Unbeliever Struggles with a Biblical Truth.

[Andy S.]

Its kinda hard to misinterpret what is said about salvation, this is pretty cut and dry. I was talking about other parts of the bible that can be taken so many different ways.

(John 14:6), Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

(Mark 16:16), "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

(1Peter 3:21), "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

(Acts 22:16), "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

Cut and dry eh?  Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."

I think getting baptized is a work isn't it?  I thought Paul said you just needed faith to be saved.

[Andy S.]

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    

You mention that as if I accused you when in reality it was put to you as a question.

Aaaahhhh, you're right.  I missed the "?".  Sorry, I did read that as an accusation.  My apologies.   

So, I guess your sentence should have started with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...."

If you thought at the time you were born-again I would think you would have learned of the concept through scripture; either by reading it or hearing it.I'm not familiar with the Biblical concept of' 'born-again' that doesn't involve the supernatural.

One example I see where salvation doesn't involve the supernatural is the story of Zaccheus (Luke 19).

Yes, you are right...either by reading it or hearing it (probably more of the latter).  I guess it would depend on the exact definition to the term "born-again".  I claimed I was "born-again" and the date was June 8th, 2009.  My focus in life changed on that day and I repented from the things I thought God was displeased with in my life.  I was a "new creation" as Paul would say so I had no problem saying I was "born again".

Now, when I was a Christian I probably would have given the supernatural (the Holy Spirit) a lot of credit for my conviction to repent but now looking back, I don't see good evidence of that being the case.   

That would be incorrect.I said exactly what I meant to say.

Sorry, it can only be your opinion.  Remember....reply #19:

"My opinion is that the basic requirement means just that....the threshold we cross from non-believer to Christian."

If you only have an opinion on what the basic requirement is then you can't KNOW you were already saved when you finally were able to get baptized.  Once you used the word "opinion" concerning the basic requirements then it would be inconsistent for you to use the word "KNEW".  Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education.  An opinion is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Even 80sChild, a Christian, says your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "opinion" and not "truth".  She went as far as to say you don't even read your scriptures before answering.  I, myself, would never accuse you of this because I understand that people have different interpretations on salvation from the bible because of ambiguity.

Now, you can change your statement in reply #19 and say you have the "truth" concerning what the basic requirement is if you want to.  You can do as you please but I just ask that you remain consistent.

Your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on either "opinion" or "truth".           

If first hand accounts of events pertinent to my point aren't acceptable , what is?

Once I lost my faith I was, for lack of a better word, "born-again" and became a skeptic because I never wanted to be hoodwinked ever again.  When I was a Christian I accepted many anectotal stories as fact without questioning the validity of the story through skepticism.  I take pride in my skepticism and am proud to say I do not accept "first hand accounts" or anecdotal evidence as fact.

Wiki states, "Anecdotal evidence (such as you presented) is considered the least certain type of scientific information.  Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

So, in short, anectodal evidence is not good evidence. When you claim the experience of the Holy Spirit goes "beyond the mental and emotional" try giving me something that can be investigated using the scientific method.

[80sChild]

@Andy S. Way to throw me under the bus man ! I wasn't meaning to sound like a know it all b***h that is saying this guy is an idiot that doesn't read his Bible ! Even tho thats how you made me sound . Look Everyone can disagree with me if they want, they usually do anyway, but baptism is only mentioned when talking about salvation or being saved, ints pretty clear, and I was only saying that I thought the gut didn't check and then double check before answering this question.
I feel like i am just getting set up over and over agin... The Book of Mormon thread has turned into a nightmare, everyone just wants to dig up dirt, no one is really interested in knowing about the great parts... Oh and there is a new thread, Will the real Jesus please stand up, just mocking and slander and disrespect . I know they do not see it that way but it hurts me, and I am ashamed for them, the human race respects nothing anymore unless it is something they value but nothing that others value is respected. Maybe coming back was a bad idea....Anyway, @Goombah I didn't mean to sound disrespectful and I am sorry if I did wasn't meant to be taken that way ! :)

[Andy S.]

@Andy S. Way to throw me under the bus man ! I wasn't meaning to sound like a know it all b***h that is saying this guy is an idiot that doesn't read his Bible !

I'm sorry for your meltdown.  I didn't mean to hurt you in anyway. 

Did I say anything that was inaccurate?

How did I make you sound like a "know it all b***h".

I said that you said this guy is an "IDIOT" that doesn't read his bible?

Even tho thats how you made me sound .

How so?  I used your own words.

Look Everyone can disagree with me if they want, they usually do anyway, but baptism is only mentioned when talking about salvation or being saved, ints pretty clear

I think Goombah might disagree with this.

and I was only saying that I thought the gut didn't check and then double check before answering this question. [/size]

Did I say anymore than this really?  Why accuse me of throwing you under the bus?

The Book of Mormon thread has turned into a nightmare, everyone just wants to dig up dirt, no one is really interested in knowing about the great parts... Oh and there is a new thread, Will the real Jesus please stand up, just mocking and slander and disrespect . I know they do not see it that way but it hurts me, and I am ashamed for them, the human race respects nothing anymore unless it is something they value but nothing that others value is respected. Maybe coming back was a bad idea

Does any of this have anything to do with me?

Are you ashamed for me?

I think I've witnessed some misguided anger this morning.  I think you could have handled this a lot better.  You know....just tell me if I said something that was inaccurate or let me know if I didn't understand you correctly.

....Anyway, @Goombah I didn't mean to sound disrespectful and I am sorry if I did wasn't meant to be taken that way ! :)[/size]

I didn't mean to make you sound disrespectful.  However, what you said could be seen as being disrespectful to him.  Concerning the necessary requirement of baptism needed for salvation, you say, "he must not read his scriptures before answering".  Similarily, in this post you say the guy didn't "check and then double check" before answering this question. 

This can be seen as an insult.  These are not my words....THEY ARE YOURS!  80's, you have to realize that people have different interpretations which lead to different opinions on doctrine.  It is unfair to say someone doesn't "read their scriptures" when they disagree with you. 

Goombah's understanding of scripture is just that....his understanding.  Your understanding of what scripture says is just that.....your understanding.  Goombah doesn't see baptism as being a requirement needed for salvation and you do.  The only difference I see between the two of you is you see your view as "truth" which, to me, seems a little arrogant.

You can say you didn't mean to sound disrespectful to Goombah but these are just words....not really an apology.  Saying Goombah's interpretation is wrong because "he doesn't read his scriptures" is disrespectful and instead of just saying, "I didn't mean to sound disrespectful" maybe you should take back what you said.

     

[Goombah]

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    

You mention that as if I accused you when in reality it was put to you as a question.

Aaaahhhh, you're right.  I missed the "?".  Sorry, I did read that as an accusation.  My apologies.   

So, I guess your sentence should have started with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...."

Ok, sure, and your responses could start with, " Even though I may not have have a complete understanding of what you wrote I might answer you in all CAPS , as if to show I'm yelling at you..."

I'll try to address your other concerns today.

[Goombah]

Andy S.,

Is there one or two questions you would like to respond to 1st.?

[Andy S.]

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    

You mention that as if I accused you when in reality it was put to you as a question.

Aaaahhhh, you're right.  I missed the "?".  Sorry, I did read that as an accusation.  My apologies.   

So, I guess your sentence should have started with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...."

Ok, sure, and your responses could start with, " Even though I may not have have a complete understanding of what you wrote I might answer you in all CAPS , as if to show I'm yelling at you..."

I'll try to address your other concerns today.

There is a difference. 

I thought I had a complete understanding of what you were saying.  Then I looked back and realized I missed the "?".

You knew all along you didn't have a complete understanding of John 3:5.  But you gave me the verse anyway and questioned if my Christianity reflected this verse. 

The difference is I thought I had an understanding and, in contrast, you knew you didn't have a complete understanding.

Furthermore, I was not yelling at you.  I put "YOU" and "YOURSELF" in all caps for emphasis.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And sure, all my responses could start with, "Even though I may not have have a complete understanding of what you wrote...".  It seems like an odd request but I'll do that if you want.  Do you want me too?

Saying that you should have started your sentence with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...." is more of a reasonable suggestion since you are asking if my Christianity reflected a certain verse when, YOU, YOURSELF, don't have a complete understanding of this verse. 

Just to clarify, "YOU" and "YOURSELF" is in all caps for emphasis.  I'm not yelling at you.   

[Goombah]

....Anyway, @Goombah I didn't mean to sound disrespectful and I am sorry if I did wasn't meant to be taken that way ! :)[/size]

Honestly 80sChild,

I hadn't read what you said and have just been  concentrating on my conversation with AndyS.Not an issue at all with me in any case.

Thank you.

[Andy S.]

Andy S.,

Is there one or two questions you would like to respond to 1st.?

