[Athos]

Where does it say He WANTS that to happen? Or that "Matthew et al." wanted it to happen? Answer: It doesn't.

We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen. Why else would write those words? Not everything has to be written down in order to understand the implications - an idea that seems to have escaped you.

[jlisenbe]

We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen. Why else would write those words? Not everything has to be written down in order to understand the implications - an idea that seems to have escaped you.

What is it you were saying earlier about beliefs not equating to evidence? How much less an assumption based, it would seem, on personal preferences?

So my reply remains true. It does not say anyone "wanted" it to happen. In fact I would think that if Jesus really "wanted" people to go to hell, He would simply have not mentioned it. His warning pretty clearly indicates He is advising us to avoid it.

You still need a standard a person can use to distinguish genuine from non-genuine. If, that is, such distinctions should be made to begin with. I think you have an enormous problem in that there is not a manuscript of a NT Gospel which is absent of the statements you consider to be non-genuine. If they were added later, you would have early manuscripts not containing them.

[Athos]

What is it you were saying earlier about beliefs not equating to evidence? How much less an assumption based, it would seem, on personal preferences?

I never said Matthew's words were evidence. You are moving the goalposts. What I DID say was that the assumption (strong) was clearly implied. The assumption is not ("it would seem") based on "personal preferences". It is based on the several reasons I have already given on the topic.

So my reply remains true. It does not say anyone "wanted" it to happen.

You did not understand my point that not everything has to be written down to be true. That explains why you mistakenly believe that your reply "remains true". That's important for you to understand so you can avoid making the mistake ongoing.

You still need a standard a person can use to distinguish genuine from non-genuine.

The standard is employing a rational approach to a problem and applying it. That is a common standard.

If, that is, such distinctions should be made to begin with.

Of course they can.

I think you have an enormous problem in that there is not manuscript of a NT Gospel which is absent of the statements you consider to be non-genuine.

The problem is not as enormous as you think. There are a number of earlier writings that do not contain later passages. If you carefully examine the Gospels, you will find them. Start your research with Mark. I won't taint your search by leading you to a website. That's for you to discover on your own.

If you demand I provide a link, you will refuse to go to it. If I don't provide a link, you will demand I provide one. So it's best for you to do the research on your own. If you decide not to, that is your privilege.

If they were added later, you would have early manuscripts not containing them.

ALL of the early manuscripts omit passages that are found later in the Gospels. That's how it works. Not until centuries later do we possess complete manuscripts in what has become their final form. I trust that's not news to you.

[jlisenbe]

The standard is employing a rational approach to a problem and applying it. That is a common standard.

Except that your rational approach has already been shown to be not rational.

You said, "We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen." That is merely a belief of yours and a weak one at that since there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

ALL of the early manuscripts omit passages that are found later in the Gospels.

First of all, that is basically not true. Secondly, even if it was, the early omissions would have to be the statements you consider to be non-genuine. You have certainly not demonstrated that to be the case at all, nor will you be able to. If it was true, it would be one of the most well-known manuscript facts.

I have no intention of doing your research for you. But if what you are saying is true, then you will have no problem in documenting it. The passages of the NT that are in question are pretty well known. They include the latter part of Mark 16 and the story of the adulterous woman in John 8. They do not, however, include what you are alleging.

[Athos]

Except that your rational approach has already been shown to be not rational.

No one, especially you, has shown anything I wrote to be non-rational.

You said, "We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen." That is merely a belief of yours and a weak one at that since there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

That is what an assumption is - a belief. There is plenty to support the assumption - the passage has already been quoted. Why would the author of Matthew write it if he didn't believe it? You're not making any sense by defending a weak position..

First of all, that is basically not true.

It is decidedly true.

the early omissions would have to be the statements you consider to be non-genuine.

Not at all. The principle remains the same regardless of the statements employed to demonstrate it.

You have certainly not demonstrated that to be the case at all, nor will you be able to.

I HAVE demonstrated it to be true. It is a simple matter. Your refusal to see the obvious is your privilege.

If it was true, it would be one of the most well-known manuscript facts.

As a matter of definite fact, it IS one of the most well-known facts re the manuscripts. You are denying the obvious. You may have whatever belief you want, but you CANNOT have your own facts.

