Would you be disapointed to find a Hindu in Heaven?

[Blazin Bones]

Thanks for the sriptures, Gary.

 

[Relic]

Thanks for the sriptures, Gary.

Yes,

Ditto to that thank you! :D



.

 

[AHIMSA]

And this, as Gary, Relic and Brutus/His Catalyst have so brilliantly demonstrated, is one of the greatest problems on Christianity today:

People act as though hurling a bunch biblical quotes actually proves something definitely, thats it, deal done...no questions asked. No doubt that scripture should hold some sway. The authors of the Bible has much wisdom to share. But those words are there for us to consider, to evaluate and to disect. I think, when reading the Bible honestly, we will find its authors, at times, to be blatantly incorrect. While, during other instances, we will hear the sweet ring of truth.
When did it get to the point that we have surrendered our minds to it completely? When did we becomes slaves to this ancient document? When did we bind ourselves to its outdated mentalities?

Lets take note of the quotes used to 'prove' Christian exclusivism:

We have a single quote attributed to Christ himself: "I am the Way"...the typical "No one gets to the father"

Then we have quotes from: Romans, Timothy, Ephesians, Hebrews ect.
It always strikes me as odd, how Christians act as though the words of Paul and other unnamed authors are the words of Christ himself. These were people writting letters to early Christian communities. They were not the divine word...they were opinions...interpretations if you will of the Christ experience. They should have the same authority of your pastor. The authors had no idea what they were writting would be seen as God's holy and final word. Why is that many of the writings act as essays? Its because they were attempting to prove something. If they believed to have a divine mandate, then there would be no need to prove anything...as the words would be self-justifying.

Always remember that the Bible wasn't compiled until hundreds of years after Christ, during which a council debated which books should be allowed in. They certainly chose the ones that fit the theological views of the times.

And why is the Bible finished? If one is to accept it as the Word of God, why does his word stop there? How do we know if other writings are the "Word of God"?

Ironically, for the anti-Catholics here, if you are going to use the defense that the books that compose the Bible were chosen under divine guidance, then take note that the Bible was placed together under the Catholic Church. Meaning that Catholicism apparently had God's divine approval.

So before we try to narrow our minds and close off all other interpretations of the Christian religion, never mind all other religions together, lets examine the other sayings of Christ:


Or, notice Jesus' conclusion of the sermon on the mount: "He who follows these words of mine and puts them into practice is like the man who built his house on rock."

Now read the Sermon on the Mount, they contain no words of "believing in an atoning death" or Jesus being the "only way to the father". Yet it is this sermon that is our very foundation.

"He who is not against us is for us"

Many of the different religions hold the same moral core and share in similar world visions of peace and harmony. It seems that they are 'for us' in this vision. Yet by trashing other religions as false ways...it seems that we do not listen to Christ's words

The two greatest Commands: Love God, Love your neighbour.....not put your faith in Jesus Christ as your one and only savior for the sacrifice of your sins. We can not doubt that people of different faiths love God.


It seems to me that these three examples stand in contradiction to most Christian's claim that you have to 'believe in Jesus' to find salvation. It further shows that the idea of Christian exclusivism was an interpretation of the early Christian writers, and not an idea that Christ himself put foward.

I was wondering, can anyone find me, from the texts of Mark, Luke and Matthew, any quote where Jesus makes the claim of Christian exclusivism?

 

[Blazin Bones]

AHIMSA, two things:

1. John wrote in Revelations that we are not to add to the writitngs of this Book (the Bible?)

2. If Christ was not teaching that he is the only way to God, what was he teaching in John 14:6?

 

[Gary]

Ironically, for the anti-Catholics here, if you are going to use the defense that the books that compose the Bible were chosen under divine guidance, then take note that the Bible was placed together under the Catholic Church. Meaning that Catholicism apparently had God's divine approval.

Nope. Wrong again.

This is the INCORRECT View of the canon of Scripture:

• The church is determiner of the canon.
  
  The church is mother of the canon.
  
  The church is magistrate of the canon.
  
  The church is regulator of the canon.
  
  The church is judge of the canon.
  
  The church is master of the canon.

The CORRECT View of the canon of Scripture is:

• The church is discoverer of the canon.
  
  The church is child of the canon.
  
  The church is minister of the canon.
  
  The church is recognizer of the canon.
  
  The church is witness of the canon.
  
  The church is servant of the canon.

