Only Jesus adherents will attain salvation.

[David1967]

You think God can't fix a flat ? Or that he hasn't got more missionaries? He has ways of getting the message to the right people that we have never thought of....

God doesn't need tires. He could just teleport the missionary there if need be.

 

[Muffled]

Ouch.
No relevance.

Care to try again?


you are free to believe whatever you like.
Fact is "Only Jesus Adherents Will Obtain Salvation" remains a bold empty claim because it cannot be substantiated outside your belief it is true.

I believe I welcome your attempt to substantiate something outside of belief. I don't believe it can be done which is why my example is so relevant.

 

[Muffled]

That isn't what makes it silly.

I believe in that case it remains for you to explain why you think it is silly.

 

[Muffled]

That's quite an assumption, to say the least. God is mentioned thousands of times in the Tanakh but Jesus is not mentioned there. Jesus cannot possibly be God since Jesus refers to God as "the Father". My father and I were quite a bit alike but we were not one and the same, nor could Jesus and "the Father" be exactly the same or Jesus would not be referring to him as "the Father".

According to a Protestant theologian who visited China about three decades ago, he wrote that probably about 2/3 of all Chinese couldn't even begin to give you a simple description of Jesus and would have no clue what you were talking about if you mentioned his name.

I believe He is in Zechariah.

I believe that is illogical. That is where your logic fails God is not a human father.

I believe they are not exactly the same. Jesus is God with a body and the Father is God without a body. God is one whether in the body or out of it.

I believe things have changed a lot since then.

 

[Muffled]

God doesn't need tires. He could just teleport the missionary there if need be.

Or He could just pop into someone's house and say "you need to get to know me and serve me as an apostle."

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe in that case it remains for you to explain why you think it is silly.

As has been previously mentioned on numerous occasions, justice is when the punishment is proportionate to the crime. No one is capable of committing anything that's proportionate to eternal torture. If there is a god he would be a being of pure love and pure logic. Therefore anything devoid of reason or compassion is not of god. Only a petty, vindictive, infantile sadist would desire to torture people (for eternity no less) just because they bruised his fragile ego.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

We are told sometimes, that people who refused to accept Jesus, will somehow get a "second chance"at judgement. This seems highly unlikely, because of course that will "make"people "convert". It is a silly concept, aside from those who literally never got the oppurtunity. Scripture seems to back this, as well.



This isnt to say there cant be a second chance, but that is contextual

Only christ's saved, the faithful, the believers...NEED salvation!

 

[metis]

I believe that is illogical. That is where your logic fails God is not a human father.

What I am saying is that Jesus talks about "the Father" as being a different individual, such as when he said he didn't know when the "end of times" would be and that only "the Father" knows for sure.

IOW, there's a different between actually being "the Father" versus being of "the Father", and this differentiation is important.

 

[Muffled]

As has been previously mentioned on numerous occasions, justice is when the punishment is proportionate to the crime. No one is capable of committing anything that's proportionate to eternal torture. If there is a god he would be a being of pure love and pure logic. Therefore anything devoid of reason or compassion is not of god. Only a petty, vindictive, infantile sadist would desire to torture people (for eternity no less) just because they bruised his fragile ego.

I believe that is not true. A master expects obedience from his slave and if he doesn't get it any punishment is valid. The crime of disobedience is worse than all other crimes put together. It is in effect the definition of a criminal, someone who does not obey the law.

I believe that is not true. A God of justice must punish the wicked or He is not just.

I believe there is no evidence to support this view.

 

[Muffled]

What I am saying is that Jesus talks about "the Father" as being a different individual, such as when he said he didn't know when the "end of times" would be and that only "the Father" knows for sure.

IOW, there's a different between actually being "the Father" versus being of "the Father", and this differentiation is important.

I believe I have seen no Biblical evidence to support that view including your following statement.

I believe there are two errors in your statement. First the end times are not when the world goes out of existence which is what Jesus is talking about in that verse. Second Jesus as an incarnation of God is temporal but the Father is eternal but that does not make them different individuals.

I believe there is a difference but I don't believe it implies different individuals.

 

[metis]

I believe there is a difference but I don't believe it implies different individuals.

Logically, they are either the same or they're different, as an intermediate position is sort of like being partially pregnant.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe I have seen no Biblical evidence to support that view including your following statement.

I believe there are two errors in your statement. First the end times are not when the world goes out of existence which is what Jesus is talking about in that verse. Second Jesus as an incarnation of God is temporal but the Father is eternal but that does not make them different individuals.

I believe there is a difference but I don't believe it implies different individuals.

Jesus in Spirit form, as part of the trinity, means there really is no temporal Jesus.

The nt makes no distinction between Jesus in physical form, and Jesus in spirit form.

This means that Jesus was not the 'same', as other people, clearly. We note this at the beginning of the narrative, not at the time of jesus's baptism, or whatever.

 

[Desert Snake]

Logically, they are either the same or they're different, as an

They're the same. What you are talking about is some form of polytheism, and has nothing to do with our religion.

 

[metis]

They're the same. What you are talking about is some form of polytheism, and has nothing to do with our religion.

But again, how could they be the same when Jesus refers to God as "the Father", and also when he's asked about the end of times, Jesus' response was that he didn't know as only "the Father" knows. If they're one and the same, then that response from Jesus makes not one iota of sense.

At least Catholic theology calls it "the mystery of the trinity", thus not understandable by human terms. There is at least one theological concept that could possibly explain this, but thus far no one has hit on it on this thread. Interested?

 

[Desert Snake]

But again, how could they be the same when Jesus refers to God as "the Father", and also when he's asked about the end of times, Jesus' response was that he didn't know as only "the Father" knows. If they're one and the same, then that response from Jesus makes not one iota of sense.

