Poll: If you are a Trump supporter, do you consider him to be a “good Christian?”

[hog88]

I know we all have debated this in our minds, but I think the non witnessed are under the law ie 10 commandments that one is born with, the conscience, and the witnessed under acceptance. Nothing to Biblically back it up but would be interested in that thought.

I'm far from being well versed in the bible but my MIL believes it is the literal word of the big guy and loves to throw verses out when having a discussion about almost anything. Once (well more than once) she told me that I was doomed to hell because I don't regularly attend church and I question the bible. So I asked her the question about children who's parents won't take them to church, can't read, never been exposed ext and she also said they were exempted since they are children but never could show me that exemption in the bible.

 

[BigO95]

I am refering to how non witnessed can still have salvation.

I believe that creation and conscience is enough to condemn them. I wouldn't mind hearing other thoughts on the matter though.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I am refering to how non witnessed can still have salvation.

Thoughts? Big o too.

God and Jesus are infinitely just and merciful. We believe those people who did not have a chance to know Jesus and accept Him in life will have the opportunity after they die. They will be taught His gospel, and if they turn to God, they will have a place in heaven after the Final Judgment.

The final judgment happens after Jesus returns to the earth and we are resurrected. Based on our actions and the desires of our hearts, we will experience different “degrees of glory” as described in Corinthians 15:41–42: “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.” Because of the perfect love and understanding of the Savior, everyone will still have a better life than they had on earth, but only those who followed God will be able to live directly in His presence.

 

[Orangeburst]

I'm far from being well versed in the bible but my MIL believes it is the literal word of the big guy and loves to throw verses out when having a discussion about almost anything. Once (well more than once) she told me that I was doomed to hell because I don't regularly attend church and I question the bible. So I asked her the question about children who's parents won't take them to church, can't read, never been exposed ext and she also said they were exempted since they are children but never could show me that exemption in the bible.

the innocence of youth is pretty well accepted term. innocence of what?

 

[BigO95]

Thoughts? Big o too.

God and Jesus are infinitely just and merciful. We believe those people who did not have a chance to know Jesus and accept Him in life will have the opportunity after they die. They will be taught His gospel, and if they turn to God, they will have a place in heaven after the Final Judgment.

The final judgment happens after Jesus returns to the earth and we are resurrected. Based on our actions and the desires of our hearts, we will experience different “degrees of glory” as described in Corinthians 15:41–42: “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.” Because of the perfect love and understanding of the Savior, everyone will still have a better life than they had on earth, but only those who followed God will be able to live directly in His presence.

There are certainly different rewards and crowns that can be won. I'm not certain about some of the other details. I'd have to dwell on it a bit and search the scriptures a little more.

 

[BigO95]

I'm pretty sure that there is at least 5 crowns that can be earned or received and I don't know how many rewards!

 

[hog88]

the innocence of youth is pretty well accepted term. innocence of what?

IDK

I also like to spin up the MIL by asking -

If Capt Kirk time warped in the Enterprise and seeded the Earth, put Adam and Eve in the garden and gave us the rules would he be the supreme being or one of his Angles?

 

[Orangeburst]

IDK

I also like to spin up the MIL by asking -

If Capt Kirk time warped in the Enterprise and seeded the Earth, put Adam and Eve in the garden and gave us the rules would he be the supreme being or one of his Angles?

hmmm..

There are no magic secrets to his youthful looks.When confronted with inquiries about his age, William Shatner confidently dismissed any notion of secret potions, attributing his youthful appearance to genetics and an active lifestyle. He humorously remarks, “I don't have any secret potions. It must be genetic.

 

[Orangeburst]

nm..that was stupid

 

[Behr]

There’s also the credibility of the verse to contend with

"Eternal" Punishment (Matthew 25:46) Is NOT Found In The Greek New Testament.

tentmaker.org

But that’s a completely different debate

I don't understand what the problem with the credibility of the verse is. And this is confusing too "This is the only place in the entire Bible where we find these two words together AND only in some Bibles. There are over a dozen English translations which do NOT contain the concept of "eternal punishment" on ANY of their pages."