Do you agree with 80s Child's answers to my questions in reply #47?  They were actually addressed to you.

[Goombah]

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    

You mention that as if I accused you when in reality it was put to you as a question.

Aaaahhhh, you're right.  I missed the "?".  Sorry, I did read that as an accusation.  My apologies.   

So, I guess your sentence should have started with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...."

Ok, sure, and your responses could start with, " Even though I may not have have a complete understanding of what you wrote I might answer you in all CAPS , as if to show I'm yelling at you..."

I'll try to address your other concerns today.

There is a difference. 

I thought I had a complete understanding of what you were saying.  Then I looked back and realized I missed the "?".

You knew all along you didn't have a complete understanding of John 3:5.  But you gave me the verse anyway and questioned if my Christianity reflected this verse. 

The difference is I thought I had an understanding and, in contrast, you knew you didn't have a complete understanding.

Furthermore, I was not yelling at you.  I put "YOU" and "YOURSELF" in all caps for emphasis.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And sure, all my responses could start with, "Even though I may not have have a complete understanding of what you wrote...".  It seems like an odd request but I'll do that if you want.  Do you want me too?

Saying that you should have started your sentence with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...." is more of a reasonable suggestion since you are asking if my Christianity reflected a certain verse when, YOU, YOURSELF, don't have a complete understanding of this verse. 

Just to clarify, "YOU" and "YOURSELF" is in all caps for emphasis.  I'm not yelling at you.   

I was more reflecting on this response: # 44

"You mean the ones that wiki used.  Sorry if you thought I said that these were the basic requirements.  Looking back, I can see why this would have been confusing.  I will clear the record now....I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXACT (BASIC) REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION ARE WITHIN CHRISTIANITY!"

I only said that you provided the information...not that you believed it.I didn't say I thought you said they were the basic requirements.

[Goombah]

Andy S.,

Is there one or two questions you would like to respond to 1st.?

Do you agree with 80s Child's answers to my questions in reply #47?  They were actually addressed to you.


John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the gift of the holy ghost.




1.  someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved? No

2.  Can What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14) We must believe in Jesus to have our sins removed or we will die in sin. verb
3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? You must believe in Jesus, John 3:16 says it all.
4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ? Since the fall of man the basis of salvation's always been the death of Christ, faith has always been part of salvation, Abraham had faith that God had a plan for sin.

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? You can lose it if you lose your faith.

A) Jn 3 :5 Baptism required for salvation.Idon't agree, in part because of the thief on the cross.

1)Agree

2)Title.Jn.8 :58 and John 18: 6 also factors in to that.

3)If you study scripture ,I do.To those without having had access to scripture,yes but indirectly( Romans 1: 19-20) and John 1:2-3

4) I agree that it was by faith.Looking ahead to Christ.Mt 13: 16-17 and God's promises like Ezekiel 36: 25-27 and Ezekiel 11: 19-20 for example.Then of course : Gen 15:6

5)I agree .

[Andy S.]

I was more reflecting on this response: # 44

"You mean the ones that wiki used.  Sorry if you thought I said that these were the basic requirements.  Looking back, I can see why this would have been confusing.  I will clear the record now....I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXACT (BASIC) REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION ARE WITHIN CHRISTIANITY!"

I only said that you provided the information...not that you believed it.I didn't say I thought you said they were the basic requirements.

This is the same thing.  Caps are in the last sentence for EMPHASIS.  I was not yelling at you.  I'm sorry you felt that way it's just the way I write.  From now on, every time I use all Caps it is for EMPHASIS.  How about this, if I want to yell at you I will be sure to tell you before the sentence that I write.  Other than that, just assume that I am not yelling at you.

Can we move on?  Although I like to know what makes people so sensitive, I think this is some pretty petty stuff and I hope we can move on.

[Goombah]

I was more reflecting on this response: # 44

"You mean the ones that wiki used.  Sorry if you thought I said that these were the basic requirements.  Looking back, I can see why this would have been confusing.  I will clear the record now....I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXACT (BASIC) REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION ARE WITHIN CHRISTIANITY!"

I only said that you provided the information...not that you believed it.I didn't say I thought you said they were the basic requirements.

This is the same thing.  Caps are in the last sentence for EMPHASIS.  I was not yelling at you.  I'm sorry you felt that way it's just the way I write.  From now on, every time I use all Caps it is for EMPHASIS.  How about this, if I want to yell at you I will be sure to tell you before the sentence that I write.  Other than that, just assume that I am not yelling at you.

Can we move on?  Although I like to know what makes people so sensitive, I think this is some pretty petty stuff and I hope we can move on.

Exactly.

[80sChild]

@Andy S. Way to throw me under the bus man ! I wasn't meaning to sound like a know it all b***h that is saying this guy is an idiot that doesn't read his Bible !

I'm sorry for your meltdown.  I didn't mean to hurt you in anyway. 

Did I say anything that was inaccurate?

How did I make you sound like a "know it all b***h".

I said that you said this guy is an "IDIOT" that doesn't read his bible?

Even tho thats how you made me sound .

How so?  I used your own words.

Look Everyone can disagree with me if they want, they usually do anyway, but baptism is only mentioned when talking about salvation or being saved, ints pretty clear

I think Goombah might disagree with this.

and I was only saying that I thought the gut didn't check and then double check before answering this question. [/size]

Did I say anymore than this really?  Why accuse me of throwing you under the bus?

The Book of Mormon thread has turned into a nightmare, everyone just wants to dig up dirt, no one is really interested in knowing about the great parts... Oh and there is a new thread, Will the real Jesus please stand up, just mocking and slander and disrespect . I know they do not see it that way but it hurts me, and I am ashamed for them, the human race respects nothing anymore unless it is something they value but nothing that others value is respected. Maybe coming back was a bad idea

Does any of this have anything to do with me?

Are you ashamed for me?

I think I've witnessed some misguided anger this morning.  I think you could have handled this a lot better.  You know....just tell me if I said something that was inaccurate or let me know if I didn't understand you correctly.

....Anyway, @Goombah I didn't mean to sound disrespectful and I am sorry if I did wasn't meant to be taken that way ! :)[/size]

I didn't mean to make you sound disrespectful.  However, what you said could be seen as being disrespectful to him.  Concerning the necessary requirement of baptism needed for salvation, you say, "he must not read his scriptures before answering".  Similarily, in this post you say the guy didn't "check and then double check" before answering this question. 

This can be seen as an insult.  These are not my words....THEY ARE YOURS!  80's, you have to realize that people have different interpretations which lead to different opinions on doctrine.  It is unfair to say someone doesn't "read their scriptures" when they disagree with you. 

Goombah's understanding of scripture is just that....his understanding.  Your understanding of what scripture says is just that.....your understanding.  Goombah doesn't see baptism as being a requirement needed for salvation and you do.  The only difference I see between the two of you is you see your view as "truth" which, to me, seems a little arrogant.

You can say you didn't mean to sound disrespectful to Goombah but these are just words....not really an apology.  Saying Goombah's interpretation is wrong because "he doesn't read his scriptures" is disrespectful and instead of just saying, "I didn't mean to sound disrespectful" maybe you should take back what you said.

     

I am sorry and I take it all back.... You are right as usual. Thank you.

[Andy S.]

A) Jn 3 :5 Baptism required for salvation.Idon't agree, in part because of the thief on the cross.

Wow, you only agreed with 80s child on two out of six of these.  That is worse than I thought.  What we see here with you and 80s child is a mini experiment I conducted that shows that the wiki article concerning Christian soteriology has some truth behind it.

Once again, this article states, "Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

As a Christian, I would have agreed with you about baptism not being a requirement needed for salvation.  However, maybe I had an emotional tie to this belief and that was because my Grandpa claimed he was a Christian but was never baptized.  I've got to say, depending on interpretation, 80s Child has some scripture to back her belief.  But then again.....who doesn't.

3)If you study scripture ,I do.To those without having had access to scripture,yes but indirectly( Romans 1: 19-20) and John 1:2-3

So if you study scripture, one has to believe that Jesus is the one true god but if one does not have access to scripture they still have to believe that Jesus is the one true god in order to be saved but "indirectly"???

John 1:2-3 states, "He (the "Word") was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

I hate to point out the obvious but....people won't INDIRECTLY know that the "Word" (the one true God) was in the beginning with God if they don't have access to scripture. 

