The question came to my mind after reading an email from my friend who is non-Christian. In the email he said that people were going to heaven even before Christ came on this earth. I know that there is no way we can go to heaven except through Jesus. I do not doubt it. Just curious to know that others who were not in the group of Isreal, how was Lord God bringing them to HIM like HE is doing now through Jesus.

Please read Hebrews 11. That should answer your questions. The magic word is "faith."

Triund,
One should remember that Jesus as the Word Of God was around since before time.
Also we know that there were people in heaven long before Jesus was born as a man, Jesus and named some Himself said so and named some of them.
Also keep in mind that Moses and Elijah were with Jesus at His transfiguration and both of them had been centuries dead of the body.
So the must have been in heaven long before the birth of Christ.
As Jesus said, God "Is the God of the living" not the dead and those that went to heaven before His birth were living.
So you can tell your email friend about that.
God was loving and merciful all throughout the bible as He is today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hi Triund

If you want to go by the Bible, Jesus specifically said that no man has gone to heaven. You can quibble about word meanings etc, but that is what he said.

The only scriptures we have that may confuse us is ones that say that some men were taken up into the heavens, which of course could mean into the heavens where birds fly so as to provide a means of escape for them so they would not die at that moment.

The other scripture has us considering a vision of Moses and Elijah with Jesus. You can believe that this vision contradicts Jesus word that no man has gone to heaven before him or you can believe that no man DID go to heaven before Jesus.

Jesus even spoke of John the Baptist being the greatest man on earth but even the lowest in heaven is greater than John. (John was dead at this time, so if you want to think that men went to heaven before Jesus, you would have to believe that John was not one of them.

Then of course, if people did go to heaven before Jesus came to earth, then there was nothing that had to be saved.

If they went to heaven before Jesus and they went to heaven after Jesus, then Jesus did nothing. Many will argue that it was the way in which they are saved that is different, but that is all said because they have to believe that men did go to heaven before Jesus.

Until Jesus died for us on the cross, there was no way we could get into heaven, that is why Jesus had to come and save us.

If he did not come and lay down his life for us, mankind would be doomed.

Jesus allowing us to be forgiven, gave us the resurrection.

Lazerus did not go to heaven, he was to remain in the ground until the last day when all from the tombs would hear Jesus voice and come out of the tombs.

Jesus death gave us salvation, gave us forgiveness so we could go to heaven.

Those who did not hear the word, but had good hearts would have been taken to heaven when Jesus opened the way.

Everyone had the chance to be forgiven and later go to heaven, but the Jews were chosen as God’s special people; to stand out from the rest. They had God’s teachings and guidance and so they also had great responsibility to do as he said.

The other nations did not have such responsibility; hence they were left to fend for themselves.

But they too were accepted into heaven when Jesus cleansed the sins of everyone; not just the Jews, not just Catholics, not just Protestants.

God is not partial, anyone can be a Jew. But if you take on the role of a Jew, you must also live up to his standards; that is the responsibility the modern day ‘Jew’ has to face.

Just curious to know that others who were not in the group of Isreal, how was Lord God bringing them to HIM like HE is doing now through Jesus.

The OT has many written words concerning God's communication to all souls. And it is also written that they were all led by the same spiritual Rock as we today, by following Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 10:1-2-3-4 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Christ Jesus was the WORD of God made flesh, and as it is written in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I know that there is no way we can go to heaven except through Jesus.

I'm sorry, but I have a MAJOR problem with that statement. If you want to say "I believe..." or "I have complete faith..." or "I have no doubt..." you will get no argument from me. But when you claim to "know" something that there is no absolute proof of I have to object. Especially when what you claim to know goes against what I and many others believe, I have to object.

Frankly, I don't believe in a heavenly paradise. But if one does exist, I strongly believe that it is not restricted to people who worship a certain way. I believe, as long as one follows what is often called the Judeo-Christian ethic, the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, etc. In other words, as long as one lives a good and moral life, then they will be admitted.

Hi Scottgem

The question then is ... what is a good and moral life?



While I don't disagree with what you wrote, I think I defined what I meant by a good and moral life. But I will take it one step further. One does not have to believe that Jesus was the son of God to follow his teachings about moral issues.

But if [a heavenly paradise] does exist, I strongly believe that it is not restricted to people who worship a certain way. I believe, as long as one follows what is often called the Judeo-Christian ethic, the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, etc. In other words, as long as one lives a good and moral life, then they will be admitted.
And maybe just maybe that is what belief in Jesus Christ really is, that it's all encompassing based on the Two Greatest Commandments, Love God and Love Each Other as manifested by each of us living "a good and moral life."

Jesus came as a sacrifice, to be the one to replace all of the animal sacrifice, Before Christ the Hebrew nation had a covenant and promise from God. They looked forward to his coming and acted on it though faith with the rules of the Old Testdment. Since Jesus fulfilled the promises of the bible, he finished what was started with the promises given to Adam.


And of course there were people in Heaven before Christ that is told and shown to us in the many stories of the Old Testement and of that in the New Testement

I will note "I Newten" this is Triund's thread, not yours, you were the one trying to move it to address your non related issues.

And it is your posts that have been deleted

Please do not try to run the boards and tell the OP that they need to address your issues.

Your obvious lack of Christian knowledge is annoying at best but you side track answers by moving in non related directions because of it.

I'm sorry, but I have a MAJOR problem with that statement. If you want to say "I believe..." or "I have complete faith..." or "I have no doubt..." you will get no argument from me. But when you claim to "know" something that there is no absolute proof of I have to object. Especially when what you claim to know goes against what I and many others believe, I have to object.

Jesus himself was the one who said that no one comes to the Father, i.e. can have eternal life, except through him. Either he was right, and no one can live a "good and moral" enough life to satisfy God's demands and hence the only way they can make it is through him, or he was wrong and his death was essentially pointless. Those are two diametrically opposite points of view and they can't both be correct.

Jesus himself was the one who said that no one comes to the Father, i.e. can have eternal life, except through him. Either he was right, and no one can live a "good and moral" enough life to satisfy God's demands and hence the only way they can make it is through him, or he was wrong and his death was essentially pointless. Those are two diametrically opposite points of view and they can't both be correct.

And what proof do you have that he actually said those words? Or that those words represent a reality? This goes back to the Rabbi Gelman column I posted in another thread. If you take the bible, literally, word for word, you will find several instances of diametrically opposite passages.

If you find comfort in your faith in Jesus and that by following his teachings and worshiping him as the son of God you will find salvation or heaven or whatever, then I'm happy for you. But the fact is that your belief in the Bible is a matter of faith, not provable fact. And as long as that is the case, you (nor anyone) cannot make it as a statement of fact. I'm not challenging your belief, I'm just challenging making a statement that it is established fact. Doing so challenges my beliefs. If it's wrong of me to challenge your beliefs, it's wrong for you to challenge mine.

And what proof do you have that he actually said those words? Or that those words represent a reality? This goes back to the Rabbi Gelman column I posted in another thread. If you take the bible, literally, word for word, you will find several instances of diametrically opposite passages.

If you find comfort in your faith in Jesus and that by following his teachings and worshiping him as the son of God you will find salvation or heaven or whatever, then I'm happy for you. But the fact is that your belief in the Bible is a matter of faith, not provable fact. And as long as that is the case, you (nor anyone) cannot make it as a statement of fact. I'm not challenging your belief, I'm just challenging making a statement that it is established fact. Doing so challenges my beliefs. If it's wrong of me to challenge your beliefs, it's wrong for you to challenge mine.

When did I say it's wrong for you to challenge my beliefs? I have never even hinted at such a thing.

Actually, my belief in the Bible is based on 30 years of intense study of the original languages, the histories behind the manuscripts, form- and redaction-critical examination, and all the rest. Be careful before you make such absolute statements about someone you don't know. I've spent my whole life digging into this from every angle I can find, and the fact is, those words are reliable. Some of the earliest and most reliable copies of the New Testament we have are from the gospel of John, and there's an unbroken succession of copies that all say the same thing in that passage. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show that they're *not* actual words that came from Jesus himself. You're free to disagree about that, of course, and as a patriotic American who believes in free speech, I will adamantly support your right to be wrong ;)

Fr Church

>I will note "I Newten" this is Triund's thread, not yours, you were the one trying to move it to address your non related issues.

And it is your posts that have been deleted>

What on earth are you on about?

You obviously found my post upsetting.

I also apologised to Triund for diverging, which is something I have never seen anyone else apologise for on this site.

I even saud that if anyone would like to answer my post they can start another thread.

What problem did you have with my thread Fr Chuck?

Is there ANY of my posts you would like to address?

Or do you just delete them?

Is this a Christian site or a Catholic site?

<And it is your posts that have been deleted>
What on earth are you on about?
It's good that you aren't complaining then.

I have never seen anyone else apologise for on this site.
I've been here nearly three years now. It happens all the time on most of the boards.

I even saud that if anyone would like to answer my post they can start another thread.
The rule is that one doesn't hijack someone else's thread. If one wants to bring in a new idea, it is up to that person to start a new thread.

Is this a Christian site or a Catholic site?
"Totally Christian -- and even more Christian than I gave it credit for in the beginning," responded the Protestant.

When did I say it's wrong for you to challenge my beliefs? I have never even hinted at such a thing.

