Flip-flop thread #3 - indifference

[awfulthings9]

I thought I’d try something a little different here. For those who are new to this, the “flip-flop threads” are an exercise by which members will take on roles contrary to their actual beliefs in order to strengthen arguements through a deeper understanding of those who disagree with us. For this thread, instead of taking a Catholic/Protestant issue, I thought I’d pick one of the more challenging ones I’ve come across, that of indifference. JUNIOR AND REGULAR members who participate must post as members of the “one religion is as good as the next” crowd. SENIOR members must take the position that their is one true church. As a regular member (for about 15 more posts), I’ll start with an indifferent statement:

Do you really think God is going to care what church we go to? Christain, Buddhist, Jew, Mormon, it doesn’t matter. As long as we’re good to one another and believe in God, we’ll all end up in heaven.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

It is evident from the Gospels that Jesus founded a Church. *A *Church, not multiple churches. So yes, God does care what church we go to. However, there is a “string attached” here. I heard Rosalyn Moss (I’m pretty sure that’s who it was) talk about it on Catholic Answers last week. She said that it depends on what you’ve been taught; on the evidence you’ve seen. If, for example, a Baptist is raised in a Baptist home and never sees anything but the Baptist faith, then there is no way for them to convert to the one true Church–Catholicism. If, on the other hand, they see the evidence for the Catholic Church and it convinces them that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ and after seeing that evidence they still are indifferent and say, “It doesn’t matter what church I go to” then they are putting their salvation in jeopardy. It’s kind of like mortal sin in that sense–if we know what we’re doing is wrong and we have an indifferent attitude about it what we commit is a mortal sin. So if someone *knows *that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and wanted all of his followers to be a part of her, and they refuse to do so then that is where it could get bad for them.

Also, like the Church teaches, God doesn’t hold us accountable for what we don’t know or haven’t heard. Say, for example, a Buddhist man grows up in a remote Chinese village and never hears the Gospel preached he has no way of accepting Christ. That doesn’t mean he’s damned to hell…it just means he has to be receiving of God’s grace in other ways–by the way he lives his life. Or, say an athiest or agnostic is living here in an American city. Say their only exposure to Christianity is one of those street preachers that screams at everyone and tells them that God hates them and they are going to hell. Well, they are in a similar boat as the man in China–they have not heard the Gospel preached (at least, not accurately). So if they are turned off to Christianity because the only exposure they had to it was a negative experience and what they heard was not even real Christianity, then they are not held accountable for what they do not know. They, just like the Buddhist man, must receive God’s grace in other ways.

This is a short version, but I hope I was clear enough and it works well. I’m taking a study break now before diving back into my final paper for history–a critical book review of The Invention of the Crusades by Christopher Tyermann–so I’m a little brain dead right now.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[awfulthings9]

Yeah Rand,
You have your Bible, the Mormons have thier book, the Muslims have theirs. I’ll bet they could all disagree with you using their “Bibles”. It’s all good friend. Many sides to the same mountain.

 

[cocot]

I’m a good person. I know in my heart I am. Why should I even have to go to church every week? It doesn’t say that in the bible. Just like confessing my sins to some guy. I confess right to the source and I am forgiven. I know that God is too loving and merciful to condem me.

 

[Everstruggling]

Well, it would be more of a challenge for me to present the opposite argument, but I’m a regular member so here I go.

Let’s look at some of the things that Jesus wrote in the bible:

“Judge not lest you be judged.”
“What you consider bound on earth will be considered bound in heaven. What you consider loosed on earth will be considered bound in heaven.”
“Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Then there is the parable of the man for whom a great debt was forgiven, who then turned on another and demanded that his debt be payed, didn’t end well for the guy.

Do you see a theme developing? If you demand others play by the rules, and you break them yourself- you’re toast.

So what do Catholics, and other Christian denominations do? They make rules like they are going out of style. Doesn’t this seem a little self-defeatist?

Are these people so sure they can follow every single one of their own rules? Or do they think that Jesus will go leniently on them because…hmm, why would Jesus go leniently on them? He gave them tonnes of warning. At least the relativists don’t make a whole lot of rules for others to follow. Oh sure, some do. Just because you don’t believe doesn’t mean you can’t be closed minded, but mostly they don’t go out and try and put their moral stamp on the world. But a person that says, “Hey, believe what works for you.” will probably find they have a whole lot more leeway when it comes time to reckon up accounts.