I have no intention of doing your research for you.

As I took pains to point out, the needed research is for YOU. And, as I also pointed out - whatever I say, you would say the opposite. That prediction has been right on target!

But if what you are saying is true, then you will have no problem in documenting it.

I don't have any problem documenting it. The point is for YOU to do your work and uncover it yourself. It's not very difficult, but does take some effort, which you are apparently not willing to do. Your response to research remains as it always has. "Tell me and I won't believe you". OR, "Don't tell me and I will demand you document it". You're very predictable.

The passages of the NT that are in question are pretty well known.

Not to you.

They include the latter part of Mark 16 and the story of the adulterous woman in John 8. They do not, however, include what you are alleging.

There is much, much more. Seek and you shall find.

[jlisenbe]

That is what an assumption is - a belief. There is plenty to support the assumption - the passage has already been quoted. Why would the author of Matthew write it if he didn't believe it? You're not making any sense by defending a weak position..

The question was not whether he believed it. The question was whether or not he wanted it to happen. Even you said that. Post 21. There is no evidence at all for that. And please stop copying my comments. Make up your own. The compliment of being imitated, however, is appreciated.

Not at all. The principle remains the same regardless of the statements employed to demonstrate it.

That's ridiculous. Unless you could demonstrate that your non-genuine statements were missing from the early manuscripts, you would have nothing.

I HAVE demonstrated it to be true. It is a simple matter. Your refusal to see the obvious is your privilege.

You have demonstrated nothing to be true.

As a matter of definite fact, it IS one of the most well-known facts re the manuscripts. You are denying the obvious. You may have whatever belief you want, but you CANNOT have your own facts.

Your difficulty is you cannot support that statement. It simply is not true that your so called non-genuine statements are missing from the early manuscripts. It's a preposterous idea.

I don't have any problem documenting it.

Except, of course, that you can't.

No one, especially you, has shown anything I wrote to be non-rational.

Of course I did. It was so conclusive you avoided replying to it. Post 4.

[Athos]

The question was not whether he believed it. The question was whether or not he wanted it to happen. Even you said that. Post 21. There is no evidence at all for that. And please stop copying my comments. Make up your own. The compliment of being imitated, however, is appreciated.

That's ridiculous. Unless you could demonstrate that your non-genuine statements were missing from the early manuscripts, you would have nothing.

You have demonstrated nothing to be true.

Your difficulty is you cannot support that statement. It simply is not true that your so called non-genuine statements are missing from the early manuscripts. It's a preposterous idea.

Except, of course, that you can't.

Of course I did. It was so conclusive you avoided replying to it. Post 4.

This entire post is so repetitive of what has already been said, it's tempting to just skip it.

One thing struck me – after I tried to teach you about proving a negative and that it can't be done, you yourself have used the same argument in another post and yet here again you revert and bring it up once more, again demanding I prove a negative. Apparently, whatever suits you at the moment is grist for your mill.

Two examples:

Unless you could demonstrate that your non-genuine statements were missing from the early manuscripts, you would have nothing.

And

It simply is not true that your so called non-genuine statements are missing from the early manuscripts. It's a preposterous idea.

Kind of blows your comment about imitation, doesn't it?

No idea what your last sentence refers to.


PS – You should never, never talk about evidence. It's another term you use only when it suits you. Talking snakes and comparing them to the resurrection belie your insistence on requiring evidence from others. Speaking about preposterous..... There, I imitated you again. Happy, now?

[jlisenbe]

The silliness above needs no reply other than to say this. People prove negatives all the time. Being asked to produce a manuscript with text missing would certainly demonstrate that the text was not in the original documents. It's done all the time, so I think you don't understand the concept. Besides, providing a manuscript with the statements missing would be positive evidence that the statements are missing. So if a man is accused of slander and the defense produces a video of the conversation in question which proves that the supposed statement did not happen, then they are providing evidence concerning a negative.

To sum up, the question concerned how to distinguish the supposedly genuine attitudes of Jesus from the non-genuine. Here are the arguments put forward in response.

