Are you Saved? Really?

[Eph]

Cnorman wrote:

The question is not whether the offending Christian is "saved" (as a Jew, I prefer to leave that question to God anyway)

Amos wrote:

I agree that salvation is a gift from God that, try as we might, we can never earn. It is not of works lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 5:5-11). But the works that are excluded are not works of obedience to God. Obedience to God is essential to salvation (Matthew 7:21, Luke 6:46, Hebrews 5:9, 1 John 5:3, Romans 6:16-23, Galatians 6:7-8, James 2:14-26). Faith itself is a work of obedience to God (John 6:28-29). Salvation is by grace (God's part) through faith (our response to God's invitation). That's what Ephesians 2:8-9 is teaching.
We cannot continue in sin and expect to be saved (Hebrews 3:12-14, 2 Peter 2:20-22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-20, Hebrews 10:23-31). We are saved while sinners, but that salvation is not apart from repentance (Acts 2:38, Acts 17:30-31, Acts 11:18, Luke 13:3, 2 Peter 3:9). We have to walk in the light as He is in the light if we expect the blood of Jesus to continually cleanse us from all sin (1 John 1:5-2:6).

So many traditional Christians spend a lot of time declaring that they are “saved� and spend a lot of additional time telling others that they must be “saved� also. Matthew 7:21 says, Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

My question is - Since ultimately it is the Lord's call, is it appropriate to declare Salvation for oneself? Since it is a gift from God, should Christians spend so much time declaring themselves saved, and declaring others saved for that matter?

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

Please review the Rules. Please learn to make your point with more respect and less sarcasm, acrimony, aspersion, contempt and derision.

When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

Just to clarify for new and old members alike.

In this forum, Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma, we have the following guidelines, as per the stickied announcement referred to by Amos.

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

I might agree if we are debating the content of the writings but I see no reason to make the Bible the default authority as that is one of the problems of the Bible Believer. Given the majority of scholars understand that some of the writings are pious forgeries their authority must be question as even authorities.
Also there are disagreements within the Bible or NT which then requires you to decide which is which if either and also makes any appeal to Biblical authority questionable at best.

So what you're saying is, the rules don't apply to you? It must be nice to have such a high authority on this site. Sounds like a bias self serving position for a site supporter.

It must be nice to claim some authority without showing how it is an authority or why and for what.
The self serving bias would be those that claim it is an authority for their beliefs and therefore must be an authority to others.
I have no real bias except I didn't believe everything that was written or interpreted without question or explaination.
What is it that the NT is suppose to be an authority on?
The self serving seems to be your method.

The Christianity and Apologetics Forum does have different guidelines. In that forum, the guidelines have recently been amended to include the following:

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

[Cathar1950]

It must be nice to claim some authority without showing how it is an authority or why and for what.
The self serving bias would be those that claim it is an authority for their beliefs and therefore must be an authority to others.
I have no real bias except I didn't believe everything that was written or interpreted without question or explanation.
What is it that the NT is suppose to be an authority on?
The self serving seems to be your method.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

There is a stickied thread which gives the purpose for this subforum. Go read it, or better yet, have your wife or mother or a literate friend help you read it.

Then go to the apologetics board where the argument you want to have is raging as I type.

It is my strong point.
There is nothing in the rules that says we have to assume the Bible is true.
I would think that the spirit of the rule is to prevent needless argument about the truth value of the Bible when it is the details that are being discussed, but no one should have to believe the Bible as literal, infallible, always true or even God’s Word.

What is exactly being assumed is true? Not even Bible Believers agree on what the Bible means or is interpreted or the purpose of the writings.
I don’t think the rule is there to assume the Bible is all of the above or whatever some particular believers believe about it.
It doesn’t speak with one voice nor is it read and interpreted with one voice.
For something that is suppose to be of no private interpretation it is full of such.
I see no problem with using the Bible but it is limited and should be connected to the purpose of its use and not as an appeal to a final authority of dogma and doctrine as not all believers do such. There is the approach to theology through nature as in natural theology.
There is also logic and reason. There are many approaches to Biblical studies both among believers and non-believers. How do we freely debate if we have to take the Bible the way you happen to take it? What does “for people of all persuasions� mean if not for those that see the Bible differently? There are limits to your assumptions about the Bible that are frankly not very Biblical.



http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/p ... te&p=59490

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

Welcome to DebatingChristianity.com. This forum aims to be the most civil and engaging debate forum on Christianity and religion for people of all persuasions.

