[jlisenbe]

Please keep up.

[Wondergirl]

Please keep up.

I have. What does the resurrection have to do with Athos' nonbelief in a talking snake? (Btw, that serpent is one of the characters in an allegory.)

[jlisenbe]

If God can raise a man from the dead, then a serpent that speaks becomes simple. Now see how easy it was to answer a question? So I have one or two for you. How about you? Do you believe in the resurrection?

How do you know Jesus was not simply a character in an allegory?

[Wondergirl]

If God can raise a man from the dead, then a serpent that speaks becomes simple.

You're mixing apples and grapes. Are you saying God caused the serpent to speak?

Now see how easy it was to answer a question?

I thought you were past the insults and put-downs.

So I have one or two for you. How about you? Do you believe in the resurrection?

Yes.

How do you know Jesus was not simply a character in an allegory?

Because he used allegories to teach about His Father's agape (unconditional love).

[jlisenbe]

How do you know Jesus was not simply a character in an allegory?


Because he used allegories to teach about His Father's agape (unconditional love).

But how do you know it simply wasn't the allegorical character of Jesus teaching those allegories? How do you know that the Gospel and the resurrection are not just made up stories?

It's already been abundantly demonstrated that "agape" is not defined as unconditional love. I doubt there is a Greek lexicon anywhere that defines the word that way. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...27#post3873327 Not sure why you would want to continue on in such obvious error. Having nothing more that a Wiki article to appeal to is pretty shaky ground.

You're mixing apples and grapes. Are you saying God caused the serpent to speak?

I'm saying that if God can raise a man from the dead and we believe that, then believing the serpent was used by the devil to speak to Eve suddenly becomes pretty unremarkable. They are both supernatural events of which the Bible is filled.

Now see how easy it was to answer a question?


I thought you were past the insults and put-downs.

Just following your recent example. "This thread so far is a perfect example of why I don't cherry-pick and toss Bible verses around." But I do appreciate your forthright answers to the two questions and hope that trend continues.

[Wondergirl]

But how do you know it simply wasn't the allegorical character of Jesus teaching those allegories?

In other words, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

It's already been abundantly demonstrated that "agape" is not defined as unconditional love. I doubt there is a Greek lexicon anywhere that defines the word that way.

I'll stick with over 60 years of Bible study with many ministers and professors plus my own personal experiences. God's love is truly unconditional!

I'm saying that if God can raise a man from the dead and we believe that, then believing the serpent was used by the devil to speak to Eve suddenly becomes pretty unremarkable. They are both supernatural events of which the Bible is filled.

In addition to a number of allegories, the Bible contains poetry (e.g., "the hills clapped their hands") and exaggerations (e.g., "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky") to make a point so of course, yes! we certainly must understand all those literally. Because, after all, the entire Bible MUST be read snd understood literally. JL has spoken!

[Athos]

In addition to a number of allegories, the Bible contains poetry (e.g., "the hills clapped their hands") and exaggerations (e.g., "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky") to make a point so of course, yes! we certainly must understand all those literally. Because, after all, the entire Bible MUST be read snd understood literally. JL has spoken!

If God can raise a man from the dead, then hills clapping their hands and treetops touching the sky are child's play for Jl's God.

[jlisenbe]

Because, after all, the entire Bible MUST be read snd understood literally. JL has spoken!

Did you and Athos attend the same school of deception? I've never said that nor implied it. And, of course, you are again violating your own rules of civility which you tend to stray from frequently.

But how do you know it simply wasn't the allegorical character of Jesus teaching those allegories?



In other words, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Sadly, you have reverted back to your previous pattern of avoiding questions you find to be uncomfortable.

So if Greek scholars say agape means something other than unconditional love, then you simply ask us to accept your 60 years of study, where you evidently did not study the Bible, and, of course, your personal experiences. No thanks. But if you can remember that scripture where the Bible says God's love is unconditional, then by all means post it. You know, the one you learned in your sixty years of study.

Athos still needs to address this. I would think that, having appeared to have no concern for the truth, he would want to quickly correct himself. Guess not. I mean anyone can make a mistake, but when that person refuses to clear his "mistake" up, then what conclusion is left?

Just incredible. I put quotes around "belittle" because that is what you used ("In your own words - '...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with' ".). "Belittling" is not "belittle" in any planet in the solar system. But even at that, where did you see the phrases, "would belittle any answer" and "would come up with"? Hmmm? Why did you make that up as you clearly did in claiming they were my, "own words"?

[Athos]

Did you and Athos attend the same school of deception?

No, we attended the school of truth - a school you could not get into.

you are again violating your own rules of civility which you tend to stray from frequently.

She is reacting to the incivility you brought to these pages. Turnabout's fair play.

Greek scholars say agape means something other than unconditional love,

The in-house resident Greek scholar confirmed the meaning of agape to be unconditional. Interesting you failed to name your Greek scholars - you who obsesses over names otherwise.

if you can remember the scripture where the Bible says God's love is unconditional

Not all things pertaining to God is found in your Bible. An important lesson you never learned.

Athos still needs to address this. I would think that, having appeared to have no concern for the truth, he would want to quickly correct himself. Guess not.


Just incredible. I put quotes around "belittle" because that is what you used ("In your own words - '...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with' ".). "Belittling" is not "belittle" in any planet in the solar system. But even at that, where did you see the phrases, "would belittle any answer" and "would come up with"? Hmmm? Why did you make that up as you clearly did in claiming they were my, "own words"?

Jl, this is the saddest thing you ever posted - that "belittling" is not the same meaning as "belittle". It's impossible to answer such ignorance other than how I have done.

