Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?

[POI]

Seems there exists an unresolved topic amongst Christians... Seems as though the way to salvation is not unified among the many in which I engage. I'd wager they all have a case to support their position(s).?.?

For debate: How does one get to Heaven? What is God's criteria for His selection process? Is it by grace alone, belief/faith alone, works alone; or it is a combination of the three? Or is it maybe other? Please, not only present your case, but please also explain why the other asserted methods are incorrect.

[Capbook]

A) God knows our heart, and sees your faith and if we commit unrepented mistakes just like Moses, he sinned by hitting the rock instead of just saying it and he was not able to enter the promised land but you can read his name in Hebrews 11. I believe the same as those who were unable to hear God, commit unregretted mistakes but troubled by conscience. God sees it and I believe God will grant grace just like to Moses.

B) Why ignore Ephesians 2:8-10?

C) Greatest sinners and true believers I believe have the same distance to God through true repentance.
The unbeliever who regrets but harbor hate/anger to another I believe falls short of God's grace.

D) Also see my responses to A and C

E) No response.

A) The plot thickens. Then what you stated about (repentance for the believer and regret for the unbeliever) are not the standard/criteria after all.

B) Well, in your cited verses, as well as others, faith is required. If it's required, then ANYONE who does not have faith is SOL. Is this actually the case or can we just go ahead and ignore these passages, as well as others which states the same thing?

C) But you already confirmed repentance and regret are not what saves, God judging the 'heart' does.

****************

As stated prior, the more we dig, the more convoluted it becomes.

Follow up Q: If non-Christians can be selected and all commit sin regardless, then what exactly is the reason to become a Christian?

A) My response mentioned "repentance of the believer," (that is faith). You won't repent if you do not believe in God. And regrets for those unable to believe is the result of conscience which I believe the work of the Holy Spirit.

B) I firmly believe Eph 2:8-10. And to those unable to believe will be judge by their works.

C) Yes repentance is the result to those who have faith except to those unable to believe.

Because Christ is the way, the truth and the life, no one goes to the except through Jesus.

[Capbook]

Answer key:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

Yes, faith is my belief that Jesus died for me a sinner. Giving us a hope to once again get connected to God.

Recap:

If you have ever heard of Jesus, answer B) is required, and that is all that is necessary?
If you have never heard of Jesus, answer C) is required, and that is all that is necessary?

There is also evidence from ancient sources, such as the writings of Josephus, that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure who was crucified by the Romans.

Even if this were true, while also knowing the 'golden paragraph' was plagiarized in his writings, all this would verify is that Jesus lived and was killed. Nothing more....

Grace of God, a gift to undeserving sinners specially to those who were not able to hear His word.

Answer A)? No one deserves it, according to the Bible. Which means He assigns unconditional grace for all.

Laws of God clearly define what is good and what is bad. Morality does not even know what sin is.

Please explain when you state what you stated above in bold?

God judges us by our works.

Answer C) then is required for all? But the Bible states our works/deeds will always fall short.

First of all, I am sorry that my belief is not confined to your made choices.

Another evidence that Jesus existed. "Today scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed,[note 1] but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia)

Yes no one is deserving of God's grace, that is why I say "undeserving sinners".

Can an atheist who believe in secular morality know and believe sin?

All works/deeds always fall short before of God, Yes, but God's grace is immeasurable.

Dear dear, you quite skipped over this: 'but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia) Which means there was an actual Jesus, but he is not like the Jesus of Christianity.

I do credit a real Jesus as more likely than an invented one. But is totally different from the gospel Jesus which (I argue) is based on Paul's teachings, not Paul being based on Jesus'teachings. This is of course open to debate.

Well if God's grace was so immeasurable, He'd just forgive us all and make us saved. Wouldn't he? Cue excuses.

An atheist (or this one) does not recognise the Christian idea of sin, but I (and we) are of course aware of behavioural problems and an ideal better situation we can aspire to but find it difficult to work towards.

But I don't accept that religion is the answer, if anything secular morality has made for a generally better human situation. I know it doesn't seem like it :)but it is compared to say 200 years ago where atheism was hardly argued about. If anything religion made things worse. No, the morality argument does not make a case for God and hasn't ever since the debate started on the internet around the 80's.

