systemstrike_7

Its more than a theory, strike. Its actually the belief of most Eastern Christians. Jews wrote in a writing style that was very exagetory (i dont know if thats a word) but they over did everything. When they used the word "world", it more often meant just them, because Israel was their world. They had the ego centricities of a 3 year old, not self centered, but that the world only stretched to the borders of Israel, because they are God's chosen. I know what you mean, I had just heard that somewhere and was wondering if it held any respectability among others. And yes, the Israelites were very self-centered. You can see that in the many rapacious and murderous sieges they would perpetrate against their conquerees (don't know if that's a word either). And they justified this simply because they believed God told them too.

I heard this somewhere and it could be completely false, but it might make for some good conversation. I heard that all the flood stories could have derived from some natural catastrophe that happened near the Black Sea. Has anyone else ever heard of this theory?

Ya, but if I had never read the Bible and I saw a burning bush, I would probably just put it out... Sorry, thought I'd throw some comic relief in there...

Here's what i was saying, smal, is that only the people whom havent heard of Christ will be judged based on character and integrity. Those of us fortunate enough to hear of Christ are judged based on our decision to follow or not. I dont think there is an ultimate paridigm as to how people will be judged, and furthermore, i personally dont put much stock into the afterlife. Through research i have found that Jesus was very concerned with the day and time in which he lived. Therefore so am I. Im not worried about where im going, to heaven or to hell, and more so i dont really believe in a heaven or a hell. Im not living life with the goal being to get to heaven. Too many Christians are living that way, and it's selfish. To many churches are preaching this way, and its selfish. Our goal should not be to use people as rungs of our little ladder to heaven. Our goal should not be to condemn non-believers to hell. You don't believe in a heaven or a hell? Then what do you believe happens after we die? Thats just it. I believe that very question, "Where will I go when I die?", is selfish. I dont care where i go. I believe that if i live as Christ lived, stay faithful to my wife, faithful to God, love my family, then life right now will be wonderful. I want to live life to the fullest, i want to enrich relationships. I want to love people, and serve people. If all i do between now and death is deepen one relationship, if all i do between now and death is set in concrete one friendship, in and through Christ, then i've succeeded. I want to live as Jesus lived. I dont want to always keep a wary eye on my soul, and worry about death, and after death. What a horrible waste of this beautiful live i've been given. To just want to rush to the end. I hear Christians non-stop say "I wish i could just get to heaven." "Oh if only Jesus would come now." Come ON. Lets live!!! Lets enrich our lives through relationship with other people, lets dare to cross the line and turn friendships into extended family members. I say stop being perfect, or trying to achieve perfection. I find it sad to think that most Christians are so unhappy with their lives because they try to reach a standard set for them by people who couldn't attain it themselves, and all because they think its biblical. Wow, that is crazy. But it is absolutely right. I believe you are about one in a million my friend. I'm very impressed. I use to believe that the only reason people started "religions" was to comfort themselves. They just wanted to believe that life after this was going to be perfect, and then rules and regulations followed soon after. But you make a very good point. If only the entire world had that philosophy. But I'm afraid that will never happen.

Here's what i was saying, smal, is that only the people whom havent heard of Christ will be judged based on character and integrity. Those of us fortunate enough to hear of Christ are judged based on our decision to follow or not. I dont think there is an ultimate paridigm as to how people will be judged, and furthermore, i personally dont put much stock into the afterlife. Through research i have found that Jesus was very concerned with the day and time in which he lived. Therefore so am I. Im not worried about where im going, to heaven or to hell, and more so i dont really believe in a heaven or a hell. Im not living life with the goal being to get to heaven. Too many Christians are living that way, and it's selfish. To many churches are preaching this way, and its selfish. Our goal should not be to use people as rungs of our little ladder to heaven. Our goal should not be to condemn non-believers to hell. You don't believe in a heaven or a hell? Then what do you believe happens after we die?

My point was that Jesus said He would be in the center of the Earth for 3 days and 3 nights (the sign of Jonah). But regardless, I think this thread has run its course.

I'm going to assume you had not yet read my quote in post #16 when you posted this. Jesus Christ did say that no one will get to the Father except through Him. He did not lie, but nowhere did He say that only through a personal relationship with Him can you get to heaven. You don't necessarily have to know Him to be saved through Him. The simple answer to your question is that we just don't know how God will judge them, we only know that they will be judged by a merciful and just God and we have very little reason to belive they are simply all going to hell. I see what you're saying, i think. So you mean that Jesus still has the power to save people who have never heard His name... correct? Well then we should consider the passage John 6: 53-57: 53Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. 54He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me. It seems He is saying that unless you eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, then you will not have eternal life.

