"Jesus
spoke endlessly of the realm of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. These
ARE passages of heaven, I'd say and that would equal way more than the
five Hells that Jesus mentions. There are 31 distinct mentions of the
Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew alone (and again, some of those are repeats
of the word within one passage/teaching, but still)."
"Kingdom of God, on the other hand, shows up 54 times in the four gospels."
If it's possible to precisely quantify the number of times Jesus spoke of the Kingdon of God, then He clearly did not do so "endlessly".
One could certainly, reasonably assume that this "Kingdom of Heaven/God" would be a place free from all of the results of the fall. A place where YHWH redeems His Creation and His people so that they are fit to be the Bride of Christ. It seems strange that a perfect God would force those who spent their entire earthly lives avoiding Him, to spend eternity with Him. It seems strange that (for those who lean Arminian or non reformed) that YHWH would force that who used their "free will" to CHOOSE not to follow YHWH to spend eternity with Him. It also seems strange that Jesus was clear that this "Kingdom of God" could only be accesses through a "narrow gate" that "few" will enter, and that He alone was
The Way, The Truth, and The Life", yet that He somehow meant that none of those things was actually True.
"Jesus certainly did not talk more about hell than heaven and he barely spoke of hell."
This notion that the number of times Jesus mentioned something somehow determines anything about the topic is bizarre. If Jesus only mentioned "Hell" (specifically) once does that mean that hell does not exist? This is especially strange given the number of topics Jesus was completely silent on, yet many folx insist are His clear teachings.
60 comments:
I think it's quite clearly a ploy to suggest that the number of mentions has any bearing on judging the importance of one thing over another where Scripture is concerned. Jesus doesn't a lot of time speaking against murder, but I doubt one could reasonably say that "not murdering" is less important than not helping the needy. It's been said that Jesus focus was on that which was common in the many teachings of his ministry, but also that there was much Jesus says which is not recorded. And while Jesus might preach on an issue where money or wealth is mentioned, to insist His greatest concern was wealth or poverty is injecting meaning, especially given many of those sermons weren't about wealth or poverty in any case, regardless of wealth or poverty being used to convey the teaching.
There are enough mentions of heaven and hell to understand those places exist. There are enough teachings of Jesus to understand we're best served seeking to aspire to one and fear the other. That's enough for most true Christians.
It's a fine line because repetition in Hebrew does communicate importance "Holy, Holy, Holy", but mentions does not have the same codified meaning. There are all sorts of things Jesus doesn't mention in the Gospels (partly because He mentioned them in the OT) that progressive christians will insist are vital components to the gospel. For example Jesus never mentions anything about anything gay, yet some insist that He blesses "gay marriage".
Noting that Jesus left much unrecorded is also a good point.
I agree that to use this arbitrary metric to dismiss what Jesus DOES say, is much like the "the existence of figurative language in scripture automatically means that this specific passage is figurative." argument.
What Paul would have called "Scubala".
Craig:
This notion that the number of times Jesus mentioned something somehow determines anything about the topic is bizarre.
People talk about what is important to them. When a teaching on a topic is found over and over and over again in a teacher's canon, we can assume it was important to them, can we not?
If Jesus only mentioned "Hell" (specifically) once does that mean that hell does not exist?
1. I have not said that something only being mentioned once or a few times means that the topic doesn't exist as an area of interest or concern, but it also doesn't mean it IS an area of concern.
2. I'm stating that people talk about (especially in their recorded speeches/sermons, etc) things that matter to them. In MLK's writings, we see a continued emphasis upon human rights and rights and equality for black people (in the midst of a culture that literally denied rights to, and oppressed, black people) because that was a central thrust of his concern.
What's hard to understand about that? Do you think that when someone DOES talk about poverty and wealth or the realm of God as their primary two messages, that this is irrelevant?
3. I mentioned the number of times in response to Stan (and many others') emphasis or suggestion that "Jesus talks more about hell than anyone else in the Bible..." That is, the CONSERVATIVE religionists were the ones citing a number of times about a topic being informative and I was responding to them.
Are you aware that conservatives have long cited that "Jesus speaks more about hell than anyone else in the Bible?" or that "Jesus speaks more about hell than heaven..."?
https://www.crossway.org/articles/jesus-said-more-about-hell-than-anyone-in-the-bible/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-uncomfortable-subject-jesus-addressed-more-than-anyone-else/
https://billygraham.org/answers/did-jesus-ever-say-anything-about-hell-i-dont-believe-in-hell-myself
https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/ask-ligonier/why-did-jesus-speak-more-about-hell-than-heaven
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-talk-more-hell-than-heaven.html
If you have a problem with people talking about the number of times Jesus spoke about hell, take it up with the conservative religionists. I'm just responding to THEIR claims.
Craig:
One could certainly, reasonably assume that this "Kingdom of Heaven/God" would be a place free from all of the results of the fall.
One could certainly guess that, but it wouldn't be objective proof.
Right? It's an unproven theory, naught else.
Likewise...
It also seems strange that Jesus was clear that this "Kingdom of God" could only be accesses through a "narrow gate" that "few" will enter, and that He alone was The Way, The Truth, and The Life", yet that He somehow meant that none of those things was actually True.
...those ALSO are human theories and guesses, unproven and not objective fact.
It could be that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, figuratively or otherwise.
What IS objectively observable is that Jesus spoke of the realm of God and the poor and rich more than any other topics found in the recorded gospels.
Right?
Agreed?
Craig:
I agree that to use this arbitrary metric to dismiss what Jesus DOES say, is much like the "the existence of figurative language in scripture automatically means that this specific passage is figurative." argument.
To be clear, this is NOT anything that I have said. Ever. In the history of all things ever. Because, of course, not. But then, I'm not one who adheres to a magic rulings book view of the Bible.
"People talk about what is important to them. When a teaching on a topic is found over and over and over again in a teacher's canon, we can assume it was important to them, can we not?"
Personally, I'd say that judging Jesus by the standard you'd judge others is a mistake. Jesus was on earth to accomplish His Father's will and focused on that.
Conversely, if one applied this standard equally, then we could conclude that things that Jesus did not mention were things He did not care enough to comment on, an neither should we.
1. Well done, excellent goal post move.
2. Excellent job, repeating yourself and pretending that the repeated comment is really an entirely new comment. MLK wasn't Jesus and vice versa.
