Implications of Heresy

[achilles12604]

I have finally found a title which I think describes my religious views. I have created a usergroup to match. I accept many of the tenants of Christianity. I accept many of the core values and teachings. In fact let me just list them out.

I accept God exists.
I accept Jesus was his son and unique among men.
I accept that Jesus death atoned for sin.
I accept that Jesus performed miracles.
I accept that God inspired many of the writers of the bible.

Now begins my Heresy.

I accept that God inspired other great men of different faiths like Gandhi

I accept that salvation is a matter of the heart and faith is a byproduct or a symptom of the condition of this heart.

I accept that much of the bible can not be read literally

I accept that some of the stories of the bible are nothing more than stories, nor were they ever meant to be more than this.

I accept that people of other faiths have the potential for salvation just as any Christian would

I accept that the church has fallen far from where it originated.

I accept that the writings of Paul and the other disciples, while lead by God, are still personal interpretations and therefore subject to personal bias.

I do not accept the church taught concept of original sin.

I do not accept the sinlessness of Mary

I do not accept the concept of sainthoods

I do not accept that hell is a place for eternal torture in some fire lake

I accept (basically) some form of evolution/ID

I do not accept a young earth creation model.

I accept much of the current church as hypocritical and lazy

I accept that God reaches out to all men where ever they are through whatever beliefs they hold.

I accept that God knows just about everything, but can not know individual futures nor do I think this idea is supported well by scripture.









Now, I leave this WIDE open. I certainly will not take offense to anything written here. I want brutally honest opinions.

Who does not believe that my current beliefs allow for my own salvation (I am hell bound)?

Who believes that any of my current beliefs contradict another of my current beliefs?

Who here would not consider me a "true Christian"?

Which of my beliefs are directly contradicted by scripture?

What would Jesus say of my beliefs? What would you imagine him telling me?





Honesty people. Brutal, ugly, in my face, even to the point of suspending rule #1 for a moment, HONESTY

[achilles12604]

What I’m going to say most likely will not go over very well so please understand that I’m only posting out of my humble concern for yours and anyone else’s eternal salvation. I cannot begin to place myself really anywhere higher than the Lord had put me and that is not in a very high position. I’m a sinful man who deserves to be cast away from God forever but has found the key to eternal salvation. You can read my story here .

The first thing that I would like to address is the word Christianity. I believe based on research that Christianity has been changed greatly from what the early Christians believed. Today there are a lot of self proclaiming Christians who do not understand what it means to be a Christian. Christianity is a belief, following, faith in who Jesus Christ was and what He did for human kind. I feel, and this grieves my heart, that the majority of proclaiming Christians here in the United States are not truly Christians. I base this opinion on something called the fall away rate which is known by all major Christian denominations. I don’t want to get into to much detail about the fall away rate other than to say it’s the percentage of people who confess to be saved and then fall away from the faith. As I start to explain what it means to be a Christian I think you will understand this better.

The first time the word Christian was used that we know of is in the New Testament in Acts 11:26. I would recommend reading all of Acts 10 and 11 to get the full context of how these people in Antioch of Syria came to be believers. Christianity in the traditional sense (sense that it was originally intended) is the belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross for everyone’s sins and was raised three days later. He is alive today sitting at the right hand of the Father. This is the main point of what Christianity is but in no way explains the complexity of why He had to do it. I will try to address your comments one by one.

1. I accept God exists.
2. I accept Jesus was his son and unique among men.
3. I accept that Jesus death atoned for sin.
4. I accept that Jesus performed miracles.
5. I accept that God inspired many of the writers of the bible.

1. It is always a wonderful thing when someone believes in the possibility of something they cannot see.
2. Jesus was more than just God’s son and unique among men. Here is just one claim He made about Himself here
3. You are right on here.
4. Indeed He did.
5. God did inspire and the Bible says He breathed His word here . God had divine control over the Bible.

I accept that God inspired other great men of different faiths like Gandhi

I accept that salvation is a matter of the heart and faith is a byproduct or a symptom of the condition of this heart.

I accept that much of the bible can not be read literally

I accept that some of the stories of the bible are nothing more than stories, nor were they ever meant to be more than this.

I don’t see any major problems here.

I accept that people of other faiths have the potential for salvation just as any Christian would

Salvation only comes through Jesus Christ. See above #2 Bible verses. John 3:16 says “For God so loved the “world” He gave His only begotten Son…” There is no man, woman or child that cannot find salvation from God.

I accept that the church has fallen far from where it originated.

I accept that the writings of Paul and the other disciples, while lead by God, are still personal interpretations and therefore subject to personal bias.

I don’t see any issues here.

I do not accept the church taught concept of original sin.

This will not affect anything to do with your salvation.

I do not accept the sinlessness of Mary

I do not accept the concept of sainthoods

I do not accept that hell is a place for eternal torture in some fire lake

I accept (basically) some form of evolution/ID

I do not accept a young earth creation model.

I accept much of the current church as hypocritical and lazy

I accept that God reaches out to all men where ever they are through whatever beliefs they hold.

All this sounds pretty accurate. I will say that Hell is nowhere any of us would want to find ourselves. Hell is being eternally separated from God and based on all the details given to describe it, it will not be a pleasant place.

Now, I leave this WIDE open. I certainly will not take offense to anything written here. I want brutally honest opinions.

Who does not believe that my current beliefs allow for my own salvation (I am hell bound)?

Who believes that any of my current beliefs contradict another of my current beliefs?

Who here would not consider me a "true Christian"?

Which of my beliefs are directly contradicted by scripture?

What would Jesus say of my beliefs? What would you imagine him telling me?

Please remember what you said above

I want brutally honest opinions.

I think there a few things you have left off your top list that puts your salvation at risk. I will try and be brief. Salvation can only truly come when we understand who God is and who we are. First God: God is the Master of the Universe, He is the Judge of the Universe, He is Holy, He is Truth, He is Good, He is Righteous, He is Compassionate, He is Gracious, He is Slow to Anger and He is Love. God reveals some of His nature to Moses

Exodus 34:6-7 (New International Version) 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished;

.