N.B. I wonder how many posts I am from being a senior member. It would be interesting to come back and rebut my own post.

 

[John_Paul_III]

cocot:

I’m a good person. I know in my heart I am. Why should I even have to go to church every week? It doesn’t say that in the bible. Just like confessing my sins to some guy. I confess right to the source and I am forgiven. I know that God is too loving and merciful to condem me.

" I am a good person " please note that God created man on day 6, man alone is not good, the number 6 always represents sin…

Also all things combined Jesus, God, Church, makes man good, not man alone.

“why should I have to go to church every week” 1) because as a christian no matter what denomination you should want to

"confessing my sins to “some guy” " the bible does say that sometimes when we are in mortal sin, our prayers mught not be heard, therefor we seek the Saints to intercede on our behalf, also we go to confession because Jesus Christ set it up that way.

As a former baptist I had many friends that would support the no drinking doctrine in the church, but outside of the church they were just a bunch of drunks, whether or not they confessed thney did not repent, now if they went to their preacher to confess, maybe they could repent and not continue in their ways.

But hey if you proclaim to be a good christian, and would rather sit at home rather than go to church, I am not the judge at the end of the day.

 

[trumpet152]

Wonderful points made so far. I would like to add that God is a God of justice. If he gives one five dollars, he only requires five dollars from him. Now, if God puts someone in a situation where they learn about him differently than you do, who’s to say that they are not equally right about him? God gave them the knowledge that they have of Him, who are we to question it? Whether we be atheists, agnostics, Chrisitians, Muslims, or Hindus, we have one final destination, heaven. For God is not cruel enough to send someone to hell. God is love, not hate.

For those who don’t get the concept of this thread, I don’t really believe any of this.

 

[awfulthings9]

Okay, this is tricky, but I think I become a senior member with my next post. So I’m going to post as an indifferent “regular member” and then answer it as a Catholic “senior” member:

For one thing, those of you who cite the Bible as your proof, you have to admit that the Bible is a pretty questionable source. After all, anyone who has played the game of telephone knows how information gets “twisted” as it is passed on orally. In addition, who is to say that the authors didn’t just put what they wanted us to believe. After all, even though the Bible says it is inspired, so do many “religious” texts from other faiths.

 

[awfulthings9]

awfulthings9:

Okay, this is tricky, but I think I become a senior member with my next post. So I’m going to post as an indifferent “regular member” and then answer it as a Catholic “senior” member:

For one thing, those of you who cite the Bible as your proof, you have to admit that the Bible is a pretty questionable source. After all, anyone who has played the game of telephone knows how information gets “twisted” as it is passed on orally. In addition, who is to say that the authors didn’t just put what they wanted us to believe. After all, even though the Bible says it is inspired, so do many “religious” texts from other faiths.

Awfulthings, I wish I had more time to go into depth here, but there are a couple problems with your post. For one, you are preaching to the chior, here. We don’t believe the Bible is inspired simply because it claims to be. There’s an excellent essay on this in the CA library, but basically we treat the Bible as a work of accurate history (as accurate as any work of history that we otherwise don’t question). In it, we see that Christ made claims to be God and, based on it and other sources, he also did deeds, such as resurrection, that prove he really is God, as opposed to a madman. In addition, his followers mostly all allowed themselves to be martyred for this belief, which adds credentials to it. Now, as God, Christ established a teaching church with authority, if we are to believe the Bible as accurate history. That church identified the Bible as inspired AND tells us the one true path to salvation. No other religion can substantiate their faith in this way. And when it comes down to it, did Christ do all of his preaching and stirring of societal norms simply so we could do it our way? He had a message, and as Christians we must listen to it and help others to hear it too. Regarding the game of telephone, historians date most of the New Testament to a reliably close period to the occurance of the actual events. That analogy doesn’t fly.

 

[Penny_Plain]

There is one true church.

The Unification Church.

