Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 “If Christ has not been raised then our preaching is useless, and your believing it is useless. Indeed, if our hope in Christ has been for this life only, we are the most unfortunate of all people” (1 Corinthians 15: 14-19).

Christ's preaching included many parables and lessons that are familiar to all. The Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, the Prodigal Son, etc., to name only a few of the more famous ones.

Is Paul saying these things are now useless if Christ has not risen from the dead? Does this mean Paul is denying the validity of the moral teachings to stand on their own unless Jesus rose from the dead?

And what proof is there for us that Jesus rose from the dead? Maybe those parables are just moral lessons for us for this life.

I sure wish dwashbur was here to give us his excellent and learned point of view. Will PM him, hoping he'll see it.

Maybe those parables are just moral lessons for us for this life.

Paul seems to deny even that unless Jesus rose from the dead.


I sure wish dwashbur was here to give us his excellent and learned point of view. Will PM him, hoping he'll see it.

His take is always welcome.

Okay, by popular demand (Phoebe Popular, my barber) I'll give it another try.

Seriously, a direct request from someone I respect a lot. We'll see how it goes.


Wondergirl
And what proof is there for us that Jesus rose from the dead? Maybe those parables are just moral lessons for us for this life.


That sounds like a distinct topic to me.


Athos
No Resurrection, No Faith?

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 “If Christ has not been raised then our preaching is useless, and your believing it is useless. Indeed, if our hope in Christ has been for this life only, we are the most unfortunate of all people” (1 Corinthians 15: 14-19).

Christ's preaching included many parables and lessons that are familiar to all. The Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, the Prodigal Son, etc., to name only a few of the more famous ones.

Is Paul saying these things are now useless if Christ has not risen from the dead? Does this mean Paul is denying the validity of the moral teachings to stand on their own unless Jesus rose from the dead?

This has to be put into context. He's talking about the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world/age/whatever, at Jesus' return. He described this as a "blessed hope" (Titus 2:13). Part of the great hope of the Christian is eternal life as a resurrected being on a new, perfect Earth (Rev. 21-22, see also 1 Thessalonians 5).
He isn't saying those teachings are useless without the resurrection. He's saying without it, there's nothing that really makes Jesus stand out from any other great teacher, because all we have is this life. We also have to bear in mind what Paul went through to preach Jesus. If Jesus never rose, what was the point of all that? The whole reason Jesus is the watershed of history is because of his resurrection. That was the earliest message (Acts 2ff): God raised him from the dead and has made him the Lord to whom we all must answer.
Hence, carrying out the content of the parables, teachings, etc. isn't just because they're good ideas, it's because Jesus has created a new life in me, and those things are part of living that new life while looking for the hope of eternal life.
I get frustrated when I hear people make his teachings an either/or thing: either he taught us how to live here, or he offered us pie in the sky. He did both. Part of what's going on in 1 Cor 15 is, Paul is ragging on the Corinthians for spending so much time on these questions instead of doing the stuff. But at the same time he's ragging on those who ONLY do the stuff and don't understand the eternal aspect and consequences of their actions. Both are extremes and both are wrong, because Jesus taught us to do both.

...people make his teachings an either/or thing

Interesting point - there definitely is a tendency to make either/or propositions of statements attributed to Jesus. I think you're onto something by seeing them as having wider (or both) meanings.

Other interesting points:

DW, "That sounds like a distinct topic to me". Referring to WG post "And what proof is there for us that Jesus rose from the dead? Maybe those parables are just moral lessons for us for this life."

Another from DW - "Part of the great hope of the Christian is eternal life as a resurrected being ..." From my readings in religion, every single religion without exception (excluding the bizarre ones) promises a continuation of life after death, even when the original self-awareness is gone as in reincarnation. Could this be the source of the religious impulse? It doesn't necessarily exclude the notion of a supreme God or the Jesus story.

Finally from DW - "God raised him (Jesus) from the dead and has made him the Lord to whom we all must answer." Does this apply to those who reject Jesus as God? Or to those who never heard of Jesus? Or to those born a thousand years before the birth of Jesus?

From my readings in religion, every single religion without exception (excluding the bizarre ones) promises a continuation of life after death, even when the original self-awareness is gone as in reincarnation. Could this be the source of the religious impulse?

Could you expand on this a little? I want to be sure I follow.

Could you expand on this a little? I want to be sure I follow.

Not sure I can say more than I already said. I'll give it a try.

Religions that believe in reincarnation (a return to normal life after death to work out Karma) agree that the one reincarnated does not remember the previous life, although some exceptions have been noted in the literature. They include Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. Hinduism can be seen as the mother religion of the others, much like Judaism is the mother religion of Christianity and Islam.

Ancient Greece - The Greeks believed that people died and ended up in Hades, a gray and misty place where the lord of the dead ruled . Incidentally, Jerome, in his somewhat faulty translation of the Bible into the Vulgate, morphed this idea of Hades found in the OT into our modern notion of Hell, a fiery eternal torture chamber.

Japan - In Shintoism, the dead enter a gloomy underground place called Yomi, where a river separates the dead and the living. The Yomi is a place much like the Greek Hades. The followers of this religion believe in ancient gods and spirits called Kami, and they believe that some human beings can become kami after they die.

China Traditional Religion - This fascinating religion is a combination of Taoism (The Way), Confucianism, and traditional Chinese religion. Those who live accordingly believe in a peaceful life after death, one that an individual can attain through performing specific rituals and showing great honor to ancestors.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism – similar and familiar ideas re the continuation of life after death.

North Korea - Juche – eternal life after death with the Dictator of North Korea – very bizarre.