God has to punish sin. He does not have a choice as He is a Holy Judge.

Psalm 9:8 He will judge the world in righteousness;
he will govern the peoples with justice.

To understand better lets put ourselves in a worldly courtroom. We are guilty and have confessed to breaking the law. The judge can only be a good judge if justice is served. He has to punish the law breaker. So if a earthly judge has to punish people for breaking the law then how much more so that our heavenly Father have to punish law breakers (sinners). Sin comes with a fine that has to be paid.

Now the question is have we broke God’s Laws. Well lets look at some of them. He says not to lie. What do we call people who lie (liars). He says not to steal. What do we call people who steal (thieves). The Law said not to commit adultery but Jesus said “anyone who just looks with lust in their heart has committed adultery” What do we call people who do this (adulter). We have only looked at three of God’s Laws and most people I think would have to admit that we have broken them. If we have to stand before God today and give an account for our life how do you feel we would do (you don’t’ have to answer this it’s personally). Remember God has to punish sin He has no choice if He is going to be a Good Judge.

Romans 7:9 At one time I lived without understanding the law. But when I learned the command not to covet, for instance, the power of sin came to life

Now being a true Christian is understanding how Holy God is and how sinful we are. It is understanding that nothing we can do will every bridge the gap between God and ourselves because we have all fallen short of the Glory of God. Paul says in Romans, all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. Once we understand that we are hopelessly lost because of our sinful nature we can begin to see what God did for us in the person Jesus.

Again nothing we can do will ever make up for the sinners we are and always will be. Only God can give salvation. He humbled Himself to come and dwell among humans and paid the fine for sin that we cannot pay ourselves. See it’s like this, we broke the law and Jesus paid our fine. Without understanding this it will not matter who calls themselves a Christian or not, all humans will have to stand in front of the Holy Judge in His Holy courtroom and give an account for all the deeds and thoughts of our life. Saying I'm a Christian will do no good if you don’t have the blood of Christ covering you.

Romans 2:5-6 But because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will judge everyone according to what they have done.

Now I am not saying you don’t have the Blood of the Lamb covering you. Only you and God know that but I will part with one last thought.

Believing in Jesus is not enough. You have to repent from your sins and turn your back on them forever. Now truly saved people will stumble into sin now and again but once you understand and have truly given your life to Christ you cannot and will not stay in sin. How could we continue living in sin knowing that Christ suffered so much to pay the fine we should have to pay. Christ was sinless and died for us.

Imagine your in a plane at 30,000 feet and the pilot comes over the intercom and says, folks we have an emergency. We have lost power to the plane and we are going to crash. Under everyone’s seat is a parachute, please pull them out and put them on. I am bringing the plane down to 15,000 feet and we will be jumping to safety. Now two guys are seated next to each other. The first guy (a) pulls the parachute out and looks at it. He has heard of parachutes before and believes they will work. He then puts the parachute “ON”. The next guy (b) pulls his parachute out. Now he has heard of the parachute too and believes it will work but decides not to put it “ON”. The plane doors open and both men jump. First guy (a) lives because his parachute opens and he lands safely. Second guy (b) falls to his death because he did not put the parachute on.

Just believing in Jesus will not work. We have to put the Blood of Christ on and be born again. That is what it means to be a true Christian. Looking at the 10 Commandments helps us realize how high God's standard is. I pray that this makes sense. I would recommend reading the Book of John if you have a Bible. I like the New Living Translation as it's easy to read. It holds up well compared to the Hebrew and Greek.

John 3: 1-21
Jesus Teaches Nicodemus
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.

10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e]

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Have a very Merry Christmas and hope God Blesses you greatly in 2008.

Thanks for your comments. I have only skimmed them as I am due for a walk. However I will read in detail when I return. I did notice that your primary place of concern was regarding salvation. I have just finished a VERY lengthy presentation on my views on salvation and how they impact my other points. Feel free to review the post just before yours for a very full explaination regarding my salvation views.

[achilles12604]

I would recommend reading the Book of John if you have a Bible.

I have noticed your frequent use of John. I wonder if you have noticed my non-existence use of this book.

May I ask why you like John or prefer it over the other books?

[Goose]

I can see this could become a very long thread even if it is just the two of us. I hope it is very enlightening.

Yes, it will be fun and informative. Lot's in your post and you're right, it could get lengthy, so I'll try to stick to the issues. Give me a day or two to go through your post.

[servant]

The Book of John is a very loving book and Jesus also makes some strong claims regarding Himself. I like the first Chapter and the first verse the most:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I would like to note that although I note from the Book of John 3 times in my previous post I hold all scripture on the same plain as being God's Holy Word.

You posted up your long response to Goose right before I posted and I did not get a chance to look it over. You make some interesting points. One thing that you mentioned is

I have recently been forced (through scripture) to give up the idea that god knows absolutely everything, meaning he is unable to know individual's futures. Did I include this in my heresy? If not I should go add it.

This is called "Open View Theism". People that hold to this view believe God can know the future He just choses not to. This allows Him to give people Free Will. While it sounds good I personally do not hold to this view. But I believe in no way that thinking that God does or does not know the future has anything to do with a persons salvation.

[Goose]

Sorry, it's been more than a day or two. Christmas and all.

I can see this could become a very long thread even if it is just the two of us. I hope it is very enlightening.

Iron sharpens iron. Personally, I think it better that we allow other Christians to help us forge our beliefs and theology. I think placing to much value on "atheist fire" in this area is taking us down a very dangerous path. I wouldn't go to someone that has never owned a home or thinks a home is a horrible investment to help me formulate a game plan to purchase a home. I would take their opinions with a very large bag of salt.

There are many other methods by which to verify Christ's uniqueness. But given that I accept a bodily resurrection, I agree that this is another one.