I'm not how this verse is related, but as to the other verse: Yes, Jesus rose the 1st day of the week, but with this being said, he couldn't have died on Friday. That wouldn't be 3 days and 3 nights. And as Yahsway said, the tomb was empty on the 1st day. He very well could have risen on the sabbath. Which, if Christ died on thursday, then that would be 3 days and 3 nights exactly.

I will say this one more time: Jesus Christ HIMSELF said that NO ONE will get to the FATHER except THROUGH HIM. I don't see any exception in Jesus' words. There is just no way around them. So was Jesus lying? Did Jesus actually say that? Or was that simply John's theological agenda putting words in Jesus' mouth? And if it is true, then why would a GOD OF LOVE do such a terrible thing? You can tell me that God has the power to choose whatever He wants, but I cannot and will not worship a God who sends someone to Hell who He intentionally put in a position that they had no other choice. As for the part about how the hypothetical tribesman should search out for "a faith" if he truly wants to be morally correct, how is this tribesman supposed to do it? If this person is in a place where Chrsitianity hasn't reached him yet, what makes you think they will have an extensive library with books on every different religion? Again, the God of Christianity's very nature (if not existence) depends upon the answer to this question. You can deny that all you want, but it will get you nowhere. Another side note: If Paul is telling us that those apart from the Law are judged apart from the Law and if those who he talks about are people who will never have the chance to even hear the name of Jesus, then is He not blatantly contradicting the words of Jesus? I don't think there is any way to get around what Jesus said. And I personally give more credit to Jesus than to Paul.

None of them. Are you without sin? No you are not. Do you go to heaven? Yes you do. Why? Because you fall under the Grace of Jesus Christ. Do these hypothetical tribesmen fall under the Grace of Christ? No. Have they had the oppurtunity to fall under that Grace? No they haven't. So do they go to hell? I certainly hope not. That would make me a bit suspicious of God's mercy (and logic). There, I just saved us from having a long conversation by stating the entire thing in one post. Are you saying that God is unjust if He choose to send sinners to hell? Is this not His sovereign right? Is not grace and forgiveness His to give? Who makes the choice of the circumstances of where these hypothetical tribesmen were born? JB Rom 9:14 What should we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! 15 For He tells Moses: I will show mercy to whom I show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 16 So then it does not depend on human will or effort, but on God who shows mercy. As for Ayin Jade's post, I still believe Paul is speaking about the Law as regards to the Gentiles. I am certainly saying that God is unjust if He sends people to Hell simply because He made them live somewhere that they had no oppurtunity to hear the word of Christ. Does He have that right? I suppose He does, but that doesn't mean I agree with His decision. What if you were one of those tribesmen? What if you were to die without ever hearing the message of Christ and you stood in front of God and He told you, "You are going to Hell for not believing in my Son." Wouldn't you feel that He dealt with you a bit unjustly?

I can't do that. God has not given me a direct answer to really any of my questions. So I have to rely on study and research to get them. And no, I'm not speaking about the tribes separate from the Children of God in the Tanakh. I'm speaking about here and now. I'm speaking about those who have never had the oppurtunity to know the God we worship simply because they have never even heard His name. So this is still a very big issue which could use some clarification. His very nature is dependant upon the answer to this question. No one would want to worship a god who sends people to an eternity of torture simply because they never had the chance to decide otherwise.

When I first asked myself this question, I also found that passage. But Paul is speaking about Gentiles and the Law (meaning Torah), not the Grace of Christ. Maybe there is no biblical answer to this question...

None of them. Are you without sin? No you are not. Do you go to heaven? Yes you do. Why? Because you fall under the Grace of Jesus Christ. Do these hypothetical tribesmen fall under the Grace of Christ? No. Have they had the oppurtunity to fall under that Grace? No they haven't. So do they go to hell? I certainly hope not. That would make me a bit suspicious of God's mercy (and logic). There, I just saved us from having a long conversation by stating the entire thing in one post.