He is the Jesus in the NT per Ehrman book. (from Wikipedia)
Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists. As he does in other works such as Forged and Jesus, Interrupted, he disregards an apologetics-based or otherwise religiously-charged approach to aim at looking at the New Testament using historical-critical methodology. He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.

God's grace is measurable to those who repented or regrets for those unable to hear Him.

You can't define sin?
Is it because "if God does not exist, then all is permissible"?

So my friend is correct. He reasoned that he box a schoolmate because he step on his shoe.

That is a Leap of Faith and no mistake. From a case for a real Jesus (a view which I share) to we should all believe, repent and be saved, skips over the question whether the gospel accounts of Jesus are true. As time goes on, more and more doubts are raised. Not least the Gabriel stone that was mentioned recently that suggests that three day resurrection was a known messianic claim before Jesus even got started.

Yes, God knows that doubts would come, just like Biblical Criticism I believe, God let the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls to clear skeptics. Some of the 87 lines in the Gabriel's Stone links to the book Zechariah, Jeremiah and Daniel. And line 80 mentions the three day resurrection.

[TRANSPONDER]

Answer key:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

Yes, faith is my belief that Jesus died for me a sinner. Giving us a hope to once again get connected to God.

Recap:

If you have ever heard of Jesus, answer B) is required, and that is all that is necessary?
If you have never heard of Jesus, answer C) is required, and that is all that is necessary?

There is also evidence from ancient sources, such as the writings of Josephus, that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure who was crucified by the Romans.

Even if this were true, while also knowing the 'golden paragraph' was plagiarized in his writings, all this would verify is that Jesus lived and was killed. Nothing more....

Grace of God, a gift to undeserving sinners specially to those who were not able to hear His word.

Answer A)? No one deserves it, according to the Bible. Which means He assigns unconditional grace for all.

Laws of God clearly define what is good and what is bad. Morality does not even know what sin is.

Please explain when you state what you stated above in bold?

God judges us by our works.

Answer C) then is required for all? But the Bible states our works/deeds will always fall short.

First of all, I am sorry that my belief is not confined to your made choices.

Another evidence that Jesus existed. "Today scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed,[note 1] but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia)

Yes no one is deserving of God's grace, that is why I say "undeserving sinners".

Can an atheist who believe in secular morality know and believe sin?

All works/deeds always fall short before of God, Yes, but God's grace is immeasurable.

Dear dear, you quite skipped over this: 'but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia) Which means there was an actual Jesus, but he is not like the Jesus of Christianity.

I do credit a real Jesus as more likely than an invented one. But is totally different from the gospel Jesus which (I argue) is based on Paul's teachings, not Paul being based on Jesus'teachings. This is of course open to debate.

Well if God's grace was so immeasurable, He'd just forgive us all and make us saved. Wouldn't he? Cue excuses.

An atheist (or this one) does not recognise the Christian idea of sin, but I (and we) are of course aware of behavioural problems and an ideal better situation we can aspire to but find it difficult to work towards.

But I don't accept that religion is the answer, if anything secular morality has made for a generally better human situation. I know it doesn't seem like it :)but it is compared to say 200 years ago where atheism was hardly argued about. If anything religion made things worse. No, the morality argument does not make a case for God and hasn't ever since the debate started on the internet around the 80's.

He is the Jesus in the NT per Ehrman book. (from Wikipedia)
Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists. As he does in other works such as Forged and Jesus, Interrupted, he disregards an apologetics-based or otherwise religiously-charged approach to aim at looking at the New Testament using historical-critical methodology. He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.

God's grace is measurable to those who repented or regrets for those unable to hear Him.

You can't define sin?
Is it because "if God does not exist, then all is permissible"?

So my friend is correct. He reasoned that he box a schoolmate because he step on his shoe.

That is a Leap of Faith and no mistake. From a case for a real Jesus (a view which I share) to we should all believe, repent and be saved, skips over the question whether the gospel accounts of Jesus are true. As time goes on, more and more doubts are raised. Not least the Gabriel stone that was mentioned recently that suggests that three day resurrection was a known messianic claim before Jesus even got started.

