[dwashbur]

So believe in Jesus or you'll burn forever in hell?

That's pretty much what Jesus said.

Whitefield was a slaveowner.

Irrelevant for the current discussion.

[jlisenbe]

Not unmistakable just because you say so. Here is the well-documented position of explaining Mt.25.

The relevant portion is “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, the righteous to eternal life”.

Rather conveniently left out this likewise "relevant" portion. "Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." And has been pointed out repeatedly, if aionios means something less than eternal for hell, then it must also mean that for heaven, a position so ridiculous that no one supports it.

As to the "which words, which Bible" argument, it is, for this purpose, irrelevant. There is no major translation that gives a different view of the Matt. 25 passage. The NT text is marvelously reliable as DW has pointed out here before.

Because Gary is a wonderful Bible teacher. Why on earth do you condemn him without knowing him?

Never heard of him, but fair enough.

This statement from GA is ridiculous. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that God uses hell, or the threat of hell, to correct his own. No one here has ever suggested such a thing.

“A loving Father knows how to bring correction to His children without consigning them to an endless torture chamber.

Note Luther's use of "plain reason". Can you honestly admit that factor into your understanding? Does belief in a talking snake contradict that factor?

I don't really care, as I have said several times, whether a person believes the serpent spoke or not, but it is certainly within the bounds of reason that the supernatural power of God, as well as the limited power of Satan, could easily explain such a thing. If you believe in the resurrection, then the other miraculous events of the Bible become child's play in comparison.

They are metaphors, figures of speech recalling Israel's history to his audience and emphasizing the point Jesus is making. That is obvious in a reasonably fair reading. They are certainly not referring to an eternal torture chamber. Gehenna referred to Israel's suffering under the Babylonians and Assyrians which his audience would have immediately recognized. Sin brought that judgment upon them.

I'm sorry, Jl, but a cursory reading of Israel's history would have helped you understand the reference. Both words were mistranslated by Jerome as "hell" which carried the connotation of everlasting punishment. Neither term had anything to do with everlasting punishment.

Many words do not make a good point. The Mt. 25 passage makes it clear that Jesus is not referring to something temporal. Rev. 25 makes it clear as do many other passages.

But even at that, you now seem to be acknowledging that there will be some type of punishment for those who have no Savior. If that is the case, what do you think it will be? Can you support your idea with any scripture at all?

[Wondergirl]

Why will there be punishment for those who have no Savior? Many are mentally or physically ill, the products of poor parenting, survivors of bullying, of beatings, of shaming. And too many have pushed back and hurt or killed family members and others.

[jlisenbe]

"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.

And again.

[Wondergirl]

And again.

This thread is not an altar call. It's a discussion thread.

[jlisenbe]

Not for you. For you it's an avoidance thread. I just don't like playing that game.

"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.

[dwashbur]

Why will there be punishment for those who have no Savior? Many are mentally or physically ill, the products of poor parenting, survivors of bullying, of beatings, of shaming. And too many have pushed back and hurt or killed family members and others.

Romans 1-3 answered this a long time ago. People are judged on the amount of light they have and what they do with it.

[Wondergirl]

Romans 1-3 answered this a long time ago. People are judged on the amount of light they have and what they do with it.

They didn't choose what "light" they have. If the "dark" overwhelms the "light", then what?

[dwashbur]

Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Romans 1-3 answered this a long time ago. People are judged on the amount of light they have and what they do with it.
They didn't choose what "light" they have. If the "dark" overwhelms the "light", then what?

I don't understand the question.

[Wondergirl]

I don't understand the question.

Can we judge people who are in the dark -- mentally ill, have been badly parented, have anger issues, are severely depressed, etc? How do they find the light? And how does God judge them?

[Athos]

Rather conveniently left out this likewise "relevant" portion. "Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels."

That added absolutely nothing to the meaning of what I quoted.

if aionios means something less than eternal for hell, then it must also mean that for heaven,

That is not true. If you weren't so averse to researching the internet, you would find the truth about the Greek words and how they are used.

a position so ridiculous that no one supports it.

Sorry, but the "ridiculous" is your statement. Bible scholars support the translation, hardly "no one".

As to the "which words, which Bible" argument, it is, for this purpose, irrelevant. There is no major translation that gives a different view of the Matt. 25 passage.

"Major" translations are almost always based on Jerome's mistranslation. There are many other translations which are more modern than being wholly based on the Vulgate.

This statement from GA is ridiculous.

Others find it beautiful and a perfect description of the nature of a loving God. I'm sorry you can't see it and call it ridiculous.

Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that God uses hell, or the threat of hell, to correct his own.

Yes, it does. In fact, it's right in the Matthew being discussed. Read my post again re the Greek word for "corrective".

No one here has ever suggested such a thing.

Since you are the only one here discussing this, we're not surprised.