3. I'm not Stan, I don't care. Congratulations that you could cherry pick some links to argue against your straw man.
Are you so stupid as to think that you bitching about "conservative religionists" and arguing against your version of what other people allegedly say has any bearing on this post and what I said? I guess it's always easier for you to argue against straw men, and to congratulate yourself for doing so. I'll simply note that, once again, you haven't proven your claim.
I'm not sure what your point is. I specifically made the point that "one could assume", yet you pretend as if I'd said that I had "objective proof". Are you really too stupid to understand the difference? Given that you seem unfamiliar with "objective proof" and how rarely you even attempt to provide "objective proof", I have to wonder if you even know what it is.
"It could be that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, figuratively or otherwise."
1. IF Jesus was speaking of this "narrow gate" which "few" enter "metaphorically", then what was the point of the metaphor? Did He really mean that the "few" who entered were really everyone? Di He really mean that the "narrow gate" was really wide and easy? C'mon, stop hiding behind this "It could be..." bullshit. You clearly do not believe that Jesus was accurately describing the difficulty of accessing Heaven, so tell me specifically what He meant.
2. Are you arguing that it is appropriate for Jesus to convey false information to His followers, as long as He uses "metaphorical language"?
3. The question is not whether or not He "could be", the question is whether or not those specific teachings were "metaphorical" or not. This bullshit where you try to pretend that "could be" really means "is" without proof is getting tired.
"What IS objectively observable is that Jesus spoke of the realm of God and the poor and rich more than any other topics found in the recorded gospels."
Again with the goal post move. Of course if you add multiple topics together, and include anything with the tiniest, most obscure connection to those topics you can twist things however you want.
So and no.
You're right, like so many standards you apply to yourself, you don't articulate them (because you're too cowardly) yet you apply them and it's obvious.
Your argument that Jesus specific sayings/teachings about heaven/hell are "figurative" simply because He used "figurative" language elsewhere. Or it would be if you had the courage to be clear about your positions instead of hiding behind weasel words, "could be...", and "I said...".
It's simple, and I think I've said it many times before: What's "figurative" is that which Dan finds uncomfortable or personally inconvenient or in some way in conflict with his kumbaya perversion of Scripture and its teachings.
There does seem to be a high degree of overlap between what Dan believes is "figurative" and what doesn't agree with Dan's hunches about the gospel.
To answer these questions, again.
1. IF Jesus was speaking of this "narrow gate" which "few" enter "metaphorically", then what was the point of the metaphor? Did He really mean that the "few" who entered were really everyone? Di He really mean that the "narrow gate" was really wide and easy?
As I've oft noted, one has to begin to try to understand Jesus by understanding his consistent words and the context in which he lived. In Jesus' context, there were religious zealots - Pharisees and others - who thought they were the final deciders of what God thinks AND these zealots used their fake authority to bluff and bully people into compliance with what THEY said God wanted. As Jesus noted, they piled rules up on the backs of people burdening the down. Theirs was a rule-based religiosity that lacked in grace and resulted in oppression.
AND they were also certain that THEY were the ones who God was welcoming.
Jesus spoke and taught, beginning to end, against that sort of religious authoritarianism and legalism. TO THESE PHARISEES, Jesus was issuing the reminder that many of them would be coming to God assured of their way in and to THEM God would say, "Who are you? I never knew you..." The "narrow" way passages and the "fires of hell" passages were to THEM, in an effort to try to humble their authoritarian and proud hearts.
That is a much more reasonable and biblically consistent and Jesus-consistent understanding of these passages. Because without that understanding, then you are faced with the problem of trying to redefine love and justice and that's something y'all never even try to address... you just assume that it means something entirely contrary to what those ideas mean.
C'mon, stop hiding behind this "It could be..." bullshit. You clearly do not believe that Jesus was accurately describing the difficulty of accessing Heaven, so tell me specifically what He meant.
Did so. Again.
2. Are you arguing that it is appropriate for Jesus to convey false information to His followers, as long as He uses "metaphorical language"?
Teachers have long used metaphorical language. When one does that, it is NOT conveying false information. It's speaking metaphorically, hyperbolically and otherwise using exaggerated or image-rich language to make a point.
To the Pharisees, who were SURE they were on the side of God and God was on their side and that THEY were the spokespeople FOR God, they might need something jolting like "Depart from me, for I never knew you!" and/or "what you failed to do for the least of these, you failed to do for me, depart to the pits of hell!" to shake them and wake them up.
Now, you may not LIKE these explanations, but I don't like the way you blaspheme God by redefining justice and love to mean something contrary to justice and love. My understanding has the advantage of being extremely biblical and not doing grave damage to basic concepts like Love and Justice.
3. The question is not whether or not He "could be", the question is whether or not those specific teachings were "metaphorical" or not. This bullshit where you try to pretend that "could be" really means "is" without proof is getting tired.
Yes, when you continually hide behind, "Justice and love don't mean what we think they mean" and do so without proof, that is blasphemous BS and it gets tired.
Your argument that Jesus specific sayings/teachings about heaven/hell are "figurative" simply because He used "figurative" language elsewhere.
Do you truly not understand?
I am NOT saying these lines are figurative because Jesus uses figurative language elsewhere.
I'm saying that,
in the context of the whole Bible,
in the context of Jesus' specific teachings,
in the context of the times and culture in which Jesus taught and
in the context of just plain moral reasoning...
to try to insist there exists a god who created the majority of humanity and HATED them and created them to send to hell to punish them for an eternity for the typical misdeeds of humanity and you theorize this "god," because you want to take these passages fairly literally (without dealing with the biblical, moral, justice and rational problems of a literal interpretation)... that approach, that set of human theories and human traditions ARE deeply problematic from a biblical, moral, justice and rational point of view.
They are blasphemous to God on the face of it and I don't accept your authority to speak with any confidence on this topic in the name of God.
These are LITERALLY your human traditions and opinions. Right?
And that you can't easily answer that with a "YES, they ARE my personal human opinions and the opinions of others in my human traditions..." that should be a red flag for you, just like Jesus' strong metaphorical language should have shocked and raised red flags for the Pharisees and oppressors to whom he consistently gave his warnings.
Also Craig...
3. The question is not whether or not He "could be", the question is whether or not those specific teachings were "metaphorical" or not.
YES. That IS the question. And yet you relentlessly begin with the assumption that Jesus was speaking literally and anyone who says otherwise is saying that Jesus is lying.