This may be an area we differ. I'm trying to think of another convincing way that Jesus' claims to be the Son of God and divine can be verified. Maybe you can present the best example other than the Rez and we can see if it holds up.

If one does not believe Jesus rose, then who are they trusting in for their salvation?

God. I obviously must go in depth regarding my beliefs on salvation. I will do this further down.

Yes we put our trust in God. That goes with out saying. You might be missing my point. How do we know what god to trust in or which revelation of God? The connection that it IS the Christian God that we should place our trust in is made through Christs' Rez.

The other theological issue here is that Christ is described as a mediator between God and man. His purpose then does not merely end with a sacrifice or to bear our sins. So, how do we know that Jesus has the authority to mediate on our behalf? The Rez.

Anybody can die. Actually, everybody does die eventually. So dieing on the cross, though very noble, doesn't mean squat with out a Resurrection.

Granted. Jesus death was unique however, because he lives sinlessly and was able therefore to take our sins on him, while remaining intact. Again further down.

How do we KNOW Christ lived a sinless life? We only have His word (or the word of the NT writers). A mere man is unlikely to live 30+ years without sin. And if a man did how can we confirm it? The divine Son of God would presumably have the strength to live sinless. But how do we know Jesus was this person if not for the Rez.

Why stop there? If God already knows and it's all predetermined then belief is irrelevant. Some of us are going to heaven and some are going to hell regardless of what we think we believe.

I have recently been forced (through scripture) to give up the idea that god knows absolutely everything, meaning he is unable to know individual's futures. Did I include this in my heresy? If not I should go add it.

Now there's a serious problem. If God does not know all things how can He know our hearts? If He can't know the future (or chooses not to know the future) why would we believe He can know our hearts or would want to know our hearts? I don't think we can have it both ways here. This sounds very ad hoc.

How do we know Jesus has the authority to make these types of claims? Is it because He says so? Is it because He healed some people? No. It's because of the Resurrection. So, to say that one believes that Jesus can and will save, but then not believe in a Resurrection... well, I just don't see the scriptures affording us that. Now it is true that Jesus does not say expressly say one needs to believe in a physical Rez for salvation, however Paul does. The Rez is also a key component of the early Gospel.

God has the ability to resurrect anyone he wants. Lazarus was resurrected. Should we therefore place all faith in Lazarus? No. There is more reason why Jesus was unique than being resurrected, and this ties in directly with my view of salvation. Again below.

Did Lazarus make the claims Jesus did? Did Lazarus predict his own death and Rez and fulfil that prediction? No. God resurrected Jesus as confirmation of His claims to be the divine Son of God. God would not raise a heretic.

Is this merely Paul's opinion or did he get it from Peter, John, and James, who knew Jesus before and after the Rez? If it's only Paul's opinion, but it's also inspired by God, how do you determine what to keep and what to throw away?

Paul himself tells us where he gets his gospel. It isn't from Peter, James or anyone else . . .

Galatians 1:11-12
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Firstly, you are not answering the question. How do you determine what to keep and what to throw away? Secondly, why would you assume this quote from Paul means that the Gospel received is different? He doesn't say it's different, only that he didn't initially receive it from men.

Therefore, it is not necessarily the same Gospel as that of Peter, James, or anyone else. I think there is a really good reason for this and it ties into my opinion about other religions.

Your "therefore" is a non-sequitur, I think. Paul tells us his gospel was not made by man. You need to keep reading in Galatians. Later in the chapter and the next Paul tells us that he went to see the boys in Jerusalem. He presented the gospel he was preaching to them and we are given the distinct impression that Paul was given the green light and then commissioned. The only dispute I'm aware of is over WHO should receive the gospel and consequently circumcision. There is no dispute over the CONTENT of the gospel Paul was preaching. At no point is Paul considered heretical by the early Church.

So, what are we going to do with Paul's assertion that one needs to believe in the Rez to be saved?

If god loves his creation which I believe he does, then it makes sense he would want to reach ALL of his creation, regardless of time, location or culture. What is the best and most uniform method to achieve this goal? Religions. I have noticed that most religions (especially those with a long history (ie not scientology or others) have a great many things in common...

This is good evidence that God has "built in" a desire to fill a void that He created. So, I agree so far. Please continue...

...Now if God wanted to reach the gentiles with his message or correct skewed religious views because they were getting away from the core "truths", then he would need to send them a message. If the message they needed to get included, faith, works, and love, then all god needed to do was send them a message in context they would understand. If the Jews had tried to spread the original message into the gentile nations by themselves, it would probably have failed because of the unpleasant past between the Jews and neighboring nations (which we still see today). So I consider Paul's message as a sort of message in a bottle. Basically the same message, but packaged so that it would be accepted by the anti-jewish culture many gential nations had.

I need a little clarification here. If God was trying to get a message to the gentiles that would appeal to them, why did God select a staunch Jew - Paul - to deliver that message? That would have exacerbated the problem, yes? The physcial resurrection of the dead was a Jewish belief and part of the early gospel. It wasn't preached only by Paul. It was preached by other disciples as well.

On a broader note, this could explain how other far off nations achieved salvation. The native americans certainly weren't christians. And when Christianity did arrive, it was at the end of a gun. So how would god be able to reach them with his message of love, faith, and works? Well they all had their own religions which contented these basic principles. If God judges a Native American by his own religion, it can be a fair judgement. If he judges the Native American by a foreign religion offer at gunpoint, it certainly would not be a fair judgement.

I agree with you. I think God is just and has a plan for those that have never heard the Gospel. Romans 2:13-16 addresses this.

Now on to my views of salvation.

There is one obvious block to salvation. Sin. Here is one of over 1400 mentions of the word sin in the bible.

Matthew 5:29-31
29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

The penalty for sin is death. Obviously a block to salvation.

Enter Jesus, the one who takes away this sins of the world. (John 1:29) He lives sinlessly. He has a unique connection to God and is set up as lord of all by God. His mission is to pay the penalty for sin for the whole world.