At least Catholic theology calls it "the mystery of the trinity", thus not understandable by human terms. There is at least one theological concept that could possibly explain this, but thus far no one has hit on it on this thread. Interested?

It isn't a mystery, because it is literal. Or it could be, you are misunderstanding what they meant by mystery, who knows.

John 10:30

Spells it out.

Jesus is the deity human form of God, which is the same as the father. It is one God, with more than one manifestation. Jesus was always teaching, when He prays to the father, it is demonstrative of an esoteric "separation", in the same manner , as when, He said, "no man is good". He wasn't stating that He was not good, He was implying that the question was put forth in an incorrect manner, therefore could not be answered contextually. / ie no man is good, however Jesus as divine, is good.

 

[metis]

It isn't a mystery, because it is literal. Or it could be, you are misunderstanding what they meant by mystery, who knows.

No, I'm quite familiar with Catholic theology on this since I taught it.

John 10:30

Spells it out.

Only if taken at the literal level, which is totally unnecessary and, in this case, illogical. If I say "you and I are one", this can be interpreted as meaning that we're "on the same page" and not that we are exactly the same.

It is one God, with more than one manifestation. Jesus was always teaching, when He prays to the father, it is demonstrative of an esoteric "separation", in the same manner , as when, He said, "no man is good".

You are assuming that Jesus was a "manifestation" whereas there's no direct scriptural evidence for that. But at least hypothetically possible, yes.

There is another way of looking at this as well, however, namely that it could be a by-product of the ancient Jewish belief that the cherubim, seraphim, and at least some of the angels are basically aspects of God, which appears to have been extended to Jesus as, in essence, being "Angel #1" above all the others-- at least by some in the early church.

IOW, Jesus was probably not God in his entirely but was what we might call an "aspect of God". We even can hypothetically apply this to the Holy Spirit whereas there may be a connection found in the Tanakh that refers to the "Spirit of God" or "God's Spirit".

However, in my case, I don't lose any sleep over this as it pretty much is like dealing with the question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". The early church struggled with this, and I'm not going to be so presumptuous to pretend to know which is correct.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are assuming that Jesus was a "manifestation" whereas there's no direct scriptural evidence for that. But at least hypothetically possible, yes.

I think that all Scripture indicates that.

There is another way of looking at this as well, however, namely that it could be a by-product of the ancient Jewish belief that the cherubim, seraphim, and at least some of the angels are basically aspects of God, which appears to have been extended to Jesus as, in essence, being "Angel #1" above all the others-- at least by some in the early church.

IOW, Jesus was probably not God in his entirely but was what we might call an "aspect of God". We even can hypothetically apply this to the Holy Spirit whereas there may be a connection found in the Tanakh that refers to the "Spirit of God" or "God's Spirit".

The manifestation is not an angel, technically, though. This is the problem with the "angel" idea, in general. In judaism, sure you're aware of, the character of Jesus, cannot match that of an angel, because of the freewill aspect, etc. Really can't match in any aspect. In christian angeology, the narrative doesn't match that of an angel, and really, to assume such, is more speculation. So, we have a literal oneness character, in Jesus, and we know that He cannot be a demi-god.

However, in my case, I don't lose any sleep over this as it pretty much is like dealing with the question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". The early church struggled with this, and I'm not going to be so presumptuous to pretend to know which is correct.

Not a problem.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is another way of looking at this as well, however, namely that it could be a by-product of the ancient Jewish belief that the cherubim, seraphim, and at least some of the angels are basically aspects of God, which appears to have been extended to Jesus as, in essence, being "Angel #1" above all the others-- at least by some in the early church.

Hebrews 1:1-6


Perhaps, however the representatives of the religion certainly didn't think so, otherwise they would not have included these verses, in Scripture. Further in the Scripture, there is no distinction between the "creator", and Jesus. Knowing this, via Genesis, Jesus is being presented as 'God', and in somewhat poetic verse, as an aspect of the father.

 

[metis]

I think that all Scripture indicates that.

"All scripture"? Not. Plus interpretations can and do vary on the nature of Jesus vis-a-vis God, and this was also true in the early church.

BTW, an excellent book that covers this in detail is "How Jesus Became God" by Bart Ehrman, who is a Christian theologian and professor of theology. He does not have definitive answers on the question but points out various options, using early sources.

The manifestation is not an angel, technically, though. This is the problem with the "angel" idea, in general. In judaism, sure you're aware of, the character of Jesus, cannot match that of an angel, because of the freewill aspect, etc.

How do you know so much about angels whereas you can definitively say this, whereas there is very little in scripture to go by. Secondly, the issue of free will is hardly a given, including within the early church. Augustine, for example, really struggled with this because on can use different verses to support different positions.

So, we have a literal oneness character, in Jesus, and we know that He cannot be a demi-god.

Again, that's only an assumption with basically no evidence to support it from scripture or elsewhere. And, again, the early church struggled with this question.

So, as a non-Christian and pretty much a non-theist, I'll just say "I don't know", and I feel comfortable saying this.

 

[metis]

Perhaps, however the representatives of the religion certainly didn't think so, otherwise they would not have included these verses, in Scripture.

See my last post above.

Knowing this, via Genesis, Jesus is being presented as 'God', and in somewhat poetic verse, as an aspect of the father.

Sorry, but that simply is not true as "the Father" and Jesus' lack of knowledge about what "the Father" may understand indicates they simply are not one and the same. No verses have Jesus as actually being "the Father", and if one views Jesus as a manifestation of God, then they still have some differences.

Again, the Catholic view of "the mystery of the trinity" seems to make more sense as the connection vis-a-vis Jesus and God is not at all clear, and early church history seems to confirm this. There simply is no slam-dunk opinion on this-- quite the opposite.