By the way, according to your answer to this question, Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson are not saved.  Not only that, but all these people from all these denominations who don't buy into the Trinity and don't believe that Jesus is the one true god are not saved according to your interpretation:


    American Unitarian Conference
    Arianism
    Assemblies of Yahweh
    Bible Students
    Christadelphians
    Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)[121][122]
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
    Church of the Blessed Hope (sometimes called "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith")
    Doukhobors
    Friends of Man
    Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
    Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
    Jehovah's Witnesses
    Members Church of God International
    Molokan
    Monarchianism
    Muggletonianism
    New Church
    Many members of the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
    Oneness Pentecostals
    Polish Brethren
    Some Quakers
    Shakers
    Socinianism
    Swedenborgianism
    The Way International
    Two by Twos (sometimes called The Truth or Cooneyites)[123]
    Unification Church
    Unitarian Christians
    Unitarian Universalism
    United Church of God
    Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah
    Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua
   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

I think I know what you are thinking right about now but it is a logical fallacy.  It is called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Hey Goombah, I have a lot going on in my head and I can't remember if you answered this question or not.  Can you please answer it again if you haven't?:

Is your view of salvation (the necessary requirements needed for salvation) based on your "opinion" or is it based on "truth" (fact)?

 

[Goombah]

A) Jn 3 :5 Baptism required for salvation.Idon't agree, in part because of the thief on the cross.

Wow, you only agreed with 80s child on two out of six of these.  That is worse than I thought.  What we see here with you and 80s child is a mini experiment I conducted that shows that the wiki article concerning Christian soteriology has some truth behind it.

'Some truth'? So?

Once again, this article states, "Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

The opening sentence also says: "In Christianity salvation is the saving of the soul from sin and its consequences.[5] It may also be called "deliverance" or "redemption" from sin and its effects."

That sounds like a unifying view, something Christians have in common.

The closing sentence reads:

While some of the differences are as widespread as Christianity itself, the overwhelming majority agrees that salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross.

"Overwhelming majority agrees"Doesn't sound as disjointed as you want to paint it,Andy.

As a Christian, I would have agreed with you about baptism not being a requirement needed for salvation.  However, maybe I had an emotional tie to this belief and that was because my Grandpa claimed he was a Christian but was never baptized.  I've got to say, depending on interpretation, 80s Child has some scripture to back her belief.  But then again.....who doesn't.

Not only 80s. I have read several compelling defenses of the 'baptism argument'.I just found the other side more compelling still.

3)If you study scripture ,I do.To those without having had access to scripture,yes but indirectly( Romans 1: 19-20) and John 1:2-3

So if you study scripture, one has to believe that Jesus is the one true god but if one does not have access to scripture they still have to believe that Jesus is the one true god in order to be saved but "indirectly"???

John 1:2-3 states, "He (the "Word") was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

I hate to point out the obvious but....people won't INDIRECTLY know that the "Word" (the one true God) was in the beginning with God if they don't have access to scripture. 

Of course not.That's why I didn't say that.I just pointed out He, who is the "Word"( the one true God),was the source of everything that came into being.
And gave this referense as well,
19 For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification].

If man is to understand God through His handiwork (Creation) then they would be indirectly knowing the the One responsibile for the creation,,,John says that is Jesus.

By the way, according to your answer to this question, Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson are not saved.  Not only that, but all these people from all these denominations who don't buy into the Trinity and don't believe that Jesus is the one true god are not saved according to your interpretation:


    American Unitarian Conference
    Arianism
    Assemblies of Yahweh
    Bible Students
    Christadelphians
    Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)[121][122]
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
    Church of the Blessed Hope (sometimes called "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith")
    Doukhobors
    Friends of Man
    Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
    Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
    Jehovah's Witnesses
    Members Church of God International
    Molokan
    Monarchianism
    Muggletonianism
    New Church
    Many members of the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
    Oneness Pentecostals
    Polish Brethren
    Some Quakers
    Shakers
    Socinianism
    Swedenborgianism
    The Way International
    Two by Twos (sometimes called The Truth or Cooneyites)[123]
    Unification Church
    Unitarian Christians
    Unitarian Universalism
    United Church of God
    Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah
    Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua
   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

Were those the types of things you focused on in your own Christian walk, Andy?
Paraphrasing  an old Christian golf instructor " Notice , God reserves eternal judgement to Himself....and waits to the very end to do it".

I think I know what you are thinking right about now but it is a logical fallacy.  It is called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Not even close.

Hey Goombah, I have a lot going on in my head and I can't remember if you answered this question or not.  Can you please answer it again if you haven't?:

Is your view of salvation (the necessary requirements needed for salvation) based on your "opinion" or is it based on "truth" (fact)?

what difference would it have on anyone other than myself?
I'd like to leave you with a quote fron Charles Spurgeon (Calvinist) regarding John Wesley  (Arminian)"

" Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.

The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ?of whom the world was not worthy.?"

That's how it's done ,Andy.

[Andy S.]

A) Jn 3 :5 Baptism required for salvation.Idon't agree, in part because of the thief on the cross.

Wow, you only agreed with 80s child on two out of six of these.  That is worse than I thought.  What we see here with you and 80s child is a mini experiment I conducted that shows that the wiki article concerning Christian soteriology has some truth behind it.

'Some truth'? So?

Well....then a Christian's view on salvation shouldn't be considered a "biblical truth".  If Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is then someone's view on salvation shouldn't be called a "biblical truth".     

Once again, this article states, "Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

The opening sentence also says: "In Christianity salvation is the saving of the soul from sin and its consequences.[5] It may also be called "deliverance" or "redemption" from sin and its effects."

That sounds like a unifying view, something Christians have in common.

The closing sentence reads:

While some of the differences are as widespread as Christianity itself, the overwhelming majority agrees that salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross.

"Overwhelming majority agrees"Doesn't sound as disjointed as you want to paint it,Andy.

Goombah, judging from your answer #3 you might not even agree with this sentence in its entirety.  You would say salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the One True God, dying on the cross.

And who cares if the the majority of Christians agree that salvation is MADE POSSIBLE by the death of Jesus?  I'm talking about Christians disagreeing over the REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION. 

Do you understand the difference?

I'll spell it out for you.  A Jehovah's Witness would agree that "salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross".  However, they would disagree with you over one of the requirements needed for this salvation.  You say one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved.  They would disagree. 

I could give you another example, like with 80s child and her belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I think you get the point.  At least I'm hoping.

There is a difference between Jesus making salvation possible through doing something and the requirements one has to do (or believe) to achieve this salvation.  Christians can agree that Jesus made salvation possible through his death on the cross but Christians disagree on the requirements needed to attain this salvation.

I hope this is clear.  It is an important difference.  If this doesn't make sense then let me know and I'll try to give you a better explanation.

As a Christian, I would have agreed with you about baptism not being a requirement needed for salvation.  However, maybe I had an emotional tie to this belief and that was because my Grandpa claimed he was a Christian but was never baptized.  I've got to say, depending on interpretation, 80s Child has some scripture to back her belief.  But then again.....who doesn't.

Not only 80s. I have read several compelling defenses of the 'baptism argument'.I just found the other side more compelling still.

So thinking that baptism is not a necessary requirement needed for salvation is just your opinion right?  You can't say your view is a "biblical truth" right?

 

By the way, according to your answer to this question, Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson are not saved.  Not only that, but all these people from all these denominations who don't buy into the Trinity and don't believe that Jesus is the one true god are not saved according to your interpretation:


    American Unitarian Conference
    Arianism
    Assemblies of Yahweh
    Bible Students
    Christadelphians
    Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)[121][122]
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
    Church of the Blessed Hope (sometimes called "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith")
    Doukhobors
    Friends of Man
    Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
    Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
    Jehovah's Witnesses
    Members Church of God International
    Molokan
    Monarchianism
    Muggletonianism
    New Church
    Many members of the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
    Oneness Pentecostals
    Polish Brethren
    Some Quakers
    Shakers
    Socinianism
    Swedenborgianism
    The Way International
    Two by Twos (sometimes called The Truth or Cooneyites)[123]
    Unification Church
    Unitarian Christians
    Unitarian Universalism
    United Church of God
    Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah
    Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua
   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

Were those the types of things you focused on in your own Christian walk, Andy?

Yes, I told you......I wanted to be the best witness for Jesus.  I wanted to share with everyone the good news and tell everyone what they had to do and believe to inherit eternal life.  And yes, I showed people they could be "mislead".   

Paraphrasing  an old Christian golf instructor " Notice , God reserves eternal judgement to Himself....and waits to the very end to do it".

So your God is going to lay out requirements needed for salvation in his holy book but in the end these requirements might not even matter?  Is that what you are trying to say?  What is your point in paraphrasing this golf instructor?

I think I know what you are thinking right about now but it is a logical fallacy.  It is called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Not even close.

Oh really?  Is someone who is going to "die in their sins" (John 8:24) a Christian?  Please answer this question with a "yes" or "no".

