[Wondergirl]

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70. It was written by eye witnesses or people who knew eye witnesses.

Maybe.

You did not answer this. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"

I have to believe every jot and tittle in the Bible?

Also never answered this. What does "perish" mean as used in John 3:16?

Succumb to spiritual havoc.

[jlisenbe]

I have to believe every jot and tittle in the Bible?

That's not an answer. You are being evasive.

Succumb to spiritual havoc.

So you would agree that those who do not believe in Jesus succumb to spiritual havoc? What does "spiritual havoc" mean?

[Wondergirl]

That's not an answer. You are being evasive.

I'm not a literalist.

So you would agree that those who do not believe in Jesus succumb to spiritual havoc? What does "spiritual havoc" mean?

As was described in that blog post you refused to read.

[jlisenbe]

So you don’t believe that God literally loves sinners? Interesting.

Again, what is spiritual havoc?

[Athos]

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70.

Another disingenuous remark by you. The EARLIEST complete copies of the Gospels are from later centuries, NOT 70 A.D.

It was written by eye witnesses or people who knew eye witnesses. It was also written in the lifetime of those who could have contradicted the whole story because they were eye witnesses as well.

That has been rebuked once and for all by almost all scholars except the fundamentalist types. Why do you keep repeating the falsehood?

You did not answer this. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"

Easy to do - apply your reasoning powers to the Bible and that way you won't go around believing in talking snakes and other stories that are not literal. Will you never learn?

Also never answered this. What does "perish" mean as used in John 3:16?

Perish means to die, whether in John 3:16 or in any other book. When you claim other meanings than the plain meaning of a word, you are far off in another universe.

[jlisenbe]

1. That the Gospel accounts were written in the first century is disputed by virtually no one.

2. Oh? Name some of those "all scholars".

3. Except that your rant did not even come close to answering the question.

4. So you don't agree with WG? At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?

[Athos]

1. That the Gospel accounts were written in the first century is disputed by virtually no one.

COMPLETE COPIES is what I said. Not even fragmemts are available from the first century. Stop playing word games. I'm tired of it.

2. Oh? Name some of those "all scholars".

Do your own research. Google New Testament scholars. It couldn't be simpler. You can find all the names your heart desires.

3. Except that your rant did not even come close to answering the question.

Perish means perish. All your nonsense won't change that.

4. So you don't agree with WG?

It's OK to disagree with WG. Did you think she is infallible?

[jlisenbe]

1. But complete copies is not what I said. I simply said they were written in the first century prior to A.D. 70.

2. I don't research your foolish remarks. I find that liberals love to make bold, brash statements UNTIL you ask for some specifics. Then they beat a hasty retreat as you are doing.

3. Thank you for the non-answer.

4. Fine with me. I don't agree with her either. Still, I'll state the question again for your benefit. "At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?" It renders the passage to basically say, "Everyone is going to die, but those who don't believe in Jesus are going to die." So that makes sense to you?

[jlisenbe]

The Greek word apolētai doesn't mean "to die". It has more of the sense of being destroyed.

ἀπόληται

[Athos]

1. But complete copies is not what I said. I simply said they were written in the first century prior to A.D. 70.

2. I don't research your foolish remarks. I find that liberals love to make bold, brash statements UNTIL you ask for some specifics. Then they beat a hasty retreat as you are doing.

3. Thank you for the non-answer.

4. Fine with me. I don't agree with her either. Still, I'll state the question again for your benefit. "At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?" It renders the passage to basically say, "Everyone is going to die, but those who don't believe in Jesus are going to die." So that makes sense to you?

Give it up, jl, you're starting to do the repeating thing again. No matter what answer you get, you will deny it if it doesn't agree with your biases. We've all been there, done that.

[jlisenbe]

Remember?

I'll state the question again for your benefit. "At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?" It renders the passage to basically say, "Everyone is going to die, but those who don't believe in Jesus are going to die." So that makes sense to you?

Answers just aren't your thing, are they?

[Athos]

Remember? Answers just aren't your thing, are they?

I get my answers from Jesus. I asked him about that quote and he said it was inserted later, and that he never said it. Satisfied?

[jlisenbe]

Yeah...except that no one ever claimed that Jesus said it. Oh well.

[Athos]

Yeah...except that no one ever claimed that Jesus said it. Oh well.

Jesus also said perish means perish.

[dwashbur]

you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.
What do you think he meant by that? Applesauce? Yeah, I'm sure that was it. I know you are fully committed to supporting your buddies at all costs, but that's really excessive.

You're correct, I did not mean "applesauce." The expression I learned was "baloney."

