What happens to other religious people come Judgement day ?

monosharp

Ok so on another thread here we've been discussing whose going to hell based on beliving in God or not.

I think we need a new thread for the question, whats going to happen to other religions people ?

Lets start with the 3 religions which more or less have the same source.

Judaism -> They follow the teachings of the Hebrew Bible which is more or less the same as the OT. (I know its not exactly the same).

So they are technically following the same God as Christians (?), they just believe Jesus was a bit of a fibber and don't believe he was God, the son of God or even a Prophet.

They believe in only the first covenant with God, yadda yadda yadda.

So come judgement day, according to you guys where do Jews go ?

Islam -> I'm gonna just go ahead and say that its the same 'God' in Islam as in Judaism and Christianity.

wikipedia wrote:

The Qur'an speaks well of the relationship it has with former books (the Torah and the Gospel) and attributes their similarities to their unique origin and saying all of them have been revealed by the one God.

They, unlike the Jews, are quite fond of Jesus and consider him an important prophet of God.

They believe the Jewish and Christian books/stories are corrupted and incorrect.

So now you have 3 big religions, all which basically worship the same God and all whose main 'texts' are very similiar to eachother.

What about other Christians ?

Catholics -> I must admit I've forgotten but don't Cathoilics believe they're going to heaven and everyone else, regardless of being christian or pagan, are going to hell ? They picked the 'wrong' type of christianity ?

Eastern Orthodox -> Yeah these guys are the second biggest christian denomination in the world and have a rather different take on things.

e.g >

Orthodox Christians believe that the ultimate goal of every Christian is to become like God, to love perfectly, to become little “Jesus Christs” within Jesus Christ. This process is called theosis or deification

wikipedia wrote:

One important difference between the Eastern Orthodox tradition and that found within Roman Catholicism is that the Eastern Orthodox, while believing in a particular form and explanation of original sin, do not believe in the Augustinian explanation of the doctrine, which speaks of a moral/spiritual stain upon the soul and even an inheriting of guilt. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of original sin rather speaks of a severance of communion from God, a loss of sanctifying grace, an inheritance of a spiritual and physical death, the introduction of decay and disease, a subjugation to Satan, and finally a weakening of will and thus an inclination to sin. Succumbing to sin and temptation prevented humanity from participation in the Kingdom of Heaven; thus, all people from the beginning until Christ were prevented from entering into Heaven.

Buddhism -> There are some scholars that believe that Jesus studied buddhist teachings or at least that it had a big influence on Christianity.

I'm not saying this is true btw.

So where are Buddhists going ?

One of the main arguments in the other thread is that anyone who 'rejects' God/Jesus is going to hell.

All of the above religious people believe in their religion just as much as you yourselves believe in your religion.

What makes them wrong and you right ?

Where are they going ?

Are the Jews and Muslims going to hell ? They believe in the same God you do.

PDN

OK, as I understand the Bible here is your answer.

Believing in God is not what determines whether someone is saved or not. For example, Satan believes in God, but that does not make him saved.

As has already been patiently described in other threads, all human beings with a capacity to know right from wrong have, on numerous occasions, chosen to sin and so deserve to go to hell.

Those who hear the Gospel and accept the offer of the Gospel will be saved. This does not refer to mere mental assent, but means to repent of our sins and to trust in Jesus Christ for our salvation.

Those who hear and reject the Gospel will go to hell. It doesn't matter whether they are Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or atheist. What saves us is not believing in the right God or beonging to a religious group, it is accepting the Gospel's offer of salvation.

As for those who've never heard the Gospel, we simply don't know. The Bible does not reveal to us what happens to such people.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

OK, as I understand the Bible here is your answer.

Which one ? There are many Bibles, many versions, many translations, many mistranslations.

Which one is the correct one ?

You haven't answered my question at all.

Jews, Muslims and Christians all believe in the same God. They simply use different material.

Jewish material is fairly similiar, as in the OT is pretty similar. They believe they are following Gods way.
Muslim material as above but probably more different. They also believe they are following Gods way.

Its the same God, Muslims even follow the teachings of Jesus.

They believe they got the correct gospel and the one your using has been corrupted and mistranslated and wrong.

So why would God save you and not them ?

And you ignored the most difficult part of my question completely.

Which Christians using which Bible go to Heaven ?

You said people who accept the gospel go to heaven, those who reject it will not.

Well I have pointed out there are any number of different versions of the Bible and many different types of Christians. The Eastern Orthodox for one example.

Who is right ? Which Bible is correct ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Which one ? There are many Bibles, many versions, many translations, many mistranslations.

I personally base my beliefs on the text in the original languages, not on any translation. I use the Leningrad Codex for the Hebrew Old Testament and the Westcott-Hort for the Greek New Testament.

Those who are uninformed about biblical studies often harp on about translations as if it were some kind of contentious issue when discussing biblical authority. Actually it's not. Any two translations of any orginal text will vary, eg take 2 translations of Victor Hugo from French to English, but that has no bearing on the veracity or otherwise of the original text.

We can compare one translation with another and see that, in most cases, they are expressing the same thought and truth in slightly different phraseology.

For example, John 3:16 in the Greek reads: ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον

Let's try comparing all those different translations to see if it becomes confusing or if the message remains the same:

New International Version
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

King James Version
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

New King James Version
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

New American Standard Bible
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

The Living Bible
John 3:16, "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

New Living Translation
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Holman Christian Standard Bible
John 3:16, "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

English Standard Version
John 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."

Revised Standard Version
John 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."

New Revised Standard Version
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life."

New International Readers Version
John 3:16, "God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son. Anyone who believes in Him will not die but have eternal life."

The Message
John 3:16, "This is how much God loved the world: He gave His Son, His one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in Him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."

New Century Version a.k.a. International Children’s Bible
John 3:16, "God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son so that whoever believes in Him may not be lost, but have eternal life."

God’s Word Translation
John 3:16, "God loved the world this way: He gave His only Son so that everyone who believes in Him will not die but will have eternal life."

Contemporary English Version
John 3:16, "God loved the people of this world so much that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who has faith in Him will have eternal life and never really die."

New English Bible and Revised English Bible
John 3:16, "God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, that everyone who has faith in Him may not die but have eternal life."

Good News Bible a.k.a. Today’s English Version
John 3:16, "For God loved the world so much, that he gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him, may not die but have eternal life."

New Jerusalem Bible
John 3:16, "Yes, God loved the world so much, that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him, may not die but have eternal life."

Amplified Bible
John 3:16, "For God so greatly loved (dearly prized) the world that He (even) gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life."

New American Bible
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life."

New English Translation
John 3:16, "For this is the way God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Literal Translation of the Bible
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

No problem there I think. The whole objection about different translations and versions is a load of hot air.

You haven't answered my question at all.

I think I did. I may not have answered the question you intended to ask (since I can't see inside your head) but I answered the question you asked.

They believe they got the correct gospel and the one your using has been corrupted and mistranslated and wrong.

So why would God save you and not them ?

God will save whoever accepts His true Gospel. The fact that others are spreading a false or distorted message about God does not affect that truth in the slightest. Just because different versions of a story exist does not affect the truthfulness of one of the versions.

And you ignored the most difficult part of my question completely.

Which Christians using which Bible go to Heaven ?

I don't think I ignored it since you never actually asked it. But now that you have, I'm happy to oblige. Christians don't actually need any Bible to go to heaven. They simply need to accept the Gospel that Jesus died for their sins, and by repenting (which means not just feeling sorry but a change in the way we live) receiving His gift of eternal life. At that moment the Holy Spirit dwells within them and they become a new creature. That truth is expressed in every version of the Bible as used by every branch and denomination of the Christian faith. So, once again, the 'which Bible' bit is a big fat red herring.

You said people who accept the gospel go to heaven, those who reject it will not.

Well I have pointed out there are any number of different versions of the Bible and many different types of Christians. The Eastern Orthodox for one example.

And, as I have pointed out, the existence of different versions of the Bible or of different kinds of Christians is interesting, but irrelevant to the point at hand.

It doesn't matter if someone is Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, or has never set foot in a church in their life. If they accept the Gospel then they will be saved.

Who is right ? Which Bible is correct ?

God is right. All individuals and churches (including me and my church) are wrong about something or other. After all, we are fallible human beings.

The 'correct' Bible would be the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. That is why, in theology, we do textual criticism - sifting all the available manuscripts, historical and linguistic evidence etc. to ensure that the Greek and Hebrew texts we use today are as close to the original as possible.

Different translations are 'correct' inasmuch as they accurately render the Hebrew and Greek into English (or whatever other language is being used).

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

Believing in God is not what determines whether someone is saved or not. For example, Satan believes in God, but that does not make him saved.

So, believing in God is not the determining factor, but a prerequsite?

