripture should be taken literally.

That's not true. Again, you attribute to me positions I have not stated. Much of Scripture can be taken literally.

Quote:

I'll just stick to the words of Jesus.

That's an excellent idea but you have yet to do that. In each instance of your Scripture references, you have added a meaning not contained in the words. I understand why you do that - it might even be subconscious - but you should treat Scripture with the respect it deserves. You have not done that. You have treated Scripture as a means to an end - namely, to support an un-Scriptural point.

Quote:

My understanding of "cursed" and "judgement" and "who" I'm sure are different from yours. And I know you, like I did for years, very much want "evildoers" (who are not at all Christlike) to be cursed and judged. I don't think we can agree until we define terms in the same way.

No point in exploring any of that until we can first agree that there will be those are "cursed" and condemned to judgement.

Quote:

In fact, his judgment is against the "righteous" (believers), and not for unbelief but for inaction - not feeding the hungry, not helping the sick, not clothing the naked, etc.

Part of his point is that those who called themselves "righteous" (such as the Pharisees) were, in fact, not righteous at all as demonstrated by their actions, and certainly are never referred to as "believers".

Quote:

I never denied Jesus stated judgment is coming.

Against whom, and in what way?

I believe there will be judgment = God's forming an opinion about someone or something by means of careful weighing of evidence.

Quote:

I believe there will be judgment = forming of an opinion about someone or something by means of careful weighing of evidence.

Evasive answer. Will they be condemned to judgement?

Judgment isn't a negative. I believe all of us will be judged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Part of his point is that those who called themselves "righteous" (such as the Pharisees) were, in fact, not righteous at all as demonstrated by their actions, and certainly are never referred to as "believers".

However you want to slice it, it does not mean unbelievers are condemned to everlasting punishment in hell.

Quote:

Against whom, and in what way?

This is your reply to my comment "I never denied Jesus stated judgment is coming". I don't know what you mean.

Quote:

This is your reply to my comment "I never denied Jesus stated judgment is coming". I don't know what you mean.

Who will He judge, and what will be the consequences of that judgement?

Quote:

Judgment isn't a negative. I believe all of us will be judged.

Still being evasive. Will that judgement entail any negative consequences? If so, what will they be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Who will He judge, and what will be the consequences of that judgement?

He will judge all of us, and His verdict is yet to be determined.

Quote:

He will judge all of us, and His verdict is yet to be determined.

Still evasive. Will the wicked by judged, and if so, in what way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Still being evasive. Will that judgement entail any negative consequences? If so, what will they be?

Watch "Judge Judy." In every trial, there are winners as well as losers.

Oh well. You are unwilling to take a position. Too bad.