Yes, God knows that doubts would come, just like Biblical Criticism I believe, God let the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls to clear skeptics. Some of the 87 lines in the Gabriel's Stone links to the book Zechariah, Jeremiah and Daniel. And line 80 mentions the three day resurrection.

first I got the idea that English is not your first language. I make allowances for that (as my pals here make allowances for me deteriorating eyesight leading to typos ) and it makes no difference to how i approach your posts.

Protesting that people will not believe what is not believable does not prove the belief.

The dead sea scrolls does nothing to 'clear skeptics'. It is simply a cache of old OT writings and no more validates Judaism and never mind Christianity (which is hardly even remotely waved to) than finding a pile of old Bibles of 17th century date proves Christianity.

Tell me, where do you get these apologetics from? It's a damn' poor source, that's all I can say.

Your point about the Gabriel stone is at least your own, as it is no more than dismissal (as 'scoffers') of serious debunking evidence for the resurrection because three day raising of the Messiah was an idea that existed before Jesus got started.

[Hawkins]

I find it odd that no Christian wants to chime in here? How does a Christian get to Heaven?

- Grace alone
- Grace by faith/belief alone
- Grace by faith/belief + works
- Other

So you never had a good grasp on what big picture is. That's actually what the whole point of Christianity is.

Humans choose to rely on their but low intelligence to pick a belief (yes, it's your faith) on what could possibly happen after death. They are clueless about the Tree of Life, but they decided to rely on human intelligence (Tree of Knowledge) to determine by faith what would that be. Atheism is thus a belief that "nothing would happen" such a preparation is not needed. What futher fools atheists is that somehow they demand evidence (of future occurance before they change their faith).

Christianity on the other hand, is about faith in Word of God (which Adam failed, humans will try again to pick up from that).
The Snake (angelic beings) has much higher intelligence that humans are fooled to lean on the Tree of Knowledge resulting in the demand of so-called evidence. Humans are fooled in this case simply because humans never rely on evidence to get to a truth. They don't know they are doing, they actually rely on faith in testimony to get to truths. Science is just about how our scientists as eyewitnesses tell us what things are for us to swallow with faith. You don't do experiments, only the extremely small amount of humankind would do experiments for you. They are the scientists, then they act us eyewitnesses for the rest to believe them with faith (no one needs to do the experiments again, they need faith that the scientists are correct after the scientific experiments).

So atheism is about how humans (atheists that is) choose on relying the scientists to decide where they would put their faith in. If scientists have no findings about "what would happen in the future, that is, after death", then atheists would put faith in believing that "nothing would happen", though it's well known fallacy that "the absence of evidence becoming the evidence of absence". The scientists now are the Eve "eating" from the Tree, atheists the Adam then follow them to eat disregarding the warning that "the day you choose to eat of it, the same day you shall surely die".

If so then, God would keep you blind from the Tree of Life. You are kept from knowing the truth about a future. It's like a tornado is going to hit Florida, the ones living there however choose to wait for the evidence instead of listening to what US government would say through the mass media. It's on the same token of a future warning.

Now get back to the point.
God is to build a Heaven. Law is a open standard to define who would at the end live in this Heaven. It's estimated that 2/3 angels would pass, along with 1/3 humans or less because humans are given a larger degree of free will. (learn some math about statistics and probabilities to know how this is calculated mathematically). It is a pure mathematically caluclation on the factor of freewill alone.

There's however another factor. The angelic beings (the 1/3 bad ones) with a much higher intelligence would "tempt" humans to sin. As a result, zero human would pass the Judgment of Law to enter Heaven. For that matter, humans should have been destroyed by a flood in Noah's days. God however choose to lawfully save humans by making a self-sacrifice through Jesus, as Law demands. Due to this self-sacrifice, it makes it Lawful that humans don't need to undertake the same Judgment of Law as angels do. Humans can now be judged by Covenant instead of Law. Humans should have all died, but they are now savable through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This is referred to as the Grace of God for human salvation. To put this into details though, it's about how the New Covenant is written, as now humans are judged by Covenant instead of the written Law. The written Covenant now demands that humans need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved. That's what faith is. This "faith in Christ" is assessed to determine if a human would be saved to enter Heaven.