But that's begging the question. It's getting ahead of yourself. You've done nothing to prove that Jesus is speaking literally or in a non-figurative manner. I don't believe you've even acknowledged that, of course, it is a legitimate question to ask. You just want to (on behalf of Jesus, it appears) take offense at the very suggestion that some people may take some passages of Jesus as more metaphorical.
Logical fallacy 101.
Maybe the notion of an explanation that is rooted in the plain meaning of the text, not one that ignores it, and rooted in your subjective hunches about what Jesus "really" meant and that is consistent with the rest of Jesus' teaching/scripture would serve you better.
The problem is that when you assert that "Jesus taught abut religious...", it ignores the fact that that's not the only thing He taught, if He taught it at all. He did teach about a "religious authority" that was infinitely more strict than the Pharisees, as well as to affirm the value of The Law handed down in the OT. He came to "fulfill" the law, not to abolish it.
The problem is, again, that you are arguing from the general/hypothetical to the specific. Your argument is that because Jesus sometimes used "figurative language" that these specific instances must be figurative, which you haven't proven to be True. Further, the notion that figurative language cannot be used to convey falsehood is absurd. In this case you seem to be arguing that since your unproven hunch is that the SOTM was exclusively a screed against the Pharisees, that me must accept the unproven hunch that those excluded from the "narrow gate" were only the Pharisees. To much unproven hunches, built on unproven assumptions to take you seriously.
The assumption that this text only, or primarily, applies to the Pharisees is not supported by the text nor by any scholar/expert I've ever heard of. The fact that you cite yourself, seems to demonstrate that.
When you hide behind lying about me, and what I've said, doesn't that mean that you've already lost the argument?
No, I do understand. You are using a vague/general premise (Jesus used figurative language.) to "prove" that certain specific things Jesus said can only be assumed to be "figurative language". Your support for this bizarre thesis is that it "seems so to" you.
Got it. You don't have an argument grounded in scripture, scholarship, or anything but your own hunches yet expect your hunches to be assumed to be correct as a foundation for your eisegesis. from Genesis to Revelation scripture paints a consistent picture of a Holy, Holy, Holy God working to reconcile sinful humanity back to Himself, while maintaining His holiness as well as His justice.
Yet you expect me to blindly accept your authority to speak in this topic in the name of God. The problem is that once again, you've chosen to lie about/misrepresent what I've said and argue against that straw man.
That you insist that "Jesus strong metaphorical language" must absolutely (in the complete absence of proof) be accepted as "figurative" (again with no proof), and that the only acceptable interpretation is the one based on your hunches, while lying about me would be hilarious if it wasn't so delusional.
Yes it is. And it "IS the question" that you haven't answered definitively with objective proof.
Yes, I do begin with the assumption that the plain meaning of the text is the most logical place to start, as do most humans. How stupid is it to assume that the place to start with any communication is with the assumption that what is being said is somehow not what is meant.
No, I'm asking why would Jesus choose to use "figurative language" that means the complete opposite of the plain meaning of the text. It's clear that you don't understand this distinction, nor could you explain it if you did. I'm saying that if Jesus said "X", buy really meant "Blue" that the plain meaning of His words convey false information. Apparently so well hidden that we had to wait for some random blogger in Kentucky to figure it all out in 2025.
Since I'm not making claims about this, I'm asking questions, and since you've not proven that Jesus is speaking in a "figurative manner" in these specific instances maybe the thing to do is for you (the one making the claims) to prove your claims to be objectively True based on something besides yourself and some imagined consensus.
Then we can go from there.
Again, when you have to resort to lying to cover up your inability to prove your claims, more straw men aren't going to help.
Two thoughts.
1. This post is about Dan's fallacious hunch that if the number of mentions by Jesus somehow indicates that those things with fewer mentions are somehow less True.
2. The double standard between what Dan demands and what Dan provides is impressive.
3. Based on Dan's logic if one of his friends came up to him and said "I am going to repeatedly punch you in the face.", Dan would be fully justified in concluding that his friend really meant (using "figurative language") "I'm going to sodomize you multiple times.".
This notion that the default position of humanity isn't to start by assuming that the plain meaning of what is being said is the first and most likely explanation of their meaning, is absurd.
Again, looking at Luke 12 and 13 and Jesus' teaching of the narrow door...
Chapter 12, for additional context:
when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy..."
[Noting the plot in Jesus' narrative, that is a story of two Ways - grace, love, forgiveness and justice on the one side, gracelessness, legalism and oppression on the other. This IS the plot of the gospels, or at least a major thrust of the plot. ~DT]
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
[Here, we find Jesus reminding the poor and marginalized and regular folk followers that were around him, NOT to fear the Pharisees and their graceless, legalistic ways - again, making clear who the antagonists in the story are and what ideals Jesus is speaking against.
This is followed by the story of the rich fool, who built more and more for his own personal wealth, rather than investing in the Beloved Community, the poor and marginalized. ~DT]
Luke 13:
Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem.
Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
[WHO taught that only a few people would be saved? The Pharisees, they were the ones we see keeping people OUT, rather than welcoming people IN. Especially the poor and marginalized who were flocking to Jesus. ~DT]
Jesus said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.
[No suggestion that this passage is speaking of either Heaven or Hell, fyi. And "many" does not demand "most." And again, as we keep seeing in the Gospel stories, these harsh messages are almost always at least indirectly speaking to the Pharisees and graceless oppressors. ~DT]
Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
“Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
“But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.
[Clearly an echo of the Sheep and Goats story, where the "evildoers" were the ones who did not welcome in the poor and marginalized, which again, is a clear reference to the more Pharisaical types. Also reminiscent of the Lazarus and Rich Man story. ~DT]
" People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”
[Again, a clear reference to Jesus' on-going message of welcome and support for the poor and marginalized found throughout Jesus' teachings, and in the prophets before Jesus. ~DT]
Also, looking again at this passage:
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
The "literal meaning" of the first paragraph is FEAR THE ONE WHO MIGHT KILL YOU IN HELL (whatever Jesus may have meant by that.)
But this is why context is important. In the VERY NEXT LINE, Jesus reassures the listeners, "DON'T BE AFRAID." God loves you and values you, you are NOT forgotten by God. You are watched over and welcomed by God. For God sent Jesus to bring Good News to the poor and marginalized.
Context, context, context. Read the Gospels like a mystery or adventure story, not a rulings book. Seriously, try that.
