Ask Me Help Desk - Matthew 25

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

When have I quoted the Catholic catechism?

You quoted the Catholic Church on Feb.11, your post #11. That section specifically omits any mention of unbelief and only refers to mortal sin. Now you will say that your "sinning" explanation really only means grevious sin like the Church mortal sin. You're very predictable. Be interesting to see how you get out of this one.

The below was to Wondergirl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

...but good grief. If you want to be treated like a weak, silly female,

Fascinating how you unknowingly reveal yourself in little snippets here and there.

You are correct that I did refer to it. It was said in reply to this statement of yours. "The topic is “Unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell”. This is the belief of a small group of fundamentalist Christians. As promised, here is my statement in opposition to this belief."

Here is my reply.

"Your contention that the punishment of hell is a doctrine believed by some small set of fundamentalists is simply wrong. It is a central belief of evangelical Christianity, and is believed by the Catholic Church as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." I am not a Catholic, but that sure seems pretty clear."

As any schoolchild can see, I was responding to your silly suggestion that punishment in hell was believed by some small set of fundamentalists. The Catholic position clearly says hell is eternal and is intended for those "who die in a state of mortal sin" where, it says, they suffer punishment. So once again you were called on the carpet for your sloppy theology.

And not to mention your fearful approach to answering questions.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

"The topic is “Unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell”. This is the belief of a small group of fundamentalist Christians. As promised, here is my statement in opposition to this belief."

Here is my reply.

"Your contention that the punishment of hell is a doctrine believed by some small set of fundamentalists is simply wrong.

You quoted me correctly at first, then you INCORRECTLY restated it. Amazing!

Quote:

As any schoolchild can see, I was responding to your silly suggestion that punishment in hell was believed by some small set of fundamentalists.

The silliness is all yours. That was NEVER my position as you know very well. Your tendency to change meanings of positions held, phrases and even words is common to those who practice deceit.

Quote:

you were called on the carpet for your sloppy theology.

In this case, my theology was accurate. The difficulty comes from you incorrectly citing my position.

This could go on forever. I am very, very comfortable and satisfied with my position and my defense of it, but I imagine you two feel the same way, so this bitter diatribe could go on unproductively forever.

I suggest we go to "answer a question, ask a question". The guidelines are very simple. Someone poses a question to another member. I'll volunteer to go first, receiving a question from one of you or both of you. That person then answers the question honestly and openly. The questioner can then ask one or two more questions for the sake of clarity. After that, the first question recipient then becomes the next questioner. Each person must fully agree to: 1. Answer honestly and openly. 2. Restrain from personal insult.

Anyone up for it???

Start new threads on this board under this topic?

We can go from right here as far as I'm concerned, just as soon as we all agree to the two conditions. I will agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

We can go from right here as far as I'm concerned, just as soon as we all agree to the two conditions. I will agree.

Not sure what your "honestly and openly" means, but sure, I agree to your two conditions.

Best thing to do is start a new question as its own thread (don't hide it on this thread). That way, other members might post a response.

Quote:

Not sure what your "honestly and openly" means, but sure, I agree to your two conditions.

Too vague a response. Must be unconditional.

Quote:

Best thing to do is start a new question as its own thread (don't hide it on this thread). That way, other members might post a response.

Other members cannot participate. It is between a questioner and a question recipient. Otherwise it's too many cooks in the kitchen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Other members cannot participate. It is between a questioner and a question recipient. Otherwise it's too many cooks in the kitchen.

That doesn't work on this site. I'm out.

I'm disappointed but not surprised. Still, it's your decision so I respect that. I knew Athos would not do it, but I thought you might. I have found that people who are genuinely interested in true discussion are rare. I know of precisely one at this point. It requires a significant degree of honesty and discipline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm disappointed but not surprised. Still, it's your decision so I respect that. I knew Athos would not do it, but I thought you might. I have found that people who are genuinely interested in true discussion are rare. I know of precisely one at this point. It requires a significant degree of honesty and discipline.

Stop damning me!!! That method is NOT appropriate for this site.

