[talaniman]

tal -- I thought if you don't hear it from the person yourself, it's hearsay, second hand account.

JL --

Are you two saying the same thing?
Jim -> Mike -> Rob = hearsay
Jim -> Mike = direct testimony

I don't think we are WG since my post applies to the court of public opinion concerning the bible, not the LAW, so you BELIEVE it or not. YOUR choice.

[Athos]

...faith in Jesus is the only escape from the judgement of God which quite rightly falls upon sinners ...

To repeat, for the umpteenth time - the topic is UNBELIEVERS ARE CONDEMNED TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. Your comment does NOT address the topic.

Here is a passage from Exodus 12 for your consideration concerning God's judgement. "...I will pass through Egypt and ...bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord...."

Not a single word about hell and/or eternal punishment there for unbelievers.

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?

This a far cry from your original contention that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. Now, instead of "eternal punishment", you have substituted "some period of time". Not exactly eternal, is it?

I have already replied to the many scriptures you have provided over the time of this discussion. NOT A SINGLE ONE CLAIMS ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IN HELL FOR UNBELIEVERS.

There is also this passage from Romans 3. "2 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of ..." etc etc etc.

This long excerpt does NOT mention UNBELIEVERS, HELL, or ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. You are really getting off the track here.

And this from Ephesians 2. "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. ....

This is pretty much identical to your previous quote from Romans. My response is also pretty much identical - not a single word about eternal punishment, or hell, or condemnation of unbelievers.

It is time for you to admit that you were wrong about unbelievers being condemned to hell for eternal punishment. I do not doubt your believing it, I disagree with your contention that such a doctrine is part of Christianity. Almost twenty times now I have shown where you have misread the Bible. I have done this in black and white on these pages, yet you refuse to acknowledge the evidence of your eyes.

I am tired of your constant replies that question my beliefs (irrelevant), go off on tangents that don't address the issue (irrelevant), and just generally distract and divert to avoid coming to grips with the issue (irrelevant).

[jlisenbe]

It is time for you to admit that you were wrong about unbelievers being condemned to hell for eternal punishment. I do not doubt your believing it, I disagree with your contention that such a doctrine is part of Christianity. Almost twenty times now I have shown where you have misread the Bible. I have done this in black and white on these pages, yet you refuse to acknowledge the evidence of your eyes.

I am tired of your constant replies that question my beliefs (irrelevant), go off on tangents that don't address the issue (irrelevant), and just generally distract and divert to avoid coming to grips with the issue (irrelevant).

I don't really care what you're tired of. If you don't like this conversation, then find something else to do. The Romans passage (chapters 2 and 3), the John 3 passage, the Matthew 25 passage, they are all very clear in addition to the ten or so others I listed. The importance of the Romans passage is the fact that it declares all people to be under judgement because of sin, and then presents faith in Jesus as the sole source of deliverance. Now you can accept that or reject it. Your choice.

As is normal for you, you didn't answer any questions, so I'll repeat them.

I still have my four questions. It would show some courage for you to answer them.

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?

[Athos]

The importance of the Romans passage is the fact that it declares all people to be under judgement because of sin, and then presents faith in Jesus as the sole source of deliverance.

Perfect example of what you don't understand. NOWHERE IN THAT PASSAGE DOES IT REFER TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IN HELL. Yo are putting that in to conform to your error.

As far as including "all people" which you're implying includes unbelievers, tell me this. How in the world could those who never heard of Jesus - before he lived, during his lifetime, and after he lived - could possibly have faith in Jesus as the "sole source of deliverance"? God gave you a brain. Use it, man. The writer is obviously using a figure of speech, never intending the whole human race who ever lived needing to believe in Jesus.

[jlisenbe]

I did not say it referred to punishment in hell. I said it concluded that all were under judgement.

As to answering a question, which I have been doing consistently with you, it's your turn now. I'll repeat my four questions. In the interest of displaying some level of honesty and openness, you should at least take a shot at two or three of them.

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?

In fact, a really good way to discuss these issues is by "answer a question, and then ask a question". So if you can at least answer one of them, which would be kind of minimal, then maybe we could get some order in this discussion.

[Athos]

I did not say it referred to punishment in hell. I said it concluded that all were under judgement.

Irrelevant. It is NOT the topic under discussion.

As to answering a question, which I have been doing consistently with you,

Too funny. You have yet to address the simple subject of unbelievers condemned to hell for eternal punishment. Your so-called "answers" are Bible quotes as if you have no mind of your own. And you are anything but consistent - you're all over the place with your replies.

