ECT Does God love everybody? No!

preacherman57

New member
Ok, stop drooling all of you Evangelicals, Armenians and "free-will" salvation lovers. Time to stir the pot. This time, I am putting the onus on you to prove through actual, in print, black and white verses on a page in a book called a bible, verses that all can read with their eyes, that
1.God loves all people, and has always loved all people.

I am not posting this to make a statement or to engage in a debate. I know that God does not love all people and all of the non-sheep believe that God does love all people. I am not challenging those of you that believe God loves all people.
I know from scripture that there are people God hates. I can show you 60+ verses that teach that God does not love all people . But, instead of me showing those verses, I am challenging you folk to show me, with printed on the page verses, that God loves all people.
We all are aware of Jn 3:16. Since we are all aware of Jn 3:16, you cannot use it. This should not be a problem because surely you will be able to overwhelm me with many, many verses. Verses that clearly and distinctly state that God loves all people, verses that are so easy to understand that someone who has never read a verse of scripture could be shown all of the verses you are going to show me, and easily understand and realize that" "Why, yes, it is so oblivious that God loves all people "

Let me help you out with Jn 3:16
1. It is often stated about "How much God loves you." That is not stated in Jn 3:16 nor is there any verse that states such. Where does this imaginary teaching come from? In the same manner as all of the lies being taught. Because the Pharisees and the goats will not bother to even do even a little word study. They are under the delusion that the English translations are perfect and accurately convey the precise meaning of the original languages. That, and reading scripture with our American culture mindset, leads to all of the false teaching.
The false teaching that "God loves people soooooooo much," comes from the English word "so" in Jn 3:16, "For God so loved the world..." Because the Pharisees do not know that English syntax does not mirror the Greek syntax,(they are very different) when they read "For God so loved..." they, with their brilliance, automatically "know" that the word "so" must be an adjective, a word that modifys a noun, and that the English word "so" can be used to describe degree or depth. So, ergo, "God loves the world sooooooo much!"
There is only one little problem with that method of brilliant deduction. The English word "so" is translated from the Greek word: houto. The Greek word is not an adjective, (Are you ready for the truth?) it is an ADVERB! An adverb, a word that modifys a verb! The definition of houto is: in this way, in this manner. Thus, an accurate rendering of Jn 3:16 would read:
For God, in this way, loved the world..."
Not" God loved the world so much" Are you aware that the word "much" is nowhere to be found in the original text of Jn 3:16.
You mean to tell me that all of the Pharisees, after all of their seminary training, getting their degrees, writing books, speaking at confrences, being adored and idolized, appearing as guest speakers, being interviewed, being lauded, etc, etc, are not aware of this fact? Something that took only seconds to STUDY? Showing not the slighest inclination to want to look up a simple word? I don't know what the seminaries and bible colleges are teaching people, but the urgent need to study the original languages must not be a part of obtaining a degree.
And continuing on with how the Pharisees refuse to study, the English word "world" in Jn 3:16 is translated from the Greek word KOSMOS, as most are aware of. And of coures, the Pharisees and their fans have determined that the English word "world" has got to mean "all of the people in the world." Does this thinking result from a result of studying the Greek word "kosmos" and dilingent hermeneutics? No, no, no. It has to mean "all of the people in the world" because that is what we want it to mean.
Because, with flawed reasoning and personal interpretation, since God is love, must mean that God HAS to love all people.
However, if one would to bother and do a word study on "kosmos" one would discover that "kosmos" has at least 10 different meanings. With the proper context, according to those who made a life time of studying the Konie Greek, the meaning of "kosmos" in Jn 3:16 does not mean "all people." Not that that fact matters to Evangelicals. The truth of God's word is not important to Pharisees. There is another Greek word translated into the English word "world" used in the N.T. That Greek word is "oikoumene." This word is defined as: land. earth, world.
This is an ancient Greek term for "the known world, the inhabited world, the inhabitants of the world. It is a term used by geographers today to mean inhabited land, where people have made their permanent homes and all areas considered occupied or used for industry or farming.
Since the word " kosmos" has so many different meanings and "oikoumene" specifically means, or includes the thought of all people, would it not make sense that the word "oikoumene" would have been used in Jn 3:16 if the readers were to understand that the "world" meant all people? (Forgive me for using logic) oikoumene is used in Lk 2:1, 4:5, Acts 11:28, 17:31, 19:27, Rom 10:18 and Rev 3:10.