1. It was suggested that in the parables of Christ as well as the sermon on the mount a person sees an overwhelming preponderance of teaching on, "compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness." That was shown clearly to not be true simply by quoting from several places in the Sermon on the Mount where judgment and hell are referred to as well as other topics not pertaining to love and compassion. The same is plainly true of the parables. So that argument fell by the wayside.,

2. Next is the argument, actually first mentioned by me, that if "non-genuine" statements of Christ were added in later centuries, then those statements would be missing from the early manuscripts. That is clearly not the case, so argument 2 bit the dust.

3. A third argument alleged that beliefs in hell and in having a love of your enemy cannot both be true. Now first of all that is nonsense, but even if it wasn't, how would a person know which belief was genuine? Couldn't it be just as possibly true that the teaching on hell was genuine and not the love of enemy?

4. A final argument, and by far the worst, was the suggestion that Jesus and the disciples wanted people to go to hell. Even if it was true, it would not solve the problem of figuring out how to distinguish the genuine from the non-genuine, but it is clearly not true. First of all there is no evidence at all to support that idea. Even worse, the fact that Jesus issued so many warnings plainly indicates He was not willing to stand by and watch that happen without giving warning. In similar fashion, if my wife and I are driving along and see a sign which reads, "Speed Zone Ahead", and I say to her, "Wow! Those state highway people WANT me to get a speeding ticket," she is going to reply, "Don't be stupid. They are WARNING you to slow down so you will NOT get a ticket! If they wanted you to get a ticket, they would not put up the sign." So argument 4, which wasn't pertinent to begin with, also crashes and burns.

[Wondergirl]

Why are hell and eternal damnation often mentioned (by early manuscript scribes?) as the punishment if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?

[jlisenbe]

Why are hell and eternal damnation often mentioned (by early manuscript scribes?) as the punishment if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?

Are you suggesting they are not the words of Jesus but rather of the early scribes? If that's the case, then you need to provide some serious justification for saying that. That's what this thread is about to begin with.

[Wondergirl]

Why are hell and eternal damnation often mentioned by Jesus as the punishment if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?

[jlisenbe]

if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?

It is not for not showing love. It is judgment for sin.

I'm glad you do acknowledge it is "often mentioned" by Jesus.

[Wondergirl]

Not showing love is sin. Every sin we commit is because we aren't showing love somehow.

[jlisenbe]

Every sin we commit is because we aren't showing love somehow.

That's not a bad point, but where does pride fit into your principle? Or how about these, and especially the last one? "lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people."

[Wondergirl]

1. lovers of self - lack of love for others
2. lovers of money - greed, lack of love for others
3. proud - preoccupation with oneself, lack of love for others
4. arrogant - having an exaggerated sense of one's importance, lack of love for others
5. abusive - physically and/or emotionally hurting others, lack of love for others
6. disobedient to their parents - lack of love for one's parents
7. ungrateful - inability to appreciate what others do for you, lack of love for others
8. unholy - sinful in itself, lack of love for others
9. heartless - having no sympathy and/or empathy, lack of love for others
10. unappeasable - inflexible, lack of love for others and their pov
11. slanderous - saying derogatory things about others, lack of love for others
12. without self-control - overindulgent for oneself, lack of love for others
13. brutal - merciless, lack of love for others
14. not loving good - sees only the evil, lack of love for others
15. treacherous - disloyal to and turns against others, lack of love for others
16. reckless - no concern for others' safety and irresponsible, lack of love for others
17. swollen with conceit - in love with oneself, lack of love for others
18. lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - lack of love for others AND God
19. having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power - acting religious and putting on a facade, lacking in love for others

[jlisenbe]

Kind of interesting how you managed to make EVERYTHING end with "lack of love". Still, your point is well taken. Lack of love for others and lack of love for God is the basis of our sin.

[Wondergirl]

John 13:
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Matthew 22:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

[jlisenbe]

Romans 2

But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

BTW that was not aimed at you individually.

[Wondergirl]

And what was Paul's (or Barnabas') REAL intent?

[jlisenbe]

John 14:15“If you love me, keep my commands."

And what was Paul's REAL intent?

And what was the real intent of Jesus?

We can play this silly game a long time. Or I should say "You" can play this game a long time. I have no intention of doing so. It's another of your strategies. Don't like the plain and clear meaning of a text? Just ask what the REAL intent is.

I'm sure you mean no harm. I just don't like games, so I'd rather you talk with others. I find it too frustrating.