PDN wrote: »

Those who hear the Gospel and accept the offer of the Gospel will be saved. This does not refer to mere mental assent, but means to repent of our sins and to trust in Jesus Christ for our salvation.

I guess that all but rules out anyone but Christians? ...

PDN wrote: »

As for those who've never heard the Gospel, we simply don't know. The Bible does not reveal to us what happens to such people.

... and those who've never heard the Gospel?

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

So, believing in God is not the determining factor, but a prerequsite?

That is how I would see it. It would be difficult to accept that the Son of God died to forgive you of your sins if you don't actually believe in God.

I guess that all but rules out anyone but Christians? ..

That all depends on how you define 'Christian'. I know Messianic Jews who have accepted the Gospel, see Jesus as their Saviour and Messiah, but see themselves as completed Jews rather than as Christians.

... and those who've never heard the Gospel?

Time to turn up your hearing aid .........
WE DON'T KNOW!

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

For example, John 3:16 in the Greek reads: ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον

Let's try comparing all those different translations to see if it becomes confusing or if the message remains the same:

New International Version
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

King James Version
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

New King James Version
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

New American Standard Bible
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

The Living Bible
John 3:16, "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

New Living Translation
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Holman Christian Standard Bible
John 3:16, "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

English Standard Version
John 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."

Revised Standard Version
John 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."

New Revised Standard Version
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life."

New International Readers Version
John 3:16, "God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son. Anyone who believes in Him will not die but have eternal life."

The Message
John 3:16, "This is how much God loved the world: He gave His Son, His one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in Him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."

New Century Version a.k.a. International Children’s Bible
John 3:16, "God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son so that whoever believes in Him may not be lost, but have eternal life."

God’s Word Translation
John 3:16, "God loved the world this way: He gave His only Son so that everyone who believes in Him will not die but will have eternal life."

Contemporary English Version
John 3:16, "God loved the people of this world so much that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who has faith in Him will have eternal life and never really die."

New English Bible and Revised English Bible
John 3:16, "God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, that everyone who has faith in Him may not die but have eternal life."

Good News Bible a.k.a. Today’s English Version
John 3:16, "For God loved the world so much, that he gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him, may not die but have eternal life."

New Jerusalem Bible
John 3:16, "Yes, God loved the world so much, that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him, may not die but have eternal life."

Amplified Bible
John 3:16, "For God so greatly loved (dearly prized) the world that He (even) gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life."

New American Bible
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life."

New English Translation
John 3:16, "For this is the way God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Literal Translation of the Bible
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Excuse the pedantry, but there's a lot of "believes in Him" there. There's a lot of problems with that:

1. Is the Him referring to God or Jesus?
2. I believe Jesus existed. I believe in some of what he says in the Gospel. I don't believe in everything the Gospels claims. So does this mean I "believe in him" or not? Whose to say?
3. You can technically "believe in Jesus" but not believe in the Gospel.
4. Everyone who believes in Jesus dies. Unless you redefine the definition of death. In fact, some philosophers don't even agree on a definition of life.
5. What happens if you're mentally handicapped and it's impossible to believe in anything?
6. What happens if you're just not that intelligent and there's some really intelligent, logical reason to believe in all this, but you just don't get it.
7. What happens if you believe in Jesus but you actually don't want to live forever?
8. What happens if you don't believe in Jesus, but you manage to live forever because science makes some breakthrough and you can stay alive as long as you want?
9. A time machine is invented and we travel back to the time of Gospel and we find out Jesus was actually mumbling that time and people got the message wrong.
10. What happens if God is a skeptic and every man made religion is a hoax. He's really testing your critical thinking skills and he really only wants you if you're a skeptic. Say there's a twist to all this. What then?
11. Say you believe in Jesus because you want to live forever and then you find yourself bored out of your brain in heaven after 7,000 million years? Are you trapped?
12. Many more...

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

That is how I would see it. It would be difficult to accept that the Son of God died to forgive you of your sins if you don't actually believe in God.


That all depends on how you define 'Christian'. I know Messianic Jews who have accepted the Gospel, see Jesus as their Saviour and Messiah, but see themselves as completed Jews rather than as Christians.


Time to turn up your hearing aid .........
WE DON'T KNOW!

Turn on your manners, PDN.

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

Turn on your manners, PDN.

I think it is extremely ill-mannered of you to keep asking a question to which I've given you a straight answer on several occasions.

On this occasion you even quote my answer and then, beneath the quote, ask the same question again. Is there a point to that other than simple trolling?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Excuse the pedantry, but there's a lot of "believes in Him" there. There's a lot of problems with that:

1. Is the Him referring to God or Jesus?

Am I being asked this question by Tim or Robbins?

Jesus is God. Believing God and believing Jesus are the same thing.

2. I believe Jesus existed. I believe in some of what he says in the Gospel. I don't believe in everything the Gospels claims. So does this mean I "believe in him" or not? Whose to say?

You don't take one verse out of context, but read the multiple places where John's Gospel explains what it means to believe in Him.

3. You can technically "believe in Jesus" but not believe in the Gospel.

I refer you to the previous answer.

4. Everyone who believes in Jesus dies. Unless you redefine the definition of death. In fact, some philosophers don't even agree on a definition of life.

Anyone reading this in context, other than a pedantic troll, will readily see that 'perishing' is placed in contrast with 'eternal life' and refers to heaven and hell.

5. What happens if you're mentally handicapped and it's impossible to believe in anything?

Irrelevant question that has nothing to do with John 3:16.

6. What happens if you're just not that intelligent and there's some really intelligent, logical reason to believe in all this, but you just don't get it.

I refer you to answer #5.

7. What happens if you believe in Jesus but you actually don't want to live forever?

I refer you to answer #5.

8. What happens if you don't believe in Jesus, but you manage to live forever because science makes some breakthrough and you can stay alive as long as you want?

You wake up and stop dreaming.

9. A time machine is invented and we travel back to the time of Gospel and we find out Jesus was actually mumbling that time and people got the message wrong.

I refer you to answer #8.

10. What happens if God is a skeptic and every man made religion is a hoax. He's really testing your critical thinking skills and he really only wants you if you're a skeptic. Say there's a twist to all this. What then?
11. Say you believe in Jesus because you want to live forever and then you find yourself bored out of your brain in heaven after 7,000 million years? Are you trapped?

Again, irrelevant to John 3:16.

Oh, and Tim, troll this kind of distracting crap in this forum again and you will be banned. Consider this your one and only warning.

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

I think it is extremely ill-mannered of you to keep asking a question to which I've given you a straight answer on several occasions.

On this occasion you even quote my answer and then, beneath the quote, ask the same question again. Is there a point to that other than simple trolling?

On the contrary, I was confirming your point.

me wrote:

I guess that all but rules out anyone but Christians? ...


... and those who've never heard the Gospel?

My phrasing was bad. I was attempting to say that all were ruled out except Christians and those who've never heard the Gospel (who aren't ruled out because, as you say, we don't know.) I put the question mark at the end because I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I was expecting a simple affirmation.

On rereading it, I can see how it could be read the other way. Either way, I didn't deserve your abuse.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Excuse the pedantry, but there's a lot of "believes in Him" there. There's a lot of problems with that:

Indeed there are, but you didn't list what seems the most subtle of them.

The original Greek "πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον" translates literally as "the all of people-who-believe in/on/towards him" and it's not exactly clear what the "in/on/towards" bit means, or how it differs exactly from the normal belief-without-a-preposition since the prepositional usage appears to be largely confined to the NT itself and does not generally appear in other texts.

As the authors are long dead and can't be consulted, the English -- and the Vulgate, French, German, Italian, Russian; I'm sure other languages too -- translate "πιστευειν εις" it as belief in the abstract concept embodied by the object "him", and that stands quite independently of whether "he" exists as a concrete reality or not.

In a similar linguistic contrivance, the authors also refer to the deity as "god", without providing a name as had been traditional with many other religions (as well as much of the judaism which gave rise to christianity). In other words, the deity is as anonymous as the belief is abstract.

I'm open to correction, but I believe that christianity was the first religion which asserted these two positions simultaneously.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

.....

We can compare one translation with another and see that, in most cases, they are expressing the same thought and truth in slightly different phraseology.

For example, John 3:16 .....

No problem there I think. The whole objection about different translations and versions is a load of hot air.

Oh come on now you can't believe that.

There are words which have concepts in one language which you simply cannot translate into another language without writing an essay on it accompanied by a diagram.

Your argument that the different translations make no difference is based on one quote ?

Look at the 'virgin' birth for one example. Many scholars believe the whole idea of the virgin birth is the result of a mistranslation or at very least the word 'virgin' is used in places where 'young woman' (virgin or not) should be used.

Take the ten commandments. Did God say "thou shall not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" ?