These religions account for most of the human population.

If this explanation isn't satisfying, ask again in a more specific way and I'll try again.

And when Native Americans (especially warriors and hunters) died, they believed they went to the Happy Hunting Ground -- self explanatory!

If I'm understanding the overall idea, humans feel the need to see something beyond death and that has led to all these versions of afterlife. Do I have that right?
It reminds me of the old ditty. Sometimes old ditties have a lot of wisdom in them. It says, there's a God-shaped hole in all of us, and much of life's quest is trying to find what's supposed to fill it.

How'd I do?


Finally from DW - "God raised him (Jesus) from the dead and has made him the Lord to whom we all must answer." Does this apply to those who reject Jesus as God? Or to those who never heard of Jesus? Or to those born a thousand years before the birth of Jesus?

Those who reject Jesus as God, I don't know. Can you receive his salvation and new life without that specific idea? I think so, because the earliest believers hadn't fully sussed out all the implications of that idea yet. JWs, for example, believe Jesus was the first created being, though they have a real tendency to befuddle themselves as to what that really means. Still, if one trusts in Jesus as their savior and reaches out to him, does he respond? I think so. As for those who haven't heard and who lived before Jesus, as I've said before: Idunno. I figure God does.

If I'm understanding the overall idea, humans feel the need to see something beyond death and that has led to all these versions of afterlife. Do I have that right?

Yes.


It reminds me of the old ditty. Sometimes old ditties have a lot of wisdom in them. It says, there's a God-shaped hole in all of us, and much of life's quest is trying to find what's supposed to fill it.

Yes, again.


How'd I do?

A+.


As for those who haven't heard and who lived before Jesus, as I've said before: Idunno. I figure God does.

Fair enough.

My belief is that personal salvation depends on behavior, not on belief.

My belief is that personal salvation depends on behavior, not on belief.Then you would have a pretty significant disagreement with the book of Romans, and not to mention with Jesus himself.

My belief is that personal salvation depends on behavior, not on belief.
I agree. Jesus said, "Love one another." And then there's I Corinthians 13, especially verse 2:
"If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing."

The 1 Cor. passage never says loving works provide salvation.

Rom. 3. 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

This is essentially the conclusion of Paul's brilliant passage where he demonstrates that sinful man cannot meet the lawful standard of God. It is why the cross was necessary. If we could become right with God by our behavior, then the cross would have been needless.

I agree. Jesus said, "Love one another." And then there's I Corinthians 13, especially verse 2:
"If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing."

That's a terrific passage, WG. It fits perfectly into salvation being from behavior, not belief. I knew of that passage, but I never thought of posting it. It sure explains and supports actions. Belief is not to be ignored for a Christian, but it is secondary.

My beloved transgender friend is a Wiccan:

"Jesus said that it was not by faith and ritual that one comes to God, but through self-knowledge and acts of kindness.He also told us there were plenty of rooms in the Mansion — everyone comes to God in the end, through the different paths."

And

"He encouraged people to follow in his footsteps, that is, to live as he lived, to love one another."

"Jesus said that it was not by faith and ritual that one comes to God, but through self-knowledge and acts of kindnessWhere did he say that?


everyone comes to God in the end, through the different paths.Hmm. "13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." In another place Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but by me." So it would seem you can agree with your pagan friend or with Jesus, but not with both.

Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by Athos View Post
My belief is that personal salvation depends on behavior, not on belief.
I agree. Jesus said, "Love one another." And then there's I Corinthians 13, especially verse 2:
"If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing."

But we also have "We love, because he first loved us" and "This is how they will know you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." It's all based on what he did, on trust in him, and on new life being put into a person so they're capable of God-type love. Simply reducing it to "love one another" out of context and again, Jesus becomes nothing special. Lots of people have said stuff like that. So what makes Jesus so special if everything is just based on behavior?

It's all based on what he did, on trust in him, and on new life being put into a person so they're capable of God-type love.
Yes, exactly! That's what I was leading up to. 1 Corinthians 13 says it well. Jesus is our example, our guide, in how to love and whom to love.

So what makes Jesus so special if everything is just based on behavior?

If this refers to me, I did not say that "everything just depends on behavior". I said, "Belief is not to be ignored for a Christian, but it is secondary."

For those who never heard of Jesus, or who reject Jesus as God, belief in Jesus does not matter at all.

And that's a concern of mine. What about all those people who never heard of Jesus? Are they saved?

And that's a concern of mine. What about all those people who never heard of Jesus? Are they saved?

My answer is yes.

Dwashbur has answered the question in post#9. For those who rejected Jesus, he says, "Those who reject Jesus as God, I don't know. Can you receive his salvation and new life without that specific idea? I think so, because the earliest believers hadn't fully sussed out all the implications of that idea yet."

For those who never heard of Jesus, he says, " As for those who haven't heard and who lived before Jesus, as I've said before: Idunno. I figure God does."

I don't want to steal DW's thunder, but I do want to make one clarification of my own.

When I say "reject Jesus as God", I'm not especially referring to those who crucified Jesus in the Gospels. I'm thinking more along the lines of the billions who DID know about Jesus but rejected the idea that he is God. That would include Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christian religions. They far outnumber Christians who believe Jesus is God.

The good news is not a message of “Do your best and be good enough!” but rather “Your best is never enough—but Jesus is.

Alistair Begg

I'm thinking more along the lines of the billions who DID know about Jesus but rejected the idea that he is God. That would include Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christian religions. They far outnumber Christians who believe Jesus is God.
If you are born into and grow up in a Muslim (or Jewish or other non-Christian religion) family/culture, when believing in Jesus as your Savior is not in that frame of reference, would God reject you, damn you?

