• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Joe & Jane Schmoe and "Salvation"?

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Well, you seemingly imply that the Tanakh actually does substantiate it, but maybe Jane has thoroughly read the Tanakh but doesn't think it does.
Maybe Jane has set her own criteria for what she expects then; rather than examine what the text stipulated was to take place...

Since we can show how it does fulfill things as specified, the evidence speaks for its self...

If it doesn't add up somewhere, maybe we should examine if we've not understood it properly.
So, iyo, does that mean she's likely not gonna be "saved"?
Within Revelation 15:3, & Zechariah 8:6 these both say it is those who accept the 'Marvelous Work', which is a cryptic riddle throughout the Tanakh.
undoubtedly not.
She likes Yeshua; yet then doesn't accept his claims?

Yet why wouldn't she accept his claims, if they were understood properly? Other then lack of effort, which then question is because of not liking Yeshua enough....

If she was really that interested, she'd search out why it fits, otherwise she is basically saying Yeshua was lying about his claims. :innocent:
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Maybe Jane has set her own criteria for what she expects then; rather than examine what the text stipulated was to take place...
She likes Yeshua; yet then doesn't accept his claims?
But isn't it also possible those who may feel that Jesus was not the Messiah and not accept the idea that Jesus was a literal son of God may be right? I could get into this but I'm not going "there" for a couple of reasons, with one of them being that I don't want to get too far sidetracked from the OP.

If she was really that interested, she'd search out why it fits, otherwise she is basically saying Yeshua was lying about his claims.
If he actually made all such claims.

Scriptures by their nature are highly subjective, and also in this case written decades after the center of attention was gone, especially the gospels. Parsing what Jesus actually did say is quite difficult and subject to debate, and both Joe and Jane have some different takes, much like probably millions of Christians do.

Since this is rather obvious, unless on takes a literalistic position, then can't it be conceivable, and maybe even correct, that her position on Jesus' teachings of compassion and justice may be paramount to all else we read in the gospels? From John 3:16, the Sermon On the Mount, and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats, I think she can make a case for her position-- not to say that it's the correct one though.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
But isn't it also possible those who may feel that Jesus was not the Messiah and not accept the idea that Jesus was a literal son of God may be right?
Literal son of the Most High God, is what the text states.... Specifications of that are questionable...Currently questioning is Yeshua physically David to fulfill all prophecies to the letter.

'Feeling' Yeshua isn't the Messiah, isn't dealing with the Tanakh's specifications, we can go over them in detail if you're curious.
If he actually made all such claims.
By more than one witness we can establish a case of what he said, like if we've got the synoptic gospels, there is more than one witness giving a second account....

The whole Tanakh & Yeshua is a test across time to see if we use the Law.
that her position on Jesus' teachings of compassion and justice may be paramount to all else we read in the gospels?
This is a start to Yeshua (Salvation), the next is to see the measure of the prophets, it is a precise tapestry across time, interlinking on nearly every word.
I think she can make a case for her position-- not to say that it's the correct one though.
We can make a case on a surface level of lots of religions, and say they teach to be nice....

Yet it doesn't mean we have got the additional connotations, and deeper understandings within it. :innocent:
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
'Feeling' Yeshua isn't the Messiah, isn't dealing with the Tanakh's specifications, we can go over them in detail if you're curious.
I already have as I taught Christian theology for many years.

What I don't and won't do is to try and undercut someone's basic beliefs in God, Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha, etc. It does no good to do so and can cause them harm.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
I already have as I taught Christian theology for many years.
Considering no one had noticed the Gospel of John is made up, doesn't say much for the fundamentals being understood.

When you examine the Tanakh without the biases of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, there is a totally different perspective.
What I don't and won't do is to try and undercut someone's basic beliefs in God, Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha, etc.
Which is why we're having this conversation, as appreciate that about your dialogues on here....

Personally would like to add to someone's faith if i can help it; not take from it.

Think my biggest issue with the question is whilst the Jew claims to be keeping to the Law, they allow their partner to break the Law in multiple places....

Whilst on the other hand the Christian is the one who accepts the textual fulfillment in many aspects, they also defile the Law through carelessness.

Thus both could learn from each other, to one day succeed in unraveling the mystery. :innocent:
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Think my biggest issue with the question is whilst the Jew claims to be keeping to the Law, they allow their partner to break the Law in multiple places....

Thus both could learn from each other, to one day succeed in unraveling the mystery. :innocent:
My wife and I are very different on this and many other things, but not only do we allow each other that freedom, we've done so for over 50 years now.

Therefore, Joe and Jane not only are different, but so are probably a great many families here in the States and elsewhere.

Nice talking with ya. :)
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
She likes Yeshua; yet then doesn't accept his claims?
Liking Yeshua and accepting claims by humans about Him are two very different things. Nobody knows what Yeshua said about anything. All we have are copies of ancient texts that likely were based on oral stories told many years after Jesus was gone by people who had their own agendas.
Tom
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Nobody knows what Yeshua said about anything.
To some extent we can't tell officially, as we can't verify everything...

Yet based on what we have got, things like the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman is a long parable we find in all 3 Synoptic Gospels, and outside of the cannon as well.

So we can build a case for character, from systematically seeing what evidence is in a majority of the texts first. :innocent:
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
So we can build a case for character, from systematically seeing what evidence is in a majority of the texts first. :innocent:
I agree.
But that is a long way from claims of divinity though. Especially since, were God a Trinity, I would fully expect Abraham, Moses and Samuel to have at least a clue about it. Christian theology totally breaks the First Commandment as Moses understood it. :)
Tom
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Especially since, were God a Trinity, I would fully expect Abraham, Moses and Samuel to have at least a clue about it.
Depending how we look at the text, they might have done; yet not just a Trinity, Moses was a friend of the Gods (HaElohim).