Of course it is. It's appropriate for anyone who cares to do it. The site means nothing. You don't want to do it and that's fine by me. There's no compulsion here. My remark about knowing one person willing to engage in this discipline of discussion wasn't aimed at anyone. It's simply true. He's a local friend and grad of a Baptist seminary. We have good discussions and kind of informally follow those two guidelines.

Quote:

Good grief! I DID refer to Scripture. You refused to read it. The internet reference had TONS of Scripture material for you in answer to your question. BUT YOU REFUSED TO READ IT.

In your belief statement there was no scripture. I did not criticize you. I simply pointed out that your beliefs seem to be based upon your own opinions but nothing more. That being the case, there is no compelling reason for anyone else to accept them. That is not criticism but simple truth.

Quote:

I am confident I have more knowledge of the historical significance of the Bible than you will ever have.

I have seen no evidence of that. Now it could very well be true, but so far I haven't seen it.

Quote:

In your world, the Jesus who said Love Your Enemy is the same Jesus who condemns that enemy to hell for eternal punishment. The contradiction escapes you.

Quote:

Calling Jesus gentle and loving is a common expression.

How can you believe Jesus said anything or was anything? Is that all it is to you, a "common expression"? You seem to believe the Bible is unreliable and that we can't really know what Jesus said. If that is not the case, then please give further explanation. BTW, there is no contradiction.

Quote:

There's no perhaps about it! You read it on a surface level, taking the words literally and missing the essence.

If the Bible is not literal, then who determines what this mysterious "essence" is? You? The authors of the Bible did not have that approach. In John 20:31 we read, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." There is no need to find a "knower of essence" to understand that. It is plainly a literal statement. It is by believing in Him that we have life in His name.

I often think that your problem is you are under conviction of your need for Christ. I well remember how uncomfortable that can be.

Quote:

Especially if you agree with many who have read the earliest Mark that the disciples are portrayed as unbelieving, demanding of truth, and the true believers were Mary and Martha.

What "earliest copy of Mark" are you referring to? The earliest copy of Mark I could find was P45, a manuscript containing parts of all four gospels and so far as I could find, not different in any remarkable way from later copies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If the Bible is not literal

Are Genesis 1 and 2 literal? Is Genesis 3 literal? Is Genesis 7 literal?

Now I will answer this question if you PROMISE to answer my following question. Deal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Now I will answer this question if you PROMISE to answer my following question. Deal?

I wasn't asking just you. I figured tal and Athos and even 'clete might want to respond. This isn't a thread with the rule, "I'll answer your question if you answer mine."

Quote:

This isn't a thread with the rule, "I'll answer your question if you answer mine

You were responding to my quote, so I find it odd that you say you were not asking the question of me. Still, the rule is in effect if you want me to answer, but that's alright. I knew you wouldn't agree. The past is a good teacher for those who pay attention. But it's OK if you don't want to. It's a somewhat free country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You were responding to my quote, so I find it odd that you say you were not asking the question of me. Still, the rule is in effect if you want me to answer, but that's alright. I knew you wouldn't agree. The past is a good teacher for those who pay attention. But it's OK if you don't want to. It's a somewhat free country.

I quoted your very thought-provoking comment, while giving you proper attribution, to stimulate responses. In the future, I will quote you without attribution.

Won't you still be quoting me, one way or the other?

It's OK. We can move on. I do hope you're feeling better. You mentioned several weeks ago that you were having health problems. Get well!

Quote:

Won't you still be quoting me, one way or the other?

Like this.

Quote:

It's OK. We can move on. I do hope you're feeling better. You mentioned several weeks ago that you were having health problems. Get well!

I have aplastic anemia, the rarest of the anemias. (For those who refuse to google, aplastic anemia is a rare, potentially fatal disease in which the bone marrow doesn't make enough blood cells.) In my case, it's a long-term problem, no known cause, currently in remission.

Glad you are at least in remission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Glad you are at least in remission.

Me too!

@JL

You never did clarify those folks who decided what was to be put in the bible. We know it wasn't the copy guys, or the guys that chose what to be copied, and do we know the individual writers of every book? Did they deciples write their own stuff or tell a writer what they experienced?