At the beginning of the whole thing, Genesis, the word commonly translated as "God" is actually plural and would more correctly translated as "Observers".

Do you speak another language ? Because I can tell you that even today, translating between 2 modern languages leads to all sorts of miscommunication issues. You can multiply that many times when you take into account ancient languages and ancient translators.

For one simple example. I am learning an Asian language, they have 3 words which are translated into English as;

EE-GAY - This
JAW-GAY - That
GAE-GAY - That

The third one is translated the same as the second one so one would assume the meaning is almost the same ? Absolutely not. Its hugely different.

GAE-GAY = Something far away from both the listener and speaker and which cannot be seen, or which is a previously talked about place or time or person.

And thats not even close to real meaning buts its the best i can do in English.

I think I did. I may not have answered the question you intended to ask (since I can't see inside your head) but I answered the question you asked.

I asked about other christians as well as Muslims etc.You only answered about Muslims/Jews/Buddhists.

God will save whoever accepts His true Gospel. The fact that others are spreading a false or distorted message about God does not affect that truth in the slightest. Just because different versions of a story exist does not affect the truthfulness of one of the versions.

And I asked you which one is the correct one.

They simply need to accept the Gospel that Jesus died for their sins, and by repenting (which means not just feeling sorry but a change in the way we live) receiving His gift of eternal life. At that moment the Holy Spirit dwells within them and they become a new creature. That truth is expressed in every version of the Bible as used by every branch and denomination of the Christian faith. So, once again, the 'which Bible' bit is a big fat red herring.

How to gain salvation

Roman Catholic -> Received at baptism; may be lost by mortal sin; regained by penance. (Sweet, I can be a buddhist all my life but becauseI got baptised I'm off to heaven, nice)

Predestination in different denominations.

Roman Catholic -> Predestination to heaven only, and related to God's foreknowledge. "God predestines no one to go to hell."

Orthodox -> Seeks a middle ground between Pelagianism and Augustinian predestination.

Lutheran -> Predestination to heaven only. "There is no... predestination to damnation."

Losing Salvation

Roman Catholic -> Can lose salvation. "Mortal sin cuts us off entirely from our true last end." (CE) Perseverance to the end is a gift of God, but we must cooperate with God's gift.

Baptist -> Salvation cannot be lost. "Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end."

Salvation by other religions

Roman Catholic -> "Many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside [the Catholic Church's] visible confines."

Orthodox -> "The majority of Orthodox scholars would accept inclusivism.... This view holds firmly to the centrality of Christ... yet acknowledges that salvation can be found outside Christianity."

Lutheran -> "There is a large hope for salvation, for all people whenever or wherever they might have lived and no matter how religious or irreligious they may have proved to be themselves."

And, as I have pointed out, the existence of different versions of the Bible or of different kinds of Christians is interesting, but irrelevant to the point at hand.

Its hugely relevant. Orthodox people reckon salvation can be found outside christianity. Roman Catholics reckon they're saved just by been baptised and unless they commit a mortal sin they are 'safe'.

And per the previous mistranslation issues. i.e > Virgin birth etc

Mary

Roman Catholic -> Mary had no original sin, remained free of sin throughout her life, is "Mother of God" and the new Eve. (Catechism, 508-10) Bodily assumption into heaven instead of death. (Immaculate conception + virgin birth, check)

Orthodox -> Theotokos ("God-Bearer"). Honored highly, but no immaculate conception or bodily assumption into the heavens.

Methodist -> Mary was the mother of Jesus and one of his disciples. (UMC) Virgin birth affirmed, immaculate conception denied.

These sound like fairly important and, if the Bible was translated accurately, very simple to fix issues.

But they exist because the Bible has been mistranslated, many parts are accepted or denied by many different denominations. Since you seem to know so much about the Bible then I'll assume you know that there are 20 books mentioned in the RC bible yet no christian bible contains all 20.

Whats up with that ? Is 90% of the gospel enough to know to get to heaven ?

It doesn't matter if someone is Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, or has never set foot in a church in their life. If they accept the Gospel then they will be saved.

Again, What is the gospel ? According to who ? Is it ok to kill or murder ? Am I saved at baptism or not ?

God is right. All individuals and churches (including me and my church) are wrong about something or other. After all, we are fallible human beings.

So you admit you 'could' be wrong about God and that in fact the Jews or Muslims or Buddhists might have the right idea yeah ?

Different translations are 'correct' inasmuch as they accurately render the Hebrew and Greek into English (or whatever other language is being used).

Which can be completely opposite meanings depending on the translator, the language and the culture of the people involved.

last example ->

If I offered you "Good health stew" would you try it ?
or what about 'mountain squid' ?

These are correct accurate translations but to understand what they are you need to know the culture and the language better.

For example, if I told you that 'mountain squid' was just the locals way of saying 'live (very fresh) squid' you'd understand much better.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Am I being asked this question by Tim or Robbins?
Oh, and Tim, troll this kind of distracting crap in this forum again and you will be banned. Consider this your one and only warning.

I am sorry. It's difficult to know what's accepted and what's not accepted in this forum sometimes.

You shouldn't waste your time replying in details to posts that receive infractions. I replied honestly, to how it all seems to me. It's sad that this causes offense to people.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Indeed there are, but you didn't list what seems the most subtle of them.

The original Greek "πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον" translates literally as "the all of people-who-believe in/on/towards him" and it's not exactly clear what the "in/on/towards" bit means, or how it differs exactly from the normal belief-without-a-preposition since the prepositional usage appears to be largely confined to the NT itself and does not generally appear in other texts.

As the authors are long dead and can't be consulted, the English -- and the Vulgate, French, German, Italian, Russian; I'm sure other languages too -- translate "πιστευειν εις" it as belief in the abstract concept embodied by the object "him", and that stands quite independently of whether "he" exists as a concrete reality or not.

In a similar linguistic contrivance, the authors also refer to the deity as "god", without providing a name as had been traditional with many other religions (as well as much of the judaism which gave rise to christianity). In other words, the deity is as anonymous as the belief is abstract.

I'm open to correction, but I believe that christianity was the first religion which asserted these two positions simultaneously.

Exactly, I was trying to make the point that it's difficult to ascertain what the words "believe in Jesus" actually means. Is it just an existential statement?

If someone says I "believe in aliens", I take this to mean, they believe aliens exist. It's an existential statement. They don't have to the same opinions as aliens to believe in aliens.

I believe Jesus existed, but I don't believe everything he has reportedly has said. So, does mean it's correct or incorrect for me to say:
I "believe in Jesus"?

Gingganggooley

robindch wrote: »

Indeed there are, but you didn't list what seems the most subtle of them.

The original Greek "πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον" translates literally as "the all of people-who-believe in/on/towards him" and it's not exactly clear what the "in/on/towards" bit means, or how it differs exactly from the normal belief-without-a-preposition since the prepositional usage appears to be largely confined to the NT itself and does not generally appear in other texts.

As the authors are long dead and can't be consulted, the English -- and the Vulgate, French, German, Italian, Russian; I'm sure other languages too -- translate "πιστευειν εις" it as belief in the abstract concept embodied by the object "him", and that stands quite independently of whether "he" exists as a concrete reality or not.

In a similar linguistic contrivance, the authors also refer to the deity as "god", without providing a name as had been traditional with many other religions (as well as much of the judaism which gave rise to christianity). In other words, the deity is as anonymous as the belief is abstract.

I'm open to correction, but I believe that christianity was the first religion which asserted these two positions simultaneously.

The best way to translate the koine Greek preposition eis into English here, is by using the word regarding.

To believe regarding Christ is a concept, but it is not an abstract one. It refers to the activity of God in sending Him to complete a task that would result in eternal life for all of mankind. To believe in Him therefore, is to trust in and rely upon the atoning sacrifice of Christ as the Divinely ordained means by which God could legitimately impart life to those who would otherwise have rightly deseved death.

By the way, John 3:16 contains one of the most concise synopsis of what exactly the gospel is. The gospel should not be considered as a reference to four books of the N.T. It is the good news regarding something God has done for us all, irrespective of our response to it. It is a free offer of Life from God to all of mankind.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Oh come on now you can't believe that.

There are words which have concepts in one language which you simply cannot translate into another language without writing an essay on it accompanied by a diagram.

Quite true, which is why different translations of the Bible often draw out different shades of meanings of Hebrew and Greek phrases. That is why a thinking Christian will, in order to gain a proper understanding of the Scripture, compare one translation against another and possibly consult a commentary. Also, most modern translations provide footnotes that make the reader aware of different possible meanings.

However, you still seem to be missing the point. No-one here is claiming that one particular translation of the Bible is perfect or correct. We base our teaching on 'the Bible' by which we mean the Hebrew and Greek texts. The differences between translations, while interesting, have no bearing whatsoever on the bible's authority or usefulness as a source for teaching.