It's in every version I consider reputable. NASB, ESV, OJB, CJB, GNV says "everlasting pain".

I still don't believe there's 2 different meanings in the same sentence.

Anyway, it's been a good exercise for me.

 

[BreatheUT]

@BigO95 I believe you have a sincere heart. You will be blessed.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I don't understand what the problem with the credibility of the verse is. And this is confusing too "This is the only place in the entire Bible where we find these two words together AND only in some Bibles. There are over a dozen English translations which do NOT contain the concept of "eternal punishment" on ANY of their pages."

It's in every version I consider reputable. NASB, ESV, OJB, CJB, GNV says "everlasting pain".

I still don't believe there's 2 different meanings in the same sentence.

Anyway, it's been a good exercise for me.

If you’ve followed this debate the argument is that it’s not in the older copies so it’s not in all “bibles”. I’m working and moving quickly so the link I pick did a poor job explaining the position.
But ultimately the definition of the day doesn’t support the Hell concept.


Edit: by “this debate” I mean the authenticity of that verse, not the polite conversation you and I are having.
Just making sure that it’s clear I’m not being snarky here

 

[BigO95]

@BigO95 I believe you have a sincere heart. You will be blessed.

Thank you

 

[Orangeburst]

@BigO95 I believe you have a sincere heart. You will be blessed.

you are just sucking up to him cause you think he is Omari Thomas.

 

[Volizona]

Sadly it’s a lot of reading and studying.
My personal bias is I discount the opinion of anyone telling me what the definition of a word means today. What I want to know is what did it mean 2000 years ago and how was it used in all writings not just the Bible.

For example there’s a phrase to was used a lot in ancient writings. It’s a very common idiom of the time. It was used when an army would destroy their enemy. “The smoke of their destruction will rise forever”. Clearly that’s just a way of saying we beat them so bad they’ll never recover. That phrase made its way into the Bible and is often repeated as a proof of eternal torment when it’s a statement that speaks to permanence and not duration.

Didn’t Reggie White follow your approach by learning the original languages? Per the recent documentary, it sounds like some of his views changed a bit too.

 

[Volizona]

Thank you

Ditto.

 

[DuckInAPen]

You might start there is you were starting where tha KJV translators started. Which is not the koine Greek. In the original common Greek language the word is “final”.

It's unclear to me what you're asserting here. Are you saying that αἰώνιον isn't the original reading or that αἰώνιον means final? If the former, please indicate (in Greek, not English translation) what the original reading is and in which manuscript(s) it can be found (giving the standard designations employed, for instance, in Nestle-Aland). If the latter, please cite (in accordance with the apparatus standard in such critical editions as those published by Teubner and Oxford) a handful of specific passages from Greek literature illustrating and supporting your interpretation (namely, that αἰώνιος means  final). In the meantime, you might reflect upon the fact that the standard Greek-English lexicon (LSJ, the relevant entry from which I linked above) offers no citation in support of your interpretation.

 

[GordonC]

IDK

I also like to spin up the MIL by asking -

If Capt Kirk time warped in the Enterprise and seeded the Earth, put Adam and Eve in the garden and gave us the rules would he be the supreme being or one of his Angles?

So were you trying to be a cute or obtuse?
I'll see myself out.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Didn’t Reggie White follow your approach by learning the original languages? Per the recent documentary, it sounds like some of his views changed a bit too.

I’m not sure.
I haven’t heard that but I’ll definitely check into it.
There are a few people I interact with that most would be surprised they share a lot of the same views I do.

 

[Orangeslice13]

It's unclear to me what you're asserting here. Are you saying that αἰώνιον isn't the original reading or that αἰώνιον means final? If the former, please indicate (in Greek, not English translation) what the original reading is and in which manuscript(s) it can be found (giving the standard designations employed, for instance, in Nestle-Aland). If the latter, please cite (in accordance with the apparatus standard in such critical editions as those published by Teubner and Oxford) a handful of specific passages from Greek literature illustrating and supporting your interpretation (namely, that αἰώνιος means  final). In the meantime, you might reflect upon the fact that the standard Greek-English lexicon (LSJ, the relevant entry from which I linked above) offers no citation in support of your interpretation.