Those last words are critical because it is here where my views differ from tradition. The gospel does not indicate that Jesus death only takes away the sins of those who become Christians. This idea originates from Paul and I believe was a misinterpretation on his part.

31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

33But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

If you read the past paragraph it implies that anyone can follow Jesus teachings and follow him. It also indicates that if you are ashamed of him or his teachings that you will not be accepted into heaven. Think about this. What were Jesus main teachings? Law? Traditions? No, it was love God and love your neighbor. Well I seriously doubt Gandhi has any issue with these two things and he publicly said he admired Jesus. Keep this in mind.

I don't have any problem with what you've so far presented on salvation. I do, however, think you are too preoccupied with where Mahatma is spending eternity. That decision is not up to us and is irrelevant to what we should believe regarding Christian doctrine or salvation. This issue with Ghandi seems to be a catalyst for you to alter your theology. Just an observation, for what it's worth.

Jesus death and atoning for sin cleared away sin for the whole world. But obviously there must be more to the picture or else there is no justice in the world. Enter more heresy. I believe that Jesus own words teach that salvation itself is based on a person's heart. Not acceptance of Christian doctrines and traditions. Again, the exclusion idea came from Paul. There is no indication that I can find in the Gospels that adherence to old traditions, or new ones would earn salvation.

I don't think it's heresy to say that salvation is based on one's heart. Some of those doctrines are doctrines for salvation, so acceptance of some of them is by default mandatory for salvation. I do agree that acceptance of Church traditions is not a prerequisite for salvation. It's important to distinguish between the two.

What do you mean by the "exclusion idea" from Paul? Wasn't he the one that advocated gentile's should have an opportunity to recieve the Gospel?

This constitutes some of the research I have done and can be found here.

I apologize for its length but since my views on salvation are different, I must address them fully. If you like, we can certainly start a side topic on salvation. Heck we can start a side topic on all of them. Just let me know and I will make and summarize things to get going.

I have created a conclusion at the end of the quoted sections.

Sorry all, I have neglected my own post for far to long now.

I have read through all 4 gospels.

Here was what I could find relating directly to salvation. . .

Mark
Quote:
13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.


What is it that children have that adults lack? What do we lose as we grow older? A sense of the magical? Innocence?

It seems to me that children are fairly ego-centric. In other words they take gifts openly without thinking about the correct social rules of repaying in kind. They have no trouble taking a gift without even considering repaying the gracious act. They are focused on what they want and need.

Could this be how Jesus wanted people to accept salvation? To just take it without a second thought about how to be worthy of it or earn it or even re-pay it?




Quote:
7As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[d]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."


I find many people who read this and interpret it as "giving away possessions and living a good life will grant eternal life.". Is this accurate?

I read this and I see a message that goes something like this. . .

Once those around you are more important to you that yourself . . . You will be ready to enter heaven. Once you realize that things of this world, wealth power, etc, are not as important as the people around you and what they need, you will be better off for heaven. If you are focused on wealth, you will gain wealth . . . and nothing else. It is much easier to focus on God and follow him when you are not trying to build up your wealth and run your life how you want to.

A man can not build both his own castle and one for God at the same time.




Quote:
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."


Once again Jesus focuses on outward attentions as opposed to inward aspirations. No actions, no matter how sacrificial or "holy" will even be able to compete with loving and doing what God wants.



It seems that Mark paints of picture of salvation according to Jesus as a person willing to forget and forgo the aspirations of this world and instead focus on his fellow man and his needs. It is someone who is willing to give himself totally to the betterment of his neighbors, even at his own loss. It is also someone who is not to proud and arrogant to accept a gift. Someone with great pride would feel the need to accept a gift only if he could repay it in kind or if he had earned it.

A humble man, would be willing to accept a gift at face value. He would take it as it was, no strings, nothing more or less. An open gift which he can accept because his pride doesn't need to be satisfied before being comfortable in accepting it.



Matthew

The first mention of salvation in Matthew is very interesting.

Quote:
19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


Apparently you can break every rule set up by Jewish law (or at least a lot of them) and still get to heaven.

Thus salvation can not be based at all of the "rules" of the OT. Jesus refers to them almost like "bonus points" after the score has been added up. He also makes the point that the highly religious will not make it to heaven.

If a thief can make it and the good religious people can't then it must not be based on the quality of a person's life or actions.



Quote:
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.


This one would indicate that hatred, and malice are contrary to the kingdom of God. Anyone who is upset with someone else is answerable to man's laws. If someone hates another person in their hearts, then they are treading in God's rules.

This would indicate that salvation is determined at least in part (if not in full as I think) by the true nature of a person. Who they are in their heart decides their fate, not what they say or do so much.

Of course actions will always reflect what is inside a person's heart. Fruit of the trees, etc.


Quote:
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'


Again it has more to do with what is in their true nature as opposed to what they present outwardly. Take for example Timothy Joseph Evans contrasted with Father Robert Drinan.

Both claim Christianity as their base. They claim to teach and follow Jesus as lord. However, no one would argue that these men were on equal footing. Which do you think will be calling "lord lord"?

I am beginning to see a pattern. Salvation based on a person's heart. The person
is heart is easily reflected by their actions.


Quote:
10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

13Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.


Interesting. A high member of the military currently oppressing the Jews, God's chosen people, demonstrates better than any of God people what great faith entails.

It also states explicitly here that there will be people from every corner of the earth accepted into heaven, while many of those originally invited (Jews) will not be accepted.

So what was the difference between the centurion here and the people Jesus has been teaching? The centurion came to Jesus on behalf of someone much lower than himself in rank. He came seeking aid for a servant.

I believe that this shows great insight into the true heart or nature of the centurion. I believe that this again points to salvation being a focus of the true heart of a person rather than his race, or even his religion as I doubt very much that the centurion believed or accepted Jesus as his personal lord and savior.

Very interesting indeed.

Quote:
12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."


Mercy - put forth by the centurion
Sacrifice - put forth by the Pharisees.

I'm going to stop there for now.

Anyone have any comments?