If you are born into and grow up in a Muslim (or Jewish or other non-Christian religion) family/culture, when believing in Jesus as your Savior is not in that frame of reference, would God reject you, damn you?

Not in a million years, no matter what the Bible may be mistranslated as.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
And that's a concern of mine. What about all those people who never heard of Jesus? Are they saved?
My answer is yes.

Dwashbur has answered the question in post#9. For those who rejected Jesus, he says, "Those who reject Jesus as God, I don't know. Can you receive his salvation and new life without that specific idea? I think so, because the earliest believers hadn't fully sussed out all the implications of that idea yet."

For those who never heard of Jesus, he says, " As for those who haven't heard and who lived before Jesus, as I've said before: Idunno. I figure God does."

I'm pretty sure we've been over that question before. Romans 1 suggests that if one responds to the amount of light/information one has, God is merciful.


Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by Athos View Post
I'm thinking more along the lines of the billions who DID know about Jesus but rejected the idea that he is God. That would include Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christian religions. They far outnumber Christians who believe Jesus is God.
If you are born into and grow up in a Muslim (or Jewish or other non-Christian religion) family/culture, when believing in Jesus as your Savior is not in that frame of reference, would God reject you, damn you?

Same answer.


When I say "reject Jesus as God", I'm not especially referring to those who crucified Jesus in the Gospels. I'm thinking more along the lines of the billions who DID know about Jesus but rejected the idea that he is God. That would include Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christian religions. They far outnumber Christians who believe Jesus is God.

That's a somewhat stickier situation. Islam does acknowledge the importance of Jesus. The Jewish question depends on whether you're dispensational or not, which I'm not. Paul said that Jesus broke down the dividing wall between Jew and gentile and that's good enough for me. People are people. He died and rose for all of us, whether our name is Washburn or Frumplemeyer. That's the thing that bothers me when we get to talking about groups like this, because God deals with individual hearts. The person raised on ancestor worship who questions it and says there should be something bigger than the ancestors, is just as likely reconciled to God as I am through Jesus. The difference I see is in life right now. The abundant life that I have in Jesus is something that has to be experienced to be understood. There's no way to describe it adequately. I want everybody to have it, it's that great.
Jesus has given me the assurance of eternal life, whatever that may turn out to look like. He has also given me the most incredible life I could ever imagine right here, right now, and for as long as I've been around.

whether our name is Washburn or Frumplemeyer.
Hazel too??? Yay!

That's the thing that bothers me when we get to talking about groups like this, because God deals with individual hearts.
Bingo!

That's a somewhat stickier situation. Islam does acknowledge the importance of Jesus. The Jewish question depends on whether you're dispensational

Not sure what you mean by "stickier situation". It is clear that Muslims and Jews do not accept Jesus as God.


The abundant life that I have in Jesus is something that has to be experienced to be understood. There's no way to describe it adequately.

Your citing Jesus as a source of abundant life is fine. Can you accept that others may have just as abundant a life as you have by citing their beliefs which are not from Jesus?

None of this is in any way disputing your personal feelings about Jesus. I'm hoping you will expand a bit on the present topic of whether those who reject Jesus as God can be saved.

the present topic of whether those who reject Jesus as God can be saved.
What are reasons for rejecting Jesus as God, as their Savior?

What are reasons for rejecting Jesus as God, as their Savior?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Isn't it self-evident that a Muslim or Jew simply do not accept Jesus as their God?

And they don't accept Him because...

...because they don't believe Jesus is God.

I'm still not sure what you're asking. Why don't YOU think they don't accept Jesus as God?

They don't accept Him because He isn't part of that belief system. Just like I have never accepted Zeus or Ganesha.

My point: They haven't accepted Jesus but have they willfully REJECTED Him?

They don't accept Him because He isn't part of that belief system. Just like I have never accepted Zeus or Ganesha.

My point: They haven't accepted Jesus but have they willfully REJECTED Him?

THANK YOU for the explanation!! Hmmm...they have willfully NOT ACCEPTED Jesus too! Both are willful.

Ok, so you're looking for the difference between not accepting and rejection? I don't think there is one. I think they are synonymous. Spelled differently, but essentially similar. Especially in the present case discussing being saved.

Jews and Muslims are generally familiar with the Christian belief of Jesus being God, but they themselves don't believe that Jesus is God. So I would say that they BOTH 1) do not accept Jesus as God and, 2) reject Jesus as God.

I hope that helps. That's the best I can do.

I haven't accepted Ganesha as a god, but no one has tried to teach me about him and what he could mean in my life. Thus, I haven't rejected him.

I haven't accepted Ganesha as a god, but no one has tried to teach me about him and what he could mean in my life. Thus, I haven't rejected him.

Ok, so in order to be rejected (or reject) one must learn about the god. It ain't necessarily so (old song from Porgy and Bess). As a Christian, I assume you believe in the First Commandment about not having false gods before you. Yet, you were never taught about those gods. You rejected them on .....well, faith. Moving right along..........

There are many ways to learn including being taught. I agree. You can also learn by reading and studying an issue. Then there's the learning simply by being in a society where the issue is prevalent. By osmosis as the saying goes. There are probably more ways, but let''s leave it at that for the moment.

I was never taught about Ganesha but I'm familiar with the Hindu god. I even have a small statue of he/she/it in my library. It sits next to a little Buddha which sits next to a little frog (not a god) that my niece gave me years ago which is next to a Byzantine icon of the Holy Trinity I received from a visit to a Russian monastery many years ago.