In the “INCORRECT View†the authority of the Scriptures is based upon the authority of the church; the correct view is that the authority of the church is to be found in the authority of the Scriptures. The incorrect view places the church over the canon, whereas the proper position views the church under the canon.

In fact, if in the list titled “INCORRECT View,†the word church be replaced by God, then the proper view of the canon emerges clearly. It is God who regulated the canon; man merely recognized the divine authority God gave to it. God determined the canon, and man discovered it. Louis Gaussen gives an excellent summary of this position:

In this affair, then, the Church is a servant and not a mistress; a depository and not a judge. She exercises the office of a minister, not of a magistrate. . . . She delivers a testimony, not a judicial sentence. She discerns the canon of the Scriptures, she does not make it; she has recognized their authenticity, she has not given it. . . . The authority of the Scriptures is not founded, then, on the authority of the Church: It is the church that is founded on the authority of the Scriptures. [Gaussen, 137]

Source: Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (Page 81).

 

[Gary]

Now read the Sermon on the Mount, they contain no words of "believing in an atoning death" or Jesus being the "only way to the father". Yet it is this sermon that is our very foundation.

Wrong again. We take the WHOLE of Scripture..... and then we find many verses which talk about the "atoning death" of Jesus, including Jesus' own words.

• John 10:14-15 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know meâ€â€just as the Father knows me and I know the Fatherâ€â€and I lay down my life for the sheep."
  
  John 6:37-40 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
  
  1 John 2:2 He (Jesus Christ) is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
  
  1 John 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins...
  
  Matthew 26:27-28 Then he (Jesus Christ) took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins...."

You can continue to deny Scripture... I don't!

As Jesus said (in the sermon on the mount)...

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

 

[Gary]

... and we continue our Bible study.....

We know that Luke wrote both the account of the life of Jesus (The Gospel according to Luke) and Acts.... note the reference to "Theophilus" in both books.

At the end of the Gospel according to Luke, we read the following:

Luke 24:45-49 Then he (Jesus Christ) opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

and then in Acts, Luke reports what Jesus told the disciples:

Acts 1:7-8 He (Jesus Christ) said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Was this true? Well, after Pentecost and the pouring out of the promised Holy Spirit, Peter and John preached and healed in Jesus' name. The priests, the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees were disturbed. The rulers and elders and teachers of the law met with Annas and Caiaphas and they seized Peter and John and questioned them. "By what power or what name did you do this?" (Acts 4:7)

Acts 4:8-14 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.'

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say.

So what do YOU have to say?

:wink:

 

[Free]

When did we bind ourselves to its outdated mentalities?

And just what is outdated about it? Other than technological advance, the world is very much the same now as it was then.

They were not the divine word...they were opinions...interpretations if you will of the Christ experience.

There is no "Christ experience"; that is New Age and blatantly false. Every book is much more than merely man's opinion on what Jesus did and taught. Each book was inspired by God; they were given to each author to write through that authors unique personality and ability.

They should have the same authority of your pastor.

Not at all. The Bible is the final authority on matters of doctrine and if the pastor is wrong, then he is wrong. A pastor cannot contradict the Bible and yet both be true.

The authors had no idea what they were writting would be seen as God's holy and final word.

So what? It is irrelevant to whether or not the authors were actually writing words given to them by God for the building up of the Church.

Always remember that the Bible wasn't compiled until hundreds of years after Christ, during which a council debated which books should be allowed in. They certainly chose the ones that fit the theological views of the times.

Again, this point is irrelevant, and misleading. The process of canonization was done over a period of about 200 years and used many books which were already held highly by the early Church community. The process had nothing to do with fitting the theological views of the times.

And why is the Bible finished? If one is to accept it as the Word of God, why does his word stop there? How do we know if other writings are the "Word of God"?

There are no other writings that are on par with those in the Bible. That is why it is closed.

Now read the Sermon on the Mount, they contain no words of "believing in an atoning death" or Jesus being the "only way to the father". Yet it is this sermon that is our very foundation.

Notice that he is speaking to those who are his disciples (Matt. 5:1). Also, look at 7:13-23:

Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

And notice what the very next verse is:

Mat 7:24 "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

The very story which you quote from. Yet prior to this Jesus gives several indications that there is a narrow way which is difficult that leads to eternal life. He also states that there are false prophets and that even some who call him “Lord†will not enter heaven.

Hardly the language of inclusiveness.