Grace to you, Hmmmm? System do you believe that Jesus is God even as those dusty old pages say he is? Peace, Dave Well, I feel a bit foolish now. I just realized that I am already listed as a nonbeliever. I find this odd, but I'm sure your reasoning is sufficient. I'm not one too argue about such matters. Do as you wish...

I'm sure this question has been asked before, maybe even by me, but it still haunts me to this day. So I will ask it in the hopes that someone can give me an answer to calm my conscience. Throughout history and still today, there are people who have never heard the word of God or of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that no one will get to the Father except through me. If this is true, what happens to someone who never even had a chance to hear about Jesus? What if there is a remote tribe on an island off of Africa that has never heard of Jesus Christ? Does that tribe go to hell simply because they were never given the chance to make the decision to follow Christ? If so, does that truly make God merciful?

Grace to you, Hmmmm? System do you believe that Jesus is God even as those dusty old pages say he is? Peace, Dave Yes I do. When I read through the Tanakh, I find that the entire thing is speaking of Jesus. What I am trying to say is that when you read the Gospels, you find your own picture of Jesus. My picture of God will probably be very different from anyone else's. So you can keep listed as a believer if you wish, because I do believe. I just like to ask questions. In short, I guess I just haven't quite come to terms with who I think God is. It has proven to be a very tedious journey, and if you find any frustration in my tone it is due to the fact that I can't seem to get any help from God Himself. But maybe God knows that this journey is what keeps me happy and interested. So kudos to Him.

Ok, I think we are running in circles with this. I believe we had a misunderstanding. I believe that His disciples, who were very much Jewish (Paul was a Pharisee, and James probably was too), took His message to the people. I think we agree on this. So we shall put it behind us. I know, but what I meant was that they destroyed His ministry by distorting and changing the words He said. We could get into a whole different debate about the presence of theological agendas inside the gospels, but we won't go there. I'm not taking God out of the picture, I'm just not going to use Him as a scape-goat. There are inerrancies in the New and Old Testament. It is that simple. And I understand that no archaeological dig has contradicted the Bible, and I find that absolutely fascinating. I have found some pretty amazing things concerning the Exodus and such. But we won't get into that either. Exactly! That is exactly what I'm saying! These pagan holidays were not scriptural! Jesus was not born on December 25th and Jesus never said that it was okay to change the Holy Sabbath Day. If you say you are so adament about following Jesus' words alone, then where did you get the idea it was ok to do such things? So my mistake is by obeying God's commandment? Yes, don't forget about the intent of the law, but it was made that way for a reason. God did not "rest" on the first day, He "rested" on the seventh day. He told us to keep the Sabbath as a Holy Day of rest, plain and simple. Again, I'm not missing the intent, Christians are apparently ignoring the words of God. And many people think Christ would have been okay with abortion, but that doesn't make abortion right. Who said Christ was crucified on Friday and rose Sunday? You won't find that in the Gospels. That was a Catholic invention. And Christ Himself said He would be in the center of the Earth for 3 days and 3 nights. If He died on Friday and rose on Sunday, that would only be 2 nights and maybe 2 days. Well, maybe it is time we reconsider this age-old tradition. Maybe it is time we start "resting" on the seventh day and not the first.

What you say is true. God is Jesus. Jesus is God. They are one in the same. So why the Trinity? Why must we be so complicated about it? But thank you for your prayers, they are much appreciated.

But this isn't true of His apostles. They led the Church (specifically His brother James) after He ascended to Heaven. They led the missions and spread His word to thousands of people. Was Jesus not omniscient? Did He not know that the Gentiles would later take over His ministry and pracatically destroy it? The New Testament was never written in Hebrew. It was originally in Greek. And I don't think you fully understand how tedious the translation process was. It was all done by hand and it was done by scribes who, during the first few centuries, weren't professionals at what they did. They were prone to carelessness and sometimes they blatantly changed it. This can be seen by the copies found through archaeology. You will be hard-pressed to find two documents that resemble each other 100 percent. I'm not speaking of the ways in which we celebrate these holidays. The fact of the matter is that Constantine combined pagan mythology with the Grace of Christianity. You seem to think I'm talking about working on the Sabbath. But that isn't what I'm talking about. The Sabbath is supposed to be on Saturday. Saturday is the seventh day, not Sunday. When Constantine made Christianity the state religion, he changed the Sabbath day to Sunday because that was the pagan day of worship. Note "Sun"day. But you have a good understanding of the foundational message of Christ. His message was Love. As He said, the greatest commandment was love your neighbor as yourself.