Why "human faith" shall be assessed? It's also explained in Genesis. Adam fell because 1) he lacks obedience, and 2) he lacks faith in words of God (Word of God in today's terms). Humans would fail the Judgment of Law used to assess human obedience. The Covenant then weighs more on the Faith factor than the Obedience factor (though both are aimed on). At the point when the Obedience factor can no longer be used to distinguish between a saved from an unsaved, "Faith alone" is thus implemented. That is, only Faith will be legally/lawfully assessed, though it by no means says that you don't need to be obedient. It's no longer assessed by Law/Covenant, you still need to be obedient the best you can.

Continue to rely on your limited human intelligence to make decision on your own fate, to see your doom! That's my personal warning for you.
If you are intelligent, you should have understood what I said above long ago. If you failed to figure the above out yourself, it means your intelligence is not trustworty, especially on a future which you are clueless about!

Now, get a clue!!!

[TRANSPONDER]

I say nothing about intelligence but I understood what you posted and it amounted to nothing but faithbased hellthreat. I gave up being frightened by 'the monster will get you' when I was 38 years old.

I won't even comment on the Big If, or the sneering allegory of atheists following science to Eve following the snake. If you thought that was going to impress anyone but believers who already bought it, you were sadly mistaken.

Have a great weekend; I shall.

[POI]

Answer key:

A) Everyone now goes because Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. All fall short, so Jesus paved the way.
B) You are saved if you have belief/faith
C) You are saved if you perform the desired works/deeds/acts (as specified by the Bible God).
D) B) and C)
E) No one is worthy, so no one goes.
F) Something else?

A) My response mentioned "repentance of the believer," (that is faith). You won't repent if you do not believe in God. And regrets for those unable to believe is the result of conscience which I believe the work of the Holy Spirit.

B) I firmly believe Eph 2:8-10. And to those unable to believe will be judge by their works.

C) Yes repentance is the result to those who have faith except to those unable to believe.

Because Christ is the way, the truth and the life, no one goes to the except through Jesus.

We've already been over this. Most/all Christians will not repent of ALL. Most/all unbelievers will not regret all. Hence, repentance and regret are irrelevant. God makes exceptions based upon 'heart', according to you. Does this mean your answer is F) desired intent = the correct heart?

[Capbook]

Answer key:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

Yes, faith is my belief that Jesus died for me a sinner. Giving us a hope to once again get connected to God.

Recap:

If you have ever heard of Jesus, answer B) is required, and that is all that is necessary?
If you have never heard of Jesus, answer C) is required, and that is all that is necessary?

There is also evidence from ancient sources, such as the writings of Josephus, that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure who was crucified by the Romans.

Even if this were true, while also knowing the 'golden paragraph' was plagiarized in his writings, all this would verify is that Jesus lived and was killed. Nothing more....

Grace of God, a gift to undeserving sinners specially to those who were not able to hear His word.

Answer A)? No one deserves it, according to the Bible. Which means He assigns unconditional grace for all.

Laws of God clearly define what is good and what is bad. Morality does not even know what sin is.

Please explain when you state what you stated above in bold?

God judges us by our works.

Answer C) then is required for all? But the Bible states our works/deeds will always fall short.

First of all, I am sorry that my belief is not confined to your made choices.

Another evidence that Jesus existed. "Today scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed,[note 1] but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia)

Yes no one is deserving of God's grace, that is why I say "undeserving sinners".

Can an atheist who believe in secular morality know and believe sin?

All works/deeds always fall short before of God, Yes, but God's grace is immeasurable.

Dear dear, you quite skipped over this: 'but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia) Which means there was an actual Jesus, but he is not like the Jesus of Christianity.

I do credit a real Jesus as more likely than an invented one. But is totally different from the gospel Jesus which (I argue) is based on Paul's teachings, not Paul being based on Jesus'teachings. This is of course open to debate.

Well if God's grace was so immeasurable, He'd just forgive us all and make us saved. Wouldn't he? Cue excuses.