[Amos]

Post 62: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:54 pm

Moderator Intervention

Just to clarify for new and old members alike.

In this forum, Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma, we have the following guidelines, as per the stickied announcement referred to by Amos.

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

The Christianity and Apologetics Forum does have different guidelines. In that forum, the guidelines have recently been amended to include the following:

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

Post 63: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:06 pm

There is nothing in the rules that says we have to assume the Bible is true. I would think that the spirit of the rule is to prevent needless argument about the truth value of the Bible when it is the details that are being discussed, but no one should have to believe the Bible as literal, infallible, always true or even God’s Word.

I apologize to you, Cathar1950. There was no need for me to be sarcastic or derisive.

[Cathar1950]

I suspect there need to be some clarification on Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma.
Is it Biblical Theology, Biblical Doctrine, and Biblical Dogma?
If we are to assume the Bible as the authority the idea of "for people of all persuasions" to be either meaningless or restricted to Bible Believers.
There are to many questions not being asked when we use the Bible as the authority.
What is it's authority?
How is it being used?
What do we do with disagreements in reading and interpretation?
What about disagreements about the authenticity of the writings?
What about disagreements within the Bible?

Is this a Bible Sub-Forum?

[tlong]

It must be nice to claim some authority without showing how it is an authority or why and for what.
The self serving bias would be those that claim it is an authority for their beliefs and therefore must be an authority to others.
I have no real bias except I didn't believe everything that was written or interpreted without question or explanation.
What is it that the NT is suppose to be an authority on?
The self serving seems to be your method.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

There is a stickied thread which gives the purpose for this subforum. Go read it, or better yet, have your wife or mother or a literate friend help you read it.

Then go to the apologetics board where the argument you want to have is raging as I type.

It is my strong point.
There is nothing in the rules that says we have to assume the Bible is true.
I would think that the spirit of the rule is to prevent needless argument about the truth value of the Bible when it is the details that are being discussed, but no one should have to believe the Bible as literal, infallible, always true or even God’s Word.

What is exactly being assumed is true? Not even Bible Believers agree on what the Bible means or is interpreted or the purpose of the writings.
I don’t think the rule is there to assume the Bible is all of the above or whatever some particular believers believe about it.
It doesn’t speak with one voice nor is it read and interpreted with one voice.
For something that is suppose to be of no private interpretation it is full of such.
I see no problem with using the Bible but it is limited and should be connected to the purpose of its use and not as an appeal to a final authority of dogma and doctrine as not all believers do such. There is the approach to theology through nature as in natural theology.
There is also logic and reason. There are many approaches to Biblical studies both among believers and non-believers. How do we freely debate if we have to take the Bible the way you happen to take it? What does “for people of all persuasions� mean if not for those that see the Bible differently? There are limits to your assumptions about the Bible that are frankly not very Biblical.



I don't know what dictionary you use, but I woulg like to see your definition of authoratative. Your arguments need to be directed to another forum. It does not say we can only use the bible, but it is to be considered authortative.

having due authority; having the sanction or weight of authority: an authoritative opinion.

[I AM ALL I AM]

I don't know what dictionary you use, but I woulg like to see your definition of authoratative. Your arguments need to be directed to another forum. It does not say we can only use the bible, but it is to be considered authortative.

having due authority; having the sanction or weight of authority: an authoritative opinion.

G'day Tlong.

The rules state that the authority of the bible does not need to be defended

the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority

While I can understand using it as a "primary reference", this in no way makes it an authority on any subject and as I pointed out to you in the post quoted below, it has been shown to be a fraudulent document by Tony Bushby.

Hopefully the copyright issues will be sorted out soon and you can even get to see an original Vulgate bible that has the first gospel entitled as "The Gospel Of The Twins". There will also be other information printed in an upcoming book as is shown in the foreword of The Papal Billions .....

"A FEW WORDS TO THE READER

The book reveals extraordinary new information about early Christian development and the source of that material needs to be clarified. Some revelations are drawn from a 70,000-word manuscript written by a former Vatican archivist shortly before his death in Paris in 1988. He was a close friend of several cardinals, one of who later became Pope John Paul I (Albino Luciani, d. 1978), and spent time with Luciani when he was Bishop of Vittorio Veneto. He called this document, The Church Verses True History and it was sent to me by his elderly sister after she had read one of my books. This is what she said:

You would have gotten on well with my brother. He worked for the Church in the Castel Sant' Angelo [The Secret Vatican Archives] and learnt things that left him disturbed. He had read a book called Peter The Sinner written by Angelo Mercati [1870-1955],Prefect of the Archives of the Vatican [later Cardinal], and it disturbed him. After he retired, he moved to live with me and it wasn't until that time that I really got to know him ... sometimes he would sit alone in the darkness ... at other times he would open his heart to me ... he was a good man, a good Catholic, but he was immensely sad; he wanted to believe, but was troubled. Something was wrong.

