[talaniman]

Tal, you are the one who brought up the question about Trump going to hell, not me.

So what? You quoted your scripture and I expressed my opinion. I suppose you did your best. It is what it is.

[jlisenbe]

So what? You quoted your scripture and I expressed my opinion. I suppose you did your best. It is what it is.

Fair enough. I'm ready to move on to something else anyway. This horse has been ridden to death.

[Athos]

Nope. You never mentioned the second century document. Not true.

I'll let you argue that one with Irenaeus. Is he enough of a scholar for you???

I said the small fragments were EARLIER than the 3rd century. I think Irenaeus is wrong. Why would Matthew, an eye witness, copy Mark's Gospel, an anonymous author?

Intellectual lunacy.

Now THERE'S a reasoned argument. A bit of projection, there.

It's irrelevant only to you...... It would be sheer stupidity.

Your failure in logic rears its ugly head - AGAIN! You really ought to think before you write.

You are basically putting words in my mouth

Are you now denying that "unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment"? That's fine with me, but why didn't you say that months ago instead of cherry-picking all those Bible verses is support of that proposition?

I have never said that unbelief sends people to hell.

YOU know that is exactly what you supported. I know it is. OTHERS here know it. Problem is, you can't get away from what is archived under your name. You should have thought of that.

your argument is with the Bible, not with me.

So you DO acknowledge the Bible verses supporting unbelievers go to hell. I think you're wrong. My argument is with YOU!

Now you have elected to reject the Bible.

There you go again. When in doubt, make up stuff. You dearly want me to reject the Bible, then you can send me to hell.

If the Bible is accurate, then you will someday live to bitterly regret that decision.

Ah, I was waiting for the threat. You are certainly consistent.

You have arguments that cannot be supported. Give it up.

And here I thought you might have changed. Now you're back to square one.

[jlisenbe]

Are you now denying that "unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment"? That's fine with me, but why didn't you say that months ago instead of cherry-picking all those Bible verses is support of that proposition?

I can't explain it any better than I have done. I just don't know what to say. It's amazing. I could explain this to any competent sixth grader. There is a difference in saying "unbelievers will be judged" versus saying what they will be judged for. It is only slightly more complicated that saying 2+2=4. I suspect you are an intelligent person, so I can only assume you have determined NOT to understand such a simple concept.

As to the rest of your complaints, I can only say this. Your only position is that you don't like my position. You claimed Aquinas as your ally when he plainly said a person must believe in "the Faith", hardly supporting what I guess is your idea that unbelief is no big deal. You said there was no evidence for the authorship of Matthew. When I gave you Iraeneus (and there are others) you say, amazingly, that you don't agree with him. You can't seem to understand the meaning of "perish" as used in John 3:16 where it plainly cannot mean to die physically. You can't understand how ridiculous it is to not be able to understand why so many scholars believe a century gap in the NT manuscripts is so much less significant than the 1300 year gap for Plato's works. You are astonishingly unaware that most NT scholars believe that both Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source. You get irritated when I show you the 2 Thessalonians passage and act like I wrote it just to threaten you. You are evidently unaware that Matthew is extensively quoted in the second century and referred to as "scripture".

As to Irenaeus claiming Matthew copied Mark, which is plainly ridiculous since it would be the most obvious thing in the world to see, I don't know where that comes from. The passage I referred to is this. It says nothing to that effect, but perhaps you have another source. "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.3309 For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews3310 in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

[Athos]

I can't explain it any better than I have done. I just don't know what to say. It's amazing. I could explain this to any competent sixth grader. There is a difference in saying "unbelievers will be judged" versus saying what they will be judged for. It is only slightly more complicated that saying 2+2=4.

What IS amazing is this weird excursion into the recesses of your mind. I will leave it to others here to determine who is right and who is not telling the truth re your belief of unbelievers and hell.

Your only position is that you don't like my position.

Actually, that's true, except for the "only" part. I've spent months rebutting your position. I can do no more.

...Aquinas...authorship of Matthew....Iraeneus.........."perish".........cent ury gap....NT manuscripts..........1300 year gap.....Plato......Luke and Matthew.............Mark as a source.....threaten you......... Matthew.......quoted second century........

Saving bandwidth, all your comments have previously been answered. Here's a sampling: "perish" means perish, you seem to think it means live forever in hell.

I'm not the only one to ever disagree with Irenaeus.

Almost every verse in Matthew is found in Mark which comes earlier. Etc. etc., etc. You even say yourself that "Most NT scholars believe Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source".

..................................... Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

Your lengthy copy of a Bible passage has nothing to do with unbelievers going to hell for eternal punishment.

[jlisenbe]

Almost every verse in Matthew is found in Mark which comes earlier. Etc. etc., etc. You even say yourself that "Most NT scholars believe Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source".

First of all, Matthew is much longer than Mark, so "almost every verse" of Matthew could not possibly be found in Mark. Perhaps you meant it the other way around, but even then it would not be correct. Now much of Mark's content is in Matthew, but nothing approaching all of it. Much of Matthew's material is clearly original. And at any rate, the idea that Matthew used Mark as a source is strictly hypothetical.