I believe we have looked and I have interpreted these passages as pointing clearly to salvation being

1) a matter of the heart
2) un-impacted by following or ignoring proper "rules" or procedures
3) a gift which must be accepted without pride in the way
4) A gift given by God to those who's hearts are bent on loving and assisting their fellow man rather than focusing on themselves.

What I have not found so far -

1) Any indication that a particular prayer is needed to join "the club"
2) any indication that people outside of traditional Christianity can not be saved.

On the contrary I found passages which indicate that many "Christians" will be excluded while many "non-Christians" will be accepted.

1) What must be done to be saved? Have a heart of and for God. Or, in other words loving God and loving your neighbor's basically sums it up. I believe that in order to do this, you must attain a heart like God's. Basically you must truly have a heart for and of God. Do this, and I believe you can be saved. God would be the only one who could truly read and understand your heart and he would know if you were simply faking it.

2) What is the criteria used by God to determine judgement? Well this is addressed in number one. I believe the criteria God uses is that person's own heart. Is their heart full of hate? Is it full of Greed? Lust? Anger? If the heart is full of these, then it is motivated by these. If it is motivated by these, then actions will surely follow in suit.

3) Who will be saved? Those who are pure of heart. Those who truly seek out God and his will. Those who approach life with the innocence a child. Those who's decisions are driven out of love for their fellow man.

4) Who will NOT be saved? Everyone else. Those who's hearts are corrupted by hate, greed, malice, anger, selfish-ness, etc.

Ok so in conclusion in my opinion there are two blocks to salvation. Sin, and our hearts. Now here is how I marry the two and what role Jesus played. I must include one quick detour first however to make my "story" make sense. I believe hell is a place of destruction of sin. If we sin, our soul and spirit is combined with the sin we commit. It becomes part of us and dirties our soul. When a soul is sent to hell, the sin is burned away (so to speak). If the soul is still combined with the sin, the soul is destroyed too. Now with this in mind. . . .

Imagine for a moment we are walking down a tunnel. At the end of the tunnel is salvation. Between us and salvation there is a huge cave in.

Now when Jesus died on the cross, he took our sin upon himself. He was able to do this because he was sinless. His spirit had not been corrupted all by sin. If he went to hell right then, he wouldn't have felt anything nor been affected in any way as sin was not part of him. However, he took our sin upon him. Our sins were placed onto him to be destroyed in hell, thus leaving us blameless. However, our sins were not his sins. Thus they were not PART of him, but rather carried BY him. While in hell our sins burned away but Jesus spirit of God did not because it was not corrupted. When the sin had been destroyed, nothing was left to keep Jesus in hell, and he was able to once again enter the presence of his father. He rose and is seated at the right hand of the father.

So if our sin is placed upon Jesus, then it is burned with him. If it is not, then it is still part of us.

I believe that this is where the heart comes in. Jesus teachings as I showed above have a very strong tendency towards salvation being a matter of the heart and not of some particular belief or prayer or tradition. And I believe that just like E= MC2 is extremely easy and always works, Jesus two greatest commandments Love God, Love your Neighbor apply for the heart. When someone dies, he is judged. We have foreseen his judgement if you take a literal view of Revelations. Almost every religion I have found has some sort of judgement after death and repercussions from the same. I believe that this judgement is God's sole decision. It is a measure of who a person REALLY is. No one but God can do this.

If God looks at a person's heart and finds that he loves God and loves his neighbor (*or whatever criteria he uses), places that souls sin upon Jesus. If not, he allows the sin to remain in the soul and it is destroyed in hell.

Where my idea splits from tradition the most is regarding criteria for the removal of sin. I do not accept the church tradition that sin is removed only after praying a particular prayer. I do not accept that it is based on someone's fleeting beliefs. I believe that Jesus teachings indicate that this decision is made much deeper, within a person's true being.

This ideology of salvation still works with the vast majority of Scripture including much of Paul's writings. But if I am correct, it also clears up a lot of questions like Is Gandhi Burning in hell and all the others which I am sure you have seen before.

My position was made only after careful reading of the Gospels so I believe I can ligitimantly claim it is based on scripture


Ok now go for it. Oh and should I create a new thread just for this subject or shall we continue discussing it here?

I don't necessarily disagree with your views above on salvation. I think your main thrust is that it is an issue of the heart. And I agree with that. So we can come back to this in more detail later. For now we need to address a few issues first.

1. The issue of belief in the resurrection. Is it necessary for salvation?
2. The methodology for rejecting some scripture, such as Paul, but accepting others. So far it seems to be, the Gospels trump everything else because they are the teachings of Christ. Is that pretty close?
3. The deity of Christ. Was Jesus divine? Or was he a sinless man that had a unique connection/relationship to God. Or both? Or something else.

[achilles12604]

1. The issue of belief in the resurrection. Is it necessary for salvation?
2. The methodology for rejecting some scripture, such as Paul, but accepting others. So far it seems to be, the Gospels trump everything else because they are the teachings of Christ. Is that pretty close?
3. The deity of Christ. Was Jesus divine? Or was he a sinless man that had a unique connection/relationship to God. Or both? Or something else.

Alright, you seem to have boiled it down.

1. The issue of belief in the resurrection. Is it necessary for salvation?

I do not think that belief in the resurrection is criteria for salvation. Jesus preaches on the subject of salvation a lot. He also preached on his death and resurrection a lot. I don't know of any place where he talked about both at the same time in any capacity.


Therefore, I think belief in a physical resurrection is not required for salvation. Question, where does it imply in any of scripture that it is in fact a requirement for salvation?

2. The methodology for rejecting some scripture, such as Paul, but accepting others. So far it seems to be, the Gospels trump everything else because they are the teachings of Christ. Is that pretty close?

This is basically correct. The most accurate way of describing this is that I feel the gospels are closer to a documentary of the events, while Paul's letters, et al, are personal interpretations of how these events should be lived. As a side note, and one I am having with Servant, I don't trust John quite as much simply because of us being unsure of the exact author, and it being so dated as compared to the rest of them. I use John personally, but regard it as closer to a personal interpretation of a documentary.