Actually, my belief in the Bible is based on 30 years of intense study of the original languages, the histories behind the manuscripts, form- and redaction-critical examination, and all the rest. Be careful before you make such absolute statements about someone you don't know. I've spent my whole life digging into this from every angle I can find, and the fact is, those words are reliable. Some of the earliest and most reliable copies of the New Testament we have are from the gospel of John, and there's an unbroken succession of copies that all say the same thing in that passage. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show that they're *not* actual words that came from Jesus himself. You're free to disagree about that, of course, and as a patriotic American who believes in free speech, I will adamantly support your right to be wrong ;)

First, if you are so used to research then you should be more careful about questioning what someone says. I never said that you said it was wrong to challenge beliefs. But that IS what you are doing. According to what you just posted, the earliest documentation is from the gospel of John. Even if that is is accurate, then it's the word of John that Jesus said such, doesn't prove that Jesus said it. I'm not sure how you can state that it is fact. And you ignored the question if it being reality. I'm not saying they aren't the words from Jesus, just that there is no absolute proof they are. That leaves the burden of proof on anyone claiming they are. And, yet again, even if he did say it, what proof is there that its reality.

From what I know of the subject, the words New Testament was not written down until Emperor Constantinople 300 years AFTER the death of Jesus.

The only real fact here is that belief in the Bible is a matter of faith. That there is no absolute proof of any of it. If there were then everyone would follow the same religion. So when you state that the Bible is factual you challenge my belief that it is not.

Actually, my belief in the Bible is based on 30 years of intense study of the original languages, the histories behind the manuscripts, form- and redaction-critical examination, and all the rest.

Your "study" is not an argument based on reason. As you say, it's based on faith - not the same thing.


Be careful before you make such absolute statements about someone you don't know.

Aren't you doing the very same thing? Supporting his right to be "wrong"?


I've spent my whole life digging into this from every angle I can find, and the fact is, those words are reliable.

The "fact" is? You're confusing fact with your belief.


Some of the earliest and most reliable copies of the New Testament we have are from the gospel of John, and there's an unbroken succession of copies that all say the same thing in that passage.

You're not responding to Scott's point.


If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show that they're *not* actual words that came from Jesus himself.

Sorry, but you carry the burden. You cannot "prove" that they are the words of Jesus by challenging Scott to prove they are not. It doesn't work that way.

You are, however, entitled to believe anything you want. Belief is not the same as fact.

Fr Chuch

>I will note "I Newten" this is Triund's thread, not yours, you were the one trying to move it to address your non related issues.

And it is your posts that have been deleted>

What on earth are you on about?

You obviously found my post upsetting.

I also apologised to Triund for diverging, which is something I have never seen anyone else apologise for on this site.

I even saud that if anyone would like to answer my post they can start another thread.

What problem did you have with my thread Fr Chuck?

Is there ANY of my posts you would like to address?

Or do you just delete them?

Is this a Christian site or a Catholic site?


Talking about : I deleted two of your posts where you were demanding answers to your posts and complained about Truiund high jacking the thread,

I deleted posts that appear to be obvious trollish or trouble making, I have moved you to that opinion at this point

Yes, posts do normally say they are sorry and correct their behavior after getting both unofficial and official warnings about their attitude and their posts.

This is a Christian site, which includes Catholics since they are Christians, ( something you seem to refuse to accept)

Your posts are fairly obvious ideas from some of the christian cult teachings, anti catholic, anti jewish , don't accept the trinity and more.

Another issue you come acting like you want to learn what Christianity really is, but refuse to accept some of the basic teachings of it and act like you already know what it is.

So yes your behavior is for from acceptable, and you don't come on another persons thread and start demanding they answer your questions.

And before you answer this, don't, stick to the thread or don't post. All of your posts will be reviewed very closely.

First, if you are so used to research then you should be more careful about questioning what someone says. I never said that you said it was wrong to challenge beliefs. But that IS what you are doing. According to what you just posted, the earliest documentation is from the gospel of John. Even if that is is accurate, then it's the word of John that Jesus said such, doesn't prove that Jesus said it. I'm not sure how you can state that it is fact. And you ignored the question if it being reality. I'm not saying they aren't the words from Jesus, just that there is no absolute proof they are. That leaves the burden of proof on anyone claiming they are. And, yet again, even if he did say it, what proof is there that its reality.

Is it reality? That gets us way too far afield of the original topic, and should probably be a separate thread. It's clear that you want to reject the reports in the gospels, and that's your privilege. But historical investigation says otherwise.


From what I know of the subject, the words New Testament was not written down until Emperor Constantinople 300 years AFTER the death of Jesus.

Run that by me again??

The books of the New Testament were all written before the end of the first century, probably either by apostles of Jesus such as Peter and John, or by companions of apostles such as Luke and Mark. Even a scholar as liberal as John A. T. Robinson concluded that all the books, even the gospel of John and Revelation, were written before A. D. 70, the destruction of Jerusalem. I don't necessarily agree that the Johannine writings were that early, but it illustrates the point. I suspect you're thinking of the councils that established the canon, which is to say, which books actually belonged in the New Testament and which ones didn't qualify. But everything was written while the generation that knew Jesus was still around. There's a story that Constantine, after his conversion, commissioned the scribes in Alexandria to make 50 copies of the New Testament, so that may be what you're thinking of. But we have part of a copy of John's gospel that dates from A.D. 125, less than 40 years after it was probably written; we have papyrus copies of several of the gospels and epistles from the second century. The earliest complete copy of the New Testament that we have, Codex Sinaiticus, dates from somewhere around the fourth century, but comparison of it with the earlier papyrus copies shows that the vast majority of the New Testament text comes to us in the same form and words that the original authors wrote.


The only real fact here is that belief in the Bible is a matter of faith. That there is no absolute proof of any of it. If there were then everyone would follow the same religion. So when you state that the Bible is factual you challenge my belief that it is not.

To some extent, all historical conclusions are a matter of faith; we have to believe that the people who recorded events knew what they were talking about. That's as true of the New Testament as it is of Caesar's Gallic Wars or Thucydides' Peloponnesian War or anything else. Historical investigation of the New Testament shows that it is accurate; for a quick overview of just one of the gospels, see A. T. Robertson, Luke The Historian In The Light of Research. You can read it on Google books: Luke the historian, in the light of ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=P9oUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A.+T.+Robertson&lr=&cd=17#v=onepage&q&f=false)

And in historical investigation, "absolute proof" is a myth. But we can go with the probabilities, and the probabilities favor the accuracy of the New Testament. If you choose to believe otherwise, that's your prerogative. But it means your belief goes contrary to the evidence.

Your "study" is not an argument based on reason. As you say, it's based on faith - not the same thing.

That's not what I said. Please go back and read it again and realize that you got it backwards.

My belief is based on evidence. Blind faith is no faith at all, it's wishful thinking. I've asked the hard questions, that's why I went after those sciences I mentioned. You can try to redefine everything I do as faith if you want to, but you're wrong. I'm not a CSI, nor do I play one on television, but I follow the evidence wherever it leads. That's how I ended up where I am.

That's not what I said. Please go back and read it again and realize that you got it backwards.

My belief is based on evidence. Blind faith is no faith at all, it's wishful thinking. I've asked the hard questions, that's why I went after those sciences I mentioned. You can try to redefine everything I do as faith if you want to, but you're wrong. I'm not a CSI, nor do I play one on television, but I follow the evidence wherever it leads. That's how I ended up where I am.

I'm sorry Dwashbur, but your posts are not evidence. They are evidence in the sense that what Jesus supposedly said has been reported since about 70AD or a bit earlier, but they are clearly not evidence of what Jesus actually said. I'm surprised you can't see the distinction.

Even if we had a manuscript from then (70AD - which we don't), you would still have to prove that Jesus' words are reported accurately. That was the gist of Scott's comments.

To analogize by citing Caesar or Thucydides simply falls flat. Neither book makes claims about God that people believe in today. That's the crux of the matter. It is one thing to believe Caesar's exploits, it is quite another to believe in Jesus being God.

All that is being said is that the belief that Jesus is God cannot be verified empirically. It is a question of faith, not proof.

You're beating a dead horse. When you try to apply rationality (reason, logic) to Jesus' divinity, you simply can't do it. Even if you had a tape recorder recording Jesus' every word, you would still have to prove the truth of what he said.

Belief in Jesus can be (and has been) a beautiful belief. In fact, that belief may be the essential beauty of it. But it is not, nor has it ever been, a provable truth.

Didn't Jesus himself say, "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed". He is talking about faith, not proof. If there were proof, what need of faith?

I'm sorry Dwashbur, but your posts are not evidence. They are evidence in the sense that what Jesus supposedly said has been reported since about 70AD or a bit earlier, but they are clearly not evidence of what Jesus actually said. I'm surprised you can't see the distinction.

Even if we had a manuscript from then (70AD - which we don't), you would still have to prove that Jesus' words are reported accurately. That was the gist of Scott's comments.

To analogize by citing Caesar or Thucydides simply falls flat. Neither book makes claims about God that people believe in today. That's the crux of the matter. It is one thing to believe Caesar's exploits, it is quite another to believe in Jesus being God.

All that is being said is that the belief that Jesus is God cannot be verified empirically. It is a question of faith, not proof.

You're beating a dead horse. When you try to apply rationality (reason, logic) to Jesus' divinity, you simply can't do it. Even if you had a tape recorder recording Jesus' every word, you would still have to prove the truth of what he said.

Belief in Jesus can be (and has been) a beautiful belief. In fact, that belief may be the essential beauty of it. But it is not, nor has it ever been, a provable truth.

Didn't Jesus himself say, "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed". He is talking about faith, not proof. If there were proof, what need of faith?

