[jlisenbe]

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.

[Athos]

I haven’t supported anything. I haven’t told you my beliefs

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?

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.

What is truly incredible is your gross inability to understand the plain language of words challenging your belief.

They don’t contradict. One speaks of love and others of judgment.

Of course they contradict. One speaks of love and the other sending unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. Are you blind?

They are not mutually exclusive.when you refer to two passages and ignore 35 then you are cherry picking.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Athos]

To suggest that the Matthew passage has been miscopied is absurd. You would have to see the original to know that,

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 are basically saying that since Matthew 25 does not agree with you, then it surely must have been miscopied.

That's obviously not what I'm saying. I've explained it now a number of times.

Your appeal to Augustine is hopeless set alongside more than thirty passages that affirm the basic message of Matthew 25.

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.

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.”

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.

There are no passages that contradict the words of Christ spoken over and over again.

If you're referring to unbelievers in hell for eternal punishment, of course there are. I've given you two excellent ones.

Your supposed replies aren't even tied to specific verses.

Not supposed - they can be found in post 97. Every single one is tied to a specific verse - every-single-one.

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."

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!

"There are many Bible verses that contradict Jl's belief." There were, in fact, none.

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.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Athos]

They were the words of the New Testament which you reject.

No, they are your interpretation of Matthew that I reject.

I have no argument with the plain language of words.

It's your understanding of plain words where the difficulty lies.

Jesus is not the author of a false teaching as you suggested he was.

I never suggested Jesus was a false teacher. This is where your reading comprehension problem confuses you.

It is not possible to rebut 32 plain and clear passages.

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).

But I was glad to see you affirm that there is a hell.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Athos]

Your description of your Matthew mistake is pompous nonsense rejected by every major translation.

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.

After Aquinas, I believe nothing you say about Augustine.

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.

The quote was from you. You said the fire was eternal.

Our posts may have passed each other. Refer to my post above this one for your answer to that.

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!

[Athos]

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.

Then how do you explain that they were refuted?

I will say it one more time for the thinking impaired. I have offered no interpretation of the Matthew passage.

Then why did you post all those Bible verses? What where you supporting?

you said the teaching of hell clearly affirmed by Jesus on several occasions was a false teaching.

Reading comp again. I never said that false teaching was affirmed by Jesus.

You just said it again above!

You are about as dense as they come.

You did affirm that the fires of hell are eternal.

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?

But this can be settled easily. Just show us where the New Testament affirms your idea of no hell or judgment. Must be specific.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

The Matthew verse you rely on is a copy of a copy of a copy going back to Jerome.

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.

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.

[Wondergirl]

But this can be settled easily. Just show us where the New Testament affirms your idea of no hell or judgment. Must be specific.

Which New Testament?

[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.

[Wondergirl]

Any major translation will do.

Nope, not true at all.

You don't accept the words of Christ....

Oh, but I do -- just not YOUR interpretation.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Wondergirl]

The silly excuse of which NT has not stopped me or anyone else serious about what is going on.

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.

[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.

[Athos]

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).

I have posted 32 passages where judgment and hell are specifically mentioned. You have posted...none. So the score is 32-0.

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.

If you can post some passages where it is specifically stated that hell and judgment do not exist,

My contention is that UNBELIEVERS are not condemned to hell for eternal punishment. As stated elsewhere, you are trying to move the goalposts.

then we can continue

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.

Until then, your pseudo intellectual, mumbo jumbo is accomplishing nothing.

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.

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

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

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.

No, it was your idea to call so you can do it. Let us know what happens.

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.

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.

Virtually no one contends that Matthew was not written by Matthew in the first 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 original

Your suggestion is yet another reason I believe very little of what you say.

That is your loss. Every one of my rebuttals in post #97 can be verified.

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

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”.

[dwashbur]

I'm going to conflate a couple of posts because they're related, and they relate to my field.

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.

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.

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

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.
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.

[Athos]

So in Matthew 25 we're talking about literal sheep and literal goats, no people, right? I never trusted those sneaky goats anyway!

To be fair to the other side, the verse in question is Verse 46.

While I do acknowledge the existence of hell

Begging the question, what DO you acknowledge what hell is like?

[jlisenbe]

My contention is that UNBELIEVERS are not condemned to hell for eternal punishment. As stated elsewhere, you are trying to move the goalposts.

Fair enough. Now give support for it. Show where the Bible says that unbelievers are not condemned to hell. Should be simple to do.

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.

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.

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.

Your opinion is not held everywhere.

"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.

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.

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.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/25.htm