Another reason you do not need to use Jn 3:16 is because the teaching that God loves all people and has always loved all people will be made clear by the other verses you are going to present as proof, right? Because, you cannot teach a doctrine using only one verse, correct? Because of all the verses in the bible, there must be orher verses to prove a doctrine, right? Am I making sense? Can you understand there is not one doctrine in the entire bible that is built on one, solitary, stand-alone verse? That is not the case with Jn 3:16, is it?
Now, you cannot use the following verses because they all state that "God loved US.."and the word "us" in the N.T. always and only refers to believers: Rm 8:37, Ep 2:4, 5:2, 2Th2:16, 1Jn4:10-11, 19 and Rev 1:5.
But, that shouldn't be a problem because such an incredible, stupendous doctrine that " God loves all people" will be shown in all of the gospels, right? Surely Paul would teach it,right? And John, well, he would have wrote that down in his other writtings, right? And Peter, James, Peter and Jude would not hesitate to include that in what they wrote, would they? I realize you people are going to make me look silly because of all of the evidence you are going to flood me with.
2. Show me one Greek or Hebrew word that was translated into the English words, love or loved, that is defined as meaning "unconditional love." Just one or two definitions from any word study tool.

I must ask you to answer a question. When we read;
Jn 14:21 He that HATH MY COMMANDMENTS, AND KEEPETH THEM, he it is that loveth me: AND HE THAT LOVETH ME SHALL BE LOVED OF MY FATHER, AND I WILL LOVE HIM...

Jn 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, IF A MAN LOVE ME, HE WILL KEEP MY WORDS: AND MY FATHER WILL LOVE HIM..."

Help me out here. According to these two verses, verses in black and white, verses in print that all can read and understand, Jesus clearly says, without exception, that only those who keep the words of Jesus (Obey) and love Jesus, will be loved by God. Is that not what the verses teach? Or, am I in error? Also, it sure sounds like there are conditions to be met before God loves a person? If there are conditions to being
loved by God, then His love cannot be unconditional. And since the overwhelming number of people who do/did not love Jesus or keep his word, how is it possible, based on these TWO verses, to say and believe that God has always loved every single person?
And doesn't Jesus say in Vs 14:21 that he will (only) love those who obey him and keep his commandments?

"God loves all people, and He loves them unconditionally", if true, would have to be the greatest, most important doctrine in the entire bible, would it not? I mean, as much as it is said, it must have a lofty standing in the bible, a doctrine above all other bible doctrines.

Since you are going to show me verse after verse in the N.T. that God loves all people, I can't wait to see the verses found in the O.T. Man oh man, am I going to be shown up. Because in my searching the O.T., I have only seen one group of people being loved by God:

Deut 7:6-8, the Jews and the Jews alone. I must be lax in my study because;
1. The Jews are the only people God said He loved.No other tribe, nation or people group are mentioned as being loved by God.
2. I find it very strange that, because you people talk so much and often about how much God loves all people, that Deut 7:7 is the only time God tells of loving the Jews.

So, I am ready to get bombarded by all of the verses you folks are going to show me.
And one last point. You guys also teach that God never stops loving people. Perhaps you could explain this verse to me:

Hos 9:15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for THERE I HATED THEM: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of my house.I WILL LOVE THEM NO MORE....

Okay, the ball is in your court. Show me your verses that proclaim God loves all people.



Sent from my LG-M327 using Tapatalk
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Here's my position, and I will expand on it if necessary.

God loves all people enough to want them to come to Him, to repent, and to love Him. But he also hates those who oppose Him, and yes, while still loving them. God is a living God, He has the ability to love and hate (and no, I'm not using the Hebrew idiom here) freely.
 

popsthebuilder

New member
"loved the world..."


(Your own words seem to give you what you asked for)

So to you GOD created man with the sole intent of torturing the majority of them for all eternity?

That doesn't make the Spirit of GOD out to be evil at all......

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
"loved the world..."


(Your own words seem to give you what you asked for)

So to you GOD created man with the sole intent of torturing the majority of them for all eternity?

That doesn't make the Spirit of GOD out to be evil at all......

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Is it wrong for God to allow those who don't want to be with Him to live forever apart from Him?

Or would it be wrong for God to force people to live with Him for eternity when they don't want to be with Him?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
...............
The false teaching that "God loves people soooooooo much," comes from the English word "so" in Jn 3:16, "For God so loved the world..." Because the Pharisees do not know that English syntax does not mirror the Greek syntax,(they are very different) when they read "For God so loved..." they, with their brilliance, automatically "know" that the word "so" must be an adjective, a word that modifys a noun, and that the English word "so" can be used to describe degree or depth. So, ergo, "God loves the world sooooooo much!"
There is only one little problem with that method of brilliant deduction. The English word "so" is translated from the Greek word: houto. The Greek word is not an adjective, (Are you ready for the truth?) it is an ADVERB! An adverb, a word that modifys a verb! The definition of houto is: in this way, in this manner. Thus, an accurate rendering of Jn 3:16 would read:
For God, in this way, loved the world..."