Asked and answered directly to you.
Go see if you can find what you skipped over

Unless you’re arguing that Caesar is still with us.
In which case you’re as nutty as that other guy and not worth talking to

 

[DuckInAPen]

Asked and answered directly to you.
Go see if you can find what you skipped over

I suppose you mean this:

#1 – Many Ancient Greek scrolls contain numerous examples of Roman emperors being described as αιώνιος the Greek word translated “eternal” in English Bibles. But all that is meant is that they held their office for life — not that the emperor was immortal, or that his reign never ended.

This isn't a citation, but an unsupported assertion. No specific passage in any specific text is identified. Even taken at face value, it offers no evidence that αἰώνιος means final.

Perhaps you also mean this:

#2 – Dead Sea Scrolls: the wicked will suffer “unending dread and shame without end, and of disgrace of destruction by fire of the region of darkness. And all their time from age to age are in most sorrowful chagrin and bitterest misfortune, in calamities of darkness till they are destroyed with none of them surviving or escaping” (1QS 4.11-14). Note that this is saying punishment in hell is without end until they are destroyed.

1QS (the so-called Community Rule or Manual of Discipline) is written in Hebrew and has no extant Greek translation. It therefore sheds no light on the meaning of the Greek adjective αἰώνιος.

Unless you’re arguing that Caesar is still with us.

Unless you cite a specific text, I can't tell whether αἰώνιος is being used in the second sense given in LSJ ("holding an office or title for life" as illustrated by a γυμνασίαρχος being so described in Corpus Papyrorum Hermopolitanarum 62) or whether it's a manifestation of Late Antique emperor-worship. In neither case would it mean final.

In which case you’re as nutty as that other guy and not worth talking to

Gratuitous insults do nothing to bolster your (thus far unsupported) assertion that αἰώνιος means final.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I suppose you mean this:


This isn't a citation, but an unsubstantiated assertion. No specific passage in any specific text is identified. Even taken at face value, it offers no evidence that αἰώνιος means final.

Perhaps you also mean this:

1QS (the so-called Community Rule or Manual of Discipline) is written in Hebrew and has no extant Greek translation. It therefore sheds no light on the meaning of the Greek adjective αἰώνιος.


Unless you cite a specific text, I can't tell whether αἰώνιος is being used in the second sense given in LSJ ("holding an office or title for life" as illustrated by a γυμνασίαρχος being so described in Corpus Papyrorum Hermopolitanarum 62) or whether it's a manifestation of Late Antique emperor-worship.


Gratuitous insults do nothing to bolster your (thus far unsupported) assertion that αἰώνιος means final.

are you of the mistaken belief that I care what you think or am trying to convince you of anything?

You made a statement, I refuted it by citing from a paper written by a PHD that’s enough for you to go research and draw your own conclusions.
I’ve read and moved past your assumptions years ago and not really interested in doing it again.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Sodom & Gomorrah isn’t still on fire BTW

 

[DuckInAPen]

are you of the mistaken belief that I care what you think or am trying to convince you of anything?

You've been pontificating in a public forum about a language of which you have manifestly little knowledge, making sweeping doctrinal pronouncements on the basis of demonstrably false philological and historical claims. You can expect to be challenged, whether you care to engage constructively or not.

All the best to you and yours, Slice.

 

[creekdipper]

You are making up a lot here .... but you know that.

Nope. It should be obvious that the "verbatim quote" (which should have been out in blue font to erase any doubt) was a satirical "interpretation" of his remarks...although his words, taken literally, point to that interpretation being accurate.

But as for his actual comment including the terms he used, those were entirely accurate. If I were on my desktop PC, I'd copy and paste. But go ahead...Google "Biden endorsement of Obama racist" and then tell me what was "made up." On second thought, the excuse Biden used for the "clean" comment was made up. In fact, it was priceless. He blamed his own mom for his racist remark.