Hey Goombah, I have a lot going on in my head and I can't remember if you answered this question or not.  Can you please answer it again if you haven't?:

Is your view of salvation (the necessary requirements needed for salvation) based on your "opinion" or is it based on "truth" (fact)?

what difference would it have on anyone other than myself?
I'd like to leave you with a quote fron Charles Spurgeon (Calvinist) regarding John Wesley  (Arminian)"

" Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.

The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ?of whom the world was not worthy.?"

That's how it's done ,Andy.

How what's done?  How one inherits eternal life?  What were the requirements needed for salvation in these paragraphs?

Can you please give me any evidence that Charles Spurgeon disagreed with John Wesley over the exact requirements needed for salvation?

Goombah, can you please just answer my question?

"what difference would it have on anyone other than myself?" is not an answer.  I don't understand why answering the following question would be so hard for you. 

Is your view of salvation (the necessary requirements needed for salvation) based on your "opinion" or is it based on "truth" (fact)? 

[Goombah]

A) Jn 3 :5 Baptism required for salvation.Idon't agree, in part because of the thief on the cross.

Wow, you only agreed with 80s child on two out of six of these.  That is worse than I thought.  What we see here with you and 80s child is a mini experiment I conducted that shows that the wiki article concerning Christian soteriology has some truth behind it.

'Some truth'? So?

Well....then a Christian's view on salvation shouldn't be considered a "biblical truth".  If Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is then someone's view on salvation shouldn't be called a "biblical truth".     

So, in order to be a "biblical truth" in your view it must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a Christian?Do you know what parts of the wiki article are truth and which aren't?

Once again, this article states, "Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

The opening sentence also says: "In Christianity salvation is the saving of the soul from sin and its consequences.[5] It may also be called "deliverance" or "redemption" from sin and its effects."

That sounds like a unifying view, something Christians have in common.

The closing sentence reads:

While some of the differences are as widespread as Christianity itself, the overwhelming majority agrees that salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross.

"Overwhelming majority agrees"Doesn't sound as disjointed as you want to paint it,Andy.

Goombah, judging from your answer #3 you might not even agree with this sentence in its entirety.  You would say salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the One True God, dying on the cross.

I certainly wouldn't interject " the One True God" into every mention of Jesus and the  atonement and am fine with the sentence the way it reads.

And who cares if the the majority of Christians agree that salvation is MADE POSSIBLE by the death of Jesus?  I'm talking about Christians disagreeing over the REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION. 

Do you understand the difference?

The death of Jesus was one of the basic requirements....agreement of a majority points to unity.

I'll spell it out for you.  A Jehovah's Witness would agree that "salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross".  However, they would disagree with you over one of the requirements needed for this salvation.  You say one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved.  They would disagree. 

I do  have to believe it , based on my understanding of scripture,which is why I can't in good conscience become a JW.They stand or fall on their own, Andy.Exactly how they will be judged is a matter above my pay scale.

I could give you another example, like with 80s child and her belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I think you get the point.  At least I'm hoping.

I explained my view as well.If she sincerely believes her take on baptism then by all means 80s should be sure to partake of it.I did as well,but not for as compelling a reason as she would.

There is a difference between Jesus making salvation possible through doing something and the requirements one has to do (or believe) to achieve this salvation.  Christians can agree that Jesus made salvation possible through his death on the cross but Christians disagree on the requirements needed to attain this salvation.

I hope this is clear.  It is an important difference.  If this doesn't make sense then let me know and I'll try to give you a better explanation.

Can a person be saved by what Jesus did and not know they wanted it applied to their own life?Do you think 'believe' , scripturally speaking, is akin to saying something like" if the weather is nice Saturday ,I believe I'll go golfing?

I hope to continue tomorrow.

[Andy S.]

So, in order to be a "biblical truth" in your view it must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a Christian?

Yes.....according to the definition to "TRUTH".   

Truth:

1. the true or actual state of a matter.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth

1 + 1 = 2 right?

Do you know of some mathematician who disagrees with this?

Then it is a "mathematical truth".  Do you see now why "biblical truth" is not the proper phrase to use?  I repeat: "If Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is then someone's view on salvation shouldn't be called a "biblical truth".

Listen to how silly your question sounds when the example of math is applied:

"So, in order to be a "mathematical truth" in your view, a solution to a math problem must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a mathematician?

Do you know what parts of the wiki article are truth and which aren't?

This is true:

"Soteriology (/s??t??ri??l?d?i/; Greek: ??????? s?t?ria "salvation" from ????? s?t?r "savior, preserver" and ????? logos "study" or "word"[1]) is the study of religious doctrines of salvation."

I would also say this is true:

"Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

This sentence does not say salvation is exclusively the fault line dividing the various Christian denominations so I see this statement as truth.  Variant views on salvation are definitely AMONG the main fault lines. 

I didn't read the entire article on all the different religions but did you see anything in it that you would say is false?

I certainly wouldn't interject " the One True God" into every mention of Jesus and the  atonement and am fine with the sentence the way it reads.

Goombah, fill in the blank.  You have to believe that Jesus is _____________ in order to be saved!

And who cares if the the majority of Christians agree that salvation is MADE POSSIBLE by the death of Jesus?  I'm talking about Christians disagreeing over the REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION. 

Do you understand the difference?

The death of Jesus was one of the basic requirements....agreement of a majority points to unity.

Who really cares if the majority of Christians believe that the death of Jesus is a belief that is a basic requirement needed for salvation.  The majority of people would say getting rid of a turd at the bottom of a pool is necessary and, yes, I guess you can say this agreement of a majority points to unity.  But who cares.   

Some Christian Universalists would say this requirement is one requirement too many.  According to you, and many other Christians, there are more requirements than just believing in the death of Jesus.  These extra requirements bring disagreements and division.  I wouldn't think this would be so hard for you to understand.  I conducted an experiment with you and 80s Child.....remember?  Did you agree with all of her requirements needed for salvation?

You and 80's might both agree that getting a turd out of a pool is necessary but you might disagree on how clean the pool has to be before jumping back in.  80's might say the pool has to be completely drained and refilled and you might just jump right back in once the turd is removed.  People can be united in ways but that doesn't point to complete unity.

I'll spell it out for you.  A Jehovah's Witness would agree that "salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross".  However, they would disagree with you over one of the requirements needed for this salvation.  You say one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved.  They would disagree. 

I do  have to believe it , based on my understanding of scripture,which is why I can't in good conscience become a JW.They stand or fall on their own, Andy.Exactly how they will be judged is a matter above my pay scale.

I understand in good conscience why you can't become a JW.  You think they are going to "die in their sins" according to your interpretation of John 8:24.   

And you don't know how people who don't think Jesus is the "I AM" (title) will be judged???? 

What????

THEY ARE GOING TO "DIE IN THEIR SINS" ACCORDING TO YOUR INTERPRETATION OF JOHN 8:24!  Do you think your interpretation might be wrong or what? 

I could give you another example, like with 80s child and her belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I think you get the point.  At least I'm hoping.

I explained my view as well.If she sincerely believes her take on baptism then by all means 80s should be sure to partake of it.I did as well,but not for as compelling a reason as she would.

If you saw her witnessing to a non-believer and she was laying out all the requirements needed for salvation and mentioned that baptism was necessary for salvation....would you correct her?  Would you mention to this non-believer that Christians disagree on some of the requirements needed for salvation? 

Can a person be saved by what Jesus did and not know they wanted it applied to their own life?

I have no idea.  I'm the wrong person to ask.  I can't even refer you to anyone because there is no overall consensus as to what a person has to exactly do or believe in order to be saved. 

I do think many Universalists would say yes to this question. 

Do you think 'believe' , scripturally speaking, is akin to saying something like" if the weather is nice Saturday ,I believe I'll go golfing?

Sure, I guess.  Kinda like "Christians disagree on what the exact requirements needed for salvation are, but if I somehow get all these requirements right, I believe I'll go to heaven".


Edit: I have really enjoyed this conversation!  Things might get busy for me this week so I might be a little delayed in getting back to your next response.   

[80sChild]

@Andy S.

I am laughing my ass off right now!!
I can't believe you used the word"turd"
Totally cracking up right now!! lol OK! That was good!! Never a dull moment with you Andy!!

[Airyaman]

Christians have argued the necessity of water baptism for a long time. Shame Jesus doesn't show up to clear things up.

[nateswift]

Christians have argued the necessity of water baptism for a long time. Shame Jesus doesn't show up to clear things up.

It should now be clear that early Christians still thought that forms were important as opposed to the event the forms symbolized.  I'm afraid this goes back to the question of authority; book or Spirit.

[Goombah]

So, in order to be a "biblical truth" in your view it must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a Christian?

Yes.....according to the definition to "TRUTH".   

Truth:

1. the true or actual state of a matter.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth

1 + 1 = 2 right?

Do you know of some mathematician who disagrees with this?

