Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you know the God who sent Krishna, is not the same God who sent Jesus later?
That is totally the opposite of what Bible teaches. There was many many Prophets who came before Jesus who show the Right Way of God.
Because he tells us in his word WHO he sent, WHEN, to WHOM, and for WHAT purpose. Krishna was neither a god, nor a prophet of God the bible. The bible also tells us what (who) we need to attain salvation, and again Krishna is not a factor.
How is it "out of context". I'm applying it to the context of the statement that immediately precedes it. In what other context should I be taking it? And, what is your interpretation of this statement if mine is out of context?
That's exactly what the scripture means. Nobody is good compared to God according to the scripture.
I agree. However, that doesn't mean that we apply the Hebrew Scriptures in all aspects of our lives today for the simple fact that we are not the Hebrews. The Hebrew Scriptures were given to the Israelites, not the Gentiles and not Christians. Christ's sacrifice on the cross freed us from the Law of Moses, so much of the Hebrew scriptures no longer apply to us today. But this is all getting a bit off topic. Show me where my interpretation is inconsistent or out of context with another scripture in the bible, then you will have made your point.
That's like asking me why do I believe that Christ was the Son of God, or why I believe in resurrection. You're asking me questions in an attempt to reconcile your understanding with bible scripture. It ultimately comes down to whether or not you believe the bible, or reject it. I assure you there is an answer to everything that you asked so far, and I'd be perfectly happy to debate those issues on a separate thread. But I don't want to hijack this thread. The topic here is whether or not we have an immortal soul. And my answer is that we do not (according to the words of scripture).
Yes, and the bible mentions each of them BY NAME, describes the nature of their mission, and ultimately relates it back to him in some way, or the prophecy of the messiah Jesus Christ. Kirshna is not one of them, nor does the bible teach anything about him. Therefore it is Kirshna as his own god that is totally the opposite of what the bible teaches.
Just because Krishna was not mentioned in Bible does not mean, He was not a Manifestation of God or a Prophet.
Your assumption here is that the Bible was meant to contain the names of all Manifestations of God and His Prophets. That assumption is not Biblical, as it was sent to the Israilites firstly, and the Messiah was propmised to them. So, it contains the names of Prophets as it relates to them only, not all other parts of the World.
Except that the bible already establishes that the dead cannot speak, think, act, remember or affect the world in any way.
Perhaps, but that's not what the bible says, therefore...
That's because it doesn't. Again, there is no scripture anywhere in the bible that describes a soul as "immortal". That is about as false a doctrine as trinity is.
Speculation is not evidence. More to the point, NONE of them were ever acknowledged to be the creator of the universe, or the creator of man. There is no indication that there are other "spiritual beings" besides God himself or his angels were ever identified as "true" gods. The bible makes it clear, over and over again that there is only ONE God, and one Lord. The commandment ensures that people honor that one God and not false gods. It is not an acknowledgement of the potential power or legitimacy of other gods.
But that's NOT what it says. That is you adding to the word of scripture. It merely says DON'T DO IT! If you believe the reason for that command is because it's possible to be done, then you're entitled to that belief and we'll agree to disagree. But that's not what the scripture actually says! I believe that the commandment is there because people engaged in these pagan practices which failed to give glory to God and dishonored him. And that is the value of the commandment. We shouldn't be reading into the "why" as much as you are because now you are depending upon your own understanding rather than what the Holy Spirit has given us. The bible says that the dead know nothing and have no further reward. The suggestion that they could be conjured back to life by a person is essentially blasphemy as far as I'm concerned.
Now you're moving the goal posts. I never claimed that there weren't other beings "called gods" in the bible. The issue is whether or not they were true gods, or false gods. And clearly, they were false gods with no power or authority over man (because there is only one). The "idea" is that gods like Zeus, Jupiter, and Thor don't really exist (even though they are called gods and people worshipped them as gods). The idea is that those gods were created by men, whereas the God of Abraham (Yahweh) is the creator OF man.
I've already answered that. A person who is brain dead has no consciousness. Therefore, their soul is "dead"! At that point you are just dealing with a body that may be kept alive on life support. So the answer according to my view of the soul is NO. Soul and consciousness are synonymous.
And I see your error. You place more faith in the traditions of man rather than the word of God. Just as long as we understand where each other is coming from now.
True. Your problem is, you haven't provided an alternative interpretation of the scripture in question. All you've said is that I've taken it out of context, without actually pointing to the "proper context" (according to you) or even telling us what your interpretation of "no one can come to the father except through me" is. It's very easy to just say I've taken something out of context. But if you don't qualify that statement, then it carries no weight. It's just an opinion at that point, which is no more valid than mine.
I am fully aware of WHAT "generation" Jesus spoke to, as well as how to apply his teachings in context with that. Your error is in assuming that his teachings CHANGE with each passing generation. THEY DON'T! From a scriptural standpoint, there are only TWO generations: the time BEFORE the messiah and the time AFTER. Before the messiah, the Jews were given the ten commandments, along with mosaic laws. Those laws were applicable to those generations from the time the law was given up until the sacrifice of the messiah. Now, we are under the new covenant of Christ, and his teachings and commandments are not conditional on the generations that follow. Can you find one scripture in the new testament indicates a teaching of Jesus Christ that "changes" with each passing generation?
I believe it does! :yes:
True. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ was given to US (ie: Jews and Gentiles who follow Christ). It also did not mention Krishna! If Krishna was so important, why wouldn't Jesus have mentioned him?
Why would God have sent Krishna to other people, then tell Christians that Jesus was the only way to the father? That makes no sense! Your interpretation requires a god who behaves illogically.
Prior do Jesus, the Israelites were the only ones who acknowledged the existence and authority of God. Gentiles were pagans who worshiped other Gods. The Jews were the chosen people, not Gentiles. It's not that God didn't care about the rest of humanity, it's that the rest of humanity didn't care about God.
You are quite mistaken my friend. Let me show you what else Jesus said:
I tend to agree with you. But I am hardly "mainstream" if you ask the typical mainstream Christian.
Correct. At least all of the ones relevant to humanity in terms of our salvation.
I've just provided scripture where Jesus specifically tells his disciples that the gospel is meant for all the nations of the world. Therefore, the assumption IS biblical.
You're reading WAY too much into that! Jesus' statement (along with the term "spiritually dead") is a metaphor.
It depends on the context of the specific scripture in question. As I said, spiritually dead is a metaphor for someone who has no spiritual connection to God, and is just living life in a mundane way to serve only himself. Such people express no faith and have no good works. As such, they are spiritually dead. But this does not imply that life and death are "relative" states, for they are not. They are actually absolute states if you are talking about it in the literal sense (ie: physical death).
That's not what the bible says. The bible says that the soul can DIE and be DESTROYED. Death by definition is the opposite of life, and the opposite of eternal life, is eternal death or eternal destruction.
I agree. And that's exactly what I believe happens. Your point?