Not" God loved the world so much" Are you aware that the word "much" is nowhere to be found in the original text of Jn 3:16.

Are you ready for the truth? You're a bible corrector, not a bible believer, with your "the Greek" fraud, as you would not know the difference between a gyros, and a "Hebrew National," and you are a scammer, with your deceptive, devious, devilish...

.
the word "much" is nowhere to be found in the original text of Jn 3:16.....

as you have never examined "the original text" of Jn 3:16, nor has anyone alive, as the "original text" bit the dust, shortly after it was "penned."


Tell you what, poser, if you disagree: I will give you $650,0000(my approximate net worth) for this alleged "original text" of Jn. 3:16, that you obviously have examined, and verified as "the original text," with the caveat that you prove that it is "the original text" of Jn 3:16.


Agreed?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
God is a healthy God. He's not a sadist.
I cannot answer. Your point please.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
You can't? Or you won't? I'm starting to think that you refuse to answer because if you did, it would expose your error.
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Think what you will.

I cannot answer because I do not understand the questions.
God is a healthy God. He's not a sadist.You can't? Or you won't? I'm starting to think that you refuse to answer because if you did, it would expose your error.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

Danoh

New member
Is it wrong for God to allow those who don't want to be with Him to live forever apart from Him?

Or would it be wrong for God to force people to live with Him for eternity when they don't want to be with Him?

"No," to that first part, and "it depends" as to that second part of your question.

Rom. 5:6-8.
 

Danoh

New member
Think what you will.

I cannot answer because I do not understand the questions.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Gotta believe you on that one.

The question is vague.

At least as worded, and as worded to someone who possibly holds a different view (warranted, or not).

While to conclude you are intentionally up to no good simply because the question as worded, is vague to you, and or given that you might or might not be looking at it from a perspective that at this point keeps you from seeing where he might or might not be coming from, is unwarranted.

Rom. 5:6-8.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
"No," to that first part, and "it depends" as to that second part of your question.

Rom. 5:6-8.

Then let me ask you this:

Would it be wrong for a man to kidnap a woman and lock her up in his house, demanding that she accept him? Or would we rightly consider that to be the behavior of someone who is mentally ill?
 

Danoh

New member
Then let me ask you this:

Would it be wrong for a man to kidnap a woman and lock her up in his house, demanding that she accept him? Or would we rightly consider that to be the behavior of someone who is mentally ill?

:chuckle:

Depends.

For there is such a thing as Stockholm Syndrome.

Who was it that said he had ended up well aware of the fact that he could shoot someone in broad daylight on a busy street and his "Christian" supporters would be just fine with it?

Exactly how that "mentally ill" narrative has continued to play out as to said individual and his self-deceived rabidly blind supporters...to this very minute.

So no, your question, as asked, has more than one answer.

Now you think on that a minute - my reply perhaps appears just as off the wall to you as your question has obviously been appearing to pops.

The thing to do is to state your case and then ask your question from there.

Not merely ask it, expect a differing viewpoint to understand it, and then right off conclude they were up to no good in their response should it turn out they may not have even known what we are going in about, to begin with, no matter how we worded it.

Of course, if my being straight with you about this causes you too to go the way of the so called "truth smackers" on here and no longer support any of my posts you do find agreement with, well, I am fine with that too.

Personally, I like having my views and or approaches being challenged.

Why?

Because Rom. 5:6-8 - in each our stead.

:thumb:
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
:chuckle:

Depends.

For there is such a thing as Stockholm Syndrome.

Who was it that said he had ended up well aware of the fact that he could shoot someone in broad daylight on a busy street and his "Christian" supporters would be just fine with it?

Exactly how that "mentally ill" narrative has continued to play out as to said individual and his self-deceived rabidly blind supporters...to this very minute.

So no, your question, as asked, has more than one answer.

Now you think on that a minute - my reply perhaps appears just as off the wall to you as your question has obviously been appearing to pops.

The thing to do is to state your case and then ask your question from there.

Not merely ask it, expect a differing viewpoint to understand it, and then right off conclude they were up to no good in their response should it turn out they may not have even known what we are going in about, to begin with, no matter how we worded it.

Of course, if my being straight with you about this causes you too to go the way of the so called "truth smackers" on here and no longer support any of my posts you do find agreement with, well, I am fine with that too.

Personally, I liked having my views challenged.

Why?

Because Rom. 5:6-8 - in each our stead.

:thumb:

Danoh, is kidnapping wrong?
 
Top