"He who is not against us is for us"

Many of the different religions hold the same moral core and share in similar world visions of peace and harmony. It seems that they are 'for us' in this vision. Yet by trashing other religions as false ways...it seems that we do not listen to Christ's words.

Let’s look at that quote, taking it in context:

Mar 9:38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us."
Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.
Mar 9:40 For the one who is not against us is for us.

Notice that the context is someone who was “casting out demons in [Jesus’] nameâ€Â. Look also at Matt. 12:30 which states the negative form:

Mat 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

It is clear that Jesus is talking about much more than merely “visions of peace and harmonyâ€Â. Let’s “listen to Christ’s wordsâ€Â:

Mat 10:32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,
Mat 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Again, hardly the language of inclusiveness, or peace and harmony. Not only that, but the core beliefs of the many different religions are all so fundamentally different that one cannot say they are essentially equal. Christianity cannot be true and at the same time Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam true.

The two greatest Commands: Love God, Love your neighbour.....not put your faith in Jesus Christ as your one and only savior for the sacrifice of your sins. We can not doubt that people of different faiths love God.

This is very misleading since different faiths define “God†in many different, contradictory ways. Not only that, you are ignoring much of what Jesus stated elsewhere:

Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Mar 14:22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."
Mar 14:23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
Mar 14:24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luk 10:16 "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Luk 10:22 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

There are many other such passages, particularly in John.

It seems to me that these three examples stand in contradiction to most Christian's claim that you have to 'believe in Jesus' to find salvation.

There is no contradiction; you took the verses out of context and ignored much of Jesus said.

It further shows that the idea of Christian exclusivism was an interpretation of the early Christian writers, and not an idea that Christ himself put foward.

Jesus clearly taught that salvation was found in him alone, that that was his whole purpose in coming.

I was wondering, can anyone find me, from the texts of Mark, Luke and Matthew, any quote where Jesus makes the claim of Christian exclusivism?

I have given you several and there are many more. Why do you exclude John? Because it clearly shows that salvation is through Jesus alone and does the most harm to your position?

 

[AHIMSA]

And just what is outdated about it? Other than technological advance, the world is very much the same now as it was then.

Not outdated? Read the story of Joshua! God follows the same mentality of Hitler in cleansing the land of the 'impure pagans'.( refer to my post in Bible Study) Or how about a book that denies the existence of cave men? Or the fact that human life originated in Africa? Or displays a God who strikes men down for tripping and touching the Ark by mistake? Or a God who nearly killed Moses because Zipporah's son wasn't circumsized?

Each book was inspired by God; they were given to each author to write through that authors unique personality and ability.

So where exactly in the Bible does it say this? Or does tradition merit such a belief? Then again, if we are to be sola scriptura, then tradition accounts for nothing.

Again, this point is irrelevant, and misleading. The process of canonization was done over a period of about 200 years and used many books which were already held highly by the early Church community. The process had nothing to do with fitting the theological views of the times.

Wrong again, early Christianity had many different forms to it, many of which Paul rants against himself. There was a wide diversity of Christian beliefs, and many other gospels esteemed besides the ones accepted into the cannon. Secondly, when placing the gospels in linear order, it is obvious that the Christian tradition developed as the years went by. By the time the Bible was assembled, they only books that were addmitted were the ones esteemed by the ruling group, the ones that made sense to them and their views. Of course, all other opinions and beliefs were viciously oppressed and those who disagreed with them were labelled as 'heretics' as were persecuted.

There are no other writings that are on par with those in the Bible. That is why it is closed.

So your opinion is that the Bible is so brilliantly written that nothing else compares? Again, where is your biblical proof? Where does the Bible assert this about itself? And surely, the Bible doesn't get points for being the most divinely written. Read the works of C.S Lewis, I think many would agree that he wrote with a finer pen then many of the biblical authors.

The Sermon on the Mount:

The Sermon on the Mount was not to Christ's disciples alone, but to the crowds from the Decapolis and Galilee. Matthew 7:28

Now considering these people had lives, and could not follow Jesus everywhere he went as his disciples did, why did Jesus fail to mention the importance of believing in him as savior to these people? Were they not worthy of such knowledge...which, according to you, is absolutely neccessary to salvation?

The Sermon on the Mount is the very heart of Jesus' message, as he says: follow THESE words, and you have built your house on solid foundation. Notice how the Sermon contains no doctrines or theology.

