 |
Oh, c'mon! There are lot more clearer verses than that one!Quote:
But if universal redemption is what is meant, then what does this mean?
Speaking of Hitler and Trump -- plus all of the mentally ill, maybe the Catholics have it right with Purgatory.
So God will damn and send to Hell over six billion people, including unbaptized fetuses? Maybe 86 will make it to Heaven, as long as they believe exactly the right way.
When reading scripture watch out for the words that have been added by the translators, they can change the meaning. Christ did not die for nothing he died so all can have the opportunity of redemption but salvation is by Faith
And those words have been circled, so we can recognise them immediately?Quote:
When reading scripture watch out for the words that have been added by the translators, they can change the meaning.
As is often the case, you did not answer the question.Quote:
Oh, c'mon! There are lot more clearer verses than that one!
They are typically in italics. While it is true they have been added, it normally clarifies, rather than change, the meaning. It is generally called for by the context. In this passage for instance, the word "one" was added by translators. "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."Quote:
And those words have been circled, so we can recognise them immediately?
You must not have read my reply.
Where would we find the original text? Btw, I've never seen words in italics, nor has that ever been pointed out by any Bible class teachers. Will doublecheck my Bibles.
They are usually in brackets or italics but there are side notesQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
1. The italics usage is not in every translation. It is in the KJV and NASB. Not sure about which others. Not in the NIV which would be kind of expected. But it's all of very little practical importance. I read in the NAS and notice the italicized words regularly. They do very little more than add some clarity.Quote:
Where would we find the original text? Btw, I've never seen words in italics, nor has that ever been pointed out by any Bible class teachers. Will doublecheck my Bibles.
2. The reliability of the NT is very, very strong due to the enormous numbers of surviving texts, but even if they were all lost, the NT could be reconstructed by using quoted sections used by the early church fathers. It's all there minus a very few verses.
The difference between your belief and my belief is that, unlike you, I don't condemn those who believe differently than I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You ridicule and mock those who believe differently from you ("What a crock! Hard to believe this nonsense is still around in the 21st century"), but there is an additional difference. Your belief is based upon your own opinions, to which you are certainly entitled, but the basis of Christian faith is an amazing book and a man raised from the dead.Quote:
The difference between your belief and my belief is that, unlike you, I don't condemn those who believe differently than I do.
To disagree with someone is not to condemn them. To point out alternatives is not condemning anyone. To ask questions is not condemning. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I have condemned anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Here is where I got the idea - your post #168 where you condemned Tal to hell with the words "So are you [going to hell] if you are not right with God by faith in Jesus." It couldn't be any clearer.
Ridicule and mockery is a far cry from condemnation.
First of all, I did not mock or ridicule anyone. Tal asked, "So the dufus and his sycophants are likely going to hell, right?" (Note: You have not criticized him for condemning.) I replied to his statement, and I did not say he was going to hell. I did point out that faith in Christ is what prevents that. Now does he have faith in Christ? You'll need to ask him about that.
I did NOT say YOU mocked or ridiculed anyone. YOU claimed I did the mocking and ridiculing. Please read carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Again, your reading is faulty. Tal is obviously NOT condemning, he is suggesting YOU will condemn based on your belief.Quote:
Tal asked, "So the dufus and his sycophants are likely going to hell, right?" (Note: You have not criticized him for condemning.)
You most certainly did. I even quoted you from your post #168Quote:
I replied to his statement, and I did not say he was going to hell.
There you go - you're doing it again.Quote:
I did point out that faith in Christ is what prevents that.
Let me ask you: Is belief in Jesus Christ necessary for salvation? If so, what happens to those who do not believe in Jesus Christ?
Jumping in here -- "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and [all] have been justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." My response was, "I understand that as, ALL are loved by God and have been justified by His grace as a gift because of Jesus' death, His sacrifice."Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Does that mean BELIEF in JC is not necessary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Why would you ask me? Why not listen to what Jesus said?Quote:
Let me ask you: Is belief in Jesus Christ necessary for salvation? If so, what happens to those who do not believe in Jesus Christ?
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:14-18).
Does that mean that JC is the ONLY son of the Father? Thanks for answering JL
Would a loving God damn over 10 billion humans (including [unbaptized] fetuses and infants) who have never heard the Gospel or are very dedicated to a non-Christian faith they were born into?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Yes. That's what this quote seems to mean. ...He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:14-18).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Those are the words of Jesus, so you'll have to ask Him about that. For me, I'll place my eternity in His hands and believe His words. You will have to make your own decision. I would just suggest, however, you remember that not only is He a loving God, but He is also just, and the "Judge of the whole earth". If the Bible's teaching about judgement is correct, then your arguments won't get you very far on that day.Quote:
Would a loving God damn over 10 billion humans (including [unbaptized] fetuses and infants) who have never heard the Gospel or are very dedicated to a non-Christian faith they were born into?
It does in the sense of being His divine Son. However, in John 1 it reads, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were [i]born, not of [j]blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."Quote:
Does that mean that JC is the ONLY son of the Father? Thanks for answering JL
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 AM. |