Then it is a "mathematical truth".  Do you see now why "biblical truth" is not the proper phrase to use?  I repeat: "If Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is then someone's view on salvation shouldn't be called a "biblical truth".

Listen to how silly your question sounds when the example of math is applied:

"So, in order to be a "mathematical truth" in your view, a solution to a math problem must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a mathematician?

The Bible isn't making a mathematical claim, though.It would be more like the " I love my wife" claim that is not absolutely verifiable or defined the same universally yet love is believed to exist universally.It very well may be understood by you and be "true' in your case but you can't get a 100% consensus of what love means in your case.

Do you know what parts of the wiki article are truth and which aren't?

This is true:

"Soteriology (/s??t??ri??l?d?i/; Greek: ??????? s?t?ria "salvation" from ????? s?t?r "savior, preserver" and ????? logos "study" or "word"[1]) is the study of religious doctrines of salvation."

I would also say this is true:

"Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

This sentence does not say salvation is exclusively the fault line dividing the various Christian denominations so I see this statement as truth.  Variant views on salvation are definitely AMONG the main fault lines. 

I didn't read the entire article on all the different religions but did you see anything in it that you would say is false?

I didn't read the whole thing either; you mentioned that it contained "some truth" so I wondered if you had in fact found something you thought might be false.I guess it was just an expression.

I certainly wouldn't interject " the One True God" into every mention of Jesus and the  atonement and am fine with the sentence the way it reads.

Goombah, fill in the blank.  You have to believe that Jesus is _____________ in order to be saved!

I could fill it in with several things I have to believe but I don't claim universal knowledge nor the ability to judge other people.While I think the supernatural was involved in Zacchaeus'
conversion,if in fact that's what happened, I can't pinpoint why Christ made the declaration in this case ...at least not off-hand.
What fits the blank in that case?What would fill in the blank in the case of the thief on the cross?
BTW, my first thought was" resurrected".

And who cares if the the majority of Christians agree that salvation is MADE POSSIBLE by the death of Jesus?  I'm talking about Christians disagreeing over the REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION. 

Do you understand the difference?

I'd hoped you see that the final requirements are Jesus' to decide...The thief didn't get baptized or speak in tongues yet he was promised paradise with Jesus.If one is convinced that they must meet a requirement and don't  do it to them it is sin.

James 4 Amplified Bible (AMP)

17 So any person who knows what is right to do but does not do it, to him it is sin.

I'm concentrating on my own Christianity and am ever  learning more and more as I submit and am obedient ( to the light I have been given).

Who really cares if the majority of Christians believe that the death of Jesus is a belief that is a basic requirement needed for salvation.  The majority of people would say getting rid of a turd at the bottom of a pool is necessary and, yes, I guess you can say this agreement of a majority points to unity.  But who cares.   

Some Christian Universalists would say this requirement is one requirement too many.  According to you, and many other Christians, there are more requirements than just believing in the death of Jesus.  These extra requirements bring disagreements and division.  I wouldn't think this would be so hard for you to understand.  I conducted an experiment with you and 80s Child.....remember?  Did you agree with all of her requirements needed for salvation?

We agree that we both need to be saved and Jesus is the way to obtain it.That seemed to be sufficient for the thief.

You and 80's might both agree that getting a turd out of a pool is necessary but you might disagree on how clean the pool has to be before jumping back in.  80's might say the pool has to be completely drained and refilled and you might just jump right back in once the turd is removed.  People can be united in ways but that doesn't point to complete unity.

We both agree that we are going back into the pool.
You come across like  the Pharisees who turned  10 Commandments into 613.

I'll spell it out for you.  A Jehovah's Witness would agree that "salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross".  However, they would disagree with you over one of the requirements needed for this salvation.  You say one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved.  They would disagree. 

I do  have to believe it , based on my understanding of scripture,which is why I can't in good conscience become a JW.They stand or fall on their own, Andy.Exactly how they will be judged is a matter above my pay scale.

I understand in good conscience why you can't become a JW.  You think they are going to "die in their sins" according to your interpretation of John 8:24.   

Incorrect,Andy.Only God can judge the intent of their heart.If I was to deny it , based on my take on several scriptures,I would be in danger.I can't judge their sincerity Andy , only Jesus will.And as long as they continue posting ,it ain't over anyway as far as I can tell.That's what the golf pro meant...Jesus waits 'til the very end.

And you don't know how people who don't think Jesus is the "I AM" (title) will be judged???? 

What????

THEY ARE GOING TO "DIE IN THEIR SINS" ACCORDING TO YOUR INTERPRETATION OF JOHN 8:24!  Do you think your interpretation might be wrong or what? 

See above

I could give you another example, like with 80s child and her belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I think you get the point.  At least I'm hoping.

If you saw her witnessing to a non-believer and she was laying out all the requirements needed for salvation and mentioned that baptism was necessary for salvation....would you correct her?  Would you mention to this non-believer that Christians disagree on some of the requirements needed for salvation? 

I was saved in part by people who were less than stellar theologians but extremely sincere Christians.I remember they spoke of having a living relationship with Jesus,it showed in how they treated me that they lived it. It created a hunger for what they had.
I'm not too picky about the way people witness.

Paul had a great attitude toward that sort of thing:

Phillipians 1: 15-18

15 Some, it is true, are [actually] preaching Christ out of envy and rivalry [toward me?for no better reason than a competitive spirit or misguided ambition], but others out of goodwill and a loyal spirit [toward me]. 16 The latter [preach Christ] out of love, because they know that I have been put here [by God on purpose] for the defense of the gospel; 17 but the former preach Christ [insincerely] out of selfish ambition [just self-promotion], thinking that they are causing me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then [does it matter]? So long as in every way, whether in pretense [for self-promotion] or in all honesty [to spread the truth], Christ is being preached; and in this I rejoice.

Edit: I have really enjoyed this conversation!  Things might get busy for me this week so I might be a little delayed in getting back to your next response.

I've been busy, too, and short-handed.

Thanks.

[Andy S.]

So, in order to be a "biblical truth" in your view it must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a Christian?

Yes.....according to the definition to "TRUTH".   

Truth:

1. the true or actual state of a matter.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth

1 + 1 = 2 right?

Do you know of some mathematician who disagrees with this?

Then it is a "mathematical truth".  Do you see now why "biblical truth" is not the proper phrase to use?  I repeat: "If Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is then someone's view on salvation shouldn't be called a "biblical truth".

Listen to how silly your question sounds when the example of math is applied:

"So, in order to be a "mathematical truth" in your view, a solution to a math problem must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a mathematician?

The Bible isn't making a mathematical claim, though.

You are right!!! 

The bible CAN'T.  The doctrine of salvation is too ambiguous and contradictory.

Due to the ambiguity of the bible, Christians have different interpretations which result in different numbers of requirements needed for salvation.

For instance: 

1st requirement + 2nd requirement = salvation for some

1st requirement + 2nd requirement + 3rd requirement = salvation for others

Because there is not a 100% consensus on the exact formula for salvation we can see that the doctrine of salvation cannot be compared to anything like a mathematical formula.  Therefore, Christians should refrain from using the word "truth" when discussing what a person has to do or believe in order to be saved. 

It would be more like the " I love my wife" claim that is not absolutely verifiable or defined the same universally yet love is believed to exist universally.It very well may be understood by you and be "true' in your case but you can't get a 100% consensus of what love means in your case.

This is what your sentence is going to sound like if this is a correct comparison:

The biblical "truth" of how one is saved is not absolutely verifiable or defined the same universally yet salvation exists universally.  The biblical "truth" of how one is saved may be 'true' in my case but you can't get a 100% consensus of what this biblical "truth" means.

Now, if I heard this sales pitch from the get go....there is no way I would have become a Christian in the first place.  I could have saved a looooot of time and money.  I would have called BS right out of the gates.  I hope you don't lead with this "comparison" when you witness to others.  If you do, my guess is your conversion rate is 0%. 

If you use this, you would sound like a door-to-door salesman for large safes but you are trying to sell safes when you are not entirely sure what the combination to the safe is.     

BTW, this comparison is inconsistent.  If this is your comparison then....like I said....Christians can't use the word "truth".  If something is not "absolutely verifiable" then....by definition....it can't be "truth".  See definition #3 to the word "truth" above.

And who cares if salvation exists universally among Christians?  Who cares if this is one of the only beliefs that unites Christians?  Let's pretend I was a gullible customer who bought one of your large safes with a questionable combination attached to it.  I invite many people into my house and people universally agree that this safe exists in my house.  They even universally think this safe could be opened with the right combination.  Big deal.....what good is a safe in my house if I am uncertain what the combination is? 