His manuscript was occasioned by the discovery of hitherto unknown documents in the Vatican vaults and is to be published verbatim in a new book called, Confessions of a Vatican Archivist. He reveals the true origin of Christianity and his findings are supported in ancient historical records."

Page 8.

So while the bible is allowed to be used as a "primary reference" in relation to the christian religion and discussion on topics that it incorporates in its writings, this does not make it an "authority" on any subject by default.

If any one could prove the bible to be false it would be front page news, but all there are is skeptics with their goofy catch phrases[god goggles]. People have been trying far longer than you or me to prove the bible wrong and it hasn't happened yet, even when people came from those times much less visited them centuries later and then profess themselves experts on the subject.

G'day Tlong.

I doubt very much that it would be "front page news" as it has already happened and it wasn't "front page news". Have a read of 'The Bible Fraud' by Tony Bushby and then you will know that the bible is indeed a fraudulent document. Here's the link for you to order your copy .....

http://www.joshuabooks.com/bushby/bible ... /fraud.htm

[cnorman18]

While I can understand using [the Bible] as a "primary reference", this in no way makes it an authority on any subject and as I pointed out to you in the post quoted below, it has been shown to be a fraudulent document by Tony Bushby....

Here's the link for you to order your copy .....

http://www.joshuabooks.com/bushby/bible ... /fraud.htm

I found this intriguing; I went to the site and was about to order a copy, then decided to have a look around at some reviews.

I found this, here: (Sure, it's a religious site; so what? Facts are facts. If this synopsis is accurate... Well, see for yourself.)

First, we see a synopsis:

Jesus married Mary Magdalene (you KNEW that one was coming!) as well as two other women in his lifetime. Mary was a descendant of King Herod and Jesus was a descendant of a Celtic king named Lud. (No, don't ask how a Celtic managed to work his way to, and survive in, Jewish Palestine where he'd stick out like the sorest thumb this side of Los Angeles.) His line eventually fostered Constantine [15]. However, Jesus and a twin brother named Judas Khrestus (!) were "conceived by rape or adultery" between a member of Herod's family and the Emperor Tiberius. [41] Some stories in the Gospels, like the Temple cleansing, are actually about Khrestus [67] and this Khrestus escaped a sentence of crucifixion imposed by Caligula in 37 by appealing to an "age-old tradition" that allowed him to have someone sub in for him [84]. Judas later went to India to learn stuff [90]. Jesus became a king of Britain named Cunobelinus [108] where he also joined a Druidic order [115] and acquired the name Bran the Blessed [117]. He was later captured by Rome in war [125] but escaped execution because of his connections with Roman aristocracy. He later went to Egypt to be initiated into mysteries [141] but sometime later was stoned to death [153].

Then we have some remarks about Bushby's sources, among other tnings:

Clues for this whole story can be found in all sorts of odd places ranging from conveniently inaccessible manuscripts to statues in France and even in the works of Shakespeare. Unfortunately, much of what would prove this has been burned by the church, and other things have been edited or interpolated to hide all this from you....

• Bushby thinks his book was predicted by Nostradamus [11]....

• Many of his sources are -- oh my, too bad! -- "preserved in rare archival manuiscripts and difficult-to-find reference books." I wonder why. Among these sources are such items as the "Myvyean Manuscript" [18] in the British Museum. For some reason the only actual reference to this document anywhere online comes from references to Bushby.

And little wonder why. Tekton Research Assistant "Punkish" won the Gold Star of his life with this one -- he lives in the UK, and was able to contact the British Museum about this. His report:

I wrote to the British Library (who now house the manuscript collection that used to be kept at the British Museum) about this "Myvyean manuscript" and the official reply from Michael St.John-McAlister, the Curator of the Dept. of Manuscripts is this:

"I am afraid that I can find no reference to such a manuscript in our collections. We receive many similar enquiries relating to subject matter such as this and I have to say many of them are hoaxes or refer to non-existent manuscripts."