I don't really care, as I have said several times, whether a person believes the serpent spoke or not, but it is certainly within the bounds of reason that the supernatural power of God, as well as the limited power of Satan, could easily explain such a thing. If you believe in the resurrection, then the other miraculous events of the Bible become child's play in comparison.

Your position that God could make a snake talk because God is God and he can do anything is the worst kind of argument. That is the ultimate fallback position when you can't give an answer in a Bible discussion.

Talking about ridiculous, I must say that is the most ridiculous thing you've yet to utter on these pages.

Many words do not make a good point.

Words are the ONLY way to make a point in a discussion - whether good or bad.

The Mt. 25 passage makes it clear that Jesus is not referring to something temporal. Rev. 25 makes it clear as do many other passages.

Are they words of Jesus? Or are they the words of an unknown author written centuries after the fact and paraphrasing what he thought Jesus meant? The earliest complete copy of Matthew is from a time when the emerging religion was beset by differences and which would later be called heresies and punished, in many cases, by death.

You need to understand the Bible from this modern point of view. You are not a first century pagan whose head is filled with miraculous teachers and religions when along comes the new Christianity (and the wonderful Jesus) competing with all of them.

You now seem to be acknowledging that there will be some type of punishment for those who have no Savior.

You are doing it again. Attributing to me what I never said. I NEVER said there was no punishment for sin. What I DID say, and continue to say, is that there is no eternal torture chamber called hell.

If that is the case, what do you think it will be?

If by my "case", you mean is there punishment for not believing in Jesus as Savior, then I can say without the slightest equivocation, OF COURSE NOT!!! My position is the same as the great majority of Christians. Only the white evangelicals who identify as fundamentalists take your position.

Can you support your idea with any scripture at all?

Why should I need to support what I believe with your Scripture? Although I can. See the answer Jesus gave when he was asked what is the greatest commandment. Then think about his answer. Do you see that answer sending people to hell for all eternity?

[jlisenbe]

JL said, "if aionios means something less than eternal for hell, then it must also mean that for heaven," Athos replied, "That is not true. If you weren't so averse to researching the internet, you would find the truth about the Greek words and how they are used."

It's just the usual, "I have no real answer, so I'll just point you to the internet." I've already shown you that no major translation and no Greek lexicon agrees with the view of Robert Young on the meaning of aionios. At least he was willing to honestly apply his meaning so that the end of John 3:16 reads, "that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during." He rendered Mt. 25:46 as, "And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during." He understood fully that if it means less than eternal for hell, then it must also mean less than eternal for heaven.

"Major" translations are almost always based on Jerome's mistranslation. There are many other translations which are more modern than being wholly based on the Vulgate.

Major translations are based upon Greek manuscripts. You couldn't be any more wrong about that. Not even the KJV was based upon the Vulgate. Can you name any of those "many other translations" that support your view?

Are they words of Jesus? Or are they the words of an unknown author written centuries after the fact and paraphrasing what he thought Jesus meant?

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that.

The statement from GA was ridiculous because it was completely unsupported by the text.

Why should I need to support what I believe with your Scripture? Although I can.

Sure you can...except you don't, and that speaks volumes.

My position is the same as the great majority of Christians.

1. You have no way of knowing that. 2. I will take the word of Jesus any day of the week over what any supposed majority of Christians believe. The fact that you don't also speaks volumes. 3. Catholic Bible (New Jerusalem Bible) rendering of Mt. 25:46. "And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life." So evidently the "great majority of Christians" you invented does not include the Catholics.

[Athos]

JL said, "if aionios means something less than eternal for hell, then it must also mean that for heaven," Athos replied, "That is not true. If you weren't so averse to researching the internet, you would find the truth about the Greek words and how they are used."

etc., etc., etc.

that you don't also speaks volumes. 3. Catholic Bible (New Jerusalem Bible) rendering of Mt. 25:46. "And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life." So evidently the "great majority of Christians" you invented does not include the Catholics.

All of the above has been answered, replied, denied, duplicated - in other words, done to death. I request that in the future you block or ignore me on this website. Further discussion seems useless. I should have known that. My bad.

You may have the last word. I've added a post you did not have a chance to reply to. Here's your chance to reply, but I'm sure you won't.

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You don't accept the Bible. I understand that.

You have no idea what I accept or don't accept. You make accusations to fit your bias. Nothing new there.

The Bible makes no reference to "talking snakes"

Duh. Ever heard of Genesis? It's the first book in the Bible.

Even at that, to suggest it does violates your principle that all text is subjective

Oh God, this again? YOU-DO-NOT-UNDERSTAND-THE-WORD-"SUBJECTIVE"-AS-USED. Keep knocking your head against the wall. Ok by me.

After all, "talking snakes" could be a reference to a puppet show, telephone wires, dancing earthworms, and so forth.

Come on, you know exactly what the reference is. You're on record as believing that God allowed the snake to talk. Stop playing the fool. If you have now changed your mind, just say so.