Clearly in context, this story is speaking of the warnings for the Pharisees and oppressors and contrasting that with the welcome of the poor and marginalized, those who embrace God's grace, rather than oppression and legalism.
Excellent job of more self serving, off topic eisegesis. Bonus points for ignoring the foundational issues with your hunch about Matt 25. Those issues are that the sheep were already sheep, the goats were already goats, and each group behaved according to their nature. Further, there is no way to conclude that the goats became sheep or the sheep became goats.
So, in your pet parable we see Jesus excluding the goats from salvation, condemning them to something extremely unpleasant, and offering no hope of expiating their guilt. Yet, you'll somehow argue that the first part of the parable must be interpreted to mean that the good works of the sheep are what made them sheep and got them "saved", and that the lack of good works (actually it doesn't even say that the goats didn't do good works) is what got the goats banished to an unpleasant end. While simultaneously arguing that "outer darkness/weeping/gnashing of teeth" somehow doesn't paint a picture of some sort of extended, unpleasant, punishment. You'll make this argument, again, without even realizing how incoherent it is.
Actually, the "east, west, north, south" language doesn't demand any conclusions be drawn about the material status of those at the feast. It doesn't demand that we assume that everyone from those directions will be invited, nor does it demand that we assume a majority of those people. What actually does make sense, considering the first century Jewish audience was that He was preparing them for a gospel that would include gentiles (I'm not suggesting that is the only possible explanation, just a likely one).
Craig:
1. This post is about Dan's fallacious hunch that if the number of mentions by Jesus somehow indicates that those things with fewer mentions are somehow less True.
Of course, that is not my hunch. You can tell by the way I've never advocated or said that. Those things with fewer (or no) mentions MAY be "less true" or not true at all. But fewer mentions does not insist upon less validity.
There are no mentions of being opposed to all slavery, after all, but clearly, I believe we should be opposed to all slavery.
But then, I don't treat the Bible as a rulings book. Perhaps that's where you are getting off.
Craig:
Excellent job of more self serving, off topic eisegesis.
ALSO Craig:
Bonus points for ignoring the foundational issues with your hunch about Matt 25. Those issues are that the sheep were already sheep, the goats were already goats, and each group behaved according to their nature.
Bonus points for almost certainly not getting that you're doing precisely what you accuse me of.
Hint: The sheep weren't actually sheep, nor the goats, goats. It was a metaphor, speaking of humans and what they do and don't do.
It could be, but that's literally not what He said.
"But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."
1. He's literally specifically stating that "hell" exists and that it's unpleasant.
2. I suspect that "fear" in this case is intended in the same way that "fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom" uses "fear".
3. Unless there's another option, there is only one who has the authority to throw people into "hell".
This is one of those areas where the imposition of English structure and chapter/verse/paragraph breaks that may not exist in the original might be the problem. That you're choosing to use that ambiguity, especially around Jesus use of the words translated as "fear" to connect two things that may not be directly connected because connecting them helps your eisegesis isn't impressive or convincing. Beyond that, there's nothing that demands that we conclude that the second part nullifies the first.
What is clear to you, is not clear to others. Fortunately, no one relies on what is clear to you.
You've literally said it multiple times. If you now agree that few mentions does not demand less validity, why do you constantly point out how few times things are mentioned as a measure of their importance?
"Jesus spoke endlessly of the realm of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. These ARE passages of heaven, I'd say and that would equal way more than the five Hells that Jesus mentions. There are 31 distinct mentions of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew alone (and again, some of those are repeats of the word within one passage/teaching, but still).
Kingdom of God, on the other hand, shows up 54 times in the four gospels.
Jesus certainly did not talk more about hell than heaven and he barely spoke of hell. Just fyi."
Is literally the conclusion of your post. If not to minimize the importance, Truth, reality of "hell", why make it such a major point of your post.
I know it's hard for you to comprehend, but what you "believe" carries no weight nor has any authority with anyone.
The you regularly insist that YHWH "blesses" things which are absent from scripture or similar arguments from silence, doesn't really help you.
You haven't trotted out the old "rulings book" straw man in quite a while, I guess recycling is important. Unfortunately, you don't place the same premium on honesty.
Thanks Captain Obvious. I had no Idea that the sheep represented believers and the goats represented non believers. You brought up and misused the parable, i merely stated with the context.
It's funny as hell to watch how desperate you get when you have nothing of substance.
Instead of dealing with the problems in you woodenly literal, simplistic reading of the parable, you play semantic games and throw shit at the wall.
Actually, Craig, both groups were believers. The "goats" testified and affirmed their belief in God.
The difference, in the literal story, is what they did and didn't do... in whether or not they were literal allies with the poor and marginalized, as evidenced by their actions.
Dan
Interesting, so the only difference between the two groups (one went to "heaven" the other to "hell"/punishment/unpleasantness) is their works. That doesn't sound like grace at all.
When we look at the previously mentioned passage where Jesus tells those who've done good works "in His name", "Get away from me, I never knew you", logic would indicate that you have a Jesus who punishes Christians who don't do the right things on the one hand, and who rejects Christians who do good works "in His name". Not particularly the welcoming Jesus you eisegete elsewhere.
That you are all in with Christians being sent to a place filled with "darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth" because they didn't do enough good works , didn't do the right good works, or were simply mistaken, seems at odds with your previous pronouncements.
But let's ignore the fact that their place in the Kingdom was prepared for them "from the foundation of the world", the sheep were chosen and had reservations from the before the beginning of time. Let's just ignore anything that doesn't fit Dan's eisegetical narrative, it'll be easier.
Craig:
so the only difference between the two groups (one went to "heaven" the other to "hell"/punishment/unpleasantness) is their works. That doesn't sound like grace at all.
Understand: Your summary above is not what I believe. It's just what the text literally says. Now, if you want to call Jesus a liar, that's on you.
You see, the difference (once again) between me and thee is that I am not a bible-as-rulings book. I think that approach misses the point exactly and this case would be a good example.
Over all, what I think makes sense (and what I think the lesson from the various biblical authors and specifically, Jesus,) is that we live lives of love, grace, forgiveness and justice. THAT is the Way to salvation. By God's grace.
I don't think that God's "grace" is a financial buy-out whereby "sins" are forgiven only by a "blood payment."
I don't think that God's "justice" is insufferably cruel and unjust.
Rather, I believe in Grace. Period.