Whoa. You made a flying leap there. We were talking about the likelihood that what we have is Jesus' actual words, or an accurate representation thereof. Suddenly, you jumped off to the question of Jesus' divinity. That's a separate issue.

Whether a document talks about God or not has nothing to do with its historicity or accuracy; you pulled that out of your rationalism. There's not a separate category of history for "secular" and another for "sacred." History is history. If a historical record indicates words and events that mention a supreme being, or mention a claim by someone, or an event that can't be explained by natural means, you cannot legitimately relegate it to a ghetto of its own and make claims for it based on a separate set of rules. Either it's accurate or it's not; that's the question. How about we stick to that instead of making theological leaps that aren't part of the actual discussion?

There's a whole science of historical inquiry surrounding this stuff, but that too should probably go in a separate thread.

Did you read the Robertson book I gave you? If not, then you really aren't addressing the question of historicity. You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach.

And by the way, empiricism isn't applicable in historical science, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody who actually understands both disciplines.

Whoa. You made a flying leap there. We were talking about the likelihood that what we have is Jesus' actual words, or an accurate representation thereof. Suddenly, you jumped off to the question of Jesus' divinity. That's a separate issue.

Whether a document talks about God or not has nothing to do with its historicity or accuracy; you pulled that out of your rationalism. There's not a separate category of history for "secular" and another for "sacred." History is history. If a historical record indicates words and events that mention a supreme being, or mention a claim by someone, or an event that can't be explained by natural means, you cannot legitimately relegate it to a ghetto of its own and make claims for it based on a separate set of rules. Either it's accurate or it's not; that's the question. How about we stick to that instead of making theological leaps that aren't part of the actual discussion?

There's a whole science of historical inquiry surrounding this stuff, but that too should probably go in a separate thread.

Did you read the Robertson book I gave you? If not, then you really aren't addressing the question of historicity. You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach.

And by the way, empiricism isn't applicable in historical science, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody who actually understands both disciplines.

Good grief! I give up!

From long experience, I know that the discussion is over when the other side resorts to insults.

How about this - why don't you just post your position on a new thread, and we can all take it from there?

OK, I just did a little bit of research. From what I was able to tell from this, admittedly brief, research is that biblical scholars believe that the gospels you refer to where written from accounts of from John. So there are at least 2 degrees of separation here. There is still NO absolute proof that this was the word of Jesus. Even 70 years is a long time to recall something that was said at the time. Nor did I find total agreement as to what the gospels represent.

Now you make a valid point that many historical accounts from anytime prior to the Renaissance are taken with a degree of faith. But then I never said otherwise. And, in making that analogy, you prove my point.

I have raised TWO issues here. First, that there is no absolute proof that Jesus actually said that the only path to heaven was belief and worship of him as the son of god. I will point out that the gospels and the New Testament were the writings of people trying to establish a new religion. It makes perfect sense to me that they would make it appear the road to heaven was only available to those who believed.

The second issue was that the God, as depicted in the Old and New Testaments would require such a condition. My point was that belief in both issues was a matter of faith, NOT absolute fact. Nothing you have said proves otherwise. If and when you have absolute, irrefutable proof of BOTH those issues, I will be glad to listen to it. Until that time, your belief in the Bible as the word of God is just that, belief! I never said "blind" faith. Obviously the research you have done convinces you. But just as obviously not everyone is convinced by that evidence. I am not convinced and choose to believe something different. I am entitled to my beliefs just as much as you are entitled to yours. And, as long as that is the case, I will protest whenever someone posts that they "know" something for which there is not absolute proof.

Good grief! I give up!

From long experience, I know that the discussion is over when the other side resorts to insults.

How about this - why don't you just post your position on a new thread, and we can all take it from there?

Where exactly did I engage in insults?

OK, I just did a little bit of research. From what I was able to tell from this, admittedly brief, research is that biblical scholars believe that the gospels you refer to where written from accounts of from John. So there are at least 2 degrees of separation here. There is still NO absolute proof that this was the word of Jesus. Even 70 years is a long time to recall something that was said at the time. Nor did I find total agreement as to what the gospels represent.

Now you make a valid point that many historical accounts from anytime prior to the Renaissance are taken with a degree of faith. But then I never said otherwise. And, in making that analogy, you prove my point.

I have raised TWO issues here. First, that there is no absolute proof that Jesus actually said that the only path to heaven was belief and worship of him as the son of god. I will point out that the gospels and the New Testament were the writings of people trying to establish a new religion. It makes perfect sense to me that they would make it appear the road to heaven was only available to those who believed.

In that kind of context, I can see why this would make perfect sense to you. And yes, there's no "absolute proof." I already acknowledged that such a thing is impossible with history, especially ancient, perhaps even pre-printing-press history. Considering that there are still those who deny things like the Holocaust, maybe it's not possible even with recent history. My point is, when you want "absolute proof" you're asking for the impossible. Setting up an impossible truth-condition isn't a valid philosophical method of inquiry, as you undoubtedly already know. The best we can do is examine the evidence and weigh the probabilities. If, after that kind of examination, you come to a different conclusion, I have no problem with that. I just want to be sure we're both playing by the same rules.


The second issue was that the God, as depicted in the Old and New Testaments would require such a condition. My point was that belief in both issues was a matter of faith, NOT absolute fact. Nothing you have said proves otherwise. If and when you have absolute, irrefutable proof of BOTH those issues, I will be glad to listen to it. Until that time, your belief in the Bible as the word of God is just that, belief! I never said "blind" faith. Obviously the research you have done convinces you. But just as obviously not everyone is convinced by that evidence. I am not convinced and choose to believe something different. I am entitled to my beliefs just as much as you are entitled to yours. And, as long as that is the case, I will protest whenever someone posts that they "know" something for which there is not absolute proof.

Again, we both know there's no such thing as absolute proof in a situation like this. If you want to nail me on the point that I may have said I "know" something of this type, fine, you got me. The probability is that he said those things, since the evidence points that way, and if he said those things, either he was right or he was wrong. My point was that we can't have it both ways.

The original topic assumes that a) he said it, and b) he was right. We have now taken things miles away from that starting-point, and I'm not sure it's a legitimate thing for us to do. The question was, within that assumed starting-point, what happened to people before Jesus? Perhaps we should let the subject get back to that.

Afterthought: 70 years is not correct. It's more like 40-50 for John, even less for the other gospels, and less than 10 years for the beginning of Paul's work. So the whole New Testament is well within a single generation's time-span.

I Newton,
Jesus said that no man has ascended to heaven.
That does NOT mean that people were not taken to heaven or that their souls were not taken to heaven.
The bible clearly tells us that some were.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Where exactly did I engage in insults?

How about condescending remarks?

".. should be obvious to anybody who...[whatever].

"If you did not read the book I gave you..." Huh? What the hell are you talking about? You never gave me any book!

"You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach."

Seems like a convenient way to get out of an uncomfortable discussion.

Not all of us here are overwhelmed by your "30 years of study", but I certainly congratulate you for your persistence.

LOL.
That is SOMETIMES the case but not always.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

... And yes, there's no "absolute proof."... The best we can do is examine the evidence and weigh the probabilities...


Again, we both know there's no such thing as absolute proof in a situation like this...

Finally! It was like pulling teeth.


My point was that we can't have it both ways.



Indeed!

My point is, when you want "absolute proof" you're asking for the impossible. Setting up an impossible truth-condition isn't a valid philosophical method of inquiry, .

No, not asking for the impossible. I can say; "I know if I drop an object it will fall to the ground" or "I know if I ingest some food it will be digested un my body, with the nutrients being absorbed and the waste expelled" These are absolute truths that we have all experienced. The problem is I didn't set the condition, the OP did. The OP stated; "I know..." something that was impossible for him to "know". That (and only that) was what I objected to. You then wasted our time by trying to prove something you now admit is impossible to prove, thereby validating what I said. Had you approached it differently by saying; "this is why I believe..." I would have reacted differently.

Just as you said I shouldn't judge someone I don't know, n either should you. Don't assume one hasn't taken into account the evidence you have.

So yes, let's return the thread to the OP. My point has been made and verified

Athos,
UIt seems to me that it is standard knowledge that thing of spiritual fail cannot have an absolute proof scientific or otherwise.
But there is some evidence of spirituality out there and there is philosophically some of the same.
However there are those folks in quantum math and mechanics who do claim that their studies and figures do very strongly indicate a supreme being of extremely great intelligence.
So as time goes on just maybe some scientific proof of God may come forth.
Then there's the folks in physics who are now looking for what they call the God particle using the super collider in Europe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

...You then wasted our time by trying to prove something you now admit is impossible to prove, thereby validating what I said. Had you approached it differently by saying; "this is why I believe..." I would have reacted differently.

My point has been made and verified

Bingo!

Please see my Tolstoy quote below this reply.

How about condescending remarks?

".. should be obvious to anybody who...[whatever].


Why don't you finish the sentence? It's true.


"If you did not read the book I gave you..." Huh? What the hell are you talking about? You never gave me any book!

Oops. You're right; it was Scottgem I suggested it to. So here you go:

Luke the historian, in the light of ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=P9oUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A.+T.+Robertson&lr=&cd=17#v=onepage&q&f=false)


"You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach."

Seems like a convenient way to get out of an uncomfortable discussion.


You can call it whatever you like. It doesn't change the truth of what I said.



Not all of us here are overwhelmed by your "30 years of study", but I certainly congratulate you for your persistence.