Look at the 'virgin' birth for one example. Many scholars believe the whole idea of the virgin birth is the result of a mistranslation or at very least the word 'virgin' is used in places where 'young woman' (virgin or not) should be used.

The New Testament is quite clear that Mary was a virgin. There is no room for ambiguity in that at all. The Greek is very clear indeed.

It is true that some scholars, using pretty poor methodology, have doubted whether Isaiah prophesied the virgin birth or not, but that affects no point of Christian faith or practice. Whether Isaiah prophesied it or not, the New testament clearly states that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.

Take the ten commandments. Did God say "thou shall not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" ?

The Hebrew retzach means murder. The context also makes it clear that a total prohibition on killing is not what is meant since other parts of the same texts command killing.

At the beginning of the whole thing, Genesis, the word commonly translated as "God" is actually plural and would more correctly translated as "Observers".

Not unless 'more correctly' is a euphemism for 'in science fiction'. The word 'El' is the Canaanite word for God. Elohim is the plural, but at the beginning of Genesis it is joined to a verb that is in the third person singular. This causes most competent Hebrew scholars to believe that it is a royal plural - as when the Queen of England refers to herself as 'we'.

Do you speak another language ? Because I can tell you that even today, translating between 2 modern languages leads to all sorts of miscommunication issues. You can multiply that many times when you take into account ancient languages and ancient translators.

Yes, I speak several, thank you. And I can tell you that differences in translations do not alter the veracity or authority of an orginal text. I can also tell you that it is sheer smoke and mirrors to suggest that we cannot come to a very good and accurate understanding of what a translated text is saying to us.

I asked about other christians as well as Muslims etc.You only answered about Muslims/Jews/Buddhists.

That's not true, I wrote, "Those who hear and reject the Gospel will go to hell. It doesn't matter whether they are Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or atheist. What saves us is not believing in the right God or beonging to a religious group, it is accepting the Gospel's offer of salvation."

And I asked you which one is the correct one.
And I said, in my first post in this thread, "as I understand the Bible here is your answer"
I would think that indicates fairly clearly that the version of the Gospel message that I'm sharing with you is the right one.

How to gain salvation

Roman Catholic -> Received at baptism; may be lost by mortal sin; regained by penance. (Sweet, I can be a buddhist all my life but becauseI got baptised I'm off to heaven, nice)

Predestination in different denominations.

Roman Catholic -> Predestination to heaven only, and related to God's foreknowledge. "God predestines no one to go to hell."

Orthodox -> Seeks a middle ground between Pelagianism and Augustinian predestination.

Lutheran -> Predestination to heaven only. "There is no... predestination to damnation."

Losing Salvation

Roman Catholic -> Can lose salvation. "Mortal sin cuts us off entirely from our true last end." (CE) Perseverance to the end is a gift of God, but we must cooperate with God's gift.

Baptist -> Salvation cannot be lost. "Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end."

Salvation by other religions

Roman Catholic -> "Many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside [the Catholic Church's] visible confines."

Orthodox -> "The majority of Orthodox scholars would accept inclusivism.... This view holds firmly to the centrality of Christ... yet acknowledges that salvation can be found outside Christianity."

Lutheran -> "There is a large hope for salvation, for all people whenever or wherever they might have lived and no matter how religious or irreligious they may have proved to be themselves."

None of that has anything to do with different Bible versions or translations. It has to do with human traditions and how people interpret the original biblical text. If you want to discuss the differing views among Christians then I'm happy to do so, but bringing in red herrings about translations is only obscuring the possibility of any clarity coming from such a discussion.

Its hugely relevant. Orthodox people reckon salvation can be found outside christianity. Roman Catholics reckon they're saved just by been baptised and unless they commit a mortal sin they are 'safe'.

And per the previous mistranslation issues. i.e > Virgin birth etc

Mary

Roman Catholic -> Mary had no original sin, remained free of sin throughout her life, is "Mother of God" and the new Eve. (Catechism, 508-10) Bodily assumption into heaven instead of death. (Immaculate conception + virgin birth, check)

Orthodox -> Theotokos ("God-Bearer"). Honored highly, but no immaculate conception or bodily assumption into the heavens.

Methodist -> Mary was the mother of Jesus and one of his disciples. (UMC) Virgin birth affirmed, immaculate conception denied.

And again, that has nothing to do with different Bible translations or versions. All those denominations agree that the Bible teaches the virgin birth but that it doesn't teach the immaculate conception or bodily assumption of Mary. Again, the red herring is obscuring any sensible discussion of these issues.

Again, What is the gospel ? According to who ? Is it ok to kill or murder ? Am I saved at baptism or not ?

You started this thread by asking a question. Were you looking for Christian posters to give an answer or not? I have given you answers and I've stated they are according to my understanding of the Bible. Now you just seem to be getting all worked up over the fact that I don't speak for every single Christian on the planet.

So, once again, according to my understanding of the Bible, the Gospel is that you need to acknowledge your sinfulness, repent of your sins, accept that Christ died on the Cross to purchase your forgiveness, and ask Him into your life. This will result in the new birth by which your life will be transformed. That is the Gospel according to Jesus and as taught by the Early Church in the New Testament.

And, no, you are not saved at baptism.

So you admit you 'could' be wrong about God and that in fact the Jews or Muslims or Buddhists might have the right idea yeah ?

Yes, certainly I admit that. The whole point of internet discussion fora is that we all express our views and opinions, but I think only an absolute butt-head refuses to entertain the possibility, however remote, that they might be mistaken.

Which can be completely opposite meanings depending on the translator, the language and the culture of the people involved.

last example ->

If I offered you "Good health stew" would you try it ?
or what about 'mountain squid' ?

These are correct accurate translations but to understand what they are you need to know the culture and the language better.

For example, if I told you that 'mountain squid' was just the locals way of saying 'live (very fresh) squid' you'd understand much better.

I think the word you are looking for is 'idiom'. Biblical translators, and Christian teachers, have been well aware of Hebrew and Greek idioms for centuries, thank you.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Exactly, I was trying to make the point that it's difficult to ascertain what the words "believe in Jesus" actually means. Is it just an existential statement? If someone says I "believe in aliens", I take this to mean, they believe aliens exist. It's an existential statement.

Normal English (and other languages') usage isn't always all that clear about the exact difference between "believe in" and "believe". Examples:

I believe John (John has said something I think is true)
I believe in John (means I think that John's a trustworthy guy, regardless of what he's said)
I believe in the rule of law (means I think that there's an abstract concept named "the rule of law" and that I respect it)

So, in common usage, the primary meaning of saying "I believe in Jesus" is that you assert your belief that Jesus is trustworthy, but your belief that Jesus existed is casually implied, rather than stated explicitly. Neither does it mean that you think that Jesus said things that are true (in fact, in non-religious usage, one tends to say "I believe in John" when there's some question about John's reliability).

But these are all English meanings for "believe" and "believe in" and the subtleties that the original authors were trying to convey by using a rare grammatical construction (mirrored by the occasional use by some religious people of the weird translation "I believe on Jesus"), are really impossible to determine at this distance.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I believe Jesus existed, but I don't believe everything he has reportedly has said. So, does mean it's correct or incorrect for me to say: "I believe in Jesus"

I would imagine that it would, strictly speaking, possibly be correct for you to say that, but whether or not your listener would understand exactly what you meant by saying it is something else entirely -- if you said it to a protestant, most would assume the meaning that Gingganggooley mentioned, which is not what you mean.

I'm reminded of this old saw:

Whoever wrote:

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Exactly, I was trying to make the point that it's difficult to ascertain what the words "believe in Jesus" actually means. Is it just an existential statement?

If someone says I "believe in aliens", I take this to mean, they believe aliens exist. It's an existential statement. They don't have to the same opinions as aliens to believe in aliens.

I believe Jesus existed, but I don't believe everything he has reportedly has said. So, does mean it's correct or incorrect for me to say:
I "believe in Jesus"?

No, you don't "believe in Jesus" in the sense that the phrase is used in the New testament, or indeed in John's Gospel. In John 20:31 the author makes more clear what he means by believing:
"But these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

Incidentally, in everyday language we use the phrase "I believe in" to refer to something much than an existential statement. For example, if someone says, "I still believe in Bertie Ahern," most of us would take it to mean more than an intellectual acknowledgement of Bertie's existence.

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

Ok so on another thread here we've been discussing whose going to hell based on beliving in God or not.

I think we need a new thread for the question, whats going to happen to other religions people ?

Monosharp, from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, strictly speaking Hell does not exist anymore. It existed in form of Sheol but it was destroyed not being able to withstand the presence of Christ in it. Therefore by your wikipedia quote "all people from the beginning until Christ were prevented from entering into Heaven" one should understand that the Heaven had been closed for those who died before Christ but it is not closed for them anymore since their jail, the Hell, is destroyed.