Because I was gullible enough to buy your safe I am left with a guessing game in getting the safe open.  Now, to really make this analogy applicable, I would choose a combination to the safe but I wouldn't be able to find out if the combination works until I die.  I could use your questionable combination but there are many other combinations I could use.  So who cares if people universally agree that this safe exists in my house and, with the right combination, it can be opened? 

The fact that the exact requirements needed for salvation are not "absolutely verifiable" is....well....tragic.

I will play off of Epicurious' quote:

?Is God willing to make the exact requirements needed for salvation 'absolutely verifiable', but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then why can't all Christians 'absolutely verify' what the exact requirements needed for salvation are?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God??

Goombah, fill in the blank.  You have to believe that Jesus is _____________ in order to be saved!

I could fill it in with several things I have to believe but I don't claim universal knowledge

THEN LEAVE IT BLANK!  Why would you even think to say that one HAS TO believe that Jesus is THE ONE TRUE GOD in order to be saved if you don't have "universal knowledge"?

I'd hoped you see that the final requirements are Jesus' to decide...The thief didn't get baptized or speak in tongues yet he was promised paradise with Jesus.If one is convinced that they must meet a requirement and don't  do it to them it is sin.

Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson are NOT convinced that one has to believe that Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD in order to be saved and they claim they are Christians who believe in salvation.  You ARE convinced that one has to believe Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD in order to be saved and you also claim you are a Christian who believes in salvation. 

Very important question: Who is doing the convincing?

Who really cares if the majority of Christians believe that the death of Jesus is a belief that is a basic requirement needed for salvation.  The majority of people would say getting rid of a turd at the bottom of a pool is necessary and, yes, I guess you can say this agreement of a majority points to unity.  But who cares.   

Some Christian Universalists would say this requirement is one requirement too many.  According to you, and many other Christians, there are more requirements than just believing in the death of Jesus.  These extra requirements bring disagreements and division.  I wouldn't think this would be so hard for you to understand.  I conducted an experiment with you and 80s Child.....remember?  Did you agree with all of her requirements needed for salvation?

We agree that we both need to be saved and Jesus is the way to obtain it.That seemed to be sufficient for the thief.

NO!  You don't completely agree!!!  I'll use the same example as above.  You have said one must believe Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD in order to obtain salvation.  Other people who claim they are Christians don't think you have to believe this in order to obtain salvation.  Jesus might be the way but people disagree on what one has to believe about this character in order to be saved.   

   

You and 80's might both agree that getting a turd out of a pool is necessary but you might disagree on how clean the pool has to be before jumping back in.  80's might say the pool has to be completely drained and refilled and you might just jump right back in once the turd is removed.  People can be united in ways but that doesn't point to complete unity.

We both agree that we are going back into the pool.

Wrong.  80's is not going back into the pool until it is completely drained and refilled.  If you only just remove the turd then 80's is not getting back into the pool.  If you tell 80's to hop in after the turd is removed she is going to say "NO" because she is not going back into the pool until her requirement of draining the pool is met.  You are not in agreement on the requirements needed to hop back into the pool just like you are not in agreement on the exact requirements needed for salvation.   

You come across like  the Pharisees who turned  10 Commandments into 613.

Now that's funny.  From what I gathered from you so far...I do KNOW this.  You have at least one more requirement needed for salvation than I had as a Christian.  I did not think one had to believe that Jesus was the ONE TRUE GOD in order to be saved.  I would have said, as a Christian, that you have added to the gospel with this EXTRA requirement of yours.     

I'll spell it out for you.  A Jehovah's Witness would agree that "salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross".  However, they would disagree with you over one of the requirements needed for this salvation.  You say one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved.  They would disagree. 

I do  have to believe it , based on my understanding of scripture,which is why I can't in good conscience become a JW.They stand or fall on their own, Andy.Exactly how they will be judged is a matter above my pay scale.

I understand in good conscience why you can't become a JW.  You think they are going to "die in their sins" according to your interpretation of John 8:24.   

Incorrect,Andy.Only God can judge the intent of their heart.If I was to deny it , based on my take on several scriptures,I would be in danger.

Be in danger of what?

I can't judge their sincerity Andy , only Jesus will.And as long as they continue posting ,it ain't over anyway as far as I can tell.That's what the golf pro meant...Jesus waits 'til the very end.

I don't understand.  Are you saying there is still hope for Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson to become Christians? 

BTW, can you answer my question from before?  Is someone who is going to "die in their sins" (John 8:24) a Christian?

And you don't know how people who don't think Jesus is the "I AM" (title) will be judged???? 

What????

THEY ARE GOING TO "DIE IN THEIR SINS" ACCORDING TO YOUR INTERPRETATION OF JOHN 8:24!  Do you think your interpretation might be wrong or what? 

See above

Ok, I saw above and I don't see an answer to my question.  I repeat:  "Do you think your interpretation of John 8:24 might be wrong?

I was saved in part by people who were less than stellar theologians but extremely sincere Christians.

I think you meant to say, "I THINK I was saved....".  You can't KNOW that you were saved if the biblical "truth" of salvation is not "absolutely verifiable".   

I remember they spoke of having a living relationship with Jesus,it showed in how they treated me that they lived it. It created a hunger for what they had.

I had the same experience.  So what?

I'm not too picky about the way people witness.

Paul had a great attitude toward that sort of thing:

Phillipians 1: 15-18

15 Some, it is true, are [actually] preaching Christ out of envy and rivalry [toward me?for no better reason than a competitive spirit or misguided ambition], but others out of goodwill and a loyal spirit [toward me]. 16 The latter [preach Christ] out of love, because they know that I have been put here [by God on purpose] for the defense of the gospel; 17 but the former preach Christ [insincerely] out of selfish ambition [just self-promotion], thinking that they are causing me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then [does it matter]? So long as in every way, whether in pretense [for self-promotion] or in all honesty [to spread the truth], Christ is being preached; and in this I rejoice.

Goombah, I'm sure Paul is talking about these people preaching the same requirements needed for salvation that he, himself, believed.  The same requirements needed for salvation can be preached through envy, rivalry, goodwill, love, or selfish ambition.

What's your point?

Sure, Paul was probably not too picky how people witnessed as long as they preached what he preached?

Galatians 1:8,9: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

I think you should be picky about how one witnesses!

Hell, I'd even rethink your gospel.  If you think one has to believe that Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD then your gospel sounds like this:

"For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes that this Son is actually the ONE TRUE GOD shall not perish, but have eternal life. 

Is this contrary to the gospel Paul preached?  I guess you'll have to ask yourself if Paul made it a requirement that one has to believe that Jesus is THE ONE TRUE GOD IN ORDER TO BE SAVED in any of his writings.     

Edit: I have really enjoyed this conversation!  Things might get busy for me this week so I might be a little delayed in getting back to your next response.

I've been busy, too, and short-handed.

Thanks.

Well, think of being busy as a blessing.  "Idle hands are the devil's workshop" (Prov. 16:27).

I used to get that saying all the time from my parents.  I know....really annoying!   

Anyway, thanks for responding and I hope things slow down enough for you to respond again.  Looking forward to it!

[80sChild]

@Andy S.

+1 and you are correct not going back in that pool till the "turd" is out and pool have been drained and refilled!! Lol yuck!! 

[Andy S.]

You come across like  the Pharisees who turned  10 Commandments into 613.

I know this is off-topic but I just wanted you to know that the Pharisees did not "turn" 10 commandments into 613.  The 10 commandments are part of the 613 commandments.  The 613 commandments are in the bible.  The Pharisees just didn't make all these laws up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

Furthermore, I don't even know which 10 commandments you are talking about.  Are you talking about the commandments in Exodus 20 or these "ten commandments" in Exodus 34:14-28? :

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2.Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3.The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.

6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Which commandments are more important to follow?  The commandments in Exodus 20 or the "ten commandments" in Exodus 34?

You sound like it was a bad thing for the Pharisees to want to please their God by keeping other commandments that were not part of the "10".  But listen to what Jesus says:

?Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19,20)

According to Jesus, the Pharisees were "righteous" in trying to keep the entire law.

Now, Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for neglecting some of the law but they were not rebuked for keeping other commandments that were not in the "10".  For instance, Matthew 23:23 states:

""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."

Notice Jesus didn't say, "Why are you tithing and turning the 10 commandments into new commandments?"  One thing you have to understand is the Pharisees DID NOT "TURN" 10 COMMANDMENTS INTO 613.  The Pharisees were tithing because the bible told them to.  Tithing is one of the 613 commandments.

You don't have to respond to any of this as derailing the thread was not my intention.  I just wanted to let you know that you were misinformed if you thought the Pharisees "TURNED" 10 commandments into 613.       

 

[Goombah]

You come across like  the Pharisees who turned  10 Commandments into 613.