I couldn't care less if you or anybody else is "overwhelmed." The goal in mentioning it is to show that I've done at least as much homework as anybody else. Let's talk about condescending: anybody who believes something other than you do is just going on faith; the obvious implication is that they haven't really thought it through like you have; that's condescending to the max. My point is that some of us *have* thought it through, and have come to different conclusions than you have, based on evidence and not just on faith or wishful thinking.

Athos,
UIt seems to me that it is standard knowledge that thing of spiritual fail cannot have an absolute proof scientific or otherwise.
But there is some evidence of spirituality out there and there is philosophically some of the same.
However there are those folks in quantum math and mechanics who do claim that their studies and figures do very strongly indicate a supreme being of extremely great intelligence.
So as time goes on just maybe some scientific proof of God may come forth.
Then there's the folks in physics who are now looking for what they call the God particle using the super collider in Europe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

True enough, Arcura. Trying to prove the spiritual by the non-spiritual is a chasing after the wind. That was the point we were trying to make.

I'd be interested in hearing about the folks whose studies claim a supreme being of great intelligence.

dwashbur,
You have been making some very good points.
Keep up the good work.
I like to see them.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

No, not asking for the impossible. I can say; "I know if I drop an object it will fall to the ground" or "I know if I ingest some food it will be digested un my body, with the nutrients being absorbed and the waste expelled" These are absolute truths that we have all experienced.

This really gets tiring. Why don't you address ALL of what I said? I said that IN HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION, IN HISTORICAL SCIENCE, absolute proof is impossible. History by its very nature has to use a different set of rules. Your examples are meaningless for studying history, because an event like the fall of Rome or the Persians taking
Babylon without a fight can't be repeated. Hence, in history there's no such thing as absolute proof, and hence asking for it is setting up an impossible condition. QED.


The problem is I didn't set the condition, the OP did. The OP stated; "I know..." something that was impossible for him to "know". That (and only that) was what I objected to. You then wasted our time by trying to prove something you now admit is impossible to prove, thereby validating what I said. Had you approached it differently by saying; "this is why I believe..." I would have reacted differently.

Once again, the study of history requires a different set of rules and truth conditions. If you can't accept that, then it's your problem, not mine and not the OP's.


Just as you said I shouldn't judge someone I don't know, n either should you. Don't assume one hasn't taken into account the evidence you have.

But you haven't. You have tried to subject the historical evidence to impossible criteria. If you look at it according to the accepted rules of actual historical science, you might or might not come to a different conclusion. But at least the playing field would be level.


So yes, let's return the thread to the OP. My point has been made and verified

Don't flatter yourself. I'm happy to return to the OP's topic, but you haven't verified anything except that history is not a repeatable science, which is a bit like saying "blue is blue." Let's get back to it within the parameters set up by the OP.

Let's talk about condescending: anybody who believes something other than you do is just going on faith;

Dwashbur -- Time to give it up. You've been shown to be wrong (by your own words) and yet you persist.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that those who believe something other than me is just going on faith.

I understand you're being emotional, but you're just digging that ditch deeper.

Be a man, lick your wounds, and trot on home. We've all been where you are now, and tomorrow will be a new day.

Athos,
I read about such folks in Astronomy magazine and the book "Exploring Reality" by John Polkinghorne that goes into that subject. "The intertwining of Science and Religion".
What is interesting is that he is a physicist who was so convinced that he became an Anglican priest.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Dwashbur -- Time to give it up. You've been shown to be wrong (by your own words) and yet you persist.

If that's what you need to get through the day, feel free to believe it.


Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that those who believe something other than me is just going on faith.

Your repeated emphasis on the idea that it's all a matter of faith because history can't give you your precious "absolute proof" carries the clear implication that you have something those with "faith" don't. Whether you mean it that way or not is irrelevant, the connotation is there.


I understand you're being emotional, but you're just digging that ditch deeper.

So, because I ask you to address what I actually wrote rather than taking a snippet out of context in order to "win," that's getting emotional. Whatever.


Be a man, lick your wounds, and trot on home. We've all been where you are now, and tomorrow will be a new day.

This is the guy who calls me "condescending" and "emotional." If that's not condescending, there's no such thing, and it's obviously an emotional outburst. Pot and kettle, my friend. Feel free to have the last word.

Athos,
I read about such folks in Astronomy magazine and the book "Exploring Reality" by John Polkinghorne that goes into that subject. "The intertwining of Science and Religion".
What is interesting is that he is a physicist who was so convinced that he became an Anglican priest.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Teilhard de Chardin came to a similar conclusion. There are many ways to approach ultimate truth.

If that's what you need to get through the day, feel free to believe it.



Your repeated emphasis on the idea that it's all a matter of faith because history can't give you your precious "absolute proof" carries the clear implication that you have something those with "faith" don't. Whether you mean it that way or not is irrelevant, the connotation is there.



So, because I ask you to address what I actually wrote rather than taking a snippet out of context in order to "win," that's getting emotional. Whatever.



This is the guy who calls me "condescending" and "emotional." If that's not condescending, there's no such thing, and it's obviously an emotional outburst. Pot and kettle, my friend. Feel free to have the last word.

Ok, I'll take the last word - thanks.

I'm truly sorry for upsetting you. That was never my intention. I respect your belief. I even have beliefs of my own that lack proof or evidence. When I offer them, I say as much and never claim they are "true" in any sense other than my own believing.

When people say, "You can't prove that", I agree, tip my hat, and go on my way. But my beliefs remain my beliefs.

This really gets tiring.
Yes this really is getting tiresome. I tend to be very precise in my use of the language. The fact is, a fact you have agreed with, is that there is great difficulty in providing absolute proof in historical records. The older the record the greater the difficulty to the point that it becomes impossible. So we agree on that point.

Where we continue to disagree is your statement that historical study requires a different set of rules. Historical study has to contend with this fact, but that doesn't mean there are different rules. It means the historian has to couch his comments by saying," I believe..." or "the evidence shows ME that..." or similar qualifications. That is the point I was making to the OP. One cannot "know" something that is a matter of opinion not fact.

For you to continue to claim that the above point has not been verified by your own words, is ridiculous. You are setting up your own rules for discussion, just as I did. But since I opened that part of the discussion, you have to deal with the rules I established.

The question came to my mind after reading an email from my friend who is non-Christian. In the email he said that people were going to heaven even before Christ came on this earth. I know that there is no way we can go to heaven except through Jesus. I do not doubt it. Just curious to know that others who were not in the group of Isreal, how was Lord God bringing them to HIM like HE is doing now through Jesus.

Triund,
Before Moses, it was a matter of faith. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Joseph trusted God and was used to rescue his family from a famine and establish them in a place where they could grow into a nation. As for people who weren't part of Israel, look no further than Ruth. When decision time came, she chose to go with Naomi and follow Naomi's God. That trust earned her a place as one of three women mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus. Rahab is another good example; she realized the God of Israel was the one to follow and acted on her belief by hiding Joshua's spies and helping them escape.

When Moses brought the law down from Sinai and they built the tabernacle - and later the temple in Jerusalem - numerous sacrifices and rites were established. We now know, looking back from the New Testament, that those sacrifices etc. were looking ahead to the Ultimate sacrifice in Jesus himself. When someone trusted in the sacrifice that God had ordained to provide forgiveness for their sins, it was an act of faith and they were in fact forgiven, based on the Sacrifice that was to come. Again, we can only know this in retrospect, but the best we can gather, that's how it worked. Getting right with God and hence going to heaven at death has always been a matter of faith. The faith needed has always been based on the amount of revelation God has given people up to that time.

An excellent question!

Hi Triund


[QUOTE]If you want to go by the Bible, Jesus specifically said that no man has gone to heaven. You can quibble about word meanings etc, but that is what he said.



Please provide the actual scripture to back up your claim where Jesus specifically said that.



The only scriptures we have that may confuse us is ones that say that some men were taken up into the heavens, which of course could mean into the heavens where birds fly so as to provide a means of escape for them so they would not die at that moment.

If you are confused about what the scriptures say it is because you don't understand how to rightly divide the word of truth. My Bible says this:

1Corithinans 2:14 For God is not the author of confusion


The other scripture has us considering a vision of Moses and Elijah with Jesus. You can believe that this vision contradicts Jesus word that no man has gone to heaven before him or you can believe that no man DID go to heaven before Jesus.

HUH? Scripture please... back it up. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. I really need the scripture you are referring to where Jesus said no one has gone to heaven before him. BACK up your statements please.



Jesus even spoke of John the Baptist being the greatest man on earth but even the lowest in heaven is greater than John. (John was dead at this time, so if you want to think that men went to heaven before Jesus, you would have to believe that John was not one of them


HUH?



Then of course, if people did go to heaven before Jesus came to earth, then there was nothing that had to be saved.

?


Lazerus did not go to heaven, he was to remain in the ground until the last day when all from the tombs would hear Jesus voice and come out of the tombs.

Jesus death gave us salvation, gave us forgiveness so we could go to heaven.

Those who did not hear the word, but had good hearts would have been taken to heaven when Jesus opened the way.

Everyone had the chance to be forgiven and later go to heaven, but the Jews were chosen as God's special people; to stand out from the rest. They had God's teachings and guidance and so they also had great responsibility to do as he said.

The other nations did not have such responsibility; hence they were left to fend for themselves.

But they too were accepted into heaven when Jesus cleansed the sins of everyone; not just the Jews, not just Catholics, not just Protestants.

God is not partial, anyone can be a Jew. But if you take on the role of a Jew, you must also live up to his standards; that is the responsibility the modern day 'Jew' has to face.