[jlisenbe]

The in-house resident Greek scholar confirmed the meaning of agape to be unconditional. Interesting you failed to name your Greek scholars - you who obsesses over names otherwise.

Except that Greek lexicons do not agree with him. Oh well. There is but very little support for the idea that agape means unconditional love. Looked it up again this morning on a third lexicon. "brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence"

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexi...nas/agape.html

Jl, this is the saddest thing you ever posted - that "belittling" is not the same meaning as "belittle". It's impossible to answer such ignorance other than how I have done.

Slowly for your benefit. where...did... you... see... the... phrases, "would... belittle... any... answer..." and... "would... come... up... with"? Hmmm? Why... did... you... make... that... up... as... you... clearly ...did... in... claiming... they... were... my, "own... words?"

Hopefully that will prove to be helpful to you. I had hoped that bold text and underlining would do the trick.

Also, study...quotation...marks...more...carefully.

One more thing. Learn to be honest. I did not say, " 'belittling' is not the same meaning as 'belittle'." Now you have two falsehoods to deal with. Is there no end to it?

Not all things pertaining to God is found in your Bible. An important lesson you never learned.

I agree with that, and much more importantly the Bible agrees with that. But the opinions of WG, JL, and Athos are NOT legit sources.

This now sums up what we have.
​1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.
2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.
3. JL and WG are willing to express their views concerning the resurrection.

[Wondergirl]

Except that Greek lexicons do not agree with him. Oh well.

John 3:16, refers to God's agape, His divine/unconditional love: "For God so loved the world" -- loved, ēgapēsen

God loved THE WORLD unconditionally (no conditions) and sent His Son Jesus to die and take away the sins of each human.

JL, do you love your children unconditionally?

[Athos]

Slowly for your benefit. where...did... you... see... the... phrases, "would... belittle... any... answer..." and... "would... come... up... with"? Hmmm? Why... did... you... make... that... up... as... you... clearly ...did... in... claiming... they... were... my, "own... words?"

Hopefully that will prove to be helpful to you. I had hoped that bold text and underlining would do the trick.

Also, study...quotation...marks...more...carefully.

Jl, this is what you wrote - WORD FOR WORD.

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."

Give it up, Jl - you're beating a dead horse.

[jlisenbe]

John 3:16, refers to God's agape, His divine/unconditional love: "For God so loved the world" -- loved, ēgapēsen

Except, of course, that it does not use the word "unconditional". Sorry. Strike one. Your own link also provided no support. Strike two. Only one swing left. Be careful with the next one!

[Wondergirl]

Except, of course, that it does not use the word "unconditional".

What conditions had God levied on His love for humanity before He would sent His Son to suffer and die?

[waltero]

John 3:16, refers to God's agape, His divine/unconditional love:

Where did you get this from? we've picked it up, and it is a misleading phrase. The adjective- "unconditional love" can mean a whole lot of different things...it is nonjudgmental. Example: You should be like the God you preach, God's love is unconditional, he loves everybody just as they are...therefore you shouldn't raise any problems about christening our baby, gay marriage, etc. That is how that phrase comes across to unbelievers.

God's love is unconditional, which means he does not judge people, he loves them just as they are so come to him just as you are...what about repentance??? Isn't repentance the First step when coming to God?

"For God so loved the world"

Do you take that as; "God sooooo loved the World"? Also, there is the Word "Loved" past tense? Meaning God loved the world at one time???

[jlisenbe]

Thank you for providing the evidence of your own deception! You claimed I wrote, "I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". Anyone looking at the quote below can clearly see I did not. Case closed by your own evidence. Well done!!

Jl, this is what you wrote - WORD FOR WORD.

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."

This is so funny. It's all there except for these words. "would, belittle, any, answer, come, up, with" I mean other than those seven words, which is nearly ALL OF THEM, your quote is exactly right! It just doesn't get any funnier than this. Please, please study quotes and learn more. You have a long ways to go.

[Wondergirl]

Give it up, Jl - you're beating a dead horse.

Maybe we should move to the allegory of Jonah and the Great Fish.

[jlisenbe]

Where did you get this from?

Walter, she got it from the same place she gets a lot of what she posts. It seems to come from her own imagination. It is the product of a careless attitude towards truth. I think WG does care for people, but her political persuasions dictate her beliefs, and not the Bible. She is asked to show us in the Bible where it says God's love is unconditional. So she posts a text where it does NOT say that. It's just hard to describe that.

[Wondergirl]

Walter, she got it from the same place she gets a lot of what she posts. It seems to come from her own imagination. It is the product of a careless attitude towards truth. I think WG does care for people, but her political persuasions dictate her beliefs, and not the Bible.

Then waltero continued with:

***The adjective- "unconditional love" can mean a whole lot of different things...it is nonjudgmental. Example: You should be like the God you preach, God's love is unconditional, he loves everybody just as they are...therefore you shouldn't raise any problems about christening our baby, gay marriage, etc. That is how that phrase comes across to unbelievers.

God's love is unconditional, which means he does not judge people, he loves them just as they are so come to him just as you are...what about repentance??? Isn't repentance the First step when coming to God?***

[jlisenbe]

This is so conclusive it bears repeating.

Thank you for providing the evidence of your own deception! You claimed I wrote, "(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". Anyone looking at the quote below can clearly see I did not. Case closed by your own evidence. Well done!!

Jl, this is what you wrote - WORD FOR WORD.

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."

This is so funny. It's all there except for these words. "would, belittle, any, answer, come, up, with" I mean other than those seven words, which is nearly ALL OF THEM, your quote is exactly right! It just doesn't get any funnier than this. Please, please study quotes and learn more. You have a long ways to go.