JD I am saying that he did -- he used the right word. It's definition is just what I said it was. It's context demands that we see "wrath" as that of a heavenly Father. The wrath of a father is never about exlusion in a final sense or of torture.
Does the "context" of your writings demand that we REDFINE your words also
Our language, Deegan, is ENGLISH. We write in English and more importantly, we THINK in English. We speak in English. The writers of the N.T. did none of these things. And so, we need to use a greek-english dictionary to know what is meant by the greek words used in the text.
"Wrath," for example, is a W O R D. "Highly pissed, mad enough to kill, angry as a result of frustration" ---------- that is called a "def in i tion." Words ---- definitions. Words -- definitions. I used biblical context and accepted Greek scholarship to define the word "wrath," not redefine it. His wrath is the wrath of a Father. How could anyone deny this? What?? He stops being our Father in Heaven when He gets angry? Is that what you believe? You are majoring in minors. What big time false teaching is going on here? You and I believe in holiness. The difference? I believe that holiness is a response to the conviction and the appreciation I feel for what God has done for me -- I call it "faith." You believe that such is a good idea, but when there is no conviction or appreciation, do it anyway !!!! Do it anyway. Wow. As if practicing holiness means something apart from faith. Holiness apart from faith doesn't mean squat. That is heresy, my friend.
JD