What in the WORLD are you talking about. You aren't backing anything up with scripture. I don't know what you mean about Lazarus remained dead in the ground and the tomb... huh? What?

I Newton, please back up the things you say with scripture. I don't understand what you are saying but it sure isn't from the Bible.

We now know, ...

Wrong! You should have said; some (even many) now BELIEVE...


we can only know this in retrospect, but the best we can gather, that's how it worked.

Again wrong! You should have said: Christians believe this in retrospect, based on the writings in the New Testament that's how it worked.



Getting right with God and hence going to heaven at death has always been a matter of faith. The faith needed has always been based on the amount of revelation God has given people up to that time.

Now that is right on!

Truind,

From what I can see in scripture before the death and resurrection of Christ all of the people who had faith in God were covered because of their faith. They went to a place called "paradise". That is what the Lord Jesus called it on the cross when he told the thief beside him... "today thou shalt be with me in paradise' see Luke 23:43

The Lord Jesus also told us this:

Luke 16:22The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, He ( the rich man) went to hell, where he was constantly tortured. As he looked up, in the distance he saw Abraham and Lazarus ( the poor man)24 He yelled, 'Father Abraham! Have mercy on me! Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water to cool off my tongue. I am suffering in this fire.'"Abraham replied, 'Remember, my child, that you had a life filled with good times, while Lazarus' life was filled with misery. Now he has peace here, while you suffer.Besides, a wide area separates us. People couldn't cross it in either direction even if they wanted to.]

I believe this is a picture of where the people who had died before the resurrection of Christ went. One side was paradise, the other side was a place of torment and they couldn't cross over.

Check out what Samuel said to Saul when he had a witch bring Samuel back after he had physcially died:
1 Samuel 28:15
Why have you disturbed me by calling me back?" Samuel asked Saul. ( samuel was obviously alive spirtually speaking and didn't appreciate the disturbance.)

Jesus also told the Jews when they were questioning about ressurection this :

Mark 12:26Now about the dead rising--have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken.

Also David after he lost his first baby with Bathseheba said this:

But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Samuel 12:23 So this baby went somewhere and David knew he'd be there with him someday...

So, Check it out. Jesus tells the thief beside him on the cross that he would be with him that very day in Paradise. ( That was before the resurrection of Christ)

The Lord Jesus tells us that God is the God of the Living.. not the dead. So where were these people who had faith and died before the resurrection??

Well according to the Lord Jesus: a place called paradise. These men and women of faith were waiting for the Lord to die and rise again so they could be taken to God the Father. Which is where anyone now who has faith in Christ Jesus goes... according to the N.T.scriptures. The Apsotle Paul puts it this way for believers in Christ... to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. 2 Corthians 5:8

I'm sorry, but I have a MAJOR problem with that statement. If you want to say "I believe..." or "I have complete faith..." or "I have no doubt..." you will get no argument from me. But when you claim to "know" something that there is no absolute proof of I have to object. Especially when what you claim to know goes against what I and many others believe, I have to object.

Frankly, I don't believe in a heavenly paradise. But if one does exist, I strongly believe that it is not restricted to people who worship a certain way. I believe, as long as one follows what is often called the Judeo-Christian ethic, the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, etc. In other words, as long as one lives a good and moral life, then they will be admitted.

With all due regards, I want to let you know that I fully understand the words know, faith and belief. The base of usage of word "know" is rooted in the Bible. I do not know what is Jesus to you. But for me HE other than HIS other attributes, is very strong and the most talked about historical figure too. And if you do not recognise Jesus' historical attribute on this earth, then I do not think I should go further on explaining why I used "know".

I do not know what are your beliefs and faiths but I never try to be disrespectful to anybody. You can check my posts on this site. You enjoy your beliefs and I very satisfied with mine. God be with you.

Please provide the actual scripture to back up your claim where Jesus specifically said that.



Classy (and you do live up to your name!),
He's referring to John 3:13. Of course, as usual, he's ripping it totally out of context and wresting it to his own destruction, but that's the verse he's talking about.

Classy (and you do live up to your name!),
He's referring to John 3:13. Of course, as usual, he's ripping it totally out of context and wresting it to his own destruction, but that's the verse he's talking about.

AHHHH OK... gotcha now. Laughing at the picture you just painted ripping and wrestling... too funny. Ha ha. Thanks!

Truind,

I am so sorry. I didn't answer your question because I misread it. I thought you were asking if people actually went to heaven.. or where they went... duh. Sometimes I am goofy at best.

Actually, it is a good question. For the most part God was dealing with the children of Israel. But we see all through the OT Gentiles who had faith in God too. Check out Rahab.. she was a harlot and then there is Ruth. By the time the Lord got through with Old King Nebby in Daniel, I believe HE had faith in God. Gentiles had to get there the same way as the Jews... by faith.

Scott and Athos, are you both language teachers? Folks, thank you for giving some language tips. ;) It is never my intention to win an argument or hurt any body's beliefs.

I am not learned and not an expert in the Christianity and the Bible. I am learning and pretty satisfied with my journey. Just wish me luck that I could grow stronger in my faith. I am fully aware that the path I am walking on is totally faith based and I am walking by having faith on Lord Jesus. HE does not talk to me, HE does not give me everyday directions and does not tell me how to handle a crucial situation. But I know HE is there. Sorry, buddies, no proof again. :o In this walk there isn't any empirical data to lead the way because it is not CSI. The Bible is still the highest selling book with millions copies being sold every year. Billions have already been sold. That's why I know what Jesus said is true. Even if you want to call it blind faith, I would accept. At least, I would have a chance for Jesus to work on me and open my eyes. On the flip side, let's take for argument sake, if billions of people are going to doom because they read wrong book, then I will have big company in hell, I won't be alone. God be with you

Thanks to Dave and ClassyT who helped me to understand how God was saving people before HE gave us the name of Jesus. The Old Testament tells us about the people who knew God and whom God knew. The mention of people in the Bible start from Adam and Eve and then moves on to Cain and Able and then their descents and so on. It does not talk about other children of Adam and Eve. Therefore, I understand that there is another stream of people who are not in the frame of the Bible. There is mention of these people in the Bible though.

This question came to my mind because, I know people who have come to Christian fold from other religions. Some of them tell their stories of having an encounter with Jesus. Many of them were hardcore against Christians and Christ. And now their faith on Lord Jesus is much stronger than some of the old Christians. Hence I was wondering that was Lord God personally talking to those who were in the other stream or was HE sending Jesus as Angel to them? Because pre-destination thing did not originate in New Testament. Or was it that God was only taking care of HIS Chosen Ones and later HE sent Jesus to save Gentiles too?

Hi All.

I don't wish to have the last word over Triund but perhaps we could sum up the disagreements in this way:

It is a matter of fact that Jesus said certain things in the Bible. Either he did or he didn't. If he did then we can ask the question. 'is what he said true or false? If it is false then our faith is misplaced. If it is true then our faith will be rewarded.

If Jesus didn't say these words then it is a matter of fact that someone or some people put these words into his mouth. The truth value of the words is not depended on who said them. In other words, the statement that no one can go to the Father except through Jesus will turn out to be true of false regardless of who said them.


Tut

With all due regards, I want to let you know that I fully understand the words know, faith and belief. The base of usage of word "know" is rooted in the Bible. I do not know what is Jesus to you. But for me HE other than HIS other attributes, is very strong and the most talked about historical figure too. And if you do not recognise Jesus' historical attribute on this earth, then I do not think I should go further on explaining why I used "know".

I do not know what are your beliefs and faiths but I never try to be disrespectful to anybody. You can check my posts on this site. You enjoy your beliefs and I very satisfied with mine. God be with you.

First, I don't think you have been disrectful at all.

Second, The only biblical use of the word know that I am aware refers to sexual intimacy.

Yes, I do recognize Jesus' "historicall attributes". Clearly he was one of the most, if not the most, influential person in history. But "know" something, is to be able to prove it. And the fact is there is not absolute proof for you to say that you "know". Again, you can qualify this by saying you believe or even you "know in your heart" or some other such qualifier. But when you say you "know" something that can't be proven you are denying the beliefs of others who do not believe as you do.



Scott and Athos, are you both language teachers? Folks, thankyou for giving some language tips. ;) It is never my intention to win an arguement or hurt any body's beliefs.

I am not learned and not an expert in the Christianity and the Bible. I am learning and pretty satisfied with my journey. Just wish me luck that I could grow stronger in my faith. I am fully aware that the path I am walking on is totally faith based and I am walking by having faith on Lord Jesus. HE does not talk to me, HE does not give me everyday directions and does not tell me how to handle a crucial situation. But I know HE is there. Sorry, buddies, no proof again. :o In this walk there isn't any empirical data to lead the way because it is not CSI. The Bible is still the highest selling book with millions copies being sold every year. Billions have already been sold. That's why I know what Jesus said is true. Even if you want to call it blind faith, I would accept. At least, I would have a chance for Jesus to work on me and open my eyes. On the flip side, let's take for arguement sake, if billions of people are going to doom because they read wrong book, then I will have big company in hell, I won't be alone. God be with you

I am very happy that you have found faith and that you are comforted by that faith. But don't tell me that you can know something that there is no absolute proof of. I cannot accept that. Besides which it challenges my beliefs and the beliefs of millions of others.

Scott and Athos, are you both language teachers? Folks, thankyou for giving some language tips. ;) It is never my intention to win an arguement or hurt any body's beliefs.