Lest you think this is some kind of altar, it's not. It's just a bunch of geegaws I acquired over the years and stuck on a shelf. I like the Buddha - he's fat, arms upraised and laughing. Ganesha is weird. Elephant trunk where a nose should be.

Back to business: I happen to know a a lot about Ganesha because of my reading. As for Ganesha being a god, I reject that outright. If you were to be taught about Ganesha's god-ness, you would reject it too. Trust me on that one. You might appreciate its symbolic associations, but a God? Nahhh. Rejection.

I hope this little excursion has satisfied your curiosity on why people can both reject gods AND not accept them.

As for Ganesha being a god, I reject that outright. If you were to be taught about Ganesha's god-ness, you would reject it too. Trust me on that one. You might appreciate its symbolic associations, but a God?
Hey!!! He's the God of Wisdom, New Beginnings, and Luck; the Remover of Obstacles, patron of the arts, especially writing -- and he loves samosas! My former coworker Shachi visited her family in India and brought back for me a little statue of Ganesha that snuggles with my hedgehog and two owls and Jawa in front of my pc monitor.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pw08g4Jmblw/X03EeSmgBpI/AAAAAAAAads/e9_YwKkAfmwy7mJj4VQLAv2L61pV4B8agCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/reclining-ganesha.jpg

Hey!!! He's the God of Wisdom, New Beginnings, and Luck; the Remover of Obstacles, patron of the arts, especially writing -- and he loves samosas!

My kind of God !!

No extra charge for this link which I forgot in my other post and that is very apropos for this discussion being very Biblical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLyFn_UHsZ8

I added more to my post.

So you see, Hindus might have a feast of Indian food including samosas (like a Lutheran church supper?) to interest and entice curious people who want to learn more about those beliefs.

I added more to my post.

So you see, Hindus might have a feast of Indian food including samosas (like a Lutheran church supper?) to interest and entice curious people who want to learn more about those beliefs.

I'm in. That's one sexy elephant. He/she/it knows it, too.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
That's a somewhat stickier situation. Islam does acknowledge the importance of Jesus. The Jewish question depends on whether you're dispensational
Not sure what you mean by "stickier situation". It is clear that Muslims and Jews do not accept Jesus as God.

Jews, definitely, though the existence of Jews For Jesus reinforces my point about God dealing with individual hearts.
I call it a stickier situation because Islamic teaching on Jesus is a tad inconsistent. It's hard to define just who he is in that system, and I haven't spent enough deep time in it to try and sort it out. I know one view says Jesus wasn't on the cross, Judas took his place, another says he really was the Son of God and savior, I've heard quite a gamut from Muslims and others. Again, I haven't really pursued it to any degree, so that's as much as I can tell you.

And it's just a personal preference, but IMO Ganesha could use a nose job! ;)

Jews, definitely, though the existence of Jews For Jesus reinforces my point about God dealing with individual hearts.

Jews for Jesus is a recently formed non-profit that has been thoroughly dismissed as Jewish by actual Jews and even by Israeli courts. With all due respect, I don't know what you mean by citing this organization as reinforcing your point about God dealing with individual hearts. By such reasoning, WICCA is about God dealing with individual hearts.


I call it a stickier situation because ......... I know one view says Jesus really was the Son of God and savior

Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God, never have believed that. Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet, a precursor to Muhammad. Please expand on your claim that "I know one view says Jesus really was the Son of God and savior."

Jews for Jesus has been around since 1973 and informally even before then. If being "Jewish" means the membership is overwhelmingly Jewish, then they are pretty Jewish. The idea is that they are Jews who accept Christ as the genuine Messiah. They would all say that God brought conviction concerning Christ to each one individually. They have quite a number of testimonies here.

Home - Jews for Jesus (https://jewsforjesus.org/?reference_code=STEBSC&msclkid=8ed1ab883246198d22c8c838fd05c3f9&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Brand%20-%20Primary&utm_term=jews%20for%20jesus&utm_content=Brand%20-%20Main)


Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God, never have believed that,I think that's pretty much right.

The latest court case I'm aware of was very much a victory for Christians in Israel.

Messianic Jews in Israel Win Important Supreme Court Victory | CBN News (https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2021/june/messianic-jews-in-israel-win-important-supreme-court-victory)

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Jews, definitely, though the existence of Jews For Jesus reinforces my point about God dealing with individual hearts.
Jews for Jesus is a recently formed non-profit that has been thoroughly dismissed as Jewish by actual Jews and even by Israeli courts.

I cite them purely as an example of what have come to be called Messianic Jews. I don't know that anybody but themselves is qualified to judge their Jewishness, courts or otherwise, but I haven't looked at it that closely. If that name offends, then there are lots of Jews who have come to accept Jesus as their Messiah.


Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God, never have believed that. Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet, a precursor to Muhammad. Please expand on your claim that "I know one view says Jesus really was the Son of God and savior."

I wish I could remember. It was on a board somewhere, but I couldn't tell you where or when now. It stayed with me because it was a bit of a shock.

As happens on these boards, we're straying far from the topic which is -- Must one believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved? I gave it a definite NO, belief in Jesus as God is NOT necessary. Now we're into Israeli courts (my fault) deciding tax-exempt issues for Jews for Jesus. Let me try to do this point by point.


Jews for Jesus has been around since 1973 and informally even before then.

Agreed. That's what I meant when I said "recent". I.e., not a few thousand years.


If being "Jewish" means the membership is overwhelmingly Jewish, then they are pretty Jewish.