When I am looking for solid fact upon which to base my theology, I go to Matt, Mark, and Luke and sometimes Acts. I read John, Paul's letters, etc as informative, interesting and a personal viewpoint to be examined, but I do not read them as scripture.

3. The deity of Christ. Was Jesus divine? Or was he a sinless man that had a unique connection/relationship to God. Or both? Or something else.

Undecided. Tradition states he was divine. But there are verses which make me pause as to what they actually mean. The idea of the trinity is certainly a complicated one. I lean towards the idea that God the father's spirit IS the holy spirit, IS inside of Jesus directing him. Now Was Jesus himself this actual spirit or was he a chosen and unique one given the spirit directly? I am undecided.

I don't have any problem with what you've so far presented on salvation. I do, however, think you are too preoccupied with where Mahatma is spending eternity. That decision is not up to us and is irrelevant to what we should believe regarding Christian doctrine or salvation. This issue with Ghandi seems to be a catalyst for you to alter your theology. Just an observation, for what it's worth.

It certainly gave me pause to think and study. Yes catalyst is a good word. But only a catalyst. It didn't lead me solely to my conclusions. It only forced me to re-read the gospels carefully. The Gospels are my primary source for my beliefs.

I need a little clarification here. If God was trying to get a message to the gentiles that would appeal to them, why did God select a staunch Jew - Paul - to deliver that message? That would have exacerbated the problem, yes? The physcial resurrection of the dead was a Jewish belief and part of the early gospel. It wasn't preached only by Paul. It was preached by other disciples as well.

Actually it was genius. Paul was a roman citizen. He was a former Jew. But now he was preaching a message for which most Jews hated him. I believe this would have given him credibility in the gentiles eyes.

I don't think it's heresy to say that salvation is based on one's heart. Some of those doctrines are doctrines for salvation, so acceptance of some of them is by default mandatory for salvation. I do agree that acceptance of Church traditions is not a prerequisite for salvation. It's important to distinguish between the two.

But if salvation is a matter of the heart, then a Muslim can enter heaven correct? This would be regarded as heresy to most Christians.

And Paul's exclusion idea may have been a mistype on my part because I can not remember where I was going with this. What I meant to write was the church's exclusion ideology was not something I agreed with. In other words, due to my view on salvation, I think it is possible for someone to be a Muslim and go to heaven.

[servant]

I do not think that belief in the resurrection is criteria for salvation.

One quick side note. What do you think you need salvation from?

One other note. Although the author of the book of John is being debated by scholars it appears the author or authors were eye witnesses to Jesus.

[Goose]

1. The issue of belief in the resurrection. Is it necessary for salvation?

Alright, you seem to have boiled it down.

I do not think that belief in the resurrection is criteria for salvation. Jesus preaches on the subject of salvation a lot. He also preached on his death and resurrection a lot. I don't know of any place where he talked about both at the same time in any capacity.

I agree. I said that in one of my previous posts, that Jesus never directly states that one needs to believe in the Rez to be saved.

Therefore, I think belief in a physical resurrection is not required for salvation. Question, where does it imply in any of scripture that it is in fact a requirement for salvation?

I already did in post 8. I'll repeat them for convenience.

1 Corinthians 15:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Romans 10:5-13
Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Is there any reason to think Paul is off his rocker here? The Rez was a key component of the early Gospel preached by the disciples. Why preach it if believing it wasn't important for salvation?

2. The methodology for rejecting some scripture, such as Paul, but accepting others. So far it seems to be, the Gospels trump everything else because they are the teachings of Christ. Is that pretty close?

This is basically correct. The most accurate way of describing this is that I feel the gospels are closer to a documentary of the events, while Paul's letters, et al, are personal interpretations of how these events should be lived...

I agree here. The letters are primarily instructional, which of course explains why Paul doesn't go into a lot of detail about the nuances of Christ's life (a point often missed by sceptics who use this as "evidence" that Jesus was mythical). But the important question is, were Paul's interpretations of how these events should be lived wrong or incorrect? What evidence would suggest they are incorrect?

...As a side note, and one I am having with Servant, I don't trust John quite as much simply because of us being unsure of the exact author, and it being so dated as compared to the rest of them. I use John personally, but regard it as closer to a personal interpretation of a documentary.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that Paul's letter's are believed to be earlier than the Gospels. So if you are rejecting John because of later dating and questionable authorship, then by the same methodology you must accept Paul's letters as more authoritative than the Gospels. Are you prepared to do this? I don't think you are by the sound of it. So it seems as though you are arbitrarily picking what you like rather than using a consistent methodology. Let me know if I'm wrong, that's only how it appears at this point.

When I am looking for solid fact upon which to base my theology, I go to Matt, Mark, and Luke and sometimes Acts. I read John, Paul's letters, etc as informative, interesting and a personal viewpoint to be examined, but I do not read them as scripture.

But the same reasons you reject Paul and John can be applied to Matthew, Mark, and Luke/Acts. They are personal viewpoints as well and written after Paul. The evidence for their authorship isn't really any better than that for John. It again sounds as though you are selecting what you like and what appeals to you. I would suggest a transparent methodology that can be applied to all writings equally. Maybe we should hammer one out.

3. The deity of Christ. Was Jesus divine? Or was he a sinless man that had a unique connection/relationship to God. Or both? Or something else.

Undecided. Tradition states he was divine...

Not exactly. That "tradition" is derived from scripture. Even the books you turn to to for solid facts Matthew, Mark and Luke give a portrait of divinity.

...But there are verses which make me pause as to what they actually mean. The idea of the trinity is certainly a complicated one. I lean towards the idea that God the father's spirit IS the holy spirit, IS inside of Jesus directing him. Now Was Jesus himself this actual spirit or was he a chosen and unique one given the spirit directly? I am undecided.