In Orthodoxy it's understood that God's love is His justice. His love becomes heaven for saints and torment for sinners. So the question where different religions followers go after resurrection does not make a lot of sense as everybody's going to exactly the same "place". Whether each particular individual is saved or not is strictly between him/herself and God.

monosharp wrote: »

Salvation by other religions
...
Orthodox -> "The majority of Orthodox scholars would accept inclusivism.... This view holds firmly to the centrality of Christ... yet acknowledges that salvation can be found outside Christianity."
...

It's not 100% accurate to say that. "Salvation is only in Orthodoxy" and "only Orthodox will be saved" are two different claims. While the later is not considered as true the former is. I like the way Theophan the Recluse summarised this idea when he was asked whether Roman Catholics can be saved. He answered something in lines of "I don't know will the Catholics be saved, they have Saviour to take care of them. What I do know though is that if I leave Orthodoxy and become a catholic I certainly won't be saved."

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

No, you don't "believe in Jesus" in the sense that the phrase is used in the New testament, or indeed in John's Gospel. In John 20:31 the author makes more clear what he means by believing:
"But these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

There's just too many logical problems with all this.
You could disbelieve he is the son of God because he is God.

I am not going to elaborate for fear of another infraction.

Incidentally, in everyday language we use the phrase "I believe in" to refer to something much than an existential statement. For example, if someone says, "I still believe in Bertie Ahern," most of us would take it to mean more than an intellectual acknowledgement of Bertie's existence.

I think "I believe in Bertie Ahern" is bad grammar or imprecise language.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Quite true, which is why different translations of the Bible often draw out different shades of meanings of Hebrew and Greek phrases. ...

However, you still seem to be missing the point. No-one here is claiming that one particular translation of the Bible is perfect or correct. We base our teaching on 'the Bible' by which we mean the Hebrew and Greek texts. The differences between translations, while interesting, have no bearing whatsoever on the bible's authority or usefulness as a source for teaching.

Right, so its ok to believe 65% + of the gospel as it was originally written ? How many inaccuracies etc need to occur before it isn't the gospel anymore ?

The New Testament is quite clear that Mary was a virgin. There is no room for ambiguity in that at all. The Greek is very clear indeed.

Except that it may not be the original text at all. The originals do not exist.

The Hebrew retzach means murder. The context also makes it clear that a total prohibition on killing is not what is meant since other parts of the same texts command killing.

And how many Christians know this compared to the number who don't ? Because I can tell you now that most people don't research the greek copies of original documents which no longer exist.

Not unless 'more correctly' is a euphemism for 'in science fiction'. The word 'El' is the Canaanite word for God. Elohim is the plural, but at the beginning of Genesis it is joined to a verb that is in the third person singular. This causes most competent Hebrew scholars to believe that it is a royal plural - as when the Queen of England refers to herself as 'we'.

Yeah thats very weak. Very Very weak.

Do you explain every flaw, error or anything that goes against your doctrine away so easily ?

"And God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'" Genesis 1:26, (Jewish Publication Society version, 1917)

"The LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of US, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'" Genesis 3:22 (NKJ).

So who is God talking to in the above ?

"Come, let US go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Genesis 11:7 (NKJ).

"Remember also thy Creators in the days of thy youth, While that the evil days come not, Nor the years have arrived, that thou sayest, 'I have no pleasure in them.'" (Young's Literal Translation, 1898)

If you want to discuss the differing views among Christians then I'm happy to do so, but bringing in red herrings about translations is only obscuring the possibility of any clarity coming from such a discussion.

Getting a bit sensitive about the translation business aren't you ?

And again, that has nothing to do with different Bible translations or versions. All those denominations agree that the Bible teaches the virgin birth but that it doesn't teach the immaculate conception or bodily assumption of Mary. Again, the red herring is obscuring any sensible discussion of these issues.

My original question is whose getting into heaven with which beliefs. Its entirely relevant.

So, once again, according to my understanding of the Bible, the Gospel is that you need to acknowledge your sinfulness, repent of your sins, accept that Christ died on the Cross to purchase your forgiveness, and ask Him into your life. This will result in the new birth by which your life will be transformed. That is the Gospel according to Jesus and as taught by the Early Church in the New Testament.

So other Christians who don't believe that are wrong ?

And, no, you are not saved at baptism.

So the RCC is wrong ?

I think the word you are looking for is 'idiom'. Biblical translators, and Christian teachers, have been well aware of Hebrew and Greek idioms for centuries, thank you.

So you refuse to admit that there are mistakes and mistranslations in many versions of the bible ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Right, so its ok to believe 65% + of the gospel as it was originally written ? How many inaccuracies etc need to occur before it isn't the gospel anymore ?

More like 99.999%. If any errors and variations in different translations affected a major point of doctrine or something essential to salvation then that would certainly be an issue. However, a variation as to which particular species of tree Zaccheus climbed into is totally irrelevant to who gets into heaven or who goes to hell.

You might have a point if there were translations out there which alter the meaning of the Gospel and the way to get saved - but there aren't and so you don't.

Red herring.

Except that it may not be the original text at all. The originals do not exist.

No, and neither do the originals of most texts of any kind of literature. Textual criticism and solid historical research means that we can know that the account of the virgin birth is clearly taught in the Bible. The idea that it is based on a mistranslation is another falsity.

And how many Christians know this compared to the number who don't ? Because I can tell you now that most people don't research the greek copies of original documents which no longer exist.

How many Christians know that the Bible speaks of killing in other passages and that therefore it would be stupid to interpret the 10 Commandments as prohibiting any kind of killing at all? The vast majority of them.

As for understanding that the Hebrew word means murder rather than killing? Anyone with half a brain and is interested in understanding the Bible can learn that through ten minutes googling. BTW, that is one of the reasons why we have preaching in churches - so those of us who do research the Hebrew and Greek can pass on such info to those who don't.

Yeah thats very weak. Very Very weak.

It's not weak at all. It's simply scholarship. I appreciate that may be annoying if you'd rather believe half-assed anti-intellectual nonsense peddled by new age fruitcakes (the whole 'observers' translation).

Do you explain every flaw, error or anything that goes against your doctrine away so easily ?

No, not every objection is as poorly thought as that one was, so not all are as easily dismissed.

The point is, however, that we do not study the Bible to justify our pre-existing beliefs. We study the Bible to determine what it says, and then modify our beliefs accordingly.

For example, if you have a multitude of texts that speak of there only being 'one' God, and then a tiny handful of ambiguous words that could mean either plurality or a else a royal 'we', then it makes no sense to jump to an explanation that shouts "there's a contradiction" when another perfectly sensible explanation exists.

Of course Christians also see, in that royal 'we', a prefiguring of the Doctrine of the Trinity where Three Persons (Father, Son and Spirit) exist within one God. But I doubt if there's much point in discussing that with you since you seem to be getting confused already over something as simple as different translations.

Getting a bit sensitive about the translation business aren't you ?

Not in the slightest. I love the subject, teach it at third level, and could cheerfully discuss it all day. However, I would prefer a proper discussion on it rather it being used as a red herring by someone pretending that they're interested in finding out what Christians believe about the adherents of other religions.

My original question is whose getting into heaven with which beliefs. Its entirely relevant.

No it isn't. You seem to want to argue about stuff (the virgin birth, the use of the word 'Elohim') that has nothing to do with people getting into heaven at all.

No matter what translation of the Bible you use, the message of the Gospel is very clearly stated indeed.

In fact, let's cut through this translation red herring once and for all. You pick the translation. Any translation you want. And then I'll show you where it clearly states the Gospel.

If you refuse to do so, and keep on waffling about translations, then that will prove to me that you aren't really interested in finding out what Christians believe at all and so are just trolling.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

More like 99.999%. If any errors and variations in different translations affected a major point of doctrine or something essential to salvation then that would certainly be an issue. However, a variation as to which particular species of tree Zaccheus climbed into is totally irrelevant to who gets into heaven or who goes to hell.

Simple meanings passed through translation can have severe problems.

e.g > In the Asian language I am learning, as subtitles in movies a very common word is often translated as 'no' when in fact it means 'I don't like X' (x been whatever was asked previously).

i.e > In 90% of instances this meaning is sufficient to get the point across. But in other instances its completely inappropriate and doesn't convey the meaning of the situation at all.

The documents in the Bible were written by men, re-written by men again and again. And you really believe that the oldest copies today are 99.9% accurate ?

The difference can be subtle in some instances but huge in others.

You might have a point if there were translations out there which alter the meaning of the Gospel and the way to get saved - but there aren't and so you don't.

Homosexuality in the Bible.

