(July 8, 2012 at 4:13 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Oh, you're right, but blueletterbible.org says the root word for 'agape' is actually 'agapao' therefore my argument still stands.

...uh, what? Are you suggesting that the verbal form and the noun form have very different definitions--other than their parts of speech?

(July 8, 2012 at 4:18 am)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 4:13 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Oh, you're right, but blueletterbible.org says the root word for 'agape' is actually 'agapao' therefore my argument still stands.

...uh, what? Are you suggesting that the verbal form and the noun form have very different definitions--other than their parts of speech?

I'm suggesting that whatever you guys believe 'agape' means isn't lining up with its root word.

(July 8, 2012 at 1:05 am)Drich Wrote: Maybe you can help me out. How does any of the teachings of Paul contradict the teaching of Christ in Mat 5:18

I'm not quite sure why you underlined 'any' since I directed you to Acts 15.

For the slow and/or scripturally uneducated Christ was clear in that the law will not change until heaven and Earth disappeared. I can't claim any knowledge of heaven; however, I can guarantee that the Earth is still around. Christ never made a difference between moral, ceremonial or judicial laws.

I am standing by with a vat of mustard in anticipation of the huge apologetic pretzel that you will no doubt have to create in order to explain this contradiction away.

(July 8, 2012 at 4:52 am)cato123 Wrote: I'm not quite sure why you underlined 'any' since I directed you to Acts 15.

For the slow and/or scripturally uneducated Christ was clear in that the law will not change until heaven and Earth disappeared. I can't claim any knowledge of heaven; however, I can guarantee that the Earth is still around. Christ never made a difference between moral, ceremonial or judicial laws.

I am standing by with a vat of mustard in anticipation of the huge apologetic pretzel that you will no doubt have to create in order to explain this contradiction away.

I think you're making kind of a BS point. Just because Christ didn't mention a moral/ceremonial/judicial distinction doesn't mean that there isn't one, or that he didn't make the distinction.

Suppose that there is such a distinction, and that I'm explaining the law to you. I don't have to mention the distinction; I can just describe the laws to you, and you can draw the distinction yourself.

Like, a guy who draws a circle and a square doesn't have to also say, "There is a distinction between round things and things with corners".

(July 8, 2012 at 5:02 am)CliveStaples Wrote: I think you're making kind of a BS point. Just because Christ didn't mention a moral/ceremonial/judicial distinction doesn't mean that there isn't one, or that he didn't make the distinction.

Suppose that there is such a distinction, and that I'm explaining the law to you. I don't have to mention the distinction; I can just describe the laws to you, and you can draw the distinction yourself.

Like, a guy who draws a circle and a square doesn't have to also say, "There is a distinction between round things and things with corners".

Your inability to address the obvious contradiction does not make my point BS.

We don't have to suppose the distinction, Paul and Barnabas made the distinction for us. Are you now going to argue that Christ was only talking about moral Mosaic law in Matthew 5:18?

You aren't still trying to square the circle are you?

So far I have drawn the following conclusions from the Christian comments in this thread: Everything that is good comes from God; everything that is bad is our fault. So when we fix Africa God will still get all the credit for providing the materials. Genius!

(July 8, 2012 at 3:30 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Quote:I've searched up where 'agape' is used in John and verse 3:16 isn't one of them.

has been addressed by another poster.

Quote:http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...=G25&t=KJV

Now Read the whole entry (This includes clicking on the Thayer's drop down)

Quote:So John 3:16 reads like this in plain english: for God so dearly loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Exactly! Who ever believes, which means the Agape offered, is by defination conditional. The love expressed in this passage placed Christ on the cross, and it ends there. That is Unless you believe. Which makes God's love conditional and not a limitless boundless love you are trying to sell. By defination a condition is a boundry. One can not offer a boundless love with conditions and boundries.

Quote:The only conditional thing here is our salvation which depends upon what we believe, not God's love for us.

The conditional element places all believers in the arms of God's love, while those out side of this 'condition' will experience His eternal wrath/eternal seperation.

Quote:Why do I believe God is all loving? Because the greek word used says he 'dearly loves' the world so much that he sacrificed himself. He is simply all loving.