On this one, I disagree. That's not what being "Jewish" means in the sense we're discussing here. Simply having Jewish members does not automatically mean an organization is Jewish. The movie studio MGM was formed by Jews but no one ever said or now says MGM is or was a Jewish organization (in the sense we mean here). My softball team in the Bronx was overwhelmingly Jewish, (8 were Jews, 2 were Christians - we played with a "short"-center-fielder to account for 10 on a side with "short" referring to field position, not height) but nobody thought we were a Jewish softball team

To be a "Jewish" organization, it must have a specific Jewish raison d'etre to be so. Even then, its "Jewishness" may be debatable. For example, say an organization is formed that requires members to be Jews and its purpose is to destroy Israel on behalf of Iran. Sound way out there? Sure. But not too far from Jews For Jesus whose purpose is believing Jesus is the Christian Messiah which is diametrically opposed to Jewish theology.


The idea is that they are Jews who accept Christ as the genuine Messiah.

If that were all there is to it, they might be acceptable as an offshoot of mainstream Jewish theology, but that is not all. They also believe in the Holy Trinity as described by Christians and that Jesus is God. To the Jews, the genuine Messiah was not God. The Messiah was to lead the Jewish nation in several ways, but never as God.


They would all say that God brought conviction concerning Christ to each one individually.

Human beings say all sorts of things. How do you know what "all of them would say". Some Christians say snakes can talk. Are we all to believe that because they say it?


They have quite a number of testimonies here.

Home - Jews for Jesus (https://jewsforjesus.org/?reference_code=STEBSC&msclkid=8ed1ab883246198d22c8c838fd05c3f9&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Brand%20-%20Primary&utm_term=jews%20for%20jesus&utm_content=Brand%20-%20Main)

Testimonies are a dime-a-dozen in every religion.


The latest court case I'm aware of was very much a victory for Christians in Israel.

Messianic Jews in Israel Win Important Supreme Court Victory | CBN News (https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2021/june/messianic-jews-in-israel-win-important-supreme-court-victory)

Your link refers to Messianic Jews winning a tax case. Are you now saying Messianic Jews are Christians?

It's good to see that you now seem to believe that Muslims do not believe Jesus is the Son of God. Thank you.

Getting back to the topic. Are you now able to declare that salvation does not depend on believing Jesus is God? Or is it still up in the air for you? Either way is OK with me. I just want to bring the discussion to a close now that all parties have had their say.

To be a "Jewish" organization, it must have a specific Jewish raison d'etre to be so. Even then, its "Jewishness" may be debatable. For example, say an organization is formed that requires members to be Jews and its purpose is to destroy Israel on behalf of Iran. Sound way out there? Sure. But not too far from Jews For Jesus whose purpose is believing Jesus is the Christian Messiah which is diametrically opposed to Jewish theology.To be Jewish is to claim to be a descendant of the original Jewish population of Israel. That being the case, Jews for Jesus are as Jewish as any other Jewish organization. Many Jews are strictly secular and have no real interest in Jewish theology.


Human beings say all sorts of things. How do you know what "all of them would say". Some Christians say snakes can talk. Are we all to believe that because they say it?Listen to their testimonies. See for yourself. I've never met a Christian who says snakes can talk.


Your link refers to Messianic Jews winning a tax case. Are you now saying Messianic Jews are Christians?Yes. They would as well. Practically all of the early Christians were Jews. It's not a startling suggestion. One can legitimately be both.


It's good to see that you now seem to believe that Muslims do not believe Jesus is the Son of God. Thank you.Never believed otherwise.

Never believed otherwise.

I thought I was replying to dwashbur. I'll have to be more careful in the future.

I thought I was replying to dwashbur. I'll have to be more careful in the future.I figured that was the case when you asked about the Muslim comment.

I would suggest care. Wouldn't want to have your thinking challenged in any serious way.

I thought I was replying to dwashbur. I'll have to be more careful in the future.

The structure of posts on this board can get confusing, no doubt about that.

The structure of posts on this board can get confusing, no doubt about that.

Except for this one time, I'm usually ok with the structure. What I LOVE about this board is the ability to proofread one's reply in the preview section which allows corrections, edits, and basically an improved post.


Wouldn't want to have your thinking challenged in any serious way.

I welcome challenges to my thinking, always have, serious or not serious. It is YOUR thinking I usually ignore, for the many reasons I have previously given you.

I'm sure you will reply, and I am just as sure I will continue to ignore you like others here have done. The life of a troll is lonely.

Can’t beat ‘em, ignore em.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
The structure of posts on this board can get confusing, no doubt about that.
Except for this one time, I'm usually ok with the structure. What I LOVE about this board is the ability to proofread one's reply in the preview section which allows corrections, edits, and basically an improved post.

The part I really don't like is when I go to make a separate post and it automatically tacks it onto the end of a previous one. I have yet to figure out how to get it to stop doing that.

The part I really don't like is when I go to make a separate post and it automatically tacks it onto the end of a previous one. I have yet to figure out how to get it to stop doing that.


Another small disagreement (smile). I like that feature - appeals to my sense of efficiency. The thing I dislike the most is the touchy moderation which is sometimes too quick on the trigger to close a thread.

Even worse is the moderator who arbitrarily deleted comments of mine because he personally did not like what I posted. My post was perfectly fine, mind you, he just didn't like it and gave that as his reason. This happened a long time ago and when I complained to "management", the person that I complained to was shocked and said he would look into right away and get back to me. He never got back to me.

The two moderators in question are still here, one still moderating and the other lurking, presumably.

The owner has always been excellent and helpful.