Many texts translate it as any kind of homosexuality is wrong, while many scholars believe the original message was only against illegal acts such as homosexual rape etc. And never mentioned homsexuality on its own (without a criminal act attached)

They also believe that many messages in the Bible have been 'interpreted' a certain way by certain people because of their own personal preference. And I'm not talking about George Bush, I'm talking about the people who done the re-writing hundreds of years ago.

No, and neither do the originals of most texts of any kind of literature. Textual criticism and solid historical research means that we can know that the account of the virgin birth is clearly taught in the Bible. The idea that it is based on a mistranslation is another falsity.

Are you trying to defend this issue on the basis of one example ?
And what evidence have you got that its a falsity that the virgin birth is based on ?

How many Christians know that the Bible speaks of killing in other passages and that therefore it would be stupid to interpret the 10 Commandments as prohibiting any kind of killing at all? The vast majority of them.

How many Christians are still sacrificing lambs to God ?

It's not weak at all. It's simply scholarship. I appreciate that may be annoying if you'd rather believe half-assed anti-intellectual nonsense peddled by new age fruitcakes (the whole 'observers' translation).

So your going to defend this by suggesting its the same as the royal "we" ?

For example, if you have a multitude of texts that speak of there only being 'one' God, and then a tiny handful of ambiguous words that could mean either plurality or a else a royal 'we', then it makes no sense to jump to an explanation that shouts "there's a contradiction" when another perfectly sensible explanation exists.

Yes, that the people who wrote the texts differed greatly on what they believed. Thats not a perfectly sensible explanation no ?

Of course Christians also see, in that royal 'we', a prefiguring of the Doctrine of the Trinity where Three Persons (Father, Son and Spirit) exist within one God. But I doubt if there's much point in discussing that with you since you seem to be getting confused already over something as simple as different translations.

Theres no need to get insulting. I'm well aware of the trinity, I wasn't aware that it was used pre-Jesus. Are you now saying that the trinity was commonly accepted back then ? I wasn't aware that the Jews accepted that.

Not in the slightest. I love the subject, teach it at third level, and could cheerfully discuss it all day. However, I would prefer a proper discussion on it rather it being used as a red herring by someone pretending that they're interested in finding out what Christians believe about the adherents of other religions.

You really believe that the Bible, a collection of gospels which were brought together by the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago, accepting some documents and rejecting others including adding what they liked and leaving out what they didn't like, is 99% accurate ?

Muslims believe the Jewish and Christian books are corrupt. Are they wrong ?

No it isn't. You seem to want to argue about stuff (the virgin birth, the use of the word 'Elohim') that has nothing to do with people getting into heaven at all.

Differences in the Bible = Different gospel = different destination, no ?

No matter what translation of the Bible you use, the message of the Gospel is very clearly stated indeed.

Like for example that church in the USA who like to handle rattlesnakes ? Or howabout the people who believe that having any kind of medical treatment will be an automatic trip to Hell or howabout the people who believe God hates homosexuals ?

The Bible is the opposite of clarity.

If you refuse to do so, and keep on waffling about translations, then that will prove to me that you aren't really interested in finding out what Christians believe at all and so are just trolling.

And of course a banning would follow soon thereafter because anyone disagreeing with you and refusing to accept your 'corrections' are trolling ?

Alright, I'll go look.

Gingganggooley

monosharp wrote: »

Ok so on another thread here we've been discussing whose going to hell based on beliving in God or not.

I think we need a new thread for the question, whats going to happen to other religions people ?

Lets start with the 3 religions which more or less have the same source.

Judaism -> They follow the teachings of the Hebrew Bible which is more or less the same as the OT. (I know its not exactly the same).

So they are technically following the same God as Christians (?), they just believe Jesus was a bit of a fibber and don't believe he was God, the son of God or even a Prophet.

They believe in only the first covenant with God, yadda yadda yadda.

So come judgement day, according to you guys where do Jews go ?

Islam -> I'm gonna just go ahead and say that its the same 'God' in Islam as in Judaism and Christianity.



They, unlike the Jews, are quite fond of Jesus and consider him an important prophet of God.

They believe the Jewish and Christian books/stories are corrupted and incorrect.

So now you have 3 big religions, all which basically worship the same God and all whose main 'texts' are very similiar to eachother.

What about other Christians ?

Catholics -> I must admit I've forgotten but don't Cathoilics believe they're going to heaven and everyone else, regardless of being christian or pagan, are going to hell ? They picked the 'wrong' type of christianity ?

Eastern Orthodox -> Yeah these guys are the second biggest christian denomination in the world and have a rather different take on things.

e.g >



Buddhism -> There are some scholars that believe that Jesus studied buddhist teachings or at least that it had a big influence on Christianity.

I'm not saying this is true btw.

So where are Buddhists going ?

One of the main arguments in the other thread is that anyone who 'rejects' God/Jesus is going to hell.

All of the above religious people believe in their religion just as much as you yourselves believe in your religion.

What makes them wrong and you right ?

Where are they going ?

Are the Jews and Muslims going to hell ? They believe in the same God you do.

If there is only one God and He prescribes only one mode of salvation, then all who are to be saved, will be saved in the exact same fashion.

The real hub of this matter is whether or not, I as an individual am complying with God's designated method.

Christianity's outlook on this is simple. God has appointed Christ as the sole mediator between Himself and mankind. Those who are in Christ will be preserved while those who are not, will perish. It's a take it or leave it proposition.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Simple meanings passed through translation can have severe problems.

e.g > In the Asian language I am learning, as subtitles in movies a very common word is often translated as 'no' when in fact it means 'I don't like X' (x been whatever was asked previously).

i.e > In 90% of instances this meaning is sufficient to get the point across. But in other instances its completely inappropriate and doesn't convey the meaning of the situation at all.

The documents in the Bible were written by men, re-written by men again and again. And you really believe that the oldest copies today are 99.9% accurate ?

Yes, I do believe that they are that accurate. That belief is backed up by textual criticism.

For example, we can compare copies of Old Testament found in Qumran with manuscripts from 800 years later. The levels of accuracy are incredibly high despite them haviung being repeatedly copied by hand over 800 years.

Similarly we have many NT manuscripts from various centuries, and quotations from them in other writings by church fathers etc. These all provide evidence of high accuracy in copying. I think we can be very confident that the manuscripts that form the basis of modern translations are 99.9% accurate and that no variations affect any major point of doctrine or anything that is essential for salvation.

Homosexuality in the Bible.

Many texts translate it as any kind of homosexuality is wrong, while many scholars believe the original message was only against illegal acts such as homosexual rape etc. And never mentioned homsexuality on its own (without a criminal act attached)

They also believe that many messages in the Bible have been 'interpreted' a certain way by certain people because of their own personal preference. And I'm not talking about George Bush, I'm talking about the people who done the re-writing hundreds of years ago.

You always get people who, because they are pushing an agenda, deliberately misunderstand what is as clear as the nose on their faces. As Bill Clinton said, "It depends how you define the word 'is' ".

I'm not impressed with the way the pro-gay lobby perform mental and linguistic gymnastics to make verses say the opposite to their plain sense, but in the end this is just another red herring. Homosexuality is a totally separate issue from our discussion on whether the Gospel, and how to be saved, is clear in the Bible. I wonder why you seem so keen to evade that issue with so many red herrings?

Are you trying to defend this issue on the basis of one example ?
And what evidence have you got that its a falsity that the virgin birth is based on ?

My evidence is my knowledge of Hebrew, my ability to read language in context, and the fact that no-one has produced any evidence to the contrary.

As for one example, what on earth are you talking about? You were the one who raised the issue of the virgin birth, not me.

And, BTW, your raising of the virgin birth is yet another red herring. Whether one believes in the virgin birth or not has no bearing on whether you are saved, or on the clarity with which the Gospel is presented in the Bible.

How many Christians are still sacrificing lambs to God ?

None, that I know of. But only a complete moron would ascribe this to any understanding or misunderstanding of the word 'kill' in the Ten Commandments.

So your going to defend this by suggesting its the same as the royal "we" ?

Yes, because that makes the most sense linguistically and contextually.

Incidentally, if I were trying to find an interpretation that would defend my own doctrinal position, then I would jump at claiming some other significance in the uses of the plural. That would be much more convenient to support my belief in the Trinity. However, my intellectual and academic integrity demands that I "follow the evidence" (to quote Gill Grissom).

Yes, that the people who wrote the texts differed greatly on what they believed. Thats not a perfectly sensible explanation no ?

No, on historical grounds alone that would be extremely unlikely.

Theres no need to get insulting. I'm well aware of the trinity, I wasn't aware that it was used pre-Jesus. Are you now saying that the trinity was commonly accepted back then ? I wasn't aware that the Jews accepted that.