You claimed I am the only person who accepts Matthew as the author of the Gospel

I stand by that "claim". Hyperbole. Other fundies are included in that.

It is a completely stupid claim as I demonstrated in my answer.

You demonstrated nothing. Nada. Except your use of insulting language in this reply.

It contradicts the universal testimony of the early church.

We're not discussing the "universal testimony of the early church". We're discussing MODERN Bible scholars who are not pressured to toe the party line (some still are, but the best ones are not).

And still you have failed to mention a single legitimate reason why any thinking person would take your suggestion seriously.

Look again. I said they study the Bible in schools, and they study the languages involved, and they study the ancient cultures, and they study the ancient histories. What more could be said?

Again, it is sad that you get so angry and frustrated in your comments.

My model is Jesus in the Temple with the money-changers. You also peddle a false currency.

In my experience, it's what people do when they realize they have no answers

Not always. Sometimes they are mean and nasty like you. Sometimes, unlike you and like Jesus, they have answers and righteous anger.

which, perhaps, explains why you still refuse to address this. "Perhaps we could start here. Does the New Testament actually have any objective meaning? You contended a long time back that the Greek word translated as eternal (aionios) does not mean everlasting but rather something more limited, possibly "ages-long" or something to that effect.

I answered that extensively previously. I'm sure you can find it. If not, just google the terms for a scholarly answer which, of course, you won't do.

But if everything is subjective, then we can't really apply a set meaning to any particular word, nor can we draw any settled, established meaning from any sentence or paragraph. So how do you reconcile what seems to me to be a genuine conflict? Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning," or perhaps you worded it carelessly.

I worded it just fine. It was an opportunity for you to learn how a word can be nuanced (with a proper explanation if necessary). You couldn't understand, didn't understand, or refused to understand. Take your pick.

Speaking of answering, go back over my posts and see what points I made that you failed to reply to. That tells us something about you.

[jlisenbe]

Uhm...you are replying to a post from many days back on a different thread. You are, in fact, reposting a post made by you from a thread that the site admin closed. So it will be interesting to see if CB corrects you for that. I doubt he will, but he certainly should.

All of the above has been answered, replied, denied, duplicated - in other words, done to death. I request that in the future you block or ignore me on this website.

Actually, it has all been, "replied, denied, duplicated...done to death," but not answered and certainly not supported. In other words, to assert is not the same as to support.

Thankfully, you don't get to decide who I block. Responding to you is so easy that I look forward to doing it.

At any rate, you have made several statements which are completely unsupported and nonsensical. They include:

1. Matthew 25 was somehow tampered with "centuries" after it was written to include references to judgment. There is no reason at all to believe such a thing.
2. The greek word "ainiosis" should not be translated as "eternal". There is no support for that, either, other than for the one instance of Robert Young's views from more than 150 years ago. All major translations and every Greek lexicon I have looked at all support the translation of "eternal".
3. Major translations are "wholly based on the Vulgate." That is completely untrue.
4. Your continued insistence that the Bible speaks of "talking snakes". That is untrue.
5. You insisted that all text, including the Bible, is subjective in nature. That's an impossible situation.

You referred to Origen several days ago and spoke of how he did not believe in hell. Here are a few other beliefs of Origen, none of which can be supported by Scripture.

• Origen believed that man was divine.
• He believed in the pre-existence of souls
• He taught that everyone, including the Devil, would eventually be saved.
• He described the Trinity as a "hierarchy," not as an equality of Father, Son, and Spirit.
• He believed in baptismal regeneration.
• He believed in purgatory.
• He taught that the Holy Spirit was the first creature made by God.
• He believed Christ was created.
• He taught transmigration (this is the belief that at death the soul passes into another body).
• He denied a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation, taught that it was a "myth" and taught that there was no actual person named "Adam."
• He taught that Christ "became" God at His baptism.
• He taught, based on Matthew 19, that a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself.

I will assume that you have managed to restrain from castrating yourself, despite the fact that you seem to place great stock in the teachings of Origen.

[dwashbur]

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
I don't understand the question.
Can we judge people who are in the dark -- mentally ill, have been badly parented, have anger issues, are severely depressed, etc? How do they find the light? And how does God judge them?

"We" can't, obviously. I assume God knows what he's doing. If he explained it to us, our heads would explode. Finite minds can't comprehend infinite ideas. How does God judge them? I don't know, that's not my department.

[jlisenbe]

Matthew 11 sheds some light on this topic.

​20Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. ^e For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

[Wondergirl]

How does God judge them? I don't know, that's not my department.

Then why is JL judging them and sending them to hell?

[jlisenbe]

Not reading carefully these days, are you?

"We" can't, obviously. I assume God knows what he's doing.

Quote from DW. It was in response to your comment, "Can we judge people..."

[Wondergirl]

But you do judge.

[jlisenbe]

So do you. In fact you did so in making that comment. We all do. It’s a legit part of living.