And I understand now, I think, that you find the notion of saying "salvation by grace alone" is somehow vague and unclear, but I think it is abundantly clear, whatever your traditions and opinions may tell you.
Craig:
That you are all in with Christians being sent to a place filled with "darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth" because they didn't do enough good works , didn't do the right good works, or were simply mistaken, seems at odds with your previous pronouncements.
Well, because that is NOT my position. Remember, I'm not a biblical "literalist" or a bible-as-rulings-book believer, as is your apparent tradition and personal belief system.
As to you finding it hard to personally believe that Jesus might use metaphor, hyperbole and otherwise figurative language, some information on ancient rabbinic teaching styles and practices:
https://trystanowainhughes.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/jesus-and-hyperbole/
https://outorah.org/p/23258/
Understand that what you believe carries precisely zero weight beyond your small, closed mind. For you to continually act as if your beliefs matter in the least reinforces your arrogance.
The problem with your "salvation by grace alone" mantra is that it contrasts with your obsession with works, measuring the severity of sins, and multiple other positions you've taken.
I don't care about your position, it carries no weight. That you've gotten to the point that your posting random links to random blogs about "hyperbole" and such instead of providing specific proof about the specific texts is just more reason to dismiss your nonsense.
Yes, Jesus used hyperbole. I appreciate the fact that you're desperate enough to lie about my position again. The question is whether or not a specific passage was objectively hyperbole, and (if so) what was the point he was making. The fact that you're more of a selective litereralist probably escapes you, but your wooden literal interpretation of part of Matt 25 contradicts your claim.
Another of your comments might not have survived my laptop locking up and rebooting, my bad.
Given the fact that your big source was unaware the the Eye of the Needle was an actual place in Jerusalem which was a tiny, narrow passageway, and his generally vague generalities help me understand why you found his work so compelling.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Mat/Mat_025.cfm
"your big source was unaware the the Eye of the Needle was an actual place..."
You're not up on your latest Bible geography, friend.
https://classictheology.org/2021/10/12/through-the-eye-of-an-actual-needle-the-fake-gate-theory/
You might reasonably posit, "Some have theorized that the 'eye of the needle" is a reference to an actual gate thusly named in Jerusalem..." But "actual place?" Unproven.
Fair enough. I worded that poorly.
That doesn't really help you much with your vague hyperbole claims, but sure.
"to try to insist there exists a god who created the majority of humanity and HATED them and created them to send to hell to punish them for an eternity for the typical misdeeds of humanity and you theorize this "god," because you want to take these passages fairly literally (without dealing with the biblical, moral, justice and rational problems of a literal interpretation)... that approach, that set of human theories and human traditions ARE deeply problematic from a biblical, moral, justice and rational point of view."
First, are you really suggesting that conservatives who understand that not some will suffer eternal punishment were created so God would have someone to hate? That He created them in order to hate them? That's interesting, but seems impossible for you to prove. That's not what I think. I doubt Craig, Stan, Bubba, Neil, Glenn or anyone else does, either.
No. I think God created everyone with to love them all. But in granting free will to choose Him or reject Him, there cannot help be those who reject Him and live in conflict with His Will. And having granted that free will, and seeing how it led to those rejecting Him, how can His perfect justice be made manifest if He doesn't exact punishment? How is allowing the wicked to go unpunished a sign of love for those who devote themselves to serving God? While Scripture includes several verses in which it is stated that God hates certain people, to suggest He created them in order to have someone to hate is absurd. Your understanding of logic and what is problematic fails miserably when confronting this dilemma.
And about methaphor and figurative language, the "narrow gate" is a metaphor for salvation or the "path" (also a metaphor) to God. But the lesson by which metaphor and figurative language is used is literally true. Not all will enter. That is, not all will be allowed to enter and many....more than not...will be turned away. Justice is not served by dismissing just consequences for rejecting God. Love is not shown by allowing the few to have carried their crosses, to have died unto themselves when they could have been living a life in service to themselves instead. "Nope! You didn't have to live a life of self-sacrificial service to others in a manner emulating My Son's time on earth. You could have been a greedy, lazy slob! I'm letting EVERYONE in!" Yeah...that makes perfect sense.
Art,
Dan (the self proclaimed expert in what conservative positions are) seems compelled to misrepresent or phrase the positions he doesn't like in the most negative possible way. Where you and I might refer to (for example Universalism) simply as Universalism, the Dan equivalent might be something like "Do y'all really believe that god is going to let Hitler, Stalin, Guevara, and evil people into heaven?". He's compelled to cast things as negatively as possible.
The problem with all of this is, as Stan just noted, scripture.
Marshal:
are you really suggesting that conservatives who understand that not some will suffer eternal punishment were created so God would have someone to hate? That He created them in order to hate them?
It's literally what at least some conservatives believe. Stan, for instance, who has repeatedly affirm that God hates some people (the majority) and creates them to be punished, that indeed, GOD is the one who hardens their hearts.
For example, Stan:
Paul says that God's choice of whom to save "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). Even more shocking is this allegation: "He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills" (Rom 9:18). Not my words. Not Calvin's words. Paul's words...
The question is "Why would He save even one?" Why do I say that? Because Paul characterizes the entire race of humans as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and tells us that it is God's will to "show his wrath and to make known his power" (Rom 9:22). On that basis no one should be saved!
https://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2010/04/objection-answered.html
Yikes. What a creepy-jerky god. Or, more correctly, what a creepy, blasphemous way to think about and talk about God Almighty, the perfect God of love and justice.
Heaven forbid that someone quote scripture. How bizarre that Dan thinks that scripture is blasphemous. Someone better tell Paul that Dan thinks he's a blasphemer.
I'll also note that Dan chooses not to offer an alternative explanation that fits with the plain meaning of the text and the context.
As always, I'm not disagreeing with Paul or God, but (at least) Stan's interpretations and theories about what they're saying. And as always, it's notable when you all hear me disagreeing with your various pet theories and traditions and assume I'm disagreeing with God.
Son, your arms are too short to box with God.
The problem is that the text says what the text says. Stan's "interpretation" is simply acknowledging that the text says what it says. He's not twisting the text, adding to or subtracting from it, he's literally saying "this is what the text says, I accept it a face value.".
You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that his "interpretation" is absolutely, unequivocally, objectively wrong.
Is that a correct summary of your position on the text your referenced?