I know this is off-topic but I just wanted you to know that the Pharisees did not "turn" 10 commandments into 613.  The 10 commandments are part of the 613 commandments.  The 613 commandments are in the bible.  The Pharisees just didn't make all these laws up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

I was talking more along these lines Andy:

Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments"

? There are 613 commandments, not 10
? The "Ten Commandments" are categories
? The 10 are divided into duties to G-d and duties to people
? Different religions divide the 10 in different ways

The Aseret ha-Dibrot are not understood as individual mitzvot; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others. For example, the mitzvah not to work on Shabbat rather obviously falls within the category of remembering the Sabbath day and keeping it holy. The mitzvah to fast on Yom Kippur fits into that category somewhat less obviously: all holidays are in some sense a Sabbath, and the category encompasses any mitzvah related to sacred time. The mitzvah not to stand aside while a person's life is in danger fits somewhat obviously into the category against murder. It is not particularly obvious, however, that the mitzvah not to embarrass a person fits within the category against murder: it causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood.

http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

Furthermore, I don't even know which 10 commandments you are talking about.  Are you talking about the commandments in Exodus 20 or these "ten commandments" in Exodus 34:14-28? :

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2.Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3.The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.

6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Which commandments are more important to follow?  The commandments in Exodus 20 or the "ten commandments" in Exodus 34?

The jewish site from above draws froms Exodus 20 for their article.

1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."
2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.
3. Prohibition of Oaths
This category is derived from Ex. 20:7, beginning, "You shall not take the name of the L-rd your G-d in vain..." This includes prohibitions against perjury, breaking or delaying the performance of vows or promises, and speaking G-d's name or swearing unnecessarily.
4. Observance of Sacred Times
This category is derived from Ex. 20:8-11, beginning, "Remember the Sabbath day..." It encompasses all mitzvot related to Shabbat, holidays, or other sacred time.
5. Respect for Parents and Teachers
This category is derived from Ex. 20:12, beginning, "Honor your father and mother..."
6. Prohibition of Physically Harming a Person
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not murder."
7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."
8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices. It also includes kidnapping, which is essentially "stealing" a person.
9. Prohibition of Harming a Person through Speech
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." It includes all forms of lashon ha-ra (sins relating to speech).
10. Prohibition of Coveting
This category is derived from Ex. 20:14, beginning, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."

You sound like it was a bad thing for the Pharisees to want to please their God by keeping other commandments that were not part of the "10".  But listen to what Jesus says:

?Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19,20)

According to Jesus, the Pharisees were "righteous" in trying to keep the entire law.

If you can't get into The Kingdom without surpassing the righteousness of the pharisees  it sounds more like 'close but no cigar' for the pharisees.

Now, Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for neglecting some of the law but they were not rebuked for keeping other commandments that were not in the "10".  For instance, Matthew 23:23 states:

""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."

Notice Jesus didn't say, "Why are you tithing and turning the 10 commandments into new commandments?"  One thing you have to understand is the Pharisees DID NOT "TURN" 10 COMMANDMENTS INTO 613.  The Pharisees were tithing because the bible told them to.  Tithing is one of the 613 commandments.

So is " be fruitful and multiply".Are childless couples living in sin?

You don't have to respond to any of this as derailing the thread was not my intention.  I just wanted to let you know that you were misinformed if you thought the Pharisees "TURNED" 10 commandments into 613.       

I think that the pharisees put undue complications ( based on the Ten Commandments) upon the people which they themselves couldn't keep...as per your example above.As James pointed out ....Ja 2:10

10) For whosoever keeps the Law [as a] whole but stumbles and offends in one [single instance] has become guilty of [breaking] all of it.

Thanks...I'll get back to the other posts soon.

[Andy S.]

Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments"

? There are 613 commandments, not 10
? The "Ten Commandments" are categories
? The 10 are divided into duties to G-d and duties to people
? Different religions divide the 10 in different ways

The Aseret ha-Dibrot are not understood as individual mitzvot; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others.

Really....the 10 commandments are "categories"???  Challenge for Goombah:

PLEASE GIVE ME A VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS EACH OF THE 613 LAWS ARE "SUBSUMED" IN A CATEGORY UNDER ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

I'll give you another challenge just to see if you think (like I do) this is all nonsense:

WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Another Challenge:

WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #132 UNDER (The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

It is not particularly obvious, however, that the mitzvah not to embarrass a person fits within the category against murder: it causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood.

What???  Embarrassing a person fits within the category against murder???  It causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood???

Really???  You believe this???  This is absolute nonsense!

You should be embarrassed if you believe this!  Are you embarrassed?

Do you feel blood draining from your face right about now? 

Should I now be charged with murder?

Furthermore, I don't even know which 10 commandments you are talking about.  Are you talking about the commandments in Exodus 20 or these "ten commandments" in Exodus 34:14-28? :

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2.Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3.The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.

6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Which commandments are more important to follow?  The commandments in Exodus 20 or the "ten commandments" in Exodus 34?

The jewish site from above draws froms Exodus 20 for their article.

Why did the Jewish site draw from the "Ten commandments" in Exodus 20 and not the "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34?  The "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34 actually has the words "Ten Commandments" attached to it (Ex. 34:28).

If you can't get into The Kingdom without surpassing the righteousness of the pharisees  it sounds more like 'close but no cigar' for the pharisees.

Wait a second, Romans 3:10 says, "As it is written, 'THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE.'"  Jesus is saying the Pharisees are righteous (to a degree) but Paul says there is "none righteous". 

Hmmmm.

Now, Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for neglecting some of the law but they were not rebuked for keeping other commandments that were not in the "10".  For instance, Matthew 23:23 states:

""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."

Notice Jesus didn't say, "Why are you tithing and turning the 10 commandments into new commandments?"  One thing you have to understand is the Pharisees DID NOT "TURN" 10 COMMANDMENTS INTO 613.  The Pharisees were tithing because the bible told them to.  Tithing is one of the 613 commandments.

So is " be fruitful and multiply".Are childless couples living in sin?

I don't know.  You tell me.  Jesus said in the above example that the Pharisees "should" be tithing.  If God says you "should" do something and you don't are you living in sin? 

Matt. 5:19 states:

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever KEEPS and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Law #63 of the of the 613 laws says "To be fruitful and multiply".

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

The question:  Is a couple living in sin if they "annul" the commandment to be fruitful and multiply?  The couple who can have children but don't might be the least in the kingdom of heaven but I'm the wrong person to ask if you want to know if this couple is "living in sin".  From the above verse I guess I would say yes but at least they get into the "kingdom of heaven" even though they will be called "least". 

I think that the pharisees put undue complications ( based on the Ten Commandments) upon the people which they themselves couldn't keep.

Well, for goodness sake, I'm glad the Pharisees couldn't keep the whole law.  If this is true, I commend the Pharisees for not keeping the whole law.  I mean...for instance....I'm glad the Pharisees might have thought it is unjust for someone to have to marry the virgin girl they raped.  Maybe the Pharisees thought it would be messed up for a woman to have to live with their rapist for the rest of their lives for the price of fifty shekels (Deut. 22:29)

This is just one example of some of the unjust laws that are found within the 613.

Thanks...I'll get back to the other posts soon.

Great, looking forward to it! 

This "Ten Commandment" thing was a serious derail.  However, I can't believe you think all 613 laws fit into categories of the 10 commandments.  In addition, all of your last post did not explain how the Pharisees "turned 10 commandments into 613".  I really don't know why you even responded to my last post.  Your response only created more tough questions for you to answer.   

I'm looking forward to your answers to this post but I totally understand if you want to avoid answering any of these questions and want to get back on topic.     

[Goombah]

Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments"

? There are 613 commandments, not 10
? The "Ten Commandments" are categories
? The 10 are divided into duties to G-d and duties to people
? Different religions divide the 10 in different ways

The Aseret ha-Dibrot are not understood as individual mitzvot; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others.

Really....the 10 commandments are "categories"???  Challenge for Goombah:

PLEASE GIVE ME A VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS EACH OF THE 613 LAWS ARE "SUBSUMED" IN A CATEGORY UNDER ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

It wouldn't be in the Bible.

There is no biblical reference to 613 commandments, although the later rabbinic leaders claimed that all 613 commandments are alluded to within the Ten Commandments. The first actual reference to 613 commandments is found in a lengthy Talmudic passage. There, Rabbi Simlai (third century A.D.) is quoted as saying, ?Six hundred and thirteen precepts were communicated to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative precepts, ?and two hundred and forty-eight positive precepts?? (b. Makkot 23b-24a; we will return to this passage at the end of this answer). Based on this comment, medieval Jewish scholars, sought to come to agreement as to the exact enumeration and delineation of the 613 commandments, since there is a good deal of ambiguity in counting. - See more at: https://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.vNE0yKlj.dpuf

I'll give you another challenge just to see if you think (like I do) this is all nonsense:

WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

I have no idea what they listed it under.