I'm not being insulting. I'm trying to enable us to continue to have a discussion by reducing the number of rabbit trails and red herrings that might divert us from the point under discussion.What many Christians say is that the uses of the plural indicate that God knew He was a Trinity, and that He inspired the scriptural writers to use language that reflected that.

You really believe that the Bible, a collection of gospels which were brought together by the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago, accepting some documents and rejecting others including adding what they liked and leaving out what they didn't like, is 99% accurate ?

Muslims believe the Jewish and Christian books are corrupt. Are they wrong ?

No, your understanding of the formation of the Canon is seriously at fault here. If you want to start another thread on that I will gladly discuss it.

And yes, I do believe Muslims are wrong.

Differences in the Bible = Different gospel = different destination, no ?

No. Same destination. Same mode of transport. Just a few disagreements over what colour some of the seats on the train should be.

Like for example that church in the USA who like to handle rattlesnakes ? Or howabout the people who believe that having any kind of medical treatment will be an automatic trip to Hell or howabout the people who believe God hates homosexuals ?

While they are foolish to handle rattlesnakes, that has nothing whatsoever to do with how we are saved. Some nutjobs oppose medical treatment, but that does not change the fact that the way of salvation is clearly spelled out for them, in the Bible.

The Bible is the opposite of clarity.

Your prejudiced opinion is noted.

And of course a banning would follow soon thereafter because anyone disagreeing with you and refusing to accept your 'corrections' are trolling ?

Alright, I'll go look.

No, if you behave yourself and obey the charter then I don't see why you should be banned.

If you continue to drag up irrelevant red herrings then I shall simply ignore you as a joker whose posts don't merit a reply.

As I say, pick any translation you want and we can examine it to see if the Gospel is plain or is obscured by faulty translation.

robindch

monosharp wrote: »

The documents in the Bible were written by men, re-written by men again and again. And you really believe that the oldest copies today are 99.9% accurate? The difference can be subtle in some instances but huge in others.

The case of the biblical scholar and textual critic, Bart Ehrman, is worth checking out. He started off a biblical fundamentalist and learned Greek, Hebrew and textual analysis in order to strengthen his beliefs. But realized at some point during his career that the traditional fundamentalist interpretations of biblical texts as well as the assertions that they were 99.9999 whatever percent accurate could not be supported by any reasonable or unbiased reading.

Here's he is, doing his stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgpjxfn8nSw

PDN

robindch wrote: »

The case of the biblical scholar and textual critic, Bart Ehrman, is worth checking out. He started off a biblical fundamentalist and learned Greek, Hebrew and textual analysis in order to strengthen his beliefs. But realized at some point during his career that the traditional fundamentalist interpretations of biblical texts as well as the assertions that they were 99.9999 whatever percent accurate could not be supported by any reasonable or unbiased reading.

Atheists wheel out Bart Ehrman the way Creationists wheel out the occasional geologist that agrees with them (which pretty well guarantees him noteriety and a very nice line in book royalties). His conclusions are rejected by the majority of scholars in his field.

I find him to be extremely dishonest in the way he presents his findings. He cites numbers of variations in manuscripts, usually neglecting to mention that the vast majority of these variations are something as minute as a misplaced comma, an accent mark, or a word spelt slightly differently in one particular manuscript.

Still, he is a biblical scholar, just as Michael Behe is a scientist.

Lovethinking

monosharp wrote: »

Ok so on another thread here we've been discussing whose going to hell based on beliving in God or not.

I think we need a new thread for the question, whats going to happen to other religions people ?

Lets start with the 3 religions which more or less have the same source.

Judaism -> They follow the teachings of the Hebrew Bible which is more or less the same as the OT. (I know its not exactly the same).

So they are technically following the same God as Christians (?), they just believe Jesus was a bit of a fibber and don't believe he was God, the son of God or even a Prophet.

They believe in only the first covenant with God, yadda yadda yadda.

So come judgement day, according to you guys where do Jews go ?

Islam -> I'm gonna just go ahead and say that its the same 'God' in Islam as in Judaism and Christianity.



They, unlike the Jews, are quite fond of Jesus and consider him an important prophet of God.

They believe the Jewish and Christian books/stories are corrupted and incorrect.

So now you have 3 big religions, all which basically worship the same God and all whose main 'texts' are very similiar to eachother.

What about other Christians ?

Catholics -> I must admit I've forgotten but don't Cathoilics believe they're going to heaven and everyone else, regardless of being christian or pagan, are going to hell ? They picked the 'wrong' type of christianity ?

Eastern Orthodox -> Yeah these guys are the second biggest christian denomination in the world and have a rather different take on things.

e.g >



Buddhism -> There are some scholars that believe that Jesus studied buddhist teachings or at least that it had a big influence on Christianity.

I'm not saying this is true btw.

So where are Buddhists going ?

One of the main arguments in the other thread is that anyone who 'rejects' God/Jesus is going to hell.

All of the above religious people believe in their religion just as much as you yourselves believe in your religion.

What makes them wrong and you right ?

Where are they going ?

Are the Jews and Muslims going to hell ? They believe in the same God you do.

It will not , and has never been, membership of a particular club (religion) that will determine a person's destination.
Jesus taught that "why" we do something, rather than what, where, how etc.., is the most important thing to him.... so he examines our hearts and sees if we are "sheep" or "goats".


That is a comfort to me, since I don't know of any genuine religion out there and I don't have to spend my life searching for one... I just need to try to apply what I learn from Jesus genuinely in my life,, that proves I believe him and at the sametime enhances my life and the life of others.
Nevertheless, there is certainly a case to be made for being able to have fellowship with other genuine Christians... but how do you stop that from eventually growing into another corrupt religion? (this question is not rhetorical... I don't know the answer)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I find him to be extremely dishonest in the way he presents his findings. He cites numbers of variations in manuscripts, usually neglecting to mention that the vast majority of these variations are something as minute as a misplaced comma, an accent mark, or a word spelt slightly differently in one particular manuscript.

I don't know how much you've read of which books of his, but on page ten of my copy of his most well-known book, Misquoting Jesus, he writes:

Ehrman wrote:

[...] copies differ from one another in so many places that we don't even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant. A good portion of them simply show us that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can today [...]

I'll put your belief in his extreme dishonesty down either not having read him, or simply having forgotten that he certainly does address the concern you raise.

PDN wrote: »

His conclusions are rejected by the majority of scholars in his field.

Simply because most of the people who work in his field belong to religions which assert biblical inerrancy -- such people are ideologically incapable of accepting his conclusions, regardless of how justified they are.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Simply because most of the people who work in his field belong to religions which assert biblical inerrancy -- such people are ideologically incapable of accepting his conclusions, regardless of how justified they are.

Actually that is not true. I would say a majority of textual critics do not subscribe to inerrancy. However, that's a neat way to try to boost a minority academic view - just claim that everyone else is hopelessly biased because of their presuppositions. Now, where have I heard that one before? Oh yes, it was in the BCP thread - the reason Creationist scientists are so few is because most scientists are prejudiced atheists. Robin, you have turned into the people you like to mock - LOL.

wolfsbane

PDN said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by robindch
Simply because most of the people who work in his field belong to religions which assert biblical inerrancy -- such people are ideologically incapable of accepting his conclusions, regardless of how justified they are.
Actually that is not true. I would say a majority of textual critics do not subscribe to inerrancy. However, that's a neat way to try to boost a minority academic view - just claim that everyone else is hopelessly biased because of their presuppositions. Now, where have I heard that one before? Oh yes, it was in the BCP thread - the reason Creationist scientists are so few is because most scientists are prejudiced atheists. Robin, you have turned into the people you like to mock - LOL.

Well picked up, PDN. It of course doesn't prove the issue one way or the other, it just offers a possible alternative explanation.

As a Creationist and an Inerrantist, I'm glad to see Robin now accepts the validity of such argumentation.

wolfsbane

monosharp said:

What happens to other religious people come Judgement day ?

Lets start with the 3 religions which more or less have the same source.

Judaism -> They follow the teachings of the Hebrew Bible which is more or less the same as the OT. (I know its not exactly the same).

So they are technically following the same God as Christians (?), they just believe Jesus was a bit of a fibber and don't believe he was God, the son of God or even a Prophet.

They believe in only the first covenant with God, yadda yadda yadda.

So come judgement day, according to you guys where do Jews go ?

Hell. Since they don't really believe in the God of the OT, otherwise they would believe in His Son Jesus:
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

Islam -> I'm gonna just go ahead and say that its the same 'God' in Islam as in Judaism and Christianity.

Well, Allah is not the same God, but even if He were, Muslims would be in the same position as the Jews: unless they believe in Jesus Christ, they are lost.

What about other Christians ?