Getting back to the original question, my mind consistently comes back to Cornelius and his family. Peter didn't even get a chance to wrap up his sermon and give an invitation and the Spirit came on them, indicating that they were believers, they trusted Jesus.
The question then becomes, WHAT did they believe? What did their hearts latch onto that changed their lives? The crux of Peter's message seems to have usually been "God raised Jesus from the dead, and trusting in him brings forgiveness of your sins and the Holy Spirit." Nothing about Jesus being God, in fact Peter never seemed to address the question.
So I would have to say, does someone have to believe Jesus is God to be saved? No. Do they need to believe in his resurrection to be saved? Yes. What about people before his resurrection? I come back to the thief on the cross and the tax collector in the temple. God, be merciful to me, remember me when you come into your kingdom. On the other side we have the Sanhedrin, who spread a false rumor that the disciples stole the body. That's deliberate rejection, so they aren't saved.
Back to you, my friend.

Meanwhile, love one another.

So I would have to say, does someone have to believe Jesus is God to be saved? No.

I agree. My reasons are not the same as yours, but agreement nonetheless.


Do they need to believe in his resurrection to be saved? Yes.

Disagree. Isn't that essentially the same question, asked in a different way?


What about people before his resurrection? I come back to the thief on the cross and the tax collector in the temple. God, be merciful to me, remember me when you come into your kingdom.

And those a thousand years before Jesus? Ten thousand years? Those, post Jesus, who never heard of him? Or, having heard, did not believe? Like all the good Hindus, Jews, Muslims over the years?


On the other side we have the Sanhedrin, who spread a false rumor that the disciples stole the body.

How do we know they thought the rumor was false? Could they have believed it? Anyway, it's pretty much irrelevant re the topic.


That's deliberate rejection

Rejection vs. deliberate rejection. I'm not sure what non-deliberate rejection may be. Isn't all rejection deliberate?


so they aren't saved.

A clarification needed: does "aren't saved" therefore mean that they spend eternity in a fiery torture chamber created by an all-loving God? We're back to the beginning.

A clarification needed: does "aren't saved" therefore mean that they spend eternity in a fiery torture chamber created by an all-loving God? We're back to the beginning.
What about Purgatory, offering rethinking of all this and a second chance?

What about Purgatory, offering rethinking of all this and a second chance?

Purgatory (a kind of Hindu karma) makes a lot more sense than eternal hell. That God would be a "tough love" God, like a loving Father disciplining his children.

Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by Athos View Post
A clarification needed: does "aren't saved" therefore mean that they spend eternity in a fiery torture chamber created by an all-loving God? We're back to the beginning.
What about Purgatory, offering rethinking of all this and a second chance?

I have never seen any biblical evidence for such a place. Historically, it looks to me like purgatory is a theological construct invented to resolve certain knotty questions.


Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
So I would have to say, does someone have to believe Jesus is God to be saved? No.
I agree. My reasons are not the same as yours, but agreement nonetheless.

Do they need to believe in his resurrection to be saved? Yes.
Disagree. Isn't that essentially the same question, asked in a different way?

Not necessarily. See Arianism.

On the other side we have the Sanhedrin, who spread a false rumor that the disciples stole the body.
How do we know they thought the rumor was false? Could they have believed it? Anyway, it's pretty much irrelevant re the topic.

They said it was. They paid the guards to say it, when under ordinary circumstances the guards would have been executed for dereliction.
It's an example of deliberate knowing rejection. They knew. They chose to reject.

I have never seen any biblical evidence for such a place. Historically, it looks to me like purgatory is a theological construct invented to resolve certain knotty questions.

Not necessarily. See Arianism.

OK with Arianism and Purgatory and Sanhedrin - we're drifting again away from the topic.

You said that one does NOT have to believe Jesus is God in order to be saved (post # 53). You then followed that with saying one DOES have to believe in the resurrection to be saved.

Same questions - those who lived before and after the Resurrection, those who never heard of the resurrection, those who heard of the resurrection and have not believed by rejecting it both deliberately and non-deliberately - are these people saved or not saved?

The "not saved" answer means going to hell for eternal torture even though they may have lived good lives.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
I have never seen any biblical evidence for such a place. Historically, it looks to me like purgatory is a theological construct invented to resolve certain knotty questions.

Not necessarily. See Arianism.
OK with Arianism and Purgatory and Sanhedrin - we're drifting again away from the topic.

Purgatory, yes. The others, not really. You said believing he's God and believing in the resurrection are the same thing. Arianism shows they're not, because Arians believed in the resurrection but believed Jesus was a created being. JW's have a similar belief, though they have their own view of what constituted "resurrection".

I presented the Sanhedrin as an example of those who know the truth and choose to reject it. Yes, those people end up separated from God for eternity, whatever form that may ultimately take. Once again, the imagery we see in the Bible are attempts to describe the incomprehensible using familiar word pictures. I have no idea what the actual place is like and I don't intend to find out.

I've answered the other question many times, and the answer remains the same: God deals with individual hearts. How he does that with those who haven't heard, I repeat for the umpteenth time:

Idunno.

I get the feeling you're having trouble with the fact that I'm not a universalist.

I get the feeling you're having trouble with the fact that I'm not a universalist.

No, I'm having trouble with what I see as you circling around a simple question. The Sanhedrin, Arianism, etc. are examples.


You said believing he's God and believing in the resurrection are the same thing.

Not exactly. I said, "Isn't that essentially the same question, asked in a different way?" But OK, you're close enough.


Arianism shows they're not, because Arians believed in the resurrection but believed Jesus was a created being. JW's have a similar belief, though they have their own view of what constituted "resurrection".

Are you saying the Arian belief is your belief? Or that the Arian belief is the correct belief? If it's not one of those two reasons, I'm confused as to your purpose in bringing it up. I get their created being thing.