I think we all know what you were thinking. Tell me again who's being vulgar.

One more thing. I spent a little time this morning looking to see if I could find a major translation that used "unconditional" in conjunction with "love". There was not a single one. I then looked at some paraphrases. Nothing. Looked at both the Amplified and Expanded versions. Nothing. Even looked at the old J.B. Philips paraphrase. Still nothing. So it certainly seems fair to say that English translations do not render "agape" as "unconditional love".

That proves that they didn't translate it in a pleonastic fashion, it's understood from the context. You can't prove anything with translations.

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70.

I don't know what JL's source for this is, but those who want to read an interesting defense of it might check out John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. Those familiar with the name will know he was anything but a raving conservative, so I found his approach fascinating. You might as well.

[dwashbur]

1. That the Gospel accounts were written in the first century is disputed by virtually no one.

2. Oh? Name some of those "all scholars".

1. Pretty much all non-evangelical scholars put Matthew and some others after the close of the first century. They make fun of evangelicals for their lack of solid evidence for their side. I'm not saying I agree with them, but the statement that virtually nobody disputes what JL said is incorrect.

2. Bart Ehrman. NT Wright. Marcus Borg. James Dunn. John Dominic Crossan. To name just a few.

[jlisenbe]

You can't prove anything with translations.

If that's so, then why did you get so wrought up about the meaning of agape? For that matter, if that's true, then why do we have translations?

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70.


I don't know what JL's source for this is, but those who want to read an interesting defense of it might check out John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. Those familiar with the name will know he was anything but a raving conservative, so I found his approach fascinating. You might as well.

That's true. There are those who want to date some books past that point, but there are good reasons to believe otherwise. And the late dates cannot be applied without a major assumption that the Gospels were basically fraudulent accounts written by liars.

you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.
What do you think he meant by that? Applesauce? Yeah, I'm sure that was it. I know you are fully committed to supporting your buddies at all costs, but that's really excessive.


You're correct, I did not mean "applesauce." The expression I learned was "baloney."

I think we all know what you were thinking. Tell me again who's being vulgar.

It was an ugly, irreverent statement. Slice it any way you want, and that's still what you have. Besides, what makes you think I was not thinking of "baloney"? And wouldn't that make you vulgar?

You guys are sure experts at knowing what someone else is thinking. Interesting.

[dwashbur]

It was an ugly, irreverent statement. Slice it any way you want, and that's still what you have. Besides, what makes you think I was not thinking of "baloney"? And wouldn't that make you vulgar?

You guys are sure experts at knowing what someone else is thinking. Interesting.

Surely you jest. You consider "baloney" and "applesauce" vulgar? The fact that you considered the statement vulgar is solid evidence of what you were thinking. We didn't have to suss anything out, you told us in plain words.

As for translations, they're better than nothing. But you can't prove the meaning of a word or phrase in the original using translations. You have to know the language. Intimately.

Part of my life's work has been taking some of the incredibly lofty concepts found in the original languages and making them available in plain English (as opposed to Scholarese, a dialect that people only write for each other). Some of the most amazing things can be found in the scholarly literature, and most people don't have the vocabulary or background to follow it. That's where I come in.

[jlisenbe]

Referring to your comment, I said, "It was an ugly, irreverent statement. Slice it any way you want, and that's still what you have." It did, however, have the very distinct appearance of vulgarity. That should have been sufficient reason for you to have avoided it, especially considering your comment that, " "My instinctive response isn't appropriate for this forum..." So "baloney" isn't appropriate for this board? That's what we're to believe?

It was simply a hateful comment, and I would suggest you avoid using a reference to the Holy Spirit in such insults. Now you are trying to dig yourself out of it. Still, it it was many weeks ago, so I'd suggest you forget about it.

As for translations, they're better than nothing. But you can't prove the meaning of a word or phrase in the original using translations. You have to know the language. Intimately.

Is that how you decided "agape" meant "unconditional love", despite the fact that no translation or lexicon agrees with you?

As for translations, they're better than nothing. But you can't prove the meaning of a word or phrase in the original using translations. You have to know the language. Intimately.

Or you could go to works published by legitimate scholars and read what they have to say. That's the practice I employ.

[dwashbur]

Is that how you decided "agape" meant "unconditional love", despite the fact that no translation or lexicon agrees with you?

I didn't "decide" anything. Context did. Translations and lexicons are a starting point, not the end. And they're often wrong.

Or you could go to works published by legitimate scholars and read what they have to say. That's the practice I employ.

Who are they? What are their credentials? What criteria do you use to decide whether they're right or wrong?
This is a dodge, nothing more. But it's what you do. I'm done here.