Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Home - Jews for Jesus

Quote:

---

Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God, never have believed that,

---

I think that's pretty much right.

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

Messianic Jews in Israel Win Important Supreme Court Victory | CBN News

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

They have quite a number of testimonies here.

Home - Jews for Jesus

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Messianic Jews in Israel Win Important Supreme Court Victory | CBN News

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

To be Jewish is to claim to be a descendant of the original Jewish population of Israel. That being the case, Jews for Jesus are as Jewish as any other Jewish organization. Many Jews are strictly secular and have no real interest in Jewish theology.

Quote:

---

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

---

Listen to their testimonies. See for yourself. I've never met a Christian who says snakes can talk.

Quote:

---

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

---

Yes. They would as well. Practically all of the early Christians were Jews. It's not a startling suggestion. One can legitimately be both.

Quote:

---

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

---

Never believed otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Never believed otherwise.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

I figured that was the case when you asked about the Muslim comment.

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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

---

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

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

Can’t beat ‘em, ignore em.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

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

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

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

The owner has always been excellent and helpful.

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

Meanwhile, love one another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

That's deliberate rejection

---

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

Quote:

---

so they aren't saved.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

Not necessarily. See Arianism.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

Not necessarily. See Arianism.

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

Idunno.

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Agreed. That has been my position all along.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Idunno.

---

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


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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Likewise.

Quote:

---

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


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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

That is clearly NOT the issue here.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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


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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

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


Let me ask it as directly as possible.

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

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


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


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

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

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


Post 163 in thread “To Hell With Hell”

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


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

I followed up with,

Thank you for replying.

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

You answered, (Post #217)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You replied,

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

I don't know.

I replied,

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


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

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

Quote:

---

You did not answer the above

I was left with a lingering impression of evasion and not quite getting a direct answer to the questions listed above

---

Welcome to my world.

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

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


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

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


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

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

Quote:

---

my Christianity posts are mostly about the non-Christian additions that have been added over the centuries often obscuring the core message.

---

Except that you have no evidence for that. I asked you once how you could tell which NT passages were not genuine. You replied that you had read the NT so many times that you had essentially developed a feel for it. That is far removed from having any real support for suggesting the NT is full of incorrect material added later by prejudiced scribes.

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

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

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

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

The questions left hanging shall remain hanging.

Quote:

---

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

The questions left hanging shall remain hanging.

---

Or bounced to a new thread...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Or bounced to a new thread...

---

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