I am not learned and not an expert in the Christianity and the Bible. I am learning and pretty satisfied with my journey. Just wish me luck that I could grow stronger in my faith. I am fully aware that the path I am walking on is totally faith based and I am walking by having faith on Lord Jesus. HE does not talk to me, HE does not give me everyday directions and does not tell me how to handle a crucial situation. But I know HE is there. Sorry, buddies, no proof again. :o In this walk there isn't any empirical data to lead the way because it is not CSI. The Bible is still the highest selling book with millions copies being sold every year. Billions have already been sold. That's why I know what Jesus said is true. Even if you want to call it blind faith, I would accept. At least, I would have a chance for Jesus to work on me and open my eyes. On the flip side, let's take for arguement sake, if billions of people are going to doom because they read wrong book, then I will have big company in hell, I won't be alone. God be with you

I couldn't agree more. Philosophical hair-splitting over words aside, I know as well. I've had my crisis of faith and emerged stronger out the other side, by God's grace. The New Testament tells us repeatedly that we CAN know that Jesus is Lord, that we CAN know that we have life in his name, that we CAN know we belong to him, and so on and so on and so on. There are those who redefine the word "know" according to certain philosophical assumptions, then try to shove their definition at us. The funny part about that is, there's no way to verify empirically that their definition is the right one!

I admire your strength, Triund. I think we can both say with Paul,

I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day. (2 Ti 1:12)

It ain't always easy to hang on, but that's why certainty is so important.

classyT agrees : I agree with you ! We are on a Christian forum... why do we need to clarify something we have settled in our hearts as the absolute truth?

This is a forum to discuss Christianity. It is not a forum of, for and by Christians. This is true of all the religious forums on this site. You do not need to clarify what you have believe, but you can not parade your beliefs as absolute truth, when there are others who are just as entitled to their beliefs.

I don't claim to know that Jesus wasn't who he allegedly claimed he was or whether what he is attributed as saying is not the truth. This is because there is no absolute evidence to support either argument. My problem is when someone claims to know a fact for which there is no absolute proof.

The funny part about that is, there's no way to verify empirically that their definition is the right one!


I agree, just as there is no way to verify empirically that yours is the right one. Which is why its not correct to state something as a fact, that can't be proven.

I agree, just as there is no way to verify empirically that yours is the right one. Which is why its not correct to state something as a fact, that can't be proven.

http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/banghead.gif
http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

Thanks to Dave and ClassyT who helped me to understand how God was saving people before HE gave us the name of Jesus. The Old Testament tells us about the people who knew God and whom God knew. The mention of people in the Bible start from Adam and Eve and then moves on to Cain and Able and then their descents and so on. It does not talk about other children of Adam and Eve. Therefore, I understand that there is another stream of people who are not in the frame of the Bible. There is mention of these people in the Bible though.

This question came to my mind because, I know people who have come to Christian fold from other religions. Some of them tell their stories of having an encounter with Jesus. Many of them were hardcore against Christians and Christ. And now their faith on Lord Jesus is much stronger than some of the old Christians. Hence I was wondering that was Lord God personally talking to those who were in the other stream or was HE sending Jesus as Angel to them? Because pre-destination thing did not originate in New Testament. Or was it that God was only taking care of HIS Chosen Ones and later HE sent Jesus to save Gentiles too?

I'm glad we could help. Could you expand on this last part a bit? I'm especially interested in what they meant by "an encounter with Jesus."

I'm glad we could help. Could you expand on this last part a bit? I'm especially interested in what they meant by "an encounter with Jesus."

Hey Dave, I will try to explain you the word "encounter", but you have to excuse me if this does not click with your definition of encounter;):D.

I know a pastor who shares Jesus with South Asians. He records their testimonies and make DVDs. In those testimonies, people tell their experience about how they became Christians when they were very staunch believers in other faiths and religions. Some said they saw a bright light in their room, some said they heard their names called, some talked to some voice and got the answers which tells us about Jesus and so on. Other than that, I listen to a lot of Christian radio, watch TV and use internet a lot to listen to people's testimonies. There had been lots of cases in Iran, where Islamic priests have visioned Jesus and they left Islam and became Christians. Many people in North America have their testimonies about their life which was in the dark, but they got called and they came to light. On Youtube one can find tons of testimonies. Now if one wants to argue about the authenticity of the truth those people are speaking, I have no proof. However, if they are giving me wrong picture, then they would have no answer when they would be asked by Lord God that who told them to give false testimonies on HIS name. Let God deal with them.

Another thing what I learnt is that in Old Testament, it was Jesus who met with people and talked to them. Feel free to correct me that Angel who would talk to people was Jesus, whereas other angels who carried God's message was not Jesus. I am talking about Angel who wrestled with Jacob, one who was in the burning bush with Moses. (Help me or correct me with more incidences). Looking at the cases in OT and incidences from today`s life, I say people having "encounter with Jesus".

This has been interesting so far but...
If it keeps up it will be going now where.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I think Triund's original question has been adequately answered. I had mentioned the faith chapter in Hebrews, and others chimed in with similar passages and also the word "faith." Maybe this thread has completed its mission?

Hey Dave, I will try to explain you the word "encounter", but you have to excuse me if this does not click with your definition of encounter;):D.

In a context like this, I don't have a definition. I figure he's God and I'm not and he can do what he bloomin' well wants to. I'm interested in stories like these, that's why I asked.


I know a pastor who shares Jesus with South Asians. He records their testimonies and make DVDs. In those testimonies, people tell their experience about how they became Christians when they were very staunch believers in other faiths and religions. Some said they saw a bright light in their room, some said they heard their names called, some talked to some voice and got the answers which tells us about Jesus and so on. Other than that, I listen to a lot of Christian radio, watch TV and use internet a lot to listen to people's testimonies. There had been lots of cases in Iran, where Islamic priests have visioned Jesus and they left Islam and became Christians. Many people in North America have their testimonies about their life which was in the dark, but they got called and they came to light. On Youtube one can find tons of testimonies. Now if one wants to argue about the authenticity of the truth those people are speaking, I have no proof. However, if they are giving me wrong picture, then they would have no answer when they would be asked by Lord God that who told them to give false testimonies on HIS name. Let God deal with them.

Another thing what I learnt is that in Old Testament, it was Jesus who met with people and talked to them. Feel free to correct me that Angel who would talk to people was Jesus, whereas other angels who carried God's message was not Jesus. I am talking about Angel who wrestled with Jacob, one who was in the burning bush with Moses. (Help me or correct me with more incidences). Looking at the cases in OT and incidences from today`s life, I say people having "encounter with Jesus".

Thanks for sharing those. I see now where your question came from. Hopefully it's been answered to your satisfaction :cool:

I have my own story, but that's for another time and another thread.

dwashbur,
Thanks for sharing that.
One of the mist famous encounter was when God (Jesus) and a couple of angels came to visit Abram who became Abraham
Abram has a bullock slaughter and much flower baked into bread for a feast and they ate it ALL.
Since the bible tells us that no one but Jesus has seen the Father any mention of someone seeing God in the O.T. they were seeing Jesus The Word in human form.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/banghead.gif
http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

Yes, I know that feeling. I get it when someone admits to the truth and then turns around and repeats the incorrect info.

dwashbur,
Thanks for sharing that.
One of the mist famous encounter was when God (Jesus) and a couple of angels came to visit Abram who became Abraham
Abram has a bullock slaughter and much flower baked into bread for a feast and they ate it ALL.
Since the bible tells us that no one but Jesus has seen the Father any mention of someone seeing God in the O.T. they were seeing Jesus The Word in human form.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, thanks a ton for sharing this. God bless you

I think Triund's original question has been adequately answered. I had mentioned the faith chapter in Hebrews, and others chimed in with similar passages and also the word "faith." Maybe this thread has completed its mission?

Thanks for sharing the Hebrew chapter. That was pretty helpful to reaffirm my faith in HIM. God bless you.

I got enough information that help me to see answer to the question. Everyone had been very helpful as usual to help me find answer to my question. God be with you all.

dwashbur,
Thanks for sharing that.
One of the mist famous encounter was when God (Jesus) and a couple of angels came to visit Abram who became Abraham
Abram has a bullock slaughter and much flower baked into bread for a feast and they ate it ALL.
Since the bible tells us that no one but Jesus has seen the Father any mention of someone seeing God in the O.T. they were seeing Jesus The Word in human form.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Genesis 19:17 (Complete Jewish Bible) When they had brought them out, he(singular) said, "Flee for your life! Don't look behind you, and don't stop anywhere in the plain, but escape to the hills! Otherwise you will be swept away." 18 Lot said to them(plural), "Please, no, my lord(singular)!
Although they are two they speak as one and Lot replies to them as my lord! Who are those two men, and who is the one left behind to speak with Abraham?
24 Then ADONAI caused sulfur and fire to rain down upon S'dom and 'Amora from ADONAI out of the sky. An Adonai (Lord) caused sulfur and fire to rain down upon S'dom and 'Amora from an ADONAI out of the sky. A Lord here on earth caused sulfur and fire to fall upon Sodom and Gommorah from a Lord from the heavens. So those two men were not just angels they were the Son and the Holy Spirit incarnated.That brings on the next question!Who was the one talking to Abraham? Could it be the Father? Don't say no too fast! Before you say that no one has seen the Father and lived remember that Moses saw His back.What we can't see is the Father's face and Abraham did not see His face , he just saw the face of a man that he recognized that was God!
So to me it makes more sense saying that the three men going to Abraham were the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the form of men.And when we see a man we cannot die!