Secondly to quote the Narrow Gate passage is a terrible example. Again, you are assuming that Jesus is talking about believing in him as being the narrow path, when he says no such thing.

The narrow path is the very path that Jesus had just laid out before the people: the beatitudes, loving your neighbour, not judging people, turning the other cheek, not being pridefull, controlling your thoughts ect.

To follow these things are much more difficult than 'believing in Christ." This is the path that few find, for many are not willing to follow it.

I exclude the Gospel of John when it comes to finding out who Jesus really was, because it is obvious to me that John is a 'spiritual gospel'. This gospel is concerned with what they believe about Jesus, not neccessarily who Jesus really was. You obviously disagree. But when reading John we realize that it drastically differs from the other gospels. It is not a 'synoptic'. Why would the other gospels fail to record such important sayings of Christ? Again, most scholars agree.

Lastly, it always distrubs me how much Christianity is obsessed with theology and doctrine, placing far too much emphasis on what one believes. Jesus was not a theologian, he not did not preach complicated doctrines. Rather Jesus preached the message that God was here and could be experienced...and that such an experiecne would change your life. He saw the futility of placing this in concepts and theologies, for words only limit the experience of God.

Take note, when the Sadduccees brought Jesus the question about the Ressurection and marriage, trying to trap him in the complications of theology and doctrine, Jesus simply answered them:

"People will neither marry nor be married, they will be like angels in heaven"
Which is really a good way of saying: It is so beyond what we can comprehend that its not even worth bringing human concepts of marriage to it.

Then he says, "God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living."

For me, this is one of the most powerful things that Jesus ever said. While Christians seem so obessed with heaven and the afterlife, Jesus is simply telling us not to worry about such things.

To the Sadduccees and Pharisees, God existed much less in the realm of human experience, than he did in the pages of scripture or in the concepts that they had structured around him. That was the dead God, the God who lived only as words on a page, or images and conepts in the mind.

This is not God, rather God is the God of the living. The God of living experience, who we can meet here and now, whom we can know here and now. Such questions as "What happens after death" become irrelevant to those who know the Living God, for such notions are beyond the realm of human comprehension.

Yet Christianity remains obsessed with these doctrines, remains obessesed with theology and "what gets us into heaven". In doing so, we have confined God to the pages of books, to the concepts that exist within our heads...rather than directly experiencing the Living God and understanding that such issues do not matter.

 

[Free]

Not outdated? Read the story of Joshua! God follows the same mentality of Hitler in cleansing the land of the 'impure pagans'.( refer to my post in Bible Study) Or how about a book that denies the existence of cave men? Or the fact that human life originated in Africa? Or displays a God who strikes men down for tripping and touching the Ark by mistake? Or a God who nearly killed Moses because Zipporah's son wasn't circumsized?

And just what is outdated in that paragraph? Do you consider Plato's writings outdated? How are stories and accounts of historical events outdated? Perhaps you need to define just what you mean by "outdated".

So where exactly in the Bible does it say this? Or does tradition merit such a belief? Then again, if we are to be sola scriptura, then tradition accounts for nothing.

To answer your first question:

2 Timothy 3:16-17, "16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

As for your second question: Tradition also merits such a belief. Your understanding of "sola scriptura" is inaccurate, but I do not blame you as many Evangelicals also understand it in the same erroneous way. The original understanding of "sola scriptura" was not "Scripture at the exclusion of tradition, reason, or experience," but rather "Scripture is the final authority" over those other things, but they were not to be neglected.

Wrong again, early Christianity had many different forms to it, many of which Paul rants against himself. There was a wide diversity of Christian beliefs, and many other gospels esteemed besides the ones accepted into the cannon.

On the contrary, this liberal view is false and has very little, if any, substantiating evidence. You have to define what you mean by "early Christianity". Do you mean prior to 100 AD or everything up to and including say 400 AD?

There was not a wide diversity of Christian beliefs. There was some Jewish mysticism and early Gnosticism that began creeping in which is why Paul and John wrote against them. At that very early point in the Church, those views were already deemed heterodox, by the Apostles themselves.

Most, or all, of the "other gospels" were written much later, around 150 AD and later, and are typically dependent on the first four. While there may have been a select few other books read by the Church, most were not considered inspired like the rest of the books that ended up as canon.

Secondly, when placing the gospels in linear order, it is obvious that the Christian tradition developed as the years went by. By the time the Bible was assembled, they only books that were addmitted were the ones esteemed by the ruling group, the ones that made sense to them and their views. Of course, all other opinions and beliefs were viciously oppressed and those who disagreed with them were labelled as 'heretics' as were persecuted.