So much for Bushby as a credible source on alleged mystery documents.

Then we have this remarkable quote:

• In addition, because many people will disagree with his book, Bushby will "not engage in written religious argument with readers" who disagree. [12]

Here's more:

• Sir Francis Bacon edited the KJV [20]....

• Yes indeed -- Morton Smith is used as a source with his Secret Gospel of Mark and claim that a tombstone in Germany of a Roman soldier may have been that of Jesus' father [29]....

• It's not quite The Da Vinci Code, but the Last Supper is hauled in for an argument as it is claimed that one of the disicples (the fifth from the right of Jesus) looks like Jesus' twin, thus evidently showing Leonardo believed in Bushby's twin theory....

• The Essenes are connected with the Druids of Gaul [523]....

• The Gauls are the same people as those who lived in Galilee [75].....

• Bushby repeats an Anglo-Israelist argument I last saw used by Herbert Armstrong [99] that "British" combines the two Hebrew words for covenant (berit) and man (ish). (More serious sources connect the name to that of a tribe of Picts, the Pritani.)....

• Paul [134] at one point had to flee to Wales and there was protected. One source for this information is "an ancient manuscript in Merton College".....

There is much more at the link. Religious critic or not, if this description of Bushby's book is anywhere close to accurate, I don't think I'll bother with it. At least Dan Brown presents his books as fiction.

Honestly, I'm no big fan of Jesus and the NT either; I'm a Jew. But this stuff is right out there with "UFOs are piloted by Nazis with a secret base inside the Hollow Earth." I don't see that Bushby's stuff is any more credible than the NT, and frankly it seems a good deal farther out to me.

We can agree, I think, that the Bible ought not be assumed to be be historically or scientifically true or authoritative; but to say that Tony Bushby has "proven it a fraudulent document" seems rather, shall we say, premature. For the moment, I don't think I'll accept either the Bible OR Bushby as the final authority.

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Cnorman18.

You should have ordered a copy instead of believing the religious lies and propaganda that you did.

Here is Tony Bushby's reasoning for not engaging in religious debate .....

No arguments

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Many people may find themselves at odds with certain conclusions reached within this book. Therefore, the author, publisher and associates of this publication will not engage in written religious argument with readers who hold a different opinion from those expressed here.

The history carried in this book is obtained from information found in Christian texts, in the records of the early church, and in ancient biblical texts obscured from the public domain. Recorded facts have also been called from Celtic annals and British Chronicles, along with information from the sovereign, saintly and chivalric archives of Europe. Much of the documentation referenced is preserved in rare archival manuscripts and difficult-to-find ancient reference books. Many of these works are priceless historical documents.

This literary exposition therefore rests on supportable or specific historical information that demonstrates the point being made and pursues avenues of much hitherto suppressed knowledge for the benefit of all.

- The Bible Fraud, page 12.

The bibliography extends from page 227 to 253 and is extensive to say the least. Many of the quoted texts are directly from church writings, one for example being the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which clearly states that they do not know who wrote the 'Gospels' and that they have been altered/changed (in other words forged) at different points throughout history.

Below is a special thanks that appears on page 253, which you will note in particular ...

Advanced Theological Studies of Jerusalem
Institute of Holy Land Studies, Jerusalem
Pontifical Biblical Institute of Jerusalem





Of course, you can believe the religious propaganda that you posted instead of reading the book yourself, that is your choice, illogical as that may be considering that you state "that the Bible ought not be assumed to be be historically or scientifically true or authoritative".

To state "this stuff is right out there with "UFOs are piloted by Nazis with a secret base inside the Hollow Earth." " without having ever read the texts shows a complete lack of respect and is simply derision of someone and what they have written EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVEN'T EVER READ THEIR WRITINGS.

Obviously, with the above quoted statement and your lack of having read any of his material, we can rest assured that you are not an "authority" on the writings of Tony Bushby.

[cnorman18]

G'day Cnorman18.

You should have ordered a copy instead of believing the religious lies and propaganda that you did.

What "religious lies and propaganda" did I believe?

I certainly don't believe the New Testament. I'm a Jew, remember? That doesn't mean I have to believe Bushby, does it?

Here is Tony Bushby's reasoning for not engaging in religious debate .....

No arguments

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Many people may find themselves at odds with certain conclusions reached within this book. Therefore, the author, publisher and associates of this publication will not engage in written religious argument with readers who hold a different opinion from those expressed here.