I presented the Sanhedrin as an example of those who know the truth and choose to reject it

Saying the disciples stole the body is hardly the same as knowing Jesus is God (or has risen) and rejecting that.


Yes, those people end up separated from God for eternity, whatever form that may ultimately take.

Ah, very good! This is the heart of the matter. "...whatever form that may ultimately take" leaves much room. I can accept that with the condition that God would never resort to an immoral form. Eternal torture as a penalty for simple ignorance is an immoral form.


Once again, the imagery we see in the Bible are attempts to describe the incomprehensible using familiar word pictures.

Agreed. That has been my position all along.


I have no idea what the actual place is like and I don't intend to find out.

Lol. It certainly is not like what sprung out of Dante's imagination, as brilliant as his poem is.


I've answered the other question many times, and the answer remains the same: God deals with individual hearts. How he does that with those who haven't heard, I repeat for the umpteenth time:

Idunno.

I respect your not knowing, but surely God would not do anything against his nature, like somethig evil or immoral?


I'm enjoying this - lots of fun, exercising the brain on a cold winter's night.

Arianism shows they're not, because Arians believed in the resurrection but believed Jesus was a created being. JW's have a similar belief, though they have their own view of what constituted "resurrection".
Are you saying the Arian belief is your belief? Or that the Arian belief is the correct belief? If it's not one of those two reasons, I'm confused as to your purpose in bringing it up. I get their created being thing.

I'm saying Arianism shows that it is possible to believe in the resurrection without believing he's God. Nothing more. I'm not an Arian, never have been, but I do believe they were saved.


Saying the disciples stole the body is hardly the same as knowing Jesus is God (or has risen) and rejecting that.

It is if they deliberately paid guards off and told them to spread the story. The guards knew better. And again, if that had really been the case, the guards would have forfeited their lives for letting it happen.


Ah, very good! This is the heart of the matter. "...whatever form that may ultimately take" leaves much room. I can accept that with the condition that God would never resort to an immoral form. Eternal torture as a penalty for simple ignorance is an immoral form.


Once again I'm going to suggest Randy Alcorn's book Deadline. The picture there is more in line with what I suspect. I can't honestly say "believe" because there's no way to know for sure. But his makes the most sense to me.


I respect your not knowing, but surely God would not do anything against his nature, like somethig evil or immoral?

Agreed, as long as God is the one who gets to define those terms. I see too many people on social media take the approach "I don't think this is right therefore God doesn't, either." I've seen someone do that about something as innocuous as baseball, to throw out a single example.



I'm enjoying this - lots of fun, exercising the brain on a cold winter's night.

Likewise.

fm Athos
Saying the disciples stole the body is hardly the same as knowing Jesus is God (or has risen) and rejecting that.


fm dwashbur
It is if they deliberately paid guards off and told them to spread the story.

In plain language, you are saying they knew Jesus was God since you wrote, "It is if they deliberately paid guards off and told them to spread the story.' I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this reads as they KNEW JESUS IS GOD because they deliberately paid guards off and told them to spread the story. Please forgive me, but I cannot make any sense out of that at all. I re-read it several times.


Once again I'm going to suggest Randy Alcorn's book Deadline.

The book is fiction which is ok. But I can't read an entire book to get your point. Can you just summarize in your own words what Alcorn is saying by citing the specifics of his meaning as expressed in the book?


fm Athos
I respect your not knowing, but surely God would not do anything against his nature, like somethig evil or immoral?

fm DW
Agreed, as long as God is the one who gets to define those terms.

This reads like an evasion. Let me ask it as directly as possible.

Do you think it is immoral or evil to punish someone with excruciating pain for all eternity in a fiery torture chamber because A) they did not believe in Jesus as God, B) they never heard of Jesus in the first place, or 3) they heard of Jesus but rejected his Godhood because they preferred their own beliefs about God as Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Aztecs?

Do you think God would see it as evil or immoral? NOTE: I am not asking you what God would do. I am asking you what you THINK God would do. I realize you can never perfectly know the mind of God, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what YOUR belief is about what you believe God would do. Whew! Hope that's finally clear.


I see too many people on social media take the approach "I don't think this is right therefore God doesn't, either."

That is clearly NOT the issue here.


I've seen someone do that about something as innocuous as baseball, to throw out a single example.

Throwing out your single example to offer support to your position is not a good way to offer support. I don't deny your experience but you need more than unsupported anecdotes to be convincing.

Athos
fm Athos
Saying the disciples stole the body is hardly the same as knowing Jesus is God (or has risen) and rejecting that.


fm dwashbur
It is if they deliberately paid guards off and told them to spread the story.
In plain language, you are saying they knew Jesus was God since you wrote, "It is if they deliberately paid guards off and told them to spread the story.' I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this reads as they KNEW JESUS IS GOD because they deliberately paid guards off and told them to spread the story. Please forgive me, but I cannot make any sense out of that at all. I re-read it several times.


I mean they denied the resurrection. The guards reported what happened and the Sanhedrin paid them to lie about it.
Believing the resurrection and believing Jesus is God are two different things. I believe I've answered your questions about both.
I don't know why examples are lost on you, but so be it.

I mean they denied the resurrection. The guards reported what happened and the Sanhedrin paid them to lie about it.

I see the above as another evasion. Here is the part evaded,


Let me ask it as directly as possible.

Do you think it is immoral or evil to punish someone with excruciating pain for all eternity in a fiery torture chamber because A) they did not believe in Jesus as God, B) they never heard of Jesus in the first place, or 3) they heard of Jesus but rejected his Godhood because they preferred their own beliefs about God as Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Aztecs?