In the Canaanites system where hints of it can be found in the Bible, El Elyon was the head of the pantheon, with Yah-Avah Elohim being one of his sons...

This ancient understanding seems to have been lost after we came back from the Babylonian Exile, as the text seems to hint at it more so before then.
Christian theology totally breaks the First Commandment as Moses understood it.
This depends if Yeshua Elohim was a manifestation from Yah-Avah; even based on a systematic assessment, removing John, Paul, and Simon...

I'm still left with Yeshua claiming it is his house of prayer, that he had the power to forgive sin, said that he was the Lord of David, and that we had to love him more then family/self.

Lots of things hint at him claiming to be Yah-Avah Elohim, which would make him son of EL Elyon, which is what the new testament says, Son of the most High.

Dr Margret Barker has come to a similar conclusion. :innocent:
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I'm still left with Yeshua claiming
No, once again. You are left with His followers followers saying such things, not Jesus Himself.
And then there's Saul/Paul of Tarsus. He styled himself an Apostle, but he didn't meet Jesus. I see know reason for The Twelve to tell him everything, considering Saul had been one the sorts who killed people like Jesus.
Tom
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
You are left with His followers followers saying such things, not Jesus Himself.
We don't know if what is contained in the Gospels is by Yeshua...

Considering that in the Synoptic Gospels Yeshua warned against people claiming to be him, using the term 'Ego I-mee (I Am)', and that was fulfilled by the fake Gospel of John....

The writers of the gospels didn't do that bad a job at recording him, considering they mostly match the none usage of 'Ego I-mee' throughout. :innocent:
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I use two paradigms, no doubt of dubious quality, when it comes to things such as this, and one of them is that it's easier to believe something may be correct if what it contains runs against making the subjects look good. For example, it's easier for me to believe that the Twelve ran and denied Jesus upon his arrest largely because it makes them look weak plus implies they were not convinced that Jesus was in any way divine. OTOH, any claim of Jesus' divinity is much more questionable to me because it also tends to be at least somewhat self-serving to those who wrote it.

The other paradigm I use is to read the scriptures, any scriptures, and use that which makes sense and may be useful, thus not paying so much attention to the "Did this really happen?" game.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
And yet when you read Jesus' words, such as in the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats, what I pick up is a much greater emphasis on actions, not politically-correct beliefs. Matter of the fact, if it were the latter that he would have emphasized, then his position vis-a-vis the Law would not fit largely because p.c. would have it that the Law in its entirely, all 613 of them, must be continually followed. Seems that it's more Paul that insists on being p.c., much less so Jesus.
I don't understand your usage of PC. It's much more "politically correct" to claim that anyone can earn salvation by being a good person, than it is to claim that someone must believe specific things in order to be saved. Salvation via good works is much more palatable to modern sensibilities; it's a liberal and egalitarian philosophy.

Saying that you must believe X to be saved isn't being "politically correct". It's simply stating a fact (from the pov of the Christian).

And Jesus' words "I came to serve, not to be served" also seems to more emphasize the role of actions and that he was not here for personal adulation. His demands of working with the poor and downtrodden are found throughout the gospels but I see no demand that he be worshiped.

Anyhow, the impression that I get as I read the gospels is that his main insistence is to have a belief in God and then acting towards all people out of compassion and justice & mercy. What I don't see is as much of is any insistence that a p.c. correct belief about his supposed deification is necessary for "salvation", and John 3:16 doesn't mention him at all in that context. And indeed, the early church struggled with exactly what was the nature of Jesus vis-a-vis the Father, so it wasn't even that clear to them exactly what was the relationship between Jesus and the Father.

I agree that a lot of what Jesus taught had to do with correct behavior. As noted before, I'm not saying that faith-based salvation precludes the need for good works. Good works are the evidence of salvation; they demonstrate that a person has truly committed to their belief. Faith without works is dead, and all that.

I also don't think that you can just dismiss anything from the Bible that Jesus didn't say. Christianity is not just based on Jesus' teachings. It includes the entirety of the Bible, as well as the traditional interpretations by the Church fathers. You may disagree that anything besides Jesus matters, and that's fine. But that would definitely be an unorthodox view, a split from mainstream Christian belief.

Lastly, and as noted before, I'm not sure if belief regarding Jesus' deity is central to salvation. More important is the belief and acceptance that his sacrifice broke the chains of death and sin and allows reconciliation with God.

However, I do think Jesus heavily implied that he was the Son of God. Matthew 16:13-20
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't understand your usage of PC. It's much more "politically correct" to claim that anyone can earn salvation by being a good person, than it is to claim that someone must believe specific things in order to be saved.
Actually, I don't believe in the issue of "salvation" either way, although I'm not going so far as to say it's not possible. My OP was based on purely hypothetical situations.

I also don't think that you can just dismiss anything from the Bible that Jesus didn't say. Christianity is not just based on Jesus' teachings. It includes the entirety of the Bible, as well as the traditional interpretations by the Church fathers.
I agree. I also don't dismiss anything from the Bible as I do take it seriously.

More important is the belief and acceptance that his sacrifice broke the chains of death and sin and allows reconciliation with God.
I don't believe in this, but this is not to say that it's wrong.

However, I certainly do feel it's right and proper for me to give Christians, such as my wife, the benefit of the doubt on this as far as their own belief system is concerned. After all, I have a ph.d. in I-Don't-Know-ism.

Thanks for your input on this.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
implies they were not convinced that Jesus was in any way divine.
Though an interesting line of questioning; the verse was a quote, as are most things said. :innocent:

Matthew 26:31 Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' (Zechariah 13:7)
 
Top