I think you are bordering on adoptionism here. We need to hammer this out. I'm assuming we can use Matthew, Mark and Luke/Acts, yes? Let's see if we find a portrait of divinity there. If we do, will you accept the divinity of Christ?

I don't have any problem with what you've so far presented on salvation. I do, however, think you are too preoccupied with where Mahatma is spending eternity. That decision is not up to us and is irrelevant to what we should believe regarding Christian doctrine or salvation. This issue with Ghandi seems to be a catalyst for you to alter your theology. Just an observation, for what it's worth.

It certainly gave me pause to think and study. Yes catalyst is a good word. But only a catalyst. It didn't lead me solely to my conclusions. It only forced me to re-read the gospels carefully. The Gospels are my primary source for my beliefs.

I believe you.

I need a little clarification here. If God was trying to get a message to the gentiles that would appeal to them, why did God select a staunch Jew - Paul - to deliver that message? That would have exacerbated the problem, yes? The physical resurrection of the dead was a Jewish belief and part of the early gospel. It wasn't preached only by Paul. It was preached by other disciples as well.

Actually it was genius. Paul was a roman citizen. He was a former Jew. But now he was preaching a message for which most Jews hated him. I believe this would have given him credibility in the gentiles eyes.

That's a good way to describe it. And in that light I agree with you. But the question remains. Was Paul's Gospel different? And what is the evidence it was different, if it was.

I don't think it's heresy to say that salvation is based on one's heart. Some of those doctrines are doctrines for salvation, so acceptance of some of them is by default mandatory for salvation. I do agree that acceptance of Church traditions is not a prerequisite for salvation. It's important to distinguish between the two.

But if salvation is a matter of the heart, then a Muslim can enter heaven correct? This would be regarded as heresy to most Christians.

Actually, I agree with you to an extent. I think a Muslim that has never had the opportunity to really examine the gospel will be judged based upon the moral code written on their heart by God. That's what Paul tells us in Romans ch 2. But that is irrelevant to us. That's a back up plan until those nations or people can hear the Gospel.

[achilles12604]

1. The issue of belief in the resurrection. Is it necessary for salvation?

Alright, you seem to have boiled it down.

I do not think that belief in the resurrection is criteria for salvation. Jesus preaches on the subject of salvation a lot. He also preached on his death and resurrection a lot. I don't know of any place where he talked about both at the same time in any capacity.

I agree. I said that in one of my previous posts, that Jesus never directly states that one needs to believe in the Rez to be saved.

Check.

Therefore, I think belief in a physical resurrection is not required for salvation. Question, where does it imply in any of scripture that it is in fact a requirement for salvation?

I already did in post 8. I'll repeat them for convenience.

1 Corinthians 15:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Romans 10:5-13
Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Is there any reason to think Paul is off his rocker here? The Rez was a key component of the early Gospel preached by the disciples. Why preach it if believing it wasn't important for salvation?

We must consider necessary vs nice to know. Paul preaches it is necessary. But I have trouble finding this ANYWHERE in the Gospels. so we seem to have a disconnect. Since I weigh the Gospels heavier than Paul's letters, and since I view his letters as his own personal interpretation, I feel fine in believing that this is one of his opinions and not totally necessary. This goes into a similar basket as women should be silent and only men should lead at church.

2. The methodology for rejecting some scripture, such as Paul, but accepting others. So far it seems to be, the Gospels trump everything else because they are the teachings of Christ. Is that pretty close?

This is basically correct. The most accurate way of describing this is that I feel the gospels are closer to a documentary of the events, while Paul's letters, et al, are personal interpretations of how these events should be lived...

I agree here. The letters are primarily instructional, which of course explains why Paul doesn't go into a lot of detail about the nuances of Christ's life (a point often missed by sceptics who use this as "evidence" that Jesus was mythical). But the important question is, were Paul's interpretations of how these events should be lived wrong or incorrect? What evidence would suggest they are incorrect?

I would say . . . well actually Paul says it himself.

The Weak and the Strong
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

In general, the letters of Paul contain things which are small potatoes and salvation is hardly based on small potato ideas. If some detail doesn't match, I usually go with the gospels. But I don't condemn those who follow much of Paul's advice. I honestly don't think God cares. I do not think God cares if we eat pork or potato chips so long as we get the big ones correct.

...As a side note, and one I am having with Servant, I don't trust John quite as much simply because of us being unsure of the exact author, and it being so dated as compared to the rest of them. I use John personally, but regard it as closer to a personal interpretation of a documentary.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that Paul's letter's are believed to be earlier than the Gospels. So if you are rejecting John because of later dating and questionable authorship, then by the same methodology you must accept Paul's letters as more authoritative than the Gospels. Are you prepared to do this? I don't think you are by the sound of it. So it seems as though you are arbitrarily picking what you like rather than using a consistent methodology. Let me know if I'm wrong, that's only how it appears at this point.

Ah but were Paul's letter meant to replace the Gospels or simply enhance the message? If they were not intended to replace the Gospels, then they had a totally different purpose. If they had a different purpose, then they can not be compared as you have done here. I could say that the edicts of Henry the 8th predated the US constitution. Both were meant to control a country. But they are hardly interchangable and therefore, even if the constitution came later, regarding the country of the US, it reigns supreme. Well apply this to Christianity and Paul's letter are meant to rule the country of advice to new churches regarding Jesus teachings. The Gospels rule the country of direct teachings of Jesus. And besides, when I meant that John came later I meant that John came MUCH later. Like I can not ligitamently place John before 95 CE. I can argue for placing Mark, Matthew and Luke as early as 60-80. In fact, I am not totally convinced that John was written by the disciple at all. It is certainly much different than the other 3. But this is simply my apologetics opinion. If I can't defend it, no matter how much I like it, I must let it go. John's gap is almost twice that of the others.

When I am looking for solid fact upon which to base my theology, I go to Matt, Mark, and Luke and sometimes Acts. I read John, Paul's letters, etc as informative, interesting and a personal viewpoint to be examined, but I do not read them as scripture.