An atheist (or this one) does not recognise the Christian idea of sin, but I (and we) are of course aware of behavioural problems and an ideal better situation we can aspire to but find it difficult to work towards.

But I don't accept that religion is the answer, if anything secular morality has made for a generally better human situation. I know it doesn't seem like it :)but it is compared to say 200 years ago where atheism was hardly argued about. If anything religion made things worse. No, the morality argument does not make a case for God and hasn't ever since the debate started on the internet around the 80's.

He is the Jesus in the NT per Ehrman book. (from Wikipedia)
Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists. As he does in other works such as Forged and Jesus, Interrupted, he disregards an apologetics-based or otherwise religiously-charged approach to aim at looking at the New Testament using historical-critical methodology. He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.

God's grace is measurable to those who repented or regrets for those unable to hear Him.

You can't define sin?
Is it because "if God does not exist, then all is permissible"?

So my friend is correct. He reasoned that he box a schoolmate because he step on his shoe.

That is a Leap of Faith and no mistake. From a case for a real Jesus (a view which I share) to we should all believe, repent and be saved, skips over the question whether the gospel accounts of Jesus are true. As time goes on, more and more doubts are raised. Not least the Gabriel stone that was mentioned recently that suggests that three day resurrection was a known messianic claim before Jesus even got started.

Yes, God knows that doubts would come, just like Biblical Criticism I believe, God let the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls to clear skeptics. Some of the 87 lines in the Gabriel's Stone links to the book Zechariah, Jeremiah and Daniel. And line 80 mentions the three day resurrection.

first I got the idea that English is not your first language. I make allowances for that (as my pals here make allowances for me deteriorating eyesight leading to typos ) and it makes no difference to how i approach your posts.

Protesting that people will not believe what is not believable does not prove the belief.

The dead sea scrolls does nothing to 'clear skeptics'. It is simply a cache of old OT writings and no more validates Judaism and never mind Christianity (which is hardly even remotely waved to) than finding a pile of old Bibles of 17th century date proves Christianity.

Tell me, where do you get these apologetics from? It's a damn' poor source, that's all I can say.

Your point about the Gabriel stone is at least your own, as it is no more than dismissal (as 'scoffers') of serious debunking evidence for the resurrection because three day raising of the Messiah was an idea that existed before Jesus got started.

Yes, English is not my mother tongue, but trying make my point understandable.

To be believable for me, it has to have a sequence of evidence presented.

Christianity's foundation is the belief of the Bible which contains the OT and NT. Dead Sea Scrolls does validates, strengthen and serve as additional evidence to the OT's historical record.
Unlike to some scientist's idea that science is the only source truth which is not a scientific idea.


Scholars have not yet united in line 80 translation of Gabriel's Stone.
....Other scholars, however, reconstructed the faint writing on the stone as a different word entirely, rejecting Knohl's reading.[48][49] Instead, Ronald Hendel's (2009) reading of "In three days, the sign ..." has gained widespread support.[50] In 2011, Knohl accepted that "sign" is a more probable reading than "live", although he maintains that "live" is a possible reading.[51][52][53] (from Wikipedia)

[otseng]

Continue to rely on your limited human intelligence to make decision on your own fate, to see your doom! That's my personal warning for you.
If you are intelligent, you should have understood what I said above long ago. If you failed to figure the above out yourself, it means your intelligence is not trustworty, especially on a future which you are clueless about!

Now, get a clue!!!

Moderator Comment

Please do not make personal comments about others.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

Answer key:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

Yes, faith is my belief that Jesus died for me a sinner. Giving us a hope to once again get connected to God.

Recap:

If you have ever heard of Jesus, answer B) is required, and that is all that is necessary?
If you have never heard of Jesus, answer C) is required, and that is all that is necessary?

There is also evidence from ancient sources, such as the writings of Josephus, that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure who was crucified by the Romans.

Even if this were true, while also knowing the 'golden paragraph' was plagiarized in his writings, all this would verify is that Jesus lived and was killed. Nothing more....

Grace of God, a gift to undeserving sinners specially to those who were not able to hear His word.

Answer A)? No one deserves it, according to the Bible. Which means He assigns unconditional grace for all.