Do you think God would see it as evil or immoral? NOTE: I am not asking you what God would do. I am asking you what you THINK God would do. I realize you can never perfectly know the mind of God, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what YOUR belief is about what you believe God would do. Whew! Hope that's finally clear.


You did not answer the above, and you also wrote,


Believing the resurrection and believing Jesus is God are two different things. I believe I've answered your questions about both.

I didn't think your answer was correct – about having answered both questions - so I went back and read several of your comments/replies.

I did this because I wanted to make sure I wasn't saying you wrote something you didn't write. Here's what I found going back to December. I didn't go further back or copy more since I thought this exchange below was definitive re your position.


Post 163 in thread “To Hell With Hell”

Replying to my post that behavior determines heaven or hell and belief has nothing to do with it, you wrote,


I accept Jesus' statements that he's the only way, and belief - a terrible word for it in today's American English, "trust" would be much better - in him is crucial to reconciliation with God.

I followed up with,

Thank you for replying.

A follow-up question: How then do you explain the millions who lived before Jesus and never heard of him? And the billions who lived since Jesus and never heard of him? Does Jesus' statement that he's the only way, and is crucial to reconciliation with God apply to those groups? Do they go to hell?

You answered, (Post #217)

En masse? No. God deals with individual hearts. Paul addressed this in Acts 17:

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

Obviously they can't repent toward something they haven't heard, so every person who looked at their culture's idol deity and said "I don't want to worship a rock. I want to know who made the rock" God will be merciful because they're doing the best they can to trust in him.

The above seemed like a contradictory evasion to me. God commanding all people everywhere to repent, then being merciful to any who were not repenting but doing the best they can.

Then, from me, I'm sure you've heard this before and I anticipate your answer.

Another thought is: If they go to hell for not accepting Jesus/God, why did Jesus/God create them in the first place, knowing they would spend eternity in terrible suffering? Being omniscient, Jesus/God must have foreseen that they would be sinners or non-believers, but he created them anyway.

You replied,

Foreknowledge need not be causation. But to address your question directly, after decades of study I have come to a definitive conclusion:

I don't know.

I replied,

When foreknowledge is combined with the power of creation, it definitely IS causation.


There is more but let me leave it at that. While appreciating your being candid saying you don't know, I was left with a lingering impression of evasion and not quite getting a direct answer to the questions listed above from my most recent post.

If you wish to leave the questions up in the air, I am fine with that.

You did not answer the above

I was left with a lingering impression of evasion and not quite getting a direct answer to the questions listed aboveWelcome to my world.

Believing the resurrection and believing Jesus is God are two different things. I believe I've answered your questions about both.

I didn't think your answer was correct – about having answered both questions - so I went back and read several of your comments/replies.


I'm trying to stick to the topic in the subject line. We have a wonderful habit of going down rabbit holes.

I'm trying to stick to the topic in the subject line. We have a wonderful habit of going down rabbit holes.

I'm still waiting for your reply to the original topic.


Do you think it is immoral or evil to punish someone with excruciating pain for all eternity in a fiery torture chamber because A) they did not believe in Jesus as God, B) they never heard of Jesus in the first place, or 3) they heard of Jesus but rejected his Godhood because they preferred their own beliefs about God as Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Aztecs?

Do you think God would see it as evil or immoral? NOTE: I am not asking you what God would do. I am asking you what you THINK God would do. I realize you can never perfectly know the mind of God, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what YOUR belief is about what you believe God would do. Whew! Hope that's finally clear.


If you wish to leave the questions up in the air, I am fine with that. I'm working on another idea about Christianity that you may find worthwhile replying to. Maybe tomorrow, if time allows.

Long time ago, I was accused here of being anti-Christian. I hope by now it's plain that my Christianity posts are mostly about the non-Christian additions that have been added over the centuries often obscuring the core message.

my Christianity posts are mostly about the non-Christian additions that have been added over the centuries often obscuring the core message.Except that you have no evidence for that. I asked you once how you could tell which NT passages were not genuine. You replied that you had read the NT so many times that you had essentially developed a feel for it. That is far removed from having any real support for suggesting the NT is full of incorrect material added later by prejudiced scribes.

And of course he will not reply to this, but I post it in case others are following this discussion and need to know this. Any "non-Christian additions" that had been added over centuries would be apparent by comparing early NT manuscripts with later ones. His allegation is, on the whole, false. He has no support for it.

Pardon my round shoulders, but this was the original topic, as taken from the first post of the thread:


No Resurrection, No Faith?
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 “If Christ has not been raised then our preaching is useless, and your believing it is useless. Indeed, if our hope in Christ has been for this life only, we are the most unfortunate of all people” (1 Corinthians 15: 14-19).

Christ's preaching included many parables and lessons that are familiar to all. The Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, the Prodigal Son, etc., to name only a few of the more famous ones.

Is Paul saying these things are now useless if Christ has not risen from the dead? Does this mean Paul is denying the validity of the moral teachings to stand on their own unless Jesus rose from the dead?

Pardon my round shoulders, but this was the original topic, as taken from the first post of the thread:

Sorry, you're right. When I went back into my profile looking at your answers, I mixed up two different threads.

The questions left hanging shall remain hanging.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Pardon my round shoulders, but this was the original topic, as taken from the first post of the thread:
Sorry, you're right. When I went back into my profile looking at your answers, I mixed up two different threads.

The questions left hanging shall remain hanging.

Or bounced to a new thread...

Or bounced to a new thread...

Good idea. Why didn't I think of that? I don't know, I said to myself.