Brother Adam,
I understand what you ate saying and you have no argument with me about that.
There are some who think that the person who went with Lot were angels.
Really I do not know but your thought holds as much water or more than them being angels.
I do think that Jesus did appear at times in the Old Testament.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Genesis 19:17 (Complete Jewish Bible) When they had brought them out, he(singular) said, "Flee for your life! Don't look behind you, and don't stop anywhere in the plain, but escape to the hills! Otherwise you will be swept away." 18 Lot said to them(plural), "Please, no, my lord(singular)!
Although they are two they speak as one and Lot replies to them as my lord! Who are those two men, and who is the one left behind to speak with Abraham?

Actually, the vowels indicate "lords," plural. OTOH, in the next verse every time Lot says "you" it's in the singular.


24 Then ADONAI caused sulfur and fire to rain down upon S'dom and 'Amora from ADONAI out of the sky. An Adonai (Lord) caused sulfur and fire to rain down upon S'dom and 'Amora from an ADONAI out of the sky. A Lord here on earth caused sulfur and fire to fall upon Sodom and Gommorah from a Lord from the heavens. So those two men were not just angels they were the Son and the Holy Spirit incarnated.

Not really. Lot calls them Adonai, "my lords," whereas the ADONAI in verse 24ff is YHWH, the divine name. There does seem to be a distinction, and the two individuals are more likely angels. Note that in verse 13 one of them says "the LORD has sent us here to destroy it (Sodom)." As far as I know, the Holy Spirit is never recorded as taking any solid form, much less human.

dwashbur,
Thanks much for that.
I do agree.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

dwashbur
Genesis 19:17 When they had brought them out, he said, "Flee for your life! Don't look behind you, and don't stop anywhere in the plain, but escape to the hills! Otherwise you will be swept away." 18 Lot said to them, "Please, no, my lord! Although they are two and the text calls them angels, Lot calls them My lord! And in verse 21 He(the lord) replied... We see Lot talking to a lord and we see a lord talking back to him. I am not convinced that those two angels(messengers) were just angelic beings.I could be wrong but I at the moment doubt that.
Luke 3:22 the Ruach HaKodesh( Holy Spirit) came down on him in physical form like a dove;
Here we see the Holy Spirit taking a solid physical form.
You wrote.. Note that in verse 13 one of them says "the LORD has sent us here to destroy it (Sodom)" meaning if I am not mistaken that since they were sent they could not have been the Son and the Holy Spirit but read this in Isaiah 48:16 "Come close to me, and listen to this: since the beginning I have not spoken in secret, since the time things began to be, I have been there; and now Adonai ELOHIM has sent me and his Spirit. This is clearly The Son speaking and saying that God sent Him and His Spirit.When you send someone on your behalf those people are called messengers which in Greek is aggeloi which in English is angels!
As for this.. Actually, the vowels indicate "lords," plural. OTOH, in the next verse every time Lot says "you" it's in the singular.. I have written..
Although they are two they speak as one and Lot replies to them as my lord! Who are those two men, and who is the one left behind to speak with Abraham? So I really don't see what you are trying to say so please help me out here with that.

dwashbur
Genesis 19:17 When they had brought them out, he said, "Flee for your life! Don't look behind you, and don't stop anywhere in the plain, but escape to the hills! Otherwise you will be swept away." 18 Lot said to them, "Please, no, my lord! Although they are two and the text calls them angels, Lot calls them My lord! And in verse 21 He(the lord) replied... We see Lot talking to a lord and we see a lord talking back to him. I am not convinced that those two angels(messengers) were just angelic beings.I could be wrong but I at the moment doubt that.

I already answered this. First, the vowel points indicate "lords" plural. Did you not see that? Second, this expression "my lord" was pretty much the equivalent of "sir," kind of like the German expression "mein Herr." It didn't necessarily have anything to do with THE Lord.


Luke 3:22 the Ruach HaKodesh( Holy Spirit) came down on him in physical form like a dove;
Here we see the Holy Spirit taking a solid physical form.

The parallel in Mark 1:10 indicates that Jesus was the only one who saw it. Likewise for Matt 3:16. The wording of Luke 3:22 suggests the same thing: Jesus was the only one who saw the dove-like appearance of the Holy Spirit as it descended on him. Also, the Greek of the phrase "in bodily form" suggests that it only seemed to have a body like a dove, i.e. "in a bodily appearance" or "in a visible form," which is to say it appeared in a way that he could see, however briefly, so that it was clear what was happening. It's a far cry from the idea that one of the messengers Lot met was the Holy Spirit in human form.

I don't have a serious problem with the idea, I just don't think the text really supports it.

Brother adam,
I am convinced that the beings with Lot were angels.
Also keep in mind what the town people wanted to do with them.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The parallel in Mark 1:10 indicates that Jesus was the only one who saw it. Likewise for Matt 3:16. The wording of Luke 3:22 suggests the same thing: Jesus was the only one who saw the dove-like appearance of the Holy Spirit as it descended on him.
John 1: 32 Then Yochanan( John the baptist) gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit coming down from heaven like a dove, and remaining on him. 33 I myself did not know who he was, but the one who sent me to immerse in water said to me, `The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining, this is the one who immerses in the Ruach HaKodesh.'
It was not only Jesus who saw the Spirit. John saw the Spirit too as it is written Deuteronomy 19:15 at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established .
Please take the time and read this http://aramaicnt.com/files/Abraham%20worships%20The%20Trinity.pdf by David Bauscher.
Abraham worships all three men, but if one of them was an angel surely Abraham would have been corrected and instructed not to do so as it happened with John the disciple in the book of Revelation. The three men answer as one in a unity that no angel can participate but only the divine persons of the Godhead.
Genesis 18:20 ADONAI said, "The outcry against S'dom and 'Amora is so great and their sin so serious 21 that I will now go down and see whether their deeds warrant the outcry that has reached me; if not, I will know." But on the next verse.. 22 The men turned away from there and went toward S'dom, but Avraham remained standing before ADONAI. This doesn't make sense,Adonai says that He will go down and see but then He stays back and talks to Abraham while two men go down.Those two men are not just two angelic beings, they are the Presences of God and the Presences of God are always the Son and the Spirit, because where the Presence of God is,there God is!

I already answered this. First, the vowel points indicate "lords" plural. Did you not see that? Second, this expression "my lord" was pretty much the equivalent of "sir," kind of like the German expression "mein Herr." It didn't necessarily have anything to do with THE Lord.

Lot calls them Jehovah and not just lord, according to the original text.The scribes changed the Tetragrammaton name of God YHWH to Adonai which means Lord out of respect to God's Holy name so today in many places in the Bible where people referred to the Godhead with the Holy name we see it not written so but instead we see Lord.The Massorete scribes have kept a record, the Massorah in which every change like that is recorded.
The Aramaic text translated in plain English by David Bauscher is very helpful.

Adam7,
Thanks much for that information.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Lot calls them Jehovah and not just lord, according to the original text.The scribes changed the Tetragrammaton name of God YHWH to Adonai which means Lord out of respect to God's Holy name so today in many places in the Bible where people referred to the Godhead with the Holy name we see it not written so but instead we see Lord.The Massorete scribes have kept a record, the Massorah in which every change like that is recorded.
The Aramaic text translated in plain English by David Bauscher is very helpful.

You are flat wrong about this. There is nothing in the Masorah about such a change in Gen 19. If you have such a reference, cite it because I'm looking at the Masoretic text, marginal notes and all, and there isn't any.

And the Aramaic text is secondary. The Targums that we have were made somewhere in the intertestamental period, and the manuscripts we have are centuries later than that. We know what the Hebrew text said, and your notion that the text was changed here is way off base.

You are flat wrong about this. There is nothing in the Masorah about such a change in Gen 19. If you have such a reference, cite it because I'm looking at the Masoretic text, marginal notes and all, and there isn't any.


Read this on page 38
http://www.isr-messianic.org/downloads/hrv_intro.pdf

Following is a list of these 134 places, according to Gins. Mas, Vol. I, pp. 25, 26, [section] 115:
Ge 18:3,27,30,31,32; 19:18; 20:4;
Ex 4:10,13; 5:22; 15:17; 34:9,9;
Nu 14:17;
Jos 7:8;
Jg 6:15; 13:8;
1 Ki 3:10,15; 22:6;
2 Ki 7:6; 19:23;
Ezr 10:3;
Ne 1:11; 4:14;
Job 28:28;
Ps 2:4; 16:2; 22:30; 30:8; 35:17,22,23; 37:13; 38:9,15.22; 39:7; 40:17; 44:23; 51:15; 54:4; 55:9; 57:9; 59:11; 62:12; 66:18; 68:11,17,19,22,26,32; 73:20; 77:2,7; 78:65; 79:12; 86:3,4,5,8,9,12,15; 89:49,50; 90:1,17; 110:5; 130:2,3,6;
Isa 3:17,18; 4:4; 6:1,8,11; 7:14,20; 8:7; 9:8,17; 10:12; 11:11; 21:6,8,16; 28:2; 29:13; 30:20; 37:24; 38:14,16; 49:14;
La 1:14,15,15; 2:1,2,5,7,18,19,20; 3:31,36,37,58;
Eze 18:25,29; 21:9; 33:17,20;
Da 1:2; 9:3,4,7,9,15,16,17,19,19,19;
Am 5:16; 7:7,8; 9;1;
Mic 1:2;
Zec 9:4;
Mal 1:12,14.