Laws of God clearly define what is good and what is bad. Morality does not even know what sin is.

Please explain when you state what you stated above in bold?

God judges us by our works.

Answer C) then is required for all? But the Bible states our works/deeds will always fall short.

First of all, I am sorry that my belief is not confined to your made choices.

Another evidence that Jesus existed. "Today scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed,[note 1] but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia)

Yes no one is deserving of God's grace, that is why I say "undeserving sinners".

Can an atheist who believe in secular morality know and believe sin?

All works/deeds always fall short before of God, Yes, but God's grace is immeasurable.

Dear dear, you quite skipped over this: 'but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia) Which means there was an actual Jesus, but he is not like the Jesus of Christianity.

I do credit a real Jesus as more likely than an invented one. But is totally different from the gospel Jesus which (I argue) is based on Paul's teachings, not Paul being based on Jesus'teachings. This is of course open to debate.

Well if God's grace was so immeasurable, He'd just forgive us all and make us saved. Wouldn't he? Cue excuses.

An atheist (or this one) does not recognise the Christian idea of sin, but I (and we) are of course aware of behavioural problems and an ideal better situation we can aspire to but find it difficult to work towards.

But I don't accept that religion is the answer, if anything secular morality has made for a generally better human situation. I know it doesn't seem like it :)but it is compared to say 200 years ago where atheism was hardly argued about. If anything religion made things worse. No, the morality argument does not make a case for God and hasn't ever since the debate started on the internet around the 80's.

He is the Jesus in the NT per Ehrman book. (from Wikipedia)
Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists. As he does in other works such as Forged and Jesus, Interrupted, he disregards an apologetics-based or otherwise religiously-charged approach to aim at looking at the New Testament using historical-critical methodology. He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.

God's grace is measurable to those who repented or regrets for those unable to hear Him.

You can't define sin?
Is it because "if God does not exist, then all is permissible"?

So my friend is correct. He reasoned that he box a schoolmate because he step on his shoe.

That is a Leap of Faith and no mistake. From a case for a real Jesus (a view which I share) to we should all believe, repent and be saved, skips over the question whether the gospel accounts of Jesus are true. As time goes on, more and more doubts are raised. Not least the Gabriel stone that was mentioned recently that suggests that three day resurrection was a known messianic claim before Jesus even got started.

Yes, God knows that doubts would come, just like Biblical Criticism I believe, God let the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls to clear skeptics. Some of the 87 lines in the Gabriel's Stone links to the book Zechariah, Jeremiah and Daniel. And line 80 mentions the three day resurrection.

first I got the idea that English is not your first language. I make allowances for that (as my pals here make allowances for me deteriorating eyesight leading to typos ) and it makes no difference to how i approach your posts.

Protesting that people will not believe what is not believable does not prove the belief.

The dead sea scrolls does nothing to 'clear skeptics'. It is simply a cache of old OT writings and no more validates Judaism and never mind Christianity (which is hardly even remotely waved to) than finding a pile of old Bibles of 17th century date proves Christianity.

Tell me, where do you get these apologetics from? It's a damn' poor source, that's all I can say.

Your point about the Gabriel stone is at least your own, as it is no more than dismissal (as 'scoffers') of serious debunking evidence for the resurrection because three day raising of the Messiah was an idea that existed before Jesus got started.

Yes, English is not my mother tongue, but trying make my point understandable.

To be believable for me, it has to have a sequence of evidence presented.

Christianity's foundation is the belief of the Bible which contains the OT and NT. Dead Sea Scrolls does validates, strengthen and serve as additional evidence to the OT's historical record.
Unlike to some scientist's idea that science is the only source truth which is not a scientific idea.


Scholars have not yet united in line 80 translation of Gabriel's Stone.
....Other scholars, however, reconstructed the faint writing on the stone as a different word entirely, rejecting Knohl's reading.[48][49] Instead, Ronald Hendel's (2009) reading of "In three days, the sign ..." has gained widespread support.[50] In 2011, Knohl accepted that "sign" is a more probable reading than "live", although he maintains that "live" is a possible reading.[51][52][53] (from Wikipedia)

The dead sea scrolls do nothing to validate or support Christianity. If you think so, p[lease explain how.