Catholics
Eastern Orthodox

Like all who profess to believe in Christ, if they are really trusting in their good works, their denomination, their rituals, or anything but Christ's substitutionary atonement, they are lost. Most 'Christians' I know are not Christians in the Biblical sense. They are religionists, in varying shades of sincerity.

Buddhism

So where are Buddhists going ?

Hell.

One of the main arguments in the other thread is that anyone who 'rejects' God/Jesus is going to hell.

That is the Biblical position.

All of the above religious people believe in their religion just as much as you yourselves believe in your religion.

So? Since when does believing in a lie count as much as believing in the truth?

What makes them wrong and you right ?

Because real Christians believe what God has said in the gospel. They do not deny it, take from it, or add to it.

Mickeroo

What happens to other religious people come Judgement day ?

Well with any luck god is smarter and more open minded than some of it's followers and looks at peoples lives for what they are rather than what they believe in.

PDN

Mickeroo wrote: »

What happens to other religious people come Judgement day ?

Well with any luck god is smarter and more open minded than some of it's followers and looks at peoples lives for what they are rather than what they believe in.

In that case we all go to hell.

Húrin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Excuse the pedantry, but there's a lot of "believes in Him" there. There's a lot of problems with that:

1. Is the Him referring to God or Jesus?

It refers to Jesus, as revealed in the rest of the book.

2. I believe Jesus existed. I believe in some of what he says in the Gospel. I don't believe in everything the Gospels claims. So does this mean I "believe in him" or not? Whose to say?

No, because you're not trusting him.

3. You can technically "believe in Jesus" but not believe in the Gospel.

No, you can't because the Gospel is the source for the teaching of Jesus.

4. Everyone who believes in Jesus dies. Unless you redefine the definition of death. In fact, some philosophers don't even agree on a definition of life.

Those who believe in Jesus die and are resurrected again to eternal life.

5. What happens if you're mentally handicapped and it's impossible to believe in anything?

I'd say that would put you in the same camp as those who have never heard the Gospel.

6. What happens if you're just not that intelligent and there's some really intelligent, logical reason to believe in all this, but you just don't get it.

I'd say that would put you in the same camp as those who have never heard the Gospel. People of all kinds of intelligence and education have accepted the Gospels so I don't think this idea that salvation is an IQ hurdle has much to it.

7. What happens if you believe in Jesus but you actually don't want to live forever?

Not saved. You're not trusting Jesus to deliver for you.

8. What happens if you don't believe in Jesus, but you manage to live forever because science makes some breakthrough and you can stay alive as long as you want?

God probably will not care about that when he shows up on the day of judgement. According to the Bible, the unbeliever's life would be terminated.

9. A time machine is invented and we travel back to the time of Gospel and we find out Jesus was actually mumbling that time and people got the message wrong.

Christianity is disproven and we get something closer to the truth.

10. What happens if God is a skeptic and every man made religion is a hoax. He's really testing your critical thinking skills and he really only wants you if you're a skeptic. Say there's a twist to all this. What then?

Not very plausible or relevant but if it is, then we're screwed. I'd say it's pretty unfair because no warning was given.

11. Say you believe in Jesus because you want to live forever and then you find yourself bored out of your brain in heaven after 7,000 million years? Are you trapped?

How should any of us know?

monosharp wrote: »

Homosexuality in the Bible.

Many texts translate it as any kind of homosexuality is wrong, while many scholars believe the original message was only against illegal acts such as homosexual rape etc. And never mentioned homsexuality on its own (without a criminal act attached)

Homosexuality is not relevant to salvation. I thnk that you are claiming to be asking about salvation but you actually want to rant about Bible teaching in general.

Húrin

Mickeroo wrote: »

What happens to other religious people come Judgement day ?

Well with any luck god is smarter and more open minded than some of it's followers and looks at peoples lives for what they are rather than what they believe in.

Ah yes, the gospel according to all smug people who believe themselves to be "a good person".

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

Ah yes, the gospel according to all smug people who believe themselves to be "a good person".

I'm am not worthy of your ackknowledgement oh grand high smugness.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

monosharp said:
Hell. Since they don't really believe in the God of the OT, otherwise they would believe in His Son Jesus:

Last time I checked Jews didn't read the NT. Its still the same God. They are just getting some of the facts different to you.

Well, Allah is not the same God, but even if He were, Muslims would be in the same position as the Jews: unless they believe in Jesus Christ, they are lost.

Allah is not the same God ?

We're talking about Abraham's God right ?

And you completely ignored my point. Muslims DO believe in Jesus Christ, they just don't believe he was the son of God, they believe he was a prophet.

So? Since when does believing in a lie count as much as believing in the truth?

When theres no logical difference whatsoever between what some people consider the truth and what others consider a lie.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

That all depends on how you define 'Christian'. I know Messianic Jews who have accepted the Gospel, see Jesus as their Saviour and Messiah, but see themselves as completed Jews rather than as Christians.

So, that rules out all non-christians AND messianic jews then?

bou

Slav wrote: »

It's not 100% accurate to say that. "Salvation is only in Orthodoxy" and "only Orthodox will be saved" are two different claims. While the later is not considered as true the former is. I like the way Theophan the Recluse summarised this idea when he was asked whether Roman Catholics can be saved. He answered something in lines of "I don't know will the Catholics be saved, they have Saviour to take care of them. What I do know though is that if I leave Orthodoxy and become a catholic I certainly won't be saved."

The way I read this quote from Theophan, its like he's saying that he could not possibly comment on the beliefs of others but that if he reneged on or was half-hearted about his own system of belief, Orthodoxy, that would be a serious error for him.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

that's a neat way to try to boost a minority academic view - just claim that everyone else is hopelessly biased because of their presuppositions. Now, where have I heard that one before? Oh yes, it was in the BCP thread - the reason Creationist scientists are so few is because most scientists are prejudiced atheists. Robin, you have turned into the people you like to mock - LOL.

Well, when you can produce a biologist or any academic whom I've quoted approvingly, who either claims or implies something similar to what, say, a place like Ehrman's old school, the Moody Bible Institute says about the bible (that a book written by humans is "free from error in what it says", and that the academic is required to sign up and support this as a condition of employment), then I'll cheerfully accept your criticism that I've descended to the level of creationists.

Until then, though, I'll just have to file your comment in my drawer marked "Hmm... just doesn't get it"

JimiTime

Bduffman wrote: »

So, that rules out all non-christians AND messianic jews then?

Ehh no. Its about accepting Christ. If someone does this, but calls themself an apostleite or a jumping bean it makes no difference. Just like calling yourself a christian makes no difference if you don't believe Christ is who he said he was.

Cake Man

Sorry if I'm going back to basics but what is the main difference between the New Testament and the old Testament in a few words?

JimiTime

Cake Man wrote: »

Sorry if I'm going back to basics but what is the main difference between the New Testament and the old Testament in a few words?

Jesus Christ.

Bduffman

JimiTime wrote: »

Ehh no. Its about accepting Christ. If someone does this, but calls themself an apostleite or a jumping bean it makes no difference. Just like calling yourself a christian makes no difference if you don't believe Christ is who he said he was.

Ehh yes - but I'll take it that what you mean by 'accepting christ' is to accept him as the saviour - yes?

So how many non-christians are likely to do that?

antiskeptic

Bduffman wrote: »

Ehh yes - but I'll take it that what you mean by 'accepting christ' is to accept him as the saviour - yes?

So how many non-christians are likely to do that?

Potentially every single one of them can do that.

Before accepting they are non-Christians - just as I was a non-Christian 'before I accepted'.

After accepting they aren't non-Christians anymore - their ex-non-Christians

JimiTime

Bduffman wrote: »

Ehh yes - but I'll take it that what you mean by 'accepting christ' is to accept him as the saviour - yes?

So how many non-christians are likely to do that?

I was referring to your reference to Messianic Jews not being saved.

Bduffman

antiskeptic wrote: »

Potentially every single one of them can do that.

Before accepting they are non-Christians - just as I was a non-Christian 'before I accepted'.

After accepting they aren't non-Christians anymore - their ex-non-Christians

OK - bearing in mind that any non-christians who accepts jesus christ as saviour are therefore christian from that moment on, can any of you therefore state outright that you believe all non-christians are damned? I'm sensing that people believe this but are unwilling to say it for some reason.

Bduffman

JimiTime wrote: »

I was referring to your reference to Messianic Jews not being saved.

Huh? I didn't even know what messianic jews were until PDN mentioned them as non-christians who accept him as christ. (Even though I would have thought that would make them christian).

Gingganggooley

Bduffman wrote: »

OK - bearing in mind that any non-christians who accepts jesus christ as saviour are therefore christian from that moment on, can any of you therefore state outright that you believe all non-christians are damned? I'm sensing that people believe this but are unwilling to say it for some reason.

Everyone starts from the position of being damned. It's only those who are "in Christ" that will be saved.