Although there appears to be some development within the four canonical gospels, while they were written most of the Apostles and witnesses of Jesus and his resurrection were still alive, so any information in them could have been easliy disputed, but it wasn't. There are simply different persons writing different accounts.

And again, no, it was not only the books that fit the theology of the group of the time that were included in canon. You are ignoring the fact that the process was about 200 years long and most of the books that were canonized, especially the four gospels, were accepted prior to and throughout the canonization process.

The only views that were oppressed and labeled as heretical were those that were heterodox. There is much more evidence in favor of orthodoxy having been established prior to these heretical views and teachings.

So your opinion is that the Bible is so brilliantly written that nothing else compares? Again, where is your biblical proof? Where does the Bible assert this about itself? And surely, the Bible doesn't get points for being the most divinely written. Read the works of C.S Lewis, I think many would agree that he wrote with a finer pen then many of the biblical authors.

In the context of this discussion, I certainly didn't mean that it was a literary masterpiece, although some do consider certain books as such, rather I was stating that in terms of determining those books which are canonical, there are no other "gospels" and such that compare with the Bible. The extra-biblical books do not come close to the authenticity, historicity, or authority of those in the Bible.


I'll have to deal with the rest of your post later as my lunch is over.

 

[YESHUA]

I find it very interesting that exclusivist Christians claim that we find heaven by grace.

But then they say...to merit that grace...one must believe and live for Christ, one must surrender one's self completely to the will of God...then, on that merit, you recieve grace.

Yet by its very definition, grace is unmerrited. There is nothing you can do to deserve it.

I strongly detest this notion of the salvation formula that belief in christ = salvation........for in the end, what is a belief unless it produces action?

Did Christ die for you or did he not? It matters not whether you believe he died for you. To say that his atonement is somehow dependent on your belief of that event occuring...its like saying medication won't for an illness unless you believe in the medication.

Why would Christ's atonement depend on whether or not you think it happened?


...............then again...I don't even believe in atonement.........but just for the sake of argument

Interesting Ahimsa

Jesus didn't look around and say "I am going to die for you, you and you". He just up and died for all of us, every last one of us, no holds barred. And you are right....whether or not we believe it doesn't change the fact that He died for all of us. A pure, unadulterated gift of eternal life He gave to all of us. He didn't ask us if we wanted it, He just gave it, free. As one minister I admire said "God is the Judge and Jesus defends us and has already paid the price for our sins". I wish I could remember the rest of what he said. And I don't even have a clue as to what religion he belonged to. I just liked his thoughts.

REALLY AND WHY DO WE BELIEVE IN JESUS AS A SAVIOUR AND A REDEEMER?
Jesus paid the price but only for those who would receive HIM as a personal saviour and redeemer read your GOD given Bible and then come back a tell us that GOD just has to do this and that HE IS GOD YOUR NOT, and HE does what HE likes and nobody can change that not you not anybody. And if says that your saved by Believing in HIS SON JESUS thats that and how are you to complain and argue about it take it up with HIM and se what HE says in John 3:16
Shalom and love in the name of YESHUA the free gift of life from GOD but not to be misused like so many people do.

 

[hopefearmercy]

hmm


this is a question that must be left up to truth.

Imagine being so filled with sin and yet get a free ticket to heaven on account of a price being paid....sounds real cool ...does that mean you can sin and sin and sin and forgiveness on no matter how that sin or what that sin is will be forgiven????....did Jesus not come to NOT CHANGE THE LAW...but to fulfil it???....that means the laws of Moses that were given him still stands do they not???...so accountability will be there on the day of judgement.......I just hope everyone will realize that EVERYONE will have to face judgement with their books in their hands of everything that is recorded good and bad........to say yes I am going to heaven is having too much pride....we should hope for Allah's mercy and do good in trying to receive it and acheive it.

hopefearmercy

 

[Gary]

So what "good" did the criminal do who hung on the cross next to Jesus?

• Luke 23:38-43 38There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
  
  39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
  
  40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
  
  42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
  
  43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

So let's examine why Jesus said this. Why would the criminal be in paradise?

 

[hopefearmercy]

again

ok let's do look at this

first of all, who recorded Jesus saying this if all his desciples fled from the scene???...is in the bible...read it....there were NO eyewitnesses to the fact that Jesus was resurrected..