For me I suspect that Qumran was actually a Christian community v which is to say that I suspect that it was Not Essene at all but a zealot community (and eventually shot up by the Romans; Not after the Essenes had left but when the original zealots were still there) and in addition to OT scripture, they had zealot - eschatological writings reflecting their subversive nature. I further suspect they were the same group from the zealot bandits who opposed Jannaeus and Herod through Simon, the baptist and Jesus and his Party until the final defeat of the zealots and Christianity was able to say what it liked with no pesky disciples around to contradict.

I suspect that this might have been the desert place Paul went to to get a grounding for a messianic religion to sell to the gentiles. But sure, this is the further reaches of my Pet Theory

Before you discuss the value of science, you should stop that ludicrous misrepresentation of what you think science is. It is not a religion or a dogma; it is a method of assessing data and conclusions.

Which is what you do yourself when you appeal to the evidence of the dead sea scrolls or the debate about the reading of the Gabriel stone, aside that you want it to support Christianity, or it is just the opinion of some scientist or other

I am aware of some disputes about the Gabriel stone. But they must be able to read enough to get the gist of what it says. if 'sign' rather than 'live' how does that alter the import? Remember that miracles (according to John) were signs. What sign (miracle) from a dead man more than resurrecting /ascending? But I'm happy to consider more discussion.

[Capbook]

Answer key:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

Yes, faith is my belief that Jesus died for me a sinner. Giving us a hope to once again get connected to God.

Recap:

If you have ever heard of Jesus, answer B) is required, and that is all that is necessary?
If you have never heard of Jesus, answer C) is required, and that is all that is necessary?

There is also evidence from ancient sources, such as the writings of Josephus, that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure who was crucified by the Romans.

Even if this were true, while also knowing the 'golden paragraph' was plagiarized in his writings, all this would verify is that Jesus lived and was killed. Nothing more....

Grace of God, a gift to undeserving sinners specially to those who were not able to hear His word.

Answer A)? No one deserves it, according to the Bible. Which means He assigns unconditional grace for all.

Laws of God clearly define what is good and what is bad. Morality does not even know what sin is.

Please explain when you state what you stated above in bold?

God judges us by our works.

Answer C) then is required for all? But the Bible states our works/deeds will always fall short.

First of all, I am sorry that my belief is not confined to your made choices.

Another evidence that Jesus existed. "Today scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed,[note 1] but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia)

Yes no one is deserving of God's grace, that is why I say "undeserving sinners".

Can an atheist who believe in secular morality know and believe sin?

All works/deeds always fall short before of God, Yes, but God's grace is immeasurable.

Dear dear, you quite skipped over this: 'but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia) Which means there was an actual Jesus, but he is not like the Jesus of Christianity.

I do credit a real Jesus as more likely than an invented one. But is totally different from the gospel Jesus which (I argue) is based on Paul's teachings, not Paul being based on Jesus'teachings. This is of course open to debate.

Well if God's grace was so immeasurable, He'd just forgive us all and make us saved. Wouldn't he? Cue excuses.

An atheist (or this one) does not recognise the Christian idea of sin, but I (and we) are of course aware of behavioural problems and an ideal better situation we can aspire to but find it difficult to work towards.

But I don't accept that religion is the answer, if anything secular morality has made for a generally better human situation. I know it doesn't seem like it :)but it is compared to say 200 years ago where atheism was hardly argued about. If anything religion made things worse. No, the morality argument does not make a case for God and hasn't ever since the debate started on the internet around the 80's.

He is the Jesus in the NT per Ehrman book. (from Wikipedia)
Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists. As he does in other works such as Forged and Jesus, Interrupted, he disregards an apologetics-based or otherwise religiously-charged approach to aim at looking at the New Testament using historical-critical methodology. He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.

God's grace is measurable to those who repented or regrets for those unable to hear Him.

You can't define sin?
Is it because "if God does not exist, then all is permissible"?

So my friend is correct. He reasoned that he box a schoolmate because he step on his shoe.