If so, then please share your detailed, extensive, specific, "interpretation" of the text that supports s reading other than the plain meaning of the text. Please, explain why you are so certain that Paul really didn't mean what he said/wrote. While you're at it, please demonstrate how your "interpretation" aligns with the rest of the passage in it's context.
NOTE: Simply asserting "it's obviously figurative language because it seems so." is not an acceptable response.
The problem is that I'm not the one boxing with YHWH. I live in the hope that His arms are long enough to (figuratively) embrace me despite my sin. Agreeing with the text of what most would refer to as "God's Word" is the polar opposite of boxing with YHWH. If I am in some sort of conflict with YHWH, surrender would be my response, not justification, arguing, or boxing.
Craig:
The problem is that the text says what the text says. Stan's "interpretation" is simply acknowledging that the text says what it says. He's not twisting the text
No one is arguing that the text says what it says. The question is, what does the text MEAN? Should we take it literally (or at least literally, in the sense that Stan does)? Figuratively? Metaphorically? Should we do ANYTHING other than just acknowledge, "yep, those are the words involved..."*
It's not the TEXT that is in question. It's the THEORY. If one has a THEORY - a human set of opinions and ideas - that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God exists and created MOST of humanity to be sent to hell (however you want to define that) for an eternity, then the onus is on them to support the claim with something MORE than a mere "but this verse says..."
The text says, there,
"and God hardens whomever he wills" and "the entire race of humans as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction..."
AND from that, Stan chooses to embrace a theory that takes those lines pretty literally. Stan THEORIZES that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God could create an "entire race to be sent to destruction..."
I don't care WHAT Bible verse Stan might choose to point to, OR if he uses a Magic 8 Ball OR if he casts dice or has a seance, NONE of that removes the stain of irrationally and fallacious/inconsistent reasoning from HIS THEORY.
I don't think you get that not everyone accepts your all's HUMAN THEORY that the Bible is the Answer Book for questions like these. You all are starting with some presumptions that most of humanity is not starting with AND you should not mistake that those are YOUR human opinions, not the word of God.
The human theory itself is irrational and logically inconsistent. AND, as I read the Bible, thoroughly anti-biblical and, indeed, blasphemous and heretical.
* NOTE: THIS is my position. Since I'm not a bible-as-rulings book theorist, I don't think we have to do ANYTHING with any text in the Bible. We have to stand by what is morally, rationally and justly right by the standards of love, grace, forgiveness and justice. We may find some answers to that in stories in the Bible (I think clearly we do) but we may also find texts that people can take the wrong way that advocate for something that is NOT of love, grace or justice.
AND, when you inevitably say, "Welp, you can stand by your reasoning, but I'm going to stand by 'the Word of God...'" you continue to make the same error as always: YOU are using your human reasoning to draw conclusions about the Biblical texts in question. It's what we humans do, it's what we MUST do because our God-given reasoning is the evidence (at least in part) that we are, indeed, created in the very image of God, moral and rationally reasoning creatures, not bound by pure instinct but able to use logic, data and reason to make rational conclusions.
NOTE: Simply asserting "it's obviously figurative language because it seems so." is not an acceptable response.
NOTE: Simply asserting, "it obviously should be taken literally in the way I understand it..." IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE, reasoning adult response.
Agreeing with the text of what most would refer to as "God's Word" is the polar opposite of boxing with YHWH.
That would depend ENTIRELY upon what you're "agreeing" with in the pages of the Bible. IF you are "agreeing" with the text, "You know, they enslaved people back then and God even commanded it sometimes, SO SOMETIMES, it's a moral good to enslave other humans..." I would disagree strongly that this is not exactly boxing with God.
IF you are "agreeing" with the text that mentions the world was created in six days, you may or may not be boxing with God, but you're certainly disagreeing with reality.
IF you are "agreeing" with the text that speaks of stoning to death "men who lay with men," I would strongly argue that you are boxing with God.
And on it goes.
You see, as always, "the text" does not "tell" us anything. The text is just dumb, inanimate words and HOW any human chooses to interpret them is what THEY are saying the text says, not what the text actually says because, again, the "text" does not tell us anything.
ALL interpretation of biblical passages is observably, objectively HUMAN interpretation. Now, those humans may or may not be getting a right conclusion, but it IS their interpretation, not "the text."
Do you recognize that reality?
Craig:
If so, then please share your detailed, extensive, specific, "interpretation" of the text that supports s reading other than the plain meaning of the text. Please, explain why you are so certain that Paul really didn't mean what he said/wrote.
To put it another way:
1. WE ALL have interpretations of the text. No one anywhere is saying the the text of any passage doesn't contain the words in a given passage.
2. The question is not, then, "Does the text say what's written?" but, "Do we have compelling reason to take that passage in something like a literal manner?"
3. And so, when STAN offers the opinion:
Because Paul characterizes the entire race of humans as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and tells us that it is God's will to "show his wrath and to make known his power" (Rom 9:22). On that basis no one should be saved!
...we can reasonably ask, WHY would we presume on the basis of these words ripped from Romans 9, that "no one should be saved..."? Because you personally are concluding that Paul thinks we are "vessels of wrath," does that make your interpretation of Paul correct? IF Paul were saying that, would it make Paul correct? What if Paul was wrong?
What Paul did was ask some questions:
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—
Paul is not stating a definitive fact, there. He's asking a question, wrestling with this question that many have wrestled with throughout church history. BUT, again, Paul is not stating an objective fact. He's not stating that he's speaking for God. He's literally asking questions. That is, Paul is NOT characterizing all humanity as "vessels of wrath..." He's asking a what if question.
4. You see, when you rip a text from context, you are prone to missing things. And, once again, EVEN IF Paul was saying what Stan theorizes Paul was saying, was Paul correct?
Paul has not told us. God has not told us. "The Bible" has not told us, because the Bible is not a sentient being. Rather, we form theories of interpretations and those are ours, not God's. Perhaps we're guessing correctly, but we're still guessing. And, if it's rationally inconsistent, I'd guess that someone is guessing wrong.
Exactly, as so far we have Stan who's insane position is that the text "means" what it plainly says. That the plain meaning is the most likely. We also have you who insists that the text does not mean what it plainly says, yet you offer no alternative meaning. You simply repeat some version of "It seems to me that the text is clearly metaphorical/figurative.". Ignoring the reality that figures of speech and metaphor are intended to help our understanding of things not to obscure that understanding. You default to obscuring, by not offering an alternative that aligns with the text or the context. As I've mentioned before, I would appreciate you offering an alternative that makes sense, yet I wait.