Another Challenge:

WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #132 UNDER (The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed)?

Coveting? Stealing?
Again, I have no idea.

It is not particularly obvious, however, that the mitzvah not to embarrass a person fits within the category against murder: it causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood.

What???  Embarrassing a person fits within the category against murder???  It causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood???

Really???  You believe this???  This is absolute nonsense!

You should be embarrassed if you believe this!  Are you embarrassed?

Do you feel blood draining from your face right about now? 

Should I now be charged with murder?

OF COURSE it's ridiculous! That's my point.The Jewish leaders insisted on complicating the Law beyond anything remotely reasonable.Which is why I compared what you were attempting to do( add requirements to salvation ,like speaking in tongues and water baptism,) which Jesus didn't hold the thief on the cross to.That exception needs an explanation before the other requirements become universally mandatory for salvation.I can't hold someone to a requirement that Christ Himself didn't .

Furthermore, I don't even know which 10 commandments you are talking about.  Are you talking about the commandments in Exodus 20 or these "ten commandments" in Exodus 34:14-28? :

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2.Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3.The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.

6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Which commandments are more important to follow?  The commandments in Exodus 20 or the "ten commandments" in Exodus 34?



Why did the Jewish site draw from the "Ten commandments" in Exodus 20 and not the "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34?  The "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34 actually has the words "Ten Commandments" attached to it (Ex. 34:28).

Maybe because as wiki describes it:

The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, are a set of commandments which the Bible describes as having been given to the Israelites by God at biblical Mount Sinai. The Ten Commandments are listed twice in the Hebrew Bible, first at Exodus 20:1?17, and then at Deuteronomy 5:4?21. Both versions state that God inscribed them on two stone tablets, which he gave to Moses. According to New Testament writers, the Ten Commandments are clearly attributed to Moses (Mark 7:10, see also John 7:19).

If you can't get into The Kingdom without surpassing the righteousness of the pharisees  it sounds more like 'close but no cigar' for the pharisees.

Wait a second, Romans 3:10 says, "As it is written, 'THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE.'"  Jesus is saying the Pharisees are righteous (to a degree) but Paul says there is "none righteous". 

Hmmmm.

Exactly! If it's keeping the Law that gets  one into The Kingdom, then, as James points out, it's 100% or bust.
I see the purpose of the Law as this:
Gal 3:24
24)Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Matthew Henry:
"The law did not teach a living, saving knowledge; but, by its rites and ceremonies, especially by its sacrifices, it pointed to Christ, that they might be justified by faith."

Now, Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for neglecting some of the law but they were not rebuked for keeping other commandments that were not in the "10".  For instance, Matthew 23:23 states:

""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."

Notice Jesus didn't say, "Why are you tithing and turning the 10 commandments into new commandments?"  One thing you have to understand is the Pharisees DID NOT "TURN" 10 COMMANDMENTS INTO 613.  The Pharisees were tithing because the bible told them to.  Tithing is one of the 613 commandments.

What numbers are justice ,mercy and faithfulness?Do you happen to know if they are part of the list?

What I'm saying is simply that the 10 commandments were expanded to 613 and the fact that the '10' was the 'mother sauce' if you will was claimed by various Jewish teachers and the Talmud writers. With the destruction of the Temple they have Laws that they are not now even able to keep for example.

Matt. 5:19 states:

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever KEEPS and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Law #63 of the of the 613 laws says "To be fruitful and multiply".

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

The question:  Is a couple living in sin if they "annul" the commandment to be fruitful and multiply?  The couple who can have children but don't might be the least in the kingdom of heaven but I'm the wrong person to ask if you want to know if this couple is "living in sin".  From the above verse I guess I would say yes but at least they get into the "kingdom of heaven" even though they will be called "least". 

Not that cut and dry if you continue on to the very next verse:

20 ?For I say to you that unless your righteousness (uprightness, moral essence) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

I think that the pharisees put undue complications ( based on the Ten Commandments) upon the people which they themselves couldn't keep.

Well, for goodness sake, I'm glad the Pharisees couldn't keep the whole law.  If this is true, I commend the Pharisees for not keeping the whole law.  I mean...for instance....I'm glad the Pharisees might have thought it is unjust for someone to have to marry the virgin girl they raped.  Maybe the Pharisees thought it would be messed up for a woman to have to live with their rapist for the rest of their lives for the price of fifty shekels (Deut. 22:29)

This is just one example of some of the unjust laws that are found within the 613.

I agree but you don't know what parts of the whole law they didn't keep.The ones you find unjust may have been the ones they kept.I'm sure an extensive knowledge of the Ancient Near East culture would help...I obviously don't have that.

This "Ten Commandment" thing was a serious derail.  However, I can't believe you think all 613 laws fit into categories of the 10 commandments.  In addition, all of your last post did not explain how the Pharisees "turned 10 commandments into 613".  I really don't know why you even responded to my last post.  Your response only created more tough questions for you to answer.   

You're giving me credit for a claim I'm not making, Andy.I pointed out Jewish writers and the Talmud which claim the 613 can be traced back to the 10. I only brought it up to show how easily the simplicity of Scripture is weighed down by man-made regulations....example : the blood from the cheeks thing = murder.

I'm looking forward to your answers to this post but I totally understand if you want to avoid answering any of these questions and want to get back on topic.   

We can lay this  to rest, for certain.Let's get back to the other subjects.

[Andy S.]

Goombah, I am not going to even attempt to piece ^^^ apart into separate quotes.  You messed up the quoting format and I have a hard enough time trying to get a correct format when it is done correctly.  I'll respond to a few things by using a lot of cut and paste.

You claimed that the 10 commandments are categories.  Each of the 613 laws can be subsumed under one of these ten categories (the 10 commandments). 

You admitted your claim cannot be found in the bible and then I challenged you by simply giving you two laws that seemed to be impossible to be subsumed under one of the categories of the ten categories and you failed to meet my challenges.

Well, I take that back.  I challenged you with the law that says a rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed and you said you have no idea but this law might be subsumed under the category of "coveting" or "stealing".  Now that is really funny Goombah!!!  Thanks for the laugh today!

So you basically have no idea what categories these two laws fall under.  These are just two out of many I could have given you.  Listen, it isn't convincing to me whatsoever that the 613 commandments can be subsumed into 10.  It shouldn't be convincing to you either!  You make a claim that can't be found in the bible and then you don't know what the answers are to my challenges.  This should be a good sign that this claim of yours is BS. 

So your claim was tested and your claim failed.  So, if you have any intellectual integrity you shouldn't really believe that the 613 laws can be subsumed into the 10 categories of the 10 commandments anymore. 

But then you write these things later in your post:

"the 10 commandments were expanded to 613"

and....

"Jewish writers and the Talmud which claim the 613 can be traced back to the 10. I only brought it up to show how easily the simplicity of Scripture is weighed down by man-made regulations."

UNBELIEVABLE!  Listen, the 10 commandments were NOT expanded to 613!  You definitely can't prove this and it should have been evident in the fact that you failed to meet my challenges.  And what are you talking about?  "Weighed down by man-made regulations"???  Are the laws of the bible "man-made regulations"?  Now this might be something we can agree on.


You then state:

"The Jewish leaders insisted on complicating the Law beyond anything remotely reasonable.  Which is why I compared what you were attempting to do( add requirements to salvation ,like speaking in tongues and water baptism,)."

First, I don't think the Jewish leaders "complicated the Law".  If anything, they were reprimanded for neglecting part of the law (Matt. 23:23).  I believe when Jesus says ?For I say to you that unless your righteousness (uprightness, moral essence) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20) he is saying one has to be more righteous than the Pharisees who have neglected part of the law. 

Second, I never "attempted" to add the requirements of speaking in tongues or water baptism to salvation.  I repeat: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXACT REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION ARE!  The bible is too ambiguous.  And listen, I told you that when I was a Christian I would be accusing YOU of adding an extra requirement needed for salvation.  I did not think one had to believe Jesus was the One True God in order to be saved and you do. 

BTW, since you like using the thief on the cross as an example can you prove with 100% certainty that the thief thought Jesus was the One True God before he died?  If you can't then should this requirement be universally mandatory?


Lastly, you quote Gal 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith."

OK, How does the law that says a rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed lead someone to Christ?


You finished your post with "we can lay this to rest" and that is fine.  We can get back to other "subjects".  You are spinning your wheels anyway with this 10 commandment thing.  Next time you make such a dogmatic claim you should do more research to make sure your claim is valid.  The challenges I gave you should have been easily answered if your claim was correct.

Sorry if this post was disjointed but I didn't want to try to piece your last post apart since you didn't quote properly.

Looking forward to another response!