Secondly, to say that Matthew used Mark as a source is far removed from saying he copied it. They are not even close to being the same thing. I have to believe you already know that.

Thirdly, if Matthew had simply copied Mark, then they would be identical. They are not in the ballpark of being identical. The same is true of Luke. It seems almost as if you have never read them. If you had, you would have known that instantly.

Your lengthy copy of a Bible passage has nothing to do with unbelievers going to hell for eternal punishment.

That was not a Bible passage. Did you really think it was? It was a quote from Irenaeus. I am still just astonished that you would think you would know more about the authorship of Matthew than he did. It would be like saying you know more about the European theater of WW 2 than Patton did.

Now I do agree with this. " I will leave it to others here to determine who is right and who is not telling the truth re your belief of unbelievers and hell." I have no doubt that others can tell the clear and obvious difference.

Perhaps the day will come when you will give us your position on eternity and judgement.

I don't understand you, Athos, but I do wish you well. I do sincerely pray the day will come when you will see the Truth.

[Wondergirl]

And at any rate, the idea that Matthew used Mark as a source is strictly hypothetical.

And then there's Q.

[jlisenbe]

Completely hypothetical with no direct evidence for it in existence, or at least not that I'm aware of. But even if it existed, and maybe it did, it would make no difference. It would simply have been a source. I'm not sure what the significance, if any, would be.

[Athos]

Perhaps the day will come when you will give us your position on eternity and judgement.

Why?

It is YOUR position that is in question here. Another attempt at deflection?

I don't understand you, Athos

Well, that's been obvious for a long time.

I do sincerely pray the day will come when you will see the Truth.

As I, you.

[jlisenbe]

It is YOUR position that is in question here. Another attempt at deflection?

Remember Matthew 25? Now we have two areas where you are too fearful to take a stand.

I know. You're consulting scholars.

[Athos]

Jl responding to WG comment of "Q", German for Quelle, "source", which is thought to be the source from which Matthew and Mark were written.

But even if it existed, and maybe it did, it would make no difference. It would simply have been a source. I'm not sure what the significance, if any, would be.

The significance is that it's a strong indication Matthew is NOT the original author of the Gospel written in his name.

[jlisenbe]

The significance is that it's a strong indication Matthew is NOT the original author of the Gospel written in his name.

Counting you, there is now one person on the earth who believes that. Your comment is completely ridiculous and shows you don't know the slightest thing about Q.

Now who's deflecting? Take a stand. Have some backbone.

[Athos]

Now we have two areas where you are too fearful to take a stand.

You didn't answer why.

Your tendency to avoid questions I pose - been going on since day one - does not help discover the truth.

[Athos]

Counting you, there is now one person on the earth who believes that. Your comment is completely ridiculous and shows you don't know the slightest thing about Q.

Of course, Luke was meant. Not Mark. Don't have a heart attack when you stumble across a typo. As far as your claim that Matthew and Mark are not alike, how do you explain of Mark's 661 verses, 660 are found in Matthew.

Now who's deflecting? Take a stand. Have some backbone.

You are the one doing the deflecting. I think you should calm down - you might rupture something.

[paraclete]

Next you are going to tell us John was copied.

[Athos]

Next you are going to tell us John was copied.

Sure. As soon as you answer my question WHY.

[Wondergirl]

Counting you, there is now one person on the earth who believes that. Your comment is completely ridiculous and shows you don't know the slightest thing about Q.

There are more than one who believe that. I took theology courses on M and Q and how the synoptic gospels came to be.

[jlisenbe]

You are still too fearful to take a stand, Athos. Bear that in mind. Matthew 25 was weeks ago and still no answer.

As to Q, it is an attempt to explain the commonality of some parts of Matthew and Luke that are not common to Mark. Matthew has 1071 verses. 387 are in common with both Mark and Luke, 130 with Mark only, and 184 with Luke only. 387 verses are found only in Matthew. Much of Mark is in Matthew, but it is not copied verbatim and even a casual reading of the two books shows that. But even if it was, it would do nothing to show that Matthew was not the author of the Gospel bearing his name. To suggest that Q is thought to cast doubt on the authorship of Matthew is ludicrous. It does no such thing. And worse, there is not a shred of manuscript evidence for this Q document's existence anyway.

Irenaeus attributed Matthew to Matthew. Other early church leaders quoted freely from Matthew when it bore his name. Tatian, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, and Ignatius all treated the book as authentic. Your claim that there was "no evidence" to support the authorship of Matthew is just ridiculously false.

As far as your claim that Matthew and Mark are not alike, how do you explain of Mark's 661 verses, 660 are found in Matthew.

Simple. It's not true. 606 might be true, but not 660.

There are more than one who believe that.

Who? And I'd still like to know what you think about the words of Christ in Matthew 25. Hopefully you can provide something a little more substantial that this "answer".

Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments.

[paraclete]

Sure. As soon as you answer my question WHY.

WHY what? or just plain WHAT?

[Vacuum7]

GERMANS wrote parts of the BIBLE? Never heard that before.