Excellent, redefine the terms to slant to discussion in your favor. As any "THEORY" is based on the text, it is completely insane to seperate them. The problem remains, that Stan HAS offered a "THEORY" (that the text means what it says) while you've offered your "THEORY, "seems to me that it's figurative".
It seems like the problem is that you have no "THEORY", just stock bullshit.
Of course you don't care about the potential of the text being literal, it it was literal it would shatter your preconceived notions based on your worldview driving your eisegesis. I understand your need to protect your narrative.
What you do or "don't think" is irrelevant and there's no reason for me to respond to your unproven hunches. Further, what people "accept" is also irrelevant. Reality or Truth are not defined by what some people "accept".
"as I read the Bible" is likewise an irrelevant, pointless, and absurd foundation for any authoritative claim. Just say that you don't like the text and what it implies and move on.
Again, as "your position" is not authoritative, nor is it based in objective proof, I fail to see why I should care about your "position".
Yes, I understand that you are convinced that YHWH is subject to human Reason and whatever. Unfortunately, your unproven hunches are repetitive and a waste of my time.
Perhaps it would be better to say that when given the choice about anything regarding scripture I can side with a significant majority of Church history, Biblical scholars, and experts, or I can side with some rando on the internet who's primary interpretive method is eisegsis, I'll avoid the rando who can't make a case for or even offer alternative theories.
Before I finish Dan's volumes of bullshit. I have to note that this post was literally about only one thing. Dan's insistence that the number of times a subject is mentioned in scripture somehow determines whether or not scripture is telling the Truth about the subject.
We've long ago lost the plot.
Excellent response, erecting a straw man as a way to ignore the reality that you have no basis to simply assert a "THEORY" and demand that your "THEORY" be accepted as True. But admitting that your assertions are unacceptable, unreasonable and childish, is a good start. I know, the double standard is strong with you, as is the impulse to erect straw men.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
Yes, I recognize the reality that you asserting things does not make them True, nor does your notion that the text is nothing without us humans and our Reasoning to give it value.
Craig...
"Dan's insistence that the number of times a subject is mentioned in scripture somehow determines whether or not scripture is telling the Truth about the subject."
Not anything I've ever said.
Not anything I believe.
In many ways, it is antithetical to what I believe.
By all means, beat up your precocious little strawman.
[Rolls eyes]
Dan
"To put it another way"
Got it, whatever follows this excuse will not be you doing what I asked you to do, but instead it will be you imposing your hunches and theories on my request.
1. Thanks Captain Obvious, This goes without saying, which explains your need to say it. What this dodges is my request that YOU provide YOUR interpretation in a way that harmonizes with the plain meaning of the text, the immediate and larger context, and doesn't contradict either of those things.
2. No that is not the question asked/request I made. That's your bullshit question designed to avoid doing what I asked you to do. The problem with this standard is that you don't have a compelling reason to take any text literally, unless it fits your narrative. Nor can you offer any explanations beyond "It sounds like..." for you assertions.
3. I'm not interested in you misrepresenting Stan's position or simply asserting that his position is wrong. I'm interested in you providing a compelling alternative interpretation that doesn't contradict the plain meaning of the passage or it's immediate or larger context. If you won't provide what I ask, I'm left to conclude that you won't/can't do so, but are afraid to admit your inability.
4. Yes, I've pointed this problem out to you when you rip passages out of context. Maybe apply the same standards to yourself that you apply to others.
That you ignore the context that Stan does supply, in your attempt to cover your inadequacies isn't impressive at all.
Interesting that you answer to Stan "ripping something out of context" is to rip "something out of context". Ignoring the fact that the "questions" are likely rhetorical (becasue Paul uses rhetorical questions on occasion), as well as "ripping" this snippet "out of context" isn't a good look for you and your pronouncements.
Arguing ignorance, is just a cheap excuse for not doing what I asked you to do. It allows you to revel in the ambiguity when it benefits you, yet doesn't stop you from authoritatively asserting that a passage is obviously "figurative" based on how it "seems to" you. "seems to me..." is hardly the basis for making authoritative pronouncements. Yet you do it regularly.
That your basis for concluding that someone is "wrong" (which is an objective claim) is simply your"guess". What a pathetic excuse.
Dan can't even interpret his own words properly, but we're supposed to trust him when he interprets Jesus?
Coming from the king of straw men, this is rich.
Given that the entire point of the quote I used, and the rest of your post, was the disparity between the large number of times Jesus referenced something akin to "heaven" and the tiny number of times Jesus referenced something you consider to be about "hell", and the fact that your entire argument is that "hell" as scripture portrays it is "unjust" and unlikely to exist, what other conclusion can be drawn? What possible reason could there be to contrast the large number of references to "heaven" and the tiny number of "hell". Further, one of your stock arguments against the Biblical position on Homosexuality is that it's only mentioned a few times, which is obviously a few more than your position that "God blesses gay marriage" is mentioned.
When you make the same argument against multiple things, just man up and own it.
So, you think that I DON'T UNDERSTAND MY OWN WORDS AND POSITIONS?? And we're supposed to trust someone with THAT level of gob-smacking arrogance to reliably understand ancient writings?
How arrogant and presumptuous are you, little man?
As I've been clear: I was responding to various conservative preachers/teachers who cite the number of times that Jesus mentioned hell and contrasted that with the times Jesus mentioned heaven to note that EVEN BY THEIR STANDARDS, that's not a sound conclusion. I was responding to CONSERVATIVE citations of "the number of times..."
And, as I've been clear, I'm absolutely NOT saying that if there is a text or phrase or idea mentioned multiple times in the Bible that it, perforce, means ANYTHING beyond, it was mentioned often. It COULD be the case that it was an important topic for the author/speaker, but it may not be.
Humble yourself, little man. You do NOT know my positions better than I do and clearly, you can't even read for understanding in MODERN ENGLISH so, maybe more humility would be called for when you want to offer personal little hunches from your head about what you personally really think that ancient text means.
Again, your tiny arms are too short to box with God.
Dan
I'll rephrase. I think you understand your positions in the sense that you have some mental construct that makes sense to you, but that is also vague and flexible enough to prevent you from having to take an unequivocal position.
So you make the ratio or "heaven":"hell" passages the centerpiece of your argument, but your leave out critical specific details of your rubric for situations where you're expected to take a position.