No. I don't believe in god because, assuming such an entity exists, and assuming that they have directly involved themselves in the welfare of humanity, and assuming that they have a preference as to how we live our lives, and assuming they've told us that preference, I don't believe any human being is smart enough, on the evidence alone, to tell which religion, of the hundreds of thousands that human history can offer, is the right one. I say on the evidence aloneas a qualifier because every single religious devotee of every single faith in human history has also believed that theirs is the right one, not just on the evidence, but because they have felt or witnessed the power of their god/gods 'telling' them so. As this clearly cannot be true in even the vast majority of cases, I'm forced to one of three conclusions: 1. There is no god, and these incidents of his presence are either lies, misunderstandings or able to be explained by other causes. 2. There is a god, and he is revealing himself to everyone, regardless of their religion. 3. There is a god, but people cannot tell the difference between lies, misunderstandings and other causes and his messages. Factor in that even within any correct religion, you could still have believers thinking they'd 'felt' god when they actually hadn't, or had been 'spoken' to by god when, in fact, god had said no such thing. So, ultimately, while I'm open to the possibility of god (or gods), I don't believe it's possible to actually know whether you've got the right religion, or - more importantly - whether god has a religion at all. God will only be found in the comfort of our own soul. I think God has made it clear that He will no longer do the amazing things as explained in ancient religious writings. Who knows, maybe God has simply overexerted Himself to the point of despondency. When one reads the bible looking for God, they will only find themselves looking up at them from those dusty pages.

Then where is this bible for the gentiles? False assumption? What assumption are you speaking of? The Torah tells us that whoever should be obedient to God should follow the Laws that were sanctified by God. I think that Christian theology has oversimplified things. Grace is not a concept for the New Testament alone, but to rely on Grace alone is simply foolish. The Torah teaches no such thing, and neither did Jesus. These covenants were given to the descendants of Moses and Abraham and Noah, you are right about that. But in no way does that undermine the authority of those covenants. The Jews are a people of the Book. Christians claim the same thing, but they have thrown out that very book that they claim to abide to. I'm arguing that we should be grafted into the House of Israel. If the Jewish nation were to all accept Christ at some point, they would not be able to live with our theology. They would be appalled at the way we have misread and misused the Law of God. The Bible is good enough for me, but I want to understand the Bible. That is merely two of them. I'm not going to give you a list of all the scholars who would agree with me. They are leading Christian scholars because they are honest and do their research without bias. If you were to read one of their studies, you would see that they make no assumptions and base their conclusions on fact alone. They throw out the theology behind what is written and just stick to the historicity of what is being said. Also, they are believers. The rolling your eyes business was really cute. Anyway, as I said before, those eyewitnesses would be recalling something that happened 2-3 decades prior to the interview. Actually, Luke probably did have written material to work from, but how reliable are those documents? Who wrote them? Where did they come from? What biases did Luke have? Was his own theology intertwined in his writing? There are just too many unknowns to deal with. And it is agreed that the early believers believed that they didn't need to record the life of Jesus because they thought He was going to return at any minute (as does every generation). I never said he had "nothing" reliable to work from, I said that it would be difficult for him to accurately record the life of Jesus and the acts of the apostles with a hundred percent accuracy. And it is agreed that Luke and Matthew used Mark as their main source. So it really comes down to the authenticity of Mark. And please stop it with the whole "do you know?" business because you are simply playing the "flying spagetti monster" argument. Since I'm not completely sure, does that mean I should just believe it to be true or should I believe it to be false? Well I have chosen to start from the ground and work my way up. If God is real, then I should find Him sooner or later. Either way, Jewish Christianity became the minority. After the Roman Empire became a Christian state, they deemed the Jewish Christians as heretics. Anyone who did not completely agree with the Nicean Creed was deemed a heretic. That silly little creed was put together by silly little men. I mean, where in the Bible does it ever refer to a Trinity? It speaks of God's spirit, and Jesus who is God, but never of three separate entities. Yahweh told us that He is the only God. Period. There is no inconsistency in the New Testament, but Christians have made the inconsistency by oversimplifying and misreading the entire Bible. What happened to Yahweh? He was a God who had picnics with Abraham, walked in the Garden with Adam, plagued an entire nation, closed the ark for Noah, and wrestled with Jacob. Why has God disappeared? Why does God not show his might as He loved to do before? Why this sudden change in personality? If he was upset that He made man, then that means he regretted making man. I don't think you can get around that one. If you buy a shirt and then you don't like it, that means you were upset that you bought it and that you regret buying it. But I will not argue over that, simply because Yahweh is much too complicated a God for me to figure out.