Jesus himself said he was not resurrected...Jesus himself stated that he didn’t die on the cross. John 20:17..Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father…why would he say that?…perhaps from the wound in his side…….it says……I am not yet ascended….means…..that he was still alive, not dead yet, because if somebody dies, then he goes back to the Creator. This was the strongest proof admitted by Jesus himself. Plus Jesus convinced them by letting them touch his hands and feet, that he was the same person….
Luke 24:36-41….And as they (the disciples) thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be upon you.(I wonder who says Jesus' words now??? assalaamu'alaykum ring a bell?) But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hand and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have you here any meat: And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.

Matthew 12:7.But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

now, to be able to know the truth in the matter, you must find proof to substantiate you claim...and not translated proofs without any non authenticated sources....such as hearsay scriptures that were not even written during the time of Jesus....

to answer your question what did the guy do to get hanged on the cross?....I wasn't there.

hopefearmercy

 

[Gary]

(1) Neither were you there when Muhammad had his little meeting with the spirit in the cave!

(2) Neither was Muhammad anywhere near (at least by 650 years!) to the events he so incorrectly described and which found their way into the Quran. He made several historical blunders as well as historical compressions. Very typical of fables and stories.

:-?

 

[Gary]

first of all, who recorded Jesus saying this if all his desciples fled from the scene???...is in the bible...read it....there were NO eyewitnesses to the fact that Jesus was resurrected..

Come on... I thought you had READ the Bible. Who says the disciples were NOT at the crucifixion? The disciples fled as Jesus was arrested in the evening (Matthew 26:56) but already by the time Jesus was in front of the Sanhedrin, Peter was back as an observer. Remember that Peter disowned Jesus 3 times while in the courtyard. (Matthew 26:69-75).

So your first accusation is wrong.

Secondly, Jesus was dead. He died on the cross. Read Matthew 27:32-55. Many women were there including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses and also the mother of Zebedee's sons. They were also at the tomb where Jesus was laid.

So your second accusation is also wrong.

Jesus was dead. Joseph (his disciple) took Jesus off the cross. (Matthew 27:57-61). Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there when Jesus was placed in the tomb.

Jesus was resurrected.

Matthew 28:8-10. Suddenly Jesus met them!

 

[hopefearmercy]

hmm



so you are telling me that Jesus lied when he said he had no flesh in bones...and a spirit has no flesh and bones??????.....make up your mind.

he himself said he didn't ascend to the father...so who is more correct....the author or Jesus in your opinion?

anyways....if you perform the correct procedure of crucifixion, the legs were not even broken and that is how they used to crucify back then....plus the the only sign of the crucifixion that Jesus gave or the author said that Jesus gave was the sign of Jonah....what was that sign????

3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale....soooo if you count you will never be able to come up with 3 days and 3 nights....no matter how hard you try.....Friday...then sunday....friday evening to sat. evenin is one day...and one night...then you count the rest...for the days begin at sundown.......so thus, another contradicition or what?

no matter how you see it, a contradiction is there...

hopefearmercy

 

[Gary]

I think you have confused "resurrection" (Matthew 28:1-8, Luke 24:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, John 20:1-8) with "ascension" (Acts 1:1-11, Mark 16:19)

 

[YESHUA]

Re: hmm

so you are telling me that Jesus lied when he said he had no flesh in bones...and a spirit has no flesh and bones??????.....make up your mind.

he himself said he didn't ascend to the father...so who is more correct....the author or Jesus in your opinion?

anyways....if you perform the correct procedure of crucifixion, the legs were not even broken and that is how they used to crucify back then....plus the the only sign of the crucifixion that Jesus gave or the author said that Jesus gave was the sign of Jonah....what was that sign????

3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale....soooo if you count you will never be able to come up with 3 days and 3 nights....no matter how hard you try.....Friday...then sunday....friday evening to sat. evenin is one day...and one night...then you count the rest...for the days begin at sundown.......so thus, another contradicition or what?

no matter how you see it, a contradiction is there...

hopefearmercy

show me just one place in the Bible where is says that Jesus were crucified on a friday
Shalom and love in the name of YESHUA not crucified on a friday but on a wednesday read your GOD given Bible my friend and then you will se that Jesus or YESHUA in hebrew was crucified on a wednesday

 

[Soma-Sight]

Dogma is for Dogs.....

Rejoice that God has the mercy to save anyone that He wants too...