But the same reasons you reject Paul and John can be applied to Matthew, Mark, and Luke/Acts. They are personal viewpoints as well and written after Paul. The evidence for their authorship isn't really any better than that for John. It again sounds as though you are selecting what you like and what appeals to you. I would suggest a transparent methodology that can be applied to all writings equally. Maybe we should hammer one out.

I disagree. Mark, Matthew and Luke can be pinpointed fairly well in both authorship and timeline. John is lacking. We can discuss this in detail if you wish.

3. The deity of Christ. Was Jesus divine? Or was he a sinless man that had a unique connection/relationship to God. Or both? Or something else.

Undecided. Tradition states he was divine...

Not exactly. That "tradition" is derived from scripture. Even the books you turn to to for solid facts Matthew, Mark and Luke give a portrait of divinity.

What would the differences be between having actual divinity and being a unique, blessed, and chosen one of God, sent to deliver his message directly using his spirit for miracles and great teachings? How would this read any differently? I say they would read exactly the same in the books. Hence, I am undecided. However, I lean towards not being actually devine himself because he makes a fairly clear distinction between himself and God on several occasions. Actually where you find the vast majority of the claims to divinity are in John, which of course is another huge difference between John and the other 3 gospels.

...But there are verses which make me pause as to what they actually mean. The idea of the trinity is certainly a complicated one. I lean towards the idea that God the father's spirit IS the holy spirit, IS inside of Jesus directing him. Now Was Jesus himself this actual spirit or was he a chosen and unique one given the spirit directly? I am undecided.

I think you are bordering on adoptionism here. We need to hammer this out. I'm assuming we can use Matthew, Mark and Luke/Acts, yes? Let's see if we find a portrait of divinity there. If we do, will you accept the divinity of Christ?

Sure. I love being proven wrong. I learn so much more that way.

I need a little clarification here. If God was trying to get a message to the gentiles that would appeal to them, why did God select a staunch Jew - Paul - to deliver that message? That would have exacerbated the problem, yes? The physical resurrection of the dead was a Jewish belief and part of the early gospel. It wasn't preached only by Paul. It was preached by other disciples as well.

Actually it was genius. Paul was a roman citizen. He was a former Jew. But now he was preaching a message for which most Jews hated him. I believe this would have given him credibility in the gentiles eyes.

That's a good way to describe it. And in that light I agree with you. But the question remains. Was Paul's Gospel different? And what is the evidence it was different, if it was.

Well the council of Jerusalem would be one indicator that things were not exactly the same. The differences are fairly small and usually very minor. I have not found a major discrepancy. Just minor ones which leads me again to think Paul was interpreting the Gospels. He was just doing it a little different that the writers of the Gospels, or me, or anyone else.

I don't think it's heresy to say that salvation is based on one's heart. Some of those doctrines are doctrines for salvation, so acceptance of some of them is by default mandatory for salvation. I do agree that acceptance of Church traditions is not a prerequisite for salvation. It's important to distinguish between the two.

But if salvation is a matter of the heart, then a Muslim can enter heaven correct? This would be regarded as heresy to most Christians.

Actually, I agree with you to an extent. I think a Muslim that has never had the opportunity to really examine the gospel will be judged based upon the moral code written on their heart by God. That's what Paul tells us in Romans ch 2. But that is irrelevant to us. That's a back up plan until those nations or people can hear the Gospel.

Ok what of the Native Americans? An entire race that was brought Christianity at the point of a gun by people who slaughtered them, stole their land, and forced them into slavery in their own country. If a Native American rejected Christianity and Jesus all together, I'm not sure I would blame him.

Does God condemn this individual to hell for rejecting Christianity and its teachings and instead continues to worship in nature as he and his fathers had always done?

[alexiarose]

I have finally found a title which I think describes my religious views. I have created a usergroup to match. I accept many of the tenants of Christianity. I accept many of the core values and teachings. In fact let me just list them out.

I accept God exists.

Agreed

I accept Jesus was his son and unique among men.

Agreed

I accept that Jesus death atoned for sin.

Don't agree.

I accept that Jesus performed miracles.

Pehaps miracles for that time that we would consider natural science today. But actual miracles, I can't.

I accept that God inspired many of the writers of the bible.

I think many of the writers wanted to record their testimony to the best of their recollection. But I don't think it was inspired by God.

I accept that God inspired other great men of different faiths like Gandhi

No. I think faith itself inspired great men. God didn't have to be the cause.

I accept that salvation is a matter of the heart and faith is a byproduct or a symptom of the condition of this heart.

I think it transcends anything materialistic as we know in existence. It has nothing to do with the heart or any other physical object.

I accept that much of the bible can not be read literally

Which is why I dont' think it was really inspired by God.

I accept that some of the stories of the bible are nothing more than stories, nor were they ever meant to be more than this.

Same as above

I accept that people of other faiths have the potential for salvation just as any Christian would

I accept it, but cannot support it. Scripture won't allow us to.

I accept that the church has fallen far from where it originated.

Churches are social functions. They have little to nothing to do with God.

I accept that the writings of Paul and the other disciples, while lead by God, are still personal interpretations and therefore subject to personal bias.

Again, I disagree with the involvement of God.

I do not accept the church taught concept of original sin.

So are men not born sinners? If not, then why did Jesus die to atone for our sins?

I do not accept the sinlessness of Mary

Did anyone say she was sinless?

I do not accept the concept of sainthoods

But scripture acknowledges saints.

I do not accept that hell is a place for eternal torture in some fire lake

Gotta think a while on this one.

I accept (basically) some form of evolution/ID

I accept evolution but reject ID.

I do not accept a young earth creation model.

Agreed

I accept much of the current church as hypocritical and lazy

Agreed.

I accept that God reaches out to all men where ever they are through whatever beliefs they hold.

Not sure what you mean here.

I accept that God knows just about everything, but can not know individual futures nor do I think this idea is supported well by scripture.

I am not sure God really knows much more than life does.






Are you a true Christian. Only you can answer that.