First of all, I want to thank you for the response. I see you are new here and I hope you're enjoying it. You say the Jews did not spread the word of Christ, but I'm going to disagree with you there. All of Christ's disciples were Jewish. Paul was also a Jew. The Jerusalem Church was the heart and soul of "Christianity". In all actuality, the Jews were responsible for spreading the message of Christ. The Jews did it the right way. They spread His message of Love with compassion and understanding. After the pagans took over the religion in the 5th and 6th centuries, the message of Christ was spread by fear and domination, not to mention it was changed on many levels. Mary became a perpetual virgin and almost a divinity, Jewish holidays were replaced by pagan festivals with Jesus' name on them, and the Holy Sabbath day which was sanctified by God Himself was changed. The Sabbath is a Commandment from God; one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. The center of Jesus' teaching was love. But He also taught under the implication of his Jewishness. The gospel writers didn't have to tell the reader that Jesus followed the Torah, or that he observed the festivals. People keep saying that the Torah wasn't for everyone, but that is a huge mistake. The Torah is for everyone who wants to be obedient to God. Here is how it works, and you will see this in the story of Abraham our father: Faith leads to righteousness; Obedience leads to blessings. Abraham was righteous through his faith, and he was blessed through his obedience. Faith without works is dead and works without faith is misguided.

What exactly do you believe, that Yahweh is not the Trinitarian God? Are you criticizing the bible there? I have a birthday dinner to attend, so I will get back to Shiloh's post at a later time. I believe that Jesus walked on the earth as Yahweh. If it were any other way, then your religion is no longer a monotheism. And don't bother me with the vast enigma that is "the Trinity". That is merely a human invention that strives for logic. As an earlier poster said, Jesus is God, God is God, and the Holy Spirit is the presence of God (which I have grudgingly yet to find). Yahweh can only be One God. He would be much too jealous to split himself three ways. And the Trinity is not biblical. So no criticism there. But I am critical of the Bible. How else are we to learn? I cannot just believe, I have tried that before and it merely led to depression. If you want the truth, you must look upon the evidence with a critical eye. I believe in the authority of the Torah, but not so much the belated New Testament. I believe the historical Jesus was lost in the obsession of Paul. If you go to a church today, you will find that preachers spend more time in the letters of Paul than they do with the teachings of Jesus. The love that Jesus spoke of has been replaced with the theology of "you better do what I do or else it's hell for you!"

You're right, I worded that wrong. But it does say that those who are not observant will be cut-off from Israel. It is God's will that we observe the Torah, so why should we not? Then what was His reasoning? Is He not all-knowing? Did He not know that the gentiles would be included later on? So why the hesitancy? Based on scholarly concensus. Even the leading Christian scholars such as E.P. Sanders and John P. Meier agree that we still have digging to do if we are to find the historical Jesus. Yes, but Luke did not have access to news shows, newspapers, magazines, or the internet. This makes it difficult for any historian. Luke simply had to go off of the memory of others, and don't forget that Luke wrote at least 2 decades after the events happened. Ask any historian and they will concur that recording history in those days would have been much more difficult. And these eye-witnesses were recalling something that happened 20 years before. The church wasn't as "unified" or "harmonious" as people like to think. Why do you think the Jerusalem church broke away from the gentile churches a century later? The church led by James and the Apostles became the heretic church. Why would that happen? Galations 2. Read versus 6 and 9. Paul speaks in a sarcastic tone, and he is obviously angered about something concerning those "reputed to be pillars". Then what happened to Yahweh? Did He merely exile Himself into God the Father? Where is this God that enjoyed picnics under a tree, who personally closes the Ark, who meets with His Chosen in the most magnificent ways, and who wrestles with His elect? Yahweh is not a suicidal God. Yahweh is not like Jesus. You will find hints of Yahwehism in Mark's Jesus, but that is only due to the fact that Mark loves the enigmatic (or he's just a terrible writer). Yahweh was a God with personality. God the Father has no personality, He merely announces His beloved Son and then withdrawals himself back into the pages of Paul. And was Yawheh not greived that he created man? I think I read that somewhere...