I'll repeat my four questions. In the interest of displaying some level of honesty and openness, you should at least take a shot at two or three of them. ................ In fact, a really good way to discuss these issues is by "answer a question, and then ask a question". So if you can at least answer one of them, which would be kind of minimal, then maybe we could get some order in this discussion.

I have no problem with your starting a new thread with your questions. Who knows? You may generate some interest. In the interest of displaying honesty, I suggest you reply in a straightforward manner and not keep trying to divert the discussion.

My favorite diversion of yours was your long post from the Catholic Catechism on hell. You seem to think this discussion is about the existence of hell. It's not.

For your information, the Catholic Church has declared that they make NO claim that ANYONE is in hell. Also, as to unbelievers., the Church has equally declared that UNBELIEVERS do NOT go to hell because of their unbelief. In fact, the Church recognizes the good found in all religions, whether believers or not, although it retains itself as the Church possessing the "fullness" of revelation.

[jlisenbe]

As usual, too afraid to answer questions.

I am not Catholic and don't really care what the Catholic Church says. In addition, I don't really trust what you say after the debacle with your contention about Aquinas' statement on the subject of those who die never having heard the Gospel. You completely misrepresented his views by using only a small section of his writing when the complete quote clearly showed that he had a different perspective.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday. I'll post them again just in case. 1 and 4 are particularly pertinent since they call into open question your knowledge of Greek and your mistaken view of the meanings of the two words. Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

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?

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions.

[Athos]

As usual, too afraid to answer questions.

This has become a mantra with you. Good way to deflect from the issue. I'm not surprised.

I am not Catholic and don't really care what the Catholic Church says.

Wow, you sure could have fooled me when you took such time and effort to quote the CC catechism!

your contention about Aquinas' statement on the subject of those who die never having heard the Gospel. You completely misrepresented his views by using only a small section of his writing when the complete quote clearly showed that he had a different perspective.

I'm satisfied with my years of studying and reading Aquinas as opposed to your three minutes on Wikipedia.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday.

You have this thing on courage. That's simply your way of evading the issue. You're completely transparent.

Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

Who's the amateur now? Your understanding of the Bible is from your childhood. You were given a fundamentalist take and you have never really examined your belief. That's not uncommon for people who believe as you do. There's a fear factor at work here (speaking or courage or the lack of it) that is difficult to overcome. You'll never grow in your faith unless you confront that fear.

Put away the things of childhood and examine the proposition using your God-given wisdom factory. The God of the Bible certainly doesn't condemn his creature to eternal torment for the simple act of never having heard of Jesus. I'm shocked that you can't understand that even after I pointed out how the Bible verses you provided were not what you had hoped. Unfortunately, the Good Book has often been misused for evil purposes.

That would make for a monstrous Deity. Is God the author of evil? That's what your belief is promoting.

It would be desirable for you to not reply again

Lol. Giving up, eh? That's what you dearly desire, isn't it? But you're too rich a source of misinformation to ignore.

[jlisenbe]

It's a mantra because it is so true. You are still too scared to answer questions. Sad. Your discussion of Aquinas was disgraceful. You intentionally, I think, attempted to misrepresent his position with your selective quote. When I put the quote in full, it completely destroyed your view.

This is all you'll see from me until you get your courage up and enter into a genuine discussion.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday. I'll post them again just in case. 1 and 4 are particularly pertinent since they call into open question your knowledge of Greek and your mistaken view of the meanings of the two words. Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

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?

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions. Courage is now the watchword for you.

[Athos]

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions. Courage is now the watchword for you.

It's the same tired tune from you - you simply will not answer the question re unbelievers going to hell. You pose questions, not to find the truth but to divert and obscure. Every one of your Bible verses has previously been answered by me. If you need to see them again, check the archives.

You've been running all your life from the truth, but you can't hide from the truth. Sooner or later, it will catch up to you.

[jlisenbe]

This is all you'll see from me until you get your courage up and enter into a genuine discussion.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday. I'll post them again just in case. 1 and 4 are particularly pertinent since they call into open question your knowledge of Greek and your mistaken view of the meanings of the two words. Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

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?

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions. Courage is now the watchword for you.

[Athos]

This is all you'll see from me until you get your courage up and enter into a genuine discussion.

I think you already said that. Getting a bit confused, are we?

Keep running away - that's what you do best.

[jlisenbe]

This is all you'll see from me until you get your courage up and enter into a genuine discussion.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday. I'll post them again just in case. 1 and 4 are particularly pertinent since they call into open question your knowledge of Greek and your mistaken view of the meanings of the two words. Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

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?