Even now, all you'll do is bitch that I'm not understanding you or proclaim that I'm wrong, without simply explaining what you position on regarding number of verses mentioning a particular topic and how that relates to the importance/truthfulness of the information on those topics.
For someone who shows so little humility, your constant demands that I humble myself before you seem to be excessively arrogant to say the least.
I re read your screed, and I realized that your entire tour de force intended to disprove your version of what others might believe was simply a bunch of conjecture. When one piles that on top of your arguments from silence on so many of your pet issues, it's a wonder anyone takes you seriously.
I do have to say that this tenor of ad hom attacks and demands for behavior/attitudes that you refuse to demand of yourself only make your bitching more amusing. Again, I'll note your complete lack of even one alternative explanation that is in line with the plain meaning of the text and the context, while you spew crap like this comment after comment is quite revealing.
Craig:
Even now, all you'll do is bitch that I'm not understanding you or proclaim that I'm wrong, without simply explaining what you position on regarding number of verses mentioning a particular topic
You ARE wrong, you are NOT understanding my position. And I think it's because you're so completely wrapped up in your worldview and traditions that you can't even begin to understand what people are saying.
IT DOESN'T MATTER what the Bible says about Hell or Heaven. It's NOT a number counting issue.
IF the Bible said, "YOU ALL ARE ALL UTTERLY EVIL AND DESERVING OF ETERNAL TORTURE, but the 'good news' is that, I'm going to make an exception for a tiny percentage of you. The rest of you I hate and will torture for eternity..." and then just repeated that 10,000 times, it wouldn't matter.
The Bible is NOT a rulings book. The Bible is NOT a book where we go to find moral rules for all times and places. The Bible is NOT a book where we go to find out authoritative details about an unknown afterlife.
The Bible never claims to be any of that, nor does GOD tell us that.
Because I love the Bible and the biblical witness - all of it, from Genesis to Revelation - I do not want others to misuse and abuse the Bible to promote their personal human traditions and then try to bully others into accepting their human traditions because "God said so..." This was the sin of the Pharisees (IF biblical witness matters to you).
So, because the Bible is not a rulings book or a treatise on the nature of heaven or a theoretical hell, it doesn't matter how many times a phrase or idea shows up.
The Bible IS a wonderful book full of the stories of Jewish people and of Jesus and the early church. And, in reading the words of Jesus, for instance (or the prophet, Isaiah or the poet, Solomon), we CAN see themes emerge in what they talk about and what they don't talk about. We can form some opinions about what these speakers thought based upon what they focused on and what they didn't focus on. But that personal autos or nuclear wars or gay marriages are not talked about in their words, that doesn't mean those topics are not important.
We can draw some theories or conclusions of what Jesus thought, but that is not a definitive answer, objectively factual. Because the Bible is not a rulings book, it is not a treatise on Heaven or Hell.
We also have to use our God-given common sense and moral reasoning to understand anything. And there doesn't need to be a line in the Bible to make that a reasonable statement.
Another take on it:
The conservative bean counters note (rightly, I believe) that Jesus spoke about "hell" (whatever was meant by the words he used to express that notion) more than anyone else. And that COULD mean that notions of "hell" were important to Jesus. OR, it could mean that hell just isn't spoken of in the biblical witness in any significant way at all.
The OT is devoid of hell, as Dante-ists theorize it. Or really, any notion of hell beyond Sheol, "the grave." The Pharisees most likely did not believe in it (as much as many of them loathed and feared Jesus, they never threatened him with "hellfire," I don't believe...) And it's just not around much in the NT, either.
That is, it could reasonably be surmised that there was no huge opinion about notions of "hell" in the biblical witness. "Punishment" certainly was discussed, but not hell, not much. It shows up as a concept of punishment about 10-15 times in all the Bible. Zero times in the OT and 10-15 times in the NT.
So that Jesus spoke of it "more than anyone else" is not that big of a deal, in and of itself.
And regardless of how many times it shows up, the THEORY that it is (or might be?) a place for eternal punishment/separation from God for the majority of humanity as a "just" punishment for being "sinners..." THAT is the theory. Then, regardless of what we find in the few places where hell is mentioned in the Bible, the question is, "Is that a reasonable human theory, that the majority of humanity will be punished for an eternity for temporal misdeeds...?"
And that is a question we can reason out using our moral reasoning, even if we can't prove anything one way or the other from the biblical witness.
That you insist that it's always the fault of the other, while pretending that your worldview and traditions don't influence you is precious.
You are right in one sense it's not a matter of counting verses and keeping score, which makes you doing so all the more baffling. It is about the reality of what happens after death. It's about the reality of judgement and atonement, reward and punishment, "heaven" and "hell". We don't know all of the details, because we aren't God and our senses and ability to comprehend the infinite are limited.
That you seem so insistent in making definitive pronouncements about thing you literally have no ability to know to a significant degree is concerning as this is usually a sign of delusion.
Again, if the Bible says what you paraphrased (even though it kind of does) it doesn't matter. Unless it's an accurate representation of a future reality, in that case it matters immensely. But since you've decide things, and you demand that your hunches be accepted, why would scripture matter anyway, If scripture contradicts Dan, Dan's going to ignore or reinterpret scripture until it agrees with Dan.
When you make these unproven, yet emphatic declarations, do you know how full of hubris and arrogance you sound?
Except Jesus, for one Biblical example. tells us the the sign of our love for Him is to "obey His commandments". Since His commandments go back to Genesis, I guess that's a problem. That you've erected this "rulings book" straw man and continue to attack it, isn't a good sign.
But it's OK if you misuse and abuse the Bible. Got it. The degree of hubris and arrogance is stunning.
If it doesn't matter, why do you use the number of mentions as an argument to support your eisegesis?
Because you value your common sense and Reason above all else. Got you.
Well played, providing an un sourced, un linked, anonymous quote as if it decides the matter for all time. Congratulation on learning how to use Google.
Question begging. Still.
Well, if you say so then it must be blindly accepted as Truth. Why in the world would we expect you to do something so mundane and below your status as prove your claims or cite your sources.
FYI, the other day when I asked you to use the cool new tool from Blogger that allows you to connect your reply to the comment you are replying to, this is why I made that suggestion. You drop this idiocy with no hint as to what your blabbering about and just assume we'll blindly accept your laziness.
Post a Comment