Read this on page 38
http://www.isr-messianic.org/downloads/hrv_intro.pdf

Following is a list of these 134 places, according to Gins. Mas, Vol. I, pp. 25, 26, [section] 115:
Ge 18:3,27,30,31,32; 19:18; 20:4;
Ex 4:10,13; 5:22; 15:17; 34:9,9;
Nu 14:17;
Jos 7:8;
Jg 6:15; 13:8;
1 Ki 3:10,15; 22:6;
2 Ki 7:6; 19:23;
Ezr 10:3;
Ne 1:11; 4:14;
Job 28:28;
Ps 2:4; 16:2; 22:30; 30:8; 35:17,22,23; 37:13; 38:9,15.22; 39:7; 40:17; 44:23; 51:15; 54:4; 55:9; 57:9; 59:11; 62:12; 66:18; 68:11,17,19,22,26,32; 73:20; 77:2,7; 78:65; 79:12; 86:3,4,5,8,9,12,15; 89:49,50; 90:1,17; 110:5; 130:2,3,6;
Isa 3:17,18; 4:4; 6:1,8,11; 7:14,20; 8:7; 9:8,17; 10:12; 11:11; 21:6,8,16; 28:2; 29:13; 30:20; 37:24; 38:14,16; 49:14;
La 1:14,15,15; 2:1,2,5,7,18,19,20; 3:31,36,37,58;
Eze 18:25,29; 21:9; 33:17,20;
Da 1:2; 9:3,4,7,9,15,16,17,19,19,19;
Am 5:16; 7:7,8; 9;1;
Mic 1:2;
Zec 9:4;
Mal 1:12,14.

Curiouser and curiouser, because assuming that this is a correct representation of the Masorah (still checking that), the Dead Sea Scrolls consistently refute the notion. In every passage above that's preserved in them, they follow the Masoretic text in reading the general term Adonai rather than YHWH. To check them out yourself, see my book A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls, published by the Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature (http://www.sbl-site.org) and distributed by Eisenbrauns Eisenbrauns - Publishers, Booksellers, Typesetters - Specializing in the Ancient Near East and Biblical Studies (http://www.eisenbrauns.com). The Masorah is useful, but far from infallible. The oldest texts we have, and proper text-critical techniques, tell us this passage reads Adonai and not YHWH, and wishing will not make it otherwise.

I'll address the Masorah itself after more coffee...

The discussion between Adam and Dave is pretty interesting and intense too. And at the same time, it is very informative. God bless you both.

I am just wondering that when words mean so much and these experts are talking from the versions which are not English and still we see them not on the same page. Looking at this, what can we say about tons of English versions. And many of the latest versions have already been watered down. Last year I heard on the radio, I forgot which version, but the latest one is gender-sensitive. Why are people tempering with the Word. Why are people trimming Lord God to make HIM fit in their closets? Why are we trying to prove God as biased and unfair? I am not trying to give a new direction to the discussion. Just shared with you all what was on my heart.

יח וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט, אֲלֵהֶם: אַל-נָא, אֲדֹנָי. 18 And Lot said unto them: 'Oh, not so, my lord;
Here Lot speaks to the two men by calling them my lord.
כא וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו--הִנֵּה נָשָׂאתִי פָנֶיךָ, גַּם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה: לְבִלְתִּי הָפְכִּי אֶת-הָעִיר, אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ. 21 And he said unto him: 'See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city of which thou hast spoken.
Here one of the two men says that he has accepted Lot's request. Does this osund like an angel to you? What kind of an angel could ever do such thing without having a direct order from God? Could the angel here decide by himself whether to accept Lot's request? Doesn't this show that this angel has power to accept or to deny Lot's request? Since when do angels that are sent by God for a specific thing act like that?
כב מַהֵר, הִמָּלֵט שָׁמָּה, כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר, עַד-בֹּאֲךָ שָׁמָּה; עַל-כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם-הָעִיר, צוֹעַר. 22 Hasten thou, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither.'--Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
Here the angel says that he cannot do anything meaning he cannot destroy Sodom he cannot overthrow Sodom until Lot is safe but later כד וַיהוָה, הִמְטִיר עַל-סְדֹם וְעַל-עֲמֹרָה--גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ: מֵאֵת יְהוָה, מִן-הַשָּׁמָיִם. 24 Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;Here we have the Lord causing rain and brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven and no angel doing so.
כה וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת-הֶעָרִים הָאֵל, וְאֵת כָּל-הַכִּכָּר, וְאֵת כָּל-יֹשְׁבֵי הֶעָרִים, וְצֶמַח הָאֲדָמָה. 25 and He overthrow those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
He overthrow those cities, the Lord and not an angel.Earlier the angel said I cannot overthrow until you Lot are safe, and now we see that the Lord did overthrow those cities and destroyed them with rain and brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.
This is no way for an angelic being to speak or to behave.
I am sorry but the nature of the text does not convience me that those two men were angelic beings.
By the way, do you still believe that only Jesus saw the Spirit?
One more thing , I have not understood if you do not agree with the claim that the name of God was changed to Adonai or Elohim deliberetaly and if that change is misleading?

יח וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט, אֲלֵהֶם: אַל-נָא, אֲדֹנָי. 18 And Lot said unto them: 'Oh, not so, my lord;
Here Lot speaks to the two men by calling them my lord.
כא וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו--הִנֵּה נָשָׂאתִי פָנֶיךָ, גַּם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה: לְבִלְתִּי הָפְכִּי אֶת-הָעִיר, אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ. 21 And he said unto him: 'See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city of which thou hast spoken.
Here one of the two men says that he has accepted Lot's request. Does this osund like an angel to you? What kind of an angel could ever do such thing without having a direct order from God? Could the angel here decide by himself whether to accept Lot's request? Doesn't this show that this angel has power to accept or to deny Lot's request? Since when do angels that are sent by God for a specific thing act like that?

Angels can do a lot of things on their own. Notice the angel that spoke to Zechariah predicting John's birth; his job was to announce, but he took the initiative to strike Zechariah mute when Zech questioned him. It seems your view of angels is a little skewed.


כב מַהֵר, הִמָּלֵט שָׁמָּה, כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר, עַד-בֹּאֲךָ שָׁמָּה; עַל-כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם-הָעִיר, צוֹעַר. 22 Hasten thou, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither.'--Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
Here the angel says that he cannot do anything meaning he cannot destroy Sodom he cannot overthrow Sodom until Lot is safe but later [I]כד וַיהוָה, הִמְטִיר עַל-סְדֹם וְעַל-עֲמֹרָה--גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ: מֵאֵת יְהוָה, מִן-הַשָּׁמָיִם. 24 Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;Here we have the Lord causing rain and brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven and no angel doing so.

You're assuming what the angel meant by "do anything." For all you know, he meant "I can't report back to the LORD that everything is in readiness."

כה וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת-הֶעָרִים הָאֵל, וְאֵת כָּל-הַכִּכָּר, וְאֵת כָּל-יֹשְׁבֵי הֶעָרִים, וְצֶמַח הָאֲדָמָה.

[snip]


This is no way for an angelic being to speak or to behave.

Again, according to whom? We see angels doing a lot of really interesting things in the Bible, your arbitrary restrictions on them notwithstanding.


I am sorry but the nature of the text does not convience me that those two men were angelic beings.

I already told you I don't have a problem with that.


By the way, do you still believe that only Jesus saw the Spirit?

John saw a dove. That's as far as I can go.


One more thing , I have not understood if you do not agree with the claim that the name of God was changed to Adonai or Elohim deliberetaly and if that change is misleading?

I'm not entirely sure I follow that question, but if I'm reading it correctly, no, I do not believe such changes were made. The Dead Sea Scrolls show otherwise, among other things. I'm also not convinced that's actually what the Masora says, but I'm still trying to track that down. The file on my computer with the full Masora Magna on it seems to have vanished.

Read this on page 38
http://www.isr-messianic.org/downloads/hrv_intro.pdf

Following is a list of these 134 places, according to Gins. Mas, Vol. I, pp. 25, 26, [section] 115:
Ge 18:3,27,30,31,32; 19:18; 20:4;
Ex 4:10,13; 5:22; 15:17; 34:9,9;
Nu 14:17;
Jos 7:8;
Jg 6:15; 13:8;
1 Ki 3:10,15; 22:6;
2 Ki 7:6; 19:23;
Ezr 10:3;
Ne 1:11; 4:14;
Job 28:28;
Ps 2:4; 16:2; 22:30; 30:8; 35:17,22,23; 37:13; 38:9,15.22; 39:7; 40:17; 44:23; 51:15; 54:4; 55:9; 57:9; 59:11; 62:12; 66:18; 68:11,17,19,22,26,32; 73:20; 77:2,7; 78:65; 79:12; 86:3,4,5,8,9,12,15; 89:49,50; 90:1,17; 110:5; 130:2,3,6;
Isa 3:17,18; 4:4; 6:1,8,11; 7:14,20; 8:7; 9:8,17; 10:12; 11:11; 21:6,8,16; 28:2; 29:13; 30:20; 37:24; 38:14,16; 49:14;
La 1:14,15,15; 2:1,2,5,7,18,19,20; 3:31,36,37,58;
Eze 18:25,29; 21:9; 33:17,20;
Da 1:2; 9:3,4,7,9,15,16,17,19,19,19;
Am 5:16; 7:7,8; 9;1;
Mic 1:2;
Zec 9:4;
Mal 1:12,14.

Having now finally had a chance to check out the Masorah, your man on the web page is reading it wrong. It says nothing about a word substitution; all the Masorah says is that the word Adonai appears with this particular spelling 134 times.

Genesis 19 specifically calls these two individuals angels in verses 1 and 15. That's good enough for me.