Actually, I posted this earlier. "Irenaeus in the second century mentions 21 books as being accepted in the churches, all 21 of which ended up in the 4th century canon. At about the same time the Muratorian fragment mentions a very similar set of accepted books." It seems likely that there was settled agreement on what we now call the canon by the end of the second century in that they recognized most of what we have now. There was agreement on the four Gospels, Acts, nearly all of Paul's works, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, and Revelation. By the end of the fourth century, the canon was formalized in the sense that councils acknowledged what was already widely believed. It is believed that Paul dictated his letters to a secretary. None of the epistles are generally thought to be the work of another individual. Luke and John are clearly the authors of their gospels. Matthew and Mark are named by tradition and are widely accepted as authentic.

The early church fathers frequently quoted from the New Testament, so much so that even if the NT was completely lost, it could be found in their writings with the exception of a very minimal group of verses.

Wondergirl, it won't let me send you the test message. Your mailbox is full. Delete some stuff. Since I can't send it, and since I don't want to go over it again, here it is.

1. What are the names of the three waterfalls that comprise Niagara Falls?American, Horseshoe, and Bridal Veil Falls.
2. What is the name of the island that lies between two of the falls? Goat Island
3. Why was the island given this name? A herd of goats once roamed there.
4. Which Frenchman discovered Niagara Falls in 1678?Louis Hennepin
5. Who is credited with starting Niagara Falls’ honeymoon tradition in 1804? Brian and Wendy Honeymoon.
6. Which tightrope walker crossed Niagara Falls on June 15, 2012, on a live ABC special, following a two-year legal battle involving both sides of the Canada–United States border to gain approval, and was required to wear a safety harness for the first time in his/her life?Pretty sure that was Donald Trump.
7. Who was the first person, on his/her 63rd birthday on October 24, 1901, to go over the Horseshoe Falls in a custom-made (padded with a mattress) wooden barrel intentionally and survive? You know, I think that was Joe Biden. That might explain several things.
8. The Niagara River flows over the Falls from which Great Lake? Lake Erie
9. The Niagara River flows into which Great Lake? Lake Ontario
10. What is the name of the ship canal that enables ships to ascend and descend the Niagara Escarpment and bypass Niagara Falls? Donald Trump Canal

Hey, Teach. I was not well prepped for this test!

Sorry about a full mailbox. You got 6/10 correct, 60%. Hmm....

Added: mailbox has been cleaned out and sterilized

I still think I got numbers six and ten correct.

Quote:

According to Daniel Wallace, 43% of the NT is contained in manuscripts from the second century.

The is hardly accepted by the majority of scholars. The first complete Gospel is from the 4th century. Prior to that are fragments only.

I would be happy to go with this scholar.
https://voice.dts.edu/article/wallac...first-century/

Quote:

Likely? Largely settled? Are you making this up? The Bible was canonized in the late 4th century (Council of Laodicea).

Read Iraneus. He's second century and one person removed from the Apostle John.

Quote:

At the time, there were over 50 gospels and over 100 epistles being used in churches.

Evidence for that?

Quote:

There is also no evidence that the text of the NT has been changed in any substantial way since the autographs, and certainly in no way that suggests it has "evolved" in meaning or content.

70 books, almost one million words, 40-50 different authors, composed over millenia, passed down by hand-written copies until the printing press, etc. Do you seriously maintain no changes have occurred?

70 books in the NT? 50 authors? What??

Read carefully. My assertion was, "...in no way that suggests it has "evolved" in meaning or content." I'll be happy to stick with that. I never suggested there were no changes, but I would suggest that finding meaningful ones is not easy,

Changes, additions, and ommmissions depending on which version or account.

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/bible

There are no changes of great consequence. If you have 18 free minutes, this video does a nice job of showing the reliability of the New Testament text. The site you linked was not written by a New Testament scholar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIdCRanZZyw

No it was not written by NT scholars, but historians who point out that many regions had writings they put together and were rejected for whatever reasons by one or another for varying reasons. You cannot miss the historical value of others that came along later and revised and changed things (Kings of Euro nations, the Catholics and Protestants) for their particulars sects, and Christianity (Most religions) has as many as any in teachings, interpretations, traditions and customs.