The history carried in this book is obtained from information found in Christian texts, in the records of the early church, and in ancient biblical texts obscured from the public domain. Recorded facts have also been called from Celtic annals and British Chronicles, along with information from the sovereign, saintly and chivalric archives of Europe. Much of the documentation referenced is preserved in rare archival manuscripts and difficult-to-find ancient reference books. Many of these works are priceless historical documents.

This literary exposition therefore rests on supportable or specific historical information that demonstrates the point being made and pursues avenues of much hitherto suppressed knowledge for the benefit of all.

- The Bible Fraud, page 12.

"I really, truly found this stuff even though others can't verify it, and if you don't believe me I won't talk to you."

The bibliography extends from page 227 to 253 and is extensive to say the least. Many of the quoted texts are directly from church writings, one for example being the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which clearly states that they do not know who wrote the 'Gospels' and that they have been altered/changed (in other words forged) at different points throughout history.

That is not, of course, the "information" I find hard to swallow. Some of Bushby's sources, for information that is not news, may be credible; that does not indicate that other sources for more, um, surprising information - sources wnich seem to be conveniently inaccessible - are equally credible.

Below is a special thanks that appears on page 253, which you will note in particular ...

Advanced Theological Studies of Jerusalem
Institute of Holy Land Studies, Jerusalem
Pontifical Biblical Institute of Jerusalem

So what? What can you tell me about any of these high-sounding names?

"The Institute for Historical Review" sounds very academic and reliable, too. It isn't. Names are just names. For all you or I know, they may be the names of storefronts that sell propellor beanies. Accepting an academic authority because is has a plausibly academic-sounding name is the very definition of gullibility. Further, even citing a known and credibly authoritative source does not guarantee accuracy; as we have already seen, the "British Museum" source seems to be a straight-up fake.

Of course, you can believe the religious propaganda that you posted....

What religious propaganda was that?

Virtually all of what I posted was a synopsis of Bushby's claims. Was that synopsis accurate? If so, that fact speaks for itself.

....instead of reading the book yourself, that is your choice, illogical as that may be considering that you state "that the Bible ought not be assumed to be be historically or scientifically true or authoritative".

Again; I do not believe the Bible is literally and historically true. That doesn't mean I logically have to waste my time on theories and speculations that I judge to be little better than incoherent raving.

To state "this stuff is right out there with "UFOs are piloted by Nazis with a secret base inside the Hollow Earth." " without having ever read the texts shows a complete lack of respect and is simply derision of someone and what they have written EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVEN'T EVER READ THEIR WRITINGS.

If the synopsis I posted is accurate, I'll stand by that assessment. If someone tells me that Jesus was the king of Britain, I don't feel obligated to investigate that frankly loony claim.

Obviously, with the above quoted statement and your lack of having read any of his material, we can rest assured that you are not an "authority" on the writings of Tony Bushby.

Never claimed to be; but I think my opinion is well-founded.

Sorry, but you can't use the "you're just buying into religious propaganda" dodge with me. I find it quite sufficient to say that I don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, God Incarnate, the son of God, or was resurrected from the dead. I don't feel a need to say that the Church has been a conscious and deliberate scam for two thousand years, that Jesus had a twin brother who went to India, or that Jesus himself became the King of Britain to justify my disbelief.

The best and most balanced article on the "historical Jesus" I have ever seen is here. The documents we have are quite sufficient to cast doubt on the claims of the Christian church.

Bushby's work is not scholarship. He places a famous, and famously bogus, quote from Pope Leo X on the cover of his book; that does not bode well for the reliability of his work. Leo X was among the most corrupt and decadent of Renaissance Medici popes, but there is no indication that he ever actually said this or what he meant if he did. If this is the level of scholarship we can expect from Bushby, he isn't worth anyone's time.

Maybe Bushby DID find some or all of these obscure and unknown accounts; why are we to take them as being any more historically reliable than the NT documents? Note that I do not say the NT documents are reliable; I don't think they are. But obscure and "hidden" documents that contain blatantly outlandish and bizarre stories, some of which have already been discredited and proven false, don't have much claim to credibility either, and in fact have even less.

The NT may very well be a "fraud" in some sense; but if it is. Tony Bushby had and has nothing whatever to do with proving it. All he has proven is that books of goofy and sensational theories and allegations, with very little in the way of independently verifiable and credible documentation, can make money.