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions. Courage is now the watchword for you.

[Athos]

This is all you'll see from me until you get your courage up and enter into a genuine discussion.

Maybe you will develop the courage to answer questions someday. I'll post them again just in case. 1 and 4 are particularly pertinent since they call into open question your knowledge of Greek and your mistaken view of the meanings of the two words. Question 1 in particular completely destroys your explanation of Matthew 25 which remains a huge roadblock to your position.

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?

It would be desirable for you to not reply again until you are willing to enter into an open and honest discussion by answering questions. Courage is now the watchword for you.

I think you already said that. Getting a bit confused, are we?

Keep running away - that's what you do best.

[jlisenbe]

Had an inspiration this morning. Since you are unwilling to answer the questions, I'll answer them for you.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?

There is no real reply for that. Your definition of "aionios" is clearly incorrect, and since your entire exposition of the Matt. 25 passage hinged on that, then it falls completely apart. You still are faced with Jesus sending people to an eternal, fiery hell. But even if you had been correct, and you very much were not, then it would mean that heaven would also be merely temporary since the same word used to describe hell is used to describe heaven. It is a devastating and irrational mistake.

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?

You would have to agree with that. Of course it is now a moot point since the temporary nature of that situation has been removed in question 1.

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.

It is an overwhelming avalanche that clearly shows a terrible day of judgement by God upon sinners is coming and that there is no escape aside from the wonderful ministry of Christ. I might add, as I have done on several occasions, that people are not judged for unbelief. They are judged for sin. That is very clear in Matt. 25. We are not going to be judged for unbelief, but we can be saved by faith in the powerful work of Jesus, a truth that is repeated almost endlessly in the NT. That is one of the wonderful effects of the Gospel, that no Christian can claim superiority over anyone else since we are saved by the action of another and not by our own goodness or good works.

4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

Absolutely. You cannot appeal to a definition which is very much a minority one and which plainly does not fit the context of the passage.

So you see that you are still stuck in Mattew 25. Your attempt at an end run has failed.

[Athos]

... people are not judged for unbelief. They are judged for sin. That is very clear in Matt. 25. We are not going to be judged for unbelief,

HALLELUJAH!!!!!!! FINALLY!!!!! You have dropped your belief that unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment!


Well, it's all water under the bridge now. You are to be congratulated.

Go in peace.

[jlisenbe]

HALLELUJAH!!!!!!! FINALLY!!!!! You have dropped your belief that unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment!

You have such a short memory. We've gone through all of this before, but considering your limitations I'll run it by you again. God judges sinners. Those with saving faith in Christ are saved from judgement, Christ having already received their judgement. So who is left? Now if we think even a few seconds about that, it is plain that the unbelievers (non-believers, those absent faith) are left. So yes, unbelievers are condemned to hell, but not because of the unbelief, but rather because of sin.

Can you understand that now?

Still too fearful to answer questions? That's really a mystery to me. You love to ask questions, but are so reluctant to answer them. Seems cowardly to me, but perhaps I am wrong.

Your Matt. 25 problem remains.

[Wondergirl]

Does "unbeliever" mean one who has heard the Gospel but refuses, despite multiple efforts by loving and patient Christians, to believe?

Yet, I was taught "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith." Salvation is the work of God and not man. Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

[Athos]

God judges sinners. Those with saving faith in Christ are saved from judgement, Christ having already received their judgement. So who is left? Now if we think even a few seconds about that, it is plain that the unbelievers (non-believers, those absent faith) are left. So yes, unbelievers are condemned to hell, but not because of the unbelief, but rather because of sin.

Ahh, and you were doing so well.

There's one small flaw in your logic. You are equating unbelievers with sinners. You have no way of knowing whether unbelievers are sinners or not. Please spare me Bible verses that you interpret as "all" being sinners.

And, of course, how does a newborn baby sin?

[jlisenbe]

Oh no. I'm equating EVERYONE with sinners. You, me, WG, Tal, Vac, and everyone else. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." "All we like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way, and the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him." So you see it's no flaw at all, and not even a small one.

Spare the Bible verses? That's actually your territory.

I am not aware if the Bible directly addresses the issue of newborns, but it would seem reasonable that they are incapable of sin until some later period in life.

I still want to know your view of the near unanimous rejection in Bible translations of your view of aionios. Notice I put that in the form of a statement so as not to cause you any undue anxiety.

"Yet, I was taught "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith." Salvation is the work of God and not man. Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile."

WG, you say you were taught that. Do you believe it? Do you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes"?