Originally posted by @freakykbhMaybe it's you just pretending not to understand the turn of phrase that JS357 is using.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it bizarre to think a person could/would be fearful how another person views anything.
11 edits
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
The divine righteousness that will see Sonship saved is intrinsically infected by the eternal suffering of other poor souls, as it is this very same righteousness that sees them condemned to the fires of hell. (One can not exist without the other). On this issue a child could immediately realise that there is nothing righteous about a deity who tortures people for all eternity. Only a misguided adult who has over studied the topic and lost all grip on reality could think otherwise.
Now here is an adult of approximately 33 years of age. His name is Jesus of Nazareth.
I believe that He had a firmest grasp of reality.
The words spoken by this Jesus? ... can you produce credible textural evidence that these words did not come from His mouth ?
"And I say to you My friends, Do not fear those who kill the body and afterwards have nothing more that they can do. (v.4)
But I will show you whom you should fear; fear Him who, after killing, has the authority to cast into Gehenna, yes, I tell you, fear this One." (v.5) (See Luke 12:4,5)
Let me be clear with you and you be honest with me.
I am not asking you about the interpretation of the meaning of these words. At least not just yet. Don't change the subject on me, please.
I ask you to furnish me with your most credible evidence that THESE WORDS themselves, which Luke records as being spoken by Jesus of Nazareth, WERE NOT spoken by Jesus of Nazareth.
Now YOU ... be a mature ADULT, Mr Ghost-of-a-duke and provide the Forum textural critical analysis that Jesus did not utter these words.
Please settle THIS matter first with me before you jump off to another rationale why I should DISBELIEVE the credibility of Luke 12:4,5)
Don't jump ! Stay right here!
Show us your mature adult responsible ability to present a plausible case arguing - that Jesus Christ DID NOT ever SAY those words.
Originally posted by @sonshipWasn't "Luke" written, by non-eyewitnesses involved in trying to create a new religion, 60-70 years after Jesus was executed by the Romans?
[quote] The divine righteousness that will see Sonship saved is intrinsically infected by the eternal suffering of other poor souls, as it is this very same righteousness that sees them condemned to the fires of hell. (One can not exist without the other). On this issue a child could immediately realise that there is nothing righteous about a deity who tort ...[text shortened]... ability to present a plausible case arguing - [b]Jesus Christ DID NOT ever SAY those words.[/b]
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThe only attempt at clever is your response.
I'm sure that's a very clever analogy, but it doesn't really address the meat of the issue. (A polite way of saying you have fudged the topic under discussion).
The divine righteousness that will see Sonship saved is intrinsically infected by the eternal suffering of other poor souls, as it is this very same righteousness that sees them condemned ...[text shortened]... sguided adult who has over studied the topic and lost all grip on reality could think otherwise.
It is not divine righteousness which leads to sonship (or anyone else's) salvation: it is divine justice.
God's righteousness was satisfied by the work performed on the cross by the Christ when He bore ALL sin in His body.
This body was specifically designed for that express purpose, i.e., to allow the impure to be cast off and discarded; think of it as a courtesy flush.
Despite every opportunity, each of the bodies given from Adam forward all failed... until the Christ.
He alone was both qualified and worthy to mount the cross and be the transfer, which He did and in so doing, satisfied the righteousness of God.
The person who consciously accepts the gift has a point of reference with God, but it isn't His righteousness or His love; the point of reference is His justice.
Because of that work on the cross, God must impart His divinity in its many splendorous glory to every believer.
Why?
Because His justice demands it.
God's justice demands His love and acceptance, His agreement with everything intrinsically good and true, therefore anyone identified with His work receives the full bounty of His goodness.
If we could not reject God, what possible point would there be in the wager?
If there is no loss, how can there be gain?
When Adam had the first choice, it had weight and tangible consequences.
Stay in the Garden with God eating of His goodness or leave the Garden and eat everything else.
That's the menu we choose from, too, only our choice is in reverse: stay eating everything else, or join God again in the Garden.
Originally posted by @fmfRight now I am talking to Ghost of a Duke.
Wasn't "Luke" written, by non-eyewitnesses involved in trying to create a new religion, 60-70 years after Jesus was executed by the Romans?
His next post to me, I am expecting, will present his textural critical case that Jesus did not speak the words of Luke 12:3,4.
I am not talking to you at the moment.
1 edit
-Removed-He didn't PM me.
There is no need to PM him.
You can't do the job I ask.
Let's see if Ghost-of-a-duke can.
The question is not about how hot the flames of hell, how loud the screams, how blood curdling the torture, how broad the smile on God's face, how happy the pesky evangelist, etc. etc.
The question concerns evidence that the very words were inserted into the Greek New Testament to artificially give the impression that Jesus said this when in fact He never did.
You can't do that job.
So let's see if Ghost of a duke has a case.
-Removed-As with your OP, the question is based on a faulty premise.
To my knowledge, the only material item to ever burn without being consumed was the bush through which God spoke to Moses.
All other material is converted to carbon once consumed by fire.
What material are you imagining "being burnt alive for eternity" exactly?