The writings of Judas and the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrate that the writings of ancient man on those times and events can have additions and differing views and perspectives worth noting, even if they didn't make it into the final version whichever that is.

I can see being loyal to whatever sect you belong to. I suppose that's why we have so many churches today with nuances unique to themselves.

Quote:

The writings of Judas and the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrate that the writings of ancient man on those times and events can have additions and differing views and perspectives worth noting, even if they didn't make it into the final version whichever that is.

There are no writings of Judas. As to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they have basically nothing to do with the New Testament. They do, however, give great testimony to the accurate transmission of the OT.

https://differentspirit.org/evidence...ea-scrolls.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

Forgive my mischaracterizations or the ignorance of not separating the old and new testements. You can chalk it up as an outsider just looking at ancient man in an objective manner as a period piece of the times and conditions rather than a divine law. If Jesus was a Jew, and the Jewish hierarchy had it in for him, which lead to torture and death, then I can certainly understand his followers establishing a new religion around HIM, while separating themselves from the Jewish foundations. Thus the NT and Christianity.

http://www.religionfacts.com/charts/...-islam-judaism

Quote:

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are three of the most influential world religions in history. While Judaism isn't as large as Christianity and Islam, its impact on the world has still been as profound. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are sometimes called "Abrahamic religions" because they trace their history to the ancient figure of Abraham, first mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.

Branches from the same tree?

No one suggests that Judas wrote the Gospel of Judas.

The followers of Jesus did not establish a new religion. Jesus Himself did that. Read the gospels and you can see for yourself.

There is no other religion in the world similar to Christianity, or at least any that I know of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No one suggests that Judas wrote the Gospel of Judas.

Nor did I just acknowledged it's existence.

Quote:

The followers of Jesus did not establish a new religion. Jesus Himself did that. Read the gospels and you can see for yourself.

Jesus proclaimed he was the fulfilment of the messianic prophesy. The establishment disagreed. To this day they still do. He did not establish a new religion, he never broke from the Jewish faith, but his followers did.

Quote:

There is no other religion in the world similar to Christianity, or at least any that I know of.

To me they all look alike and the followers say the same as you. I don't judge which is right, or one from another, but respect them all and the humans who make their own choice. My own choice is the relationship with the God I understand and to put nothing between us. It answers my questions and guides my path. What more can I ask for?

Quote:

Jesus proclaimed he was the fulfilment of the messianic prophesy. The establishment disagreed. To this day they still do. He did not establish a new religion, he never broke from the Jewish faith, but his followers did.

Like I said, read the Gospels and see for yourself. It's very clearly stated in the passage below. You cannot put new wine (faith in Christ) into an old wineskin (Judasim).

Mark 2:18ff. 18Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”19Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. 20But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.21“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”

It is in a multitude of other places as well.

Only the Christian faith, of all the world's major religions, tells of a Savior that, by having faith in Him, will bring salvation to a person completely aside from his or her own good or bad works.

Quote:

Mark 2:18ff. 18Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”19Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. 20But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.21“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”

That is Jesus telling his followers to have common sense, not that He's starting a new religion.

Jesus created the teachings of the Gospel, but Paul implemented them throughout the ancient world, spreading a religion that may have originally been meant as a new, improved Judaism.

Quote:

That is Jesus telling his followers to have common sense, not that He's starting a new religion.

You really believe that Jesus talks about cloth and wineskins just to tell his disciples to have common sense??? Find any Bible commentary that agrees with you and we can discuss it.

Quote:

Jesus created the teachings of the Gospel, but Paul implemented them throughout the ancient world, spreading a religion that may have originally been meant as a new, improved Judaism.

Find any place where Jesus tells his disciples that he has come to refine and improve the Jewish faith and we can discuss that as well. No, His consistent message was that all of mankind, Jews and Gentiles, were to trust in Him for their salvation. That is far, far removed from a Jewish refinement.

Why haven't you addressed my grammar question?

Quote:

Why haven't you addressed my grammar question?

??? What grammar question ???

I messaged you yesterday about how to punctuate parenthetical expressions.

I'll resend it.