Even to those who do not except His sacerfice? To specify, will those who do not accept the Loving act of God that placed Christ on a cross still benfit from what you have deemed His 'all loving nature?" -Or- Did His love simply place Christ on a cross, which extended an invitation to God's boundless love? Allowing those who accept this offering of love, the oppertunity to experience the full measure of said, love and those who do not accept the conditional love offered by God perish, as outlined in the bible? If the bible outline is correct then by our understanding of the word 'love,' God can not be ALL Loving.

Quote:Because salvation is conditional and they haven't met the requirements.

Nothing this life offers can be considered 'punishment.' Rather what the bible says is the punishment for not accepting Christ is eternal seperation. Not a hard life. Matter of fact Hunger, persecution, death, were all promised to those who believe! It is not a punishment, but an oppertunity to serve and to be served.

If you believe hardship in this life to be a result of some sort of punishment the please show me the book chapter and verse that teaches this.

---

[quote='cato123' pid='307460' dateline='1341737552']
[quote='Drich' pid='307405' dateline='1341723948']
I'm not quite sure why you underlined 'any' since I directed you to Acts 15.

I thought it was obvious. Because Nothing in Acts 15 contradicts what was said by Christ when you put it in it's completed context.

Quote:For the slow and/or scripturally uneducated Christ was clear in that the law will not change until heaven and Earth disappeared. I can't claim any knowledge of heaven; however, I can guarantee that the Earth is still around. Christ never made a difference between moral, ceremonial or judicial laws.

So?

Quote:I am standing by with a vat of mustard in anticipation of the huge apologetic pretzel that you will no doubt have to create in order to explain this contradiction away.

And i am still waiting to see the contradiction.

---

(July 8, 2012 at 7:55 am)gringoperry Wrote: So far I have drawn the following conclusions from the Christian comments in this thread: Everything that is good comes from God; everything that is bad is our fault. So when we fix Africa God will still get all the credit for providing the materials. Genius!

Actually no, For there is no 'good' without the contrast of what we think to be 'bad.' What makes 'good' Good is the knoweledge of the bad this world contains as a result of sin. Sin that God allowed, in order so that we may choose where we wish to spend eternity.

In a sense God is responsiable for both, or rather He allows for both. It is up to us to choose which fruit this world will yeild.

Drich Wrote:Exactly! Who ever believes, which means the Agape offered, is by defination conditional. The love expressed in this passage placed Christ on the cross, and it ends there. That is Unless you believe. Which makes God's love conditional and not a limitless boundless love you are trying to sell. By defination a condition is a boundry. One can not offer a boundless love with conditions and boundries.

Oh I see what you're saying. I agree in that case on a theological level.

Quote: Nothing this life offers can be considered 'punishment.' Rather what the bible says is the punishment for not accepting Christ is eternal seperation. Not a hard life. Matter of fact Hunger, persecution, death, were all promised to those who believe! It is not a punishment, but an oppertunity to serve and to be served.

If you believe hardship in this life to be a result of some sort of punishment the please show me the book chapter and verse that teaches this.

What I meant in the OP is that it's unjust that some people never had the opportunity to give their lives to Christ yet they have to suffer eternally for something that was out of their control. The punishment is unjust because there was creation but no provision to ensure eternal life. I take it that with an understanding of agapeo this act of evil is justified, yes?

(July 8, 2012 at 4:31 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 4:18 am)CliveStaples Wrote: ...uh, what? Are you suggesting that the verbal form and the noun form have very different definitions--other than their parts of speech?

I'm suggesting that whatever you guys believe 'agape' means isn't lining up with its root word.

Tip for everybody - never acidentally search "a gape" in google images with safe search turned off, rather than searching "agape" in google web.

It's very easily done you know.

(July 8, 2012 at 7:55 am)gringoperry Wrote: So far I have drawn the following conclusions from the Christian comments in this thread: Everything that is good comes from God; everything that is bad is our fault. So when we fix Africa God will still get all the credit for providing the materials. Genius!

Best known as the "xtians are full of shit" theory, Gringo.