@Johann
Since we've started this discussion in the open let's keep it that way. There is no need to send me private messages. Since you feel I need to be held accountable, hold me accountable. It's been my experience that the only reason one goes to the Mods is because they cannot defend their position. It usually goes something like this, a person can't defend their position so rather than admitting there are issues to deal with they instead seek to have the opposing view removed from the conversation. Thus, giving the appeared of a "win". The reason that I believe this to be the case here also is your multiple posts claiming you've "proven" me wrong. Those claims seem to indicate to me that you are seeking to win an argument rather than being here to learn as you claim. You words don't align with your actions.
Since you feel I need to hold me accountable, please do so, yourself. However, since you believe accountability is necessary here, I'll also hold you accountable.
You've posted several posts with walls of text that consist of commentaries. I've not read much of it. There is no reason for me to read it. I'm well aware of the positions of the other side. As I said, I was on the other side. I've also not addressed some of your posts because I didn't want to embarrass you. There is nothing to be gained by embarrassing a brother or making him look foolish. I gently pointed to preconceptions, critical thinking and logical fallacies hoping you'd consider them. It appears you haven't.
So, to your posts, they've been laced with logical fallacies and lack critical thinking as has much of the commentary you've posted. You started a thread about how the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is not a parable. You gave about 5 reason why that is so. Every single one of those reasons was a logical fallacy. It contained an error in reasoning. One of those was the claim that because the story uses names and none of Jesus' other parables do it must be literal. That one claim alone contains two logical fallacies. The first is the Non Sequitur, also known as, it doesn't follow. There is no logical connection between Jesus using names and the story being literal. The second fallacy is known as an argument from silence. An argument from silence is one where the claim is said to be true based on something that isn't stated. This claim, it's the only parable where Jesus used names proves it's literal, is an argent from silence since we don't know all of the parables Jesus told. We only know the ones that have been recorded in Scripture. The apostle John said that Jesus did and said so many things that he supposed the world could not hold the books if it was all written down. So, it's quite possible, if no probable that Jesus did use names in other parables. So right off the bat the thread starts with logical fallacies.
You say you've "proven" me wrong. Yet, all you've done is post videos and commentary of what other people "think" the Scriputres are saying. Tell me, what authority do Calvin's thoughts carry? What authority do the opinions of the Rabbi's carry? What authority do the opinions of scholars carry? Are they inspired as the apostles were? My friend, their opinions don't "prove" me wrong, no matter how much authority you give them. They are not inspired and they are not Scripture. I could do the same. I could post walls of text showing commentary where people agree with my position. I could post walls of text from the early church that opposite of the commentary you've posted. What would that prove? It would prove what those who I've posted believe.
Now to your claims that I've not answered your questions. The questions I've not addressed are those that pertain to what you posted. Much of the information is fallacious so there's no need to comment on it. Your other questions I have answered. On the other hand, you have side stepped many of the questions I've asked you. I told you that you could easily end this discussion and prove me wrong by showing me where Scripture teaches that man has an immortal soul. So, I actually invited you and told clearly how to prove me wrong. You didn't even acknowledge it. It seems to me if proving me wrong was so important you would have jumped all over that golden opportunity. You didn't. Why is that? I suspect it's because you know you can't prove it. It's because there is nothing in Scripture that says man has an immortal soul. Paul states plainly that Jesus will reveal the "only" one who has immortality. That's the one no man has or can see. That's the Father. Paul also said to the Corinthians, this "mortal" must put on immortality. Paul said man is mortal, not immortal. He also said to the Roman Church that those who continued in well doing were seeking immortality. They were seeking it because they didn't have it. These are just three passages showing clearly that man is "not" immortal. Now you can post all the commentary you want saying otherwise. It doesn't change the facts. These statements from Paul aren't commentary, they are facts.
You spoke of the Trinity. Jesus, when praying to the Father said that He was the "only" true God. Paul said to the Corinthians, "to us there is one God, the Father". Paul said to Timothy that when Jesus comes He will reveal the "only" one who has immortality. The one no one can see or has seen. John said, many years after the resurrection that no one has seen God at any time. Those statements are Scripture, they are facts, not commentary. Tell me how there is a Trinity of three persons who are God when John says no one has seen God at any time. How is there a Trinity of three coequals when Paul said, "to us there is one God, the Father. Again, you can post all the commentary you'd like but it doesn't change the facts.
What about going to Heaven. Jesus told the Jews they could not go where He was going. He later told His disciples, as He had said to the Jews, where I am going you cannot come. The apostle John writing some 60 years after the Resurrection said ' no man has ascended to Heaven except the Son of Man who came down from Heaven. That begs the question, where did the apostles go? Where did all of those Christians go who were persecuted? They didn't go to Heaven because John said no one had gone to Heaven except Jesus.
Now I've given you here just a few passages of Scripture. You can post commentary until the cows come home, it won't change these facts.
So, who is being deceitful? I've asked you questions repeatedly that you've ignored. I laid out the details of Lazarus and the Rich Man. You didn't address it. I even went back and asked if anyone was going to engage the details. You didn't. I asked you how something that ends can be eternal. You're argument was that if eternal doesn't mean eternal then it isn't eternal life. That statement is yet another logical fallacy a Red Herring. The word Eternal is not the word in question, the word aion is. However, you're statement is an inference. It infers that if aion doesn't mean eternal then there is no eternal life. That's an inference. What I gave you was a clear statement from Jesus that the aion ends. A clear statement from Jesus is a fact. Your inference does not Trump Jesus' fact. Just because you may not understand how aion and be used of something that is eternal, yet eternal not be the definition of aion doesn't change the fact that Jesus said it ends.
Are we seeing a pattern form here. Logical fallacies and inferences aren't facts. Fallacies are errors in reasoning and inference are subject to error. Since your posts contain many of each of them you might w3nat to reconsider some of the things you've stated. Maybe compare them with Scripture. Posting other peoples opininons of what the Scriptures mean isn't the answer either.
As I said, I'm more than willing to have the conversation, that requires that you engage. Posting walls of text of others opinions isn't engaging, it's propaganda.