That is a Leap of Faith and no mistake. From a case for a real Jesus (a view which I share) to we should all believe, repent and be saved, skips over the question whether the gospel accounts of Jesus are true. As time goes on, more and more doubts are raised. Not least the Gabriel stone that was mentioned recently that suggests that three day resurrection was a known messianic claim before Jesus even got started.

Yes, God knows that doubts would come, just like Biblical Criticism I believe, God let the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls to clear skeptics. Some of the 87 lines in the Gabriel's Stone links to the book Zechariah, Jeremiah and Daniel. And line 80 mentions the three day resurrection.

first I got the idea that English is not your first language. I make allowances for that (as my pals here make allowances for me deteriorating eyesight leading to typos ) and it makes no difference to how i approach your posts.

Protesting that people will not believe what is not believable does not prove the belief.

The dead sea scrolls does nothing to 'clear skeptics'. It is simply a cache of old OT writings and no more validates Judaism and never mind Christianity (which is hardly even remotely waved to) than finding a pile of old Bibles of 17th century date proves Christianity.

Tell me, where do you get these apologetics from? It's a damn' poor source, that's all I can say.

Your point about the Gabriel stone is at least your own, as it is no more than dismissal (as 'scoffers') of serious debunking evidence for the resurrection because three day raising of the Messiah was an idea that existed before Jesus got started.

Yes, English is not my mother tongue, but trying make my point understandable.

To be believable for me, it has to have a sequence of evidence presented.

Christianity's foundation is the belief of the Bible which contains the OT and NT. Dead Sea Scrolls does validates, strengthen and serve as additional evidence to the OT's historical record.
Unlike to some scientist's idea that science is the only source truth which is not a scientific idea.


Scholars have not yet united in line 80 translation of Gabriel's Stone.
....Other scholars, however, reconstructed the faint writing on the stone as a different word entirely, rejecting Knohl's reading.[48][49] Instead, Ronald Hendel's (2009) reading of "In three days, the sign ..." has gained widespread support.[50] In 2011, Knohl accepted that "sign" is a more probable reading than "live", although he maintains that "live" is a possible reading.[51][52][53] (from Wikipedia)

The dead sea scrolls do nothing to validate or support Christianity. If you think so, p[lease explain how.

For me I suspect that Qumran was actually a Christian community v which is to say that I suspect that it was Not Essene at all but a zealot community (and eventually shot up by the Romans; Not after the Essenes had left but when the original zealots were still there) and in addition to OT scripture, they had zealot - eschatological writings reflecting their subversive nature. I further suspect they were the same group from the zealot bandits who opposed Jannaeus and Herod through Simon, the baptist and Jesus and his Party until the final defeat of the zealots and Christianity was able to say what it liked with no pesky disciples around to contradict.

I suspect that this might have been the desert place Paul went to to get a grounding for a messianic religion to sell to the gentiles. But sure, this is the further reaches of my Pet Theory

Before you discuss the value of science, you should stop that ludicrous misrepresentation of what you think science is. It is not a religion or a dogma; it is a method of assessing data and conclusions.

Which is what you do yourself when you appeal to the evidence of the dead sea scrolls or the debate about the reading of the Gabriel stone, aside that you want it to support Christianity, or it is just the opinion of some scientist or other

I am aware of some disputes about the Gabriel stone. But they must be able to read enough to get the gist of what it says. if 'sign' rather than 'live' how does that alter the import? Remember that miracles (according to John) were signs. What sign (miracle) from a dead man more than resurrecting /ascending? But I'm happy to consider more discussion.

There are diverse forms of biblical criticism, some of them
quite ancient (e.g., text and source criticism).
And also historical argument that the Bible is historically inaccurate.
The Dead Sea Scrolls serves as another source that validates the OT stories as history.
Most Christians faith are based on 2Tim3:16 quoted from the OT as NT I believe was not yet on that time written in its entirety.

It's only your own suspicion, most writings I've read says Qumran is an Essenes community.

I value science, it's just the scientists' theories I dis-value that replaces God.

Re: Gabriels Stone I qouted it from Wikipedia.


I believe whatever signs/miracles it is it includes Jesus resurrection, ascension and more, written to complete God's plan of salvation.
John 20:30-31 says;
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.(NKJV)