 

[Eireann]

awfulthings9:

For one thing, those of you who cite the Bible as your proof, you have to admit that the Bible is a pretty questionable source. After all, anyone who has played the game of telephone knows how information gets “twisted” as it is passed on orally. In addition, who is to say that the authors didn’t just put what they wanted us to believe. After all, even though the Bible says it is inspired, so do many “religious” texts from other faiths.

I see from post # 9 that your starting to talk to yourself, don’t worry too much about it, it’s when you start answering back that your in trouble.
Anyway messing here.

Well Jesus did quote scriptue, and satan as well,Mat:4:6** And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 8 Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, 9 And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. 10 Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. **

Acts:1:20 * For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. *

Epistle of St, Paul to the Romans
14:11 For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

For me at least it’s down to** faith**, do I believe in Jesus, if the answer’s yes, then I trust in His word, written by men through the power of the Holy Spirit.

drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=for+it+is+written&b=drb&t=0

As for being lukewarm.CCC 2094 One can sin against God’s love in various ways:

• indifference neglects or refuses to reflect on divine charity; it fails to consider its prevenient goodness and denies its power.
• ingratitude fails or refuses to acknowledge divine charity and to return him love for love.
• lukewarmness is hesitation or negligence in responding to divine love; it can imply refusal to give oneself over to the prompting of charity.
• acedia or spiritual sloth goes so far as to refuse the joy that comes from God and to be repelled by divine goodness.
• hatred of God comes from pride. It is contrary to love of God, whose goodness it denies, and whom it presumes to curse as the one who forbids sins and inflicts punishments.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

And as faith is a gift from God, I suggest you pray for the gift of faith.

 

[BlestOne]

Everstruggling:

Well, it would be more of a challenge for me to present the opposite argument, but I’m a regular member so here I go.

Let’s look at some of the things that Jesus wrote in the bible:

“Judge not lest you be judged.”
“What you consider bound on earth will be considered bound in heaven. What you consider loosed on earth will be considered bound in heaven.”
“Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Then there is the parable of the man for whom a great debt was forgiven, who then turned on another and demanded that his debt be payed, didn’t end well for the guy.

Do you see a theme developing? If you demand others play by the rules, and you break them yourself- you’re toast.

So what do Catholics, and other Christian denominations do? They make rules like they are going out of style. Doesn’t this seem a little self-defeatist?

Ok, First of all, God follows his own rules as a father would to set a good example. Do you know that isn’t true of any other diety? Definitely not in the moslem faith where Allah does whatever he pleases as reported in the Quraan. Jesus established one church not many that all men be united in faith. Catholics don’t make up rules on a whim, look at it… there have been clarifications but there have been no new rules so to speak. Catholics do stay true to their teachings when it comes to matters of scripture and moral teachings. The only things that can change within the church are some of the more minor things like whether women should wear head coverings etc. There is very little that has really changed in the Catholic church in the past 2000 years when you look at it. As for our protestant brothers and sisters, look at the changes they have made, abortion not a sin to all, divorce OK, birth control ok…do you know that every church was against birth control 40 years ago?

Everstruggling:

Are these people so sure they can follow every single one of their own rules? Or do they think that Jesus will go leniently on them because…hmm, why would Jesus go leniently on them? He gave them tonnes of warning. At least the relativists don’t make a whole lot of rules for others to follow. Oh sure, some do. Just because you don’t believe doesn’t mean you can’t be closed minded, but mostly they don’t go out and try and put their moral stamp on the world. But a person that says, “Hey, believe what works for you.” will probably find they have a whole lot more leeway when it comes time to reckon up accounts.

N.B. I wonder how many posts I am from being a senior member. It would be interesting to come back and rebut my own post.

About this part in red…where does God condone this? If you look at the old testament, you will see that there is a reoccuring theme of God warning his people Israel to follow his commands and yet they always end up slipping after a generation because their parents didn’t teach them, then after they fail miserably, they call out to God for help. He helps but they have consequences then they enter a period of peace, where inevitably they take God for granted, don’t pass their faith onto the next generation and then they screw up again and have to call upon God to bail them out. Why do I mention this? Because God shows us what will happen over and over again to those who don’t trust in God once they know him. As Christians and as Catholics, we all have an obligation to seek out the teachings of our Lord and educate ourselves and our children. It is not enough to have heard of God at some point in our lives and think, “hmm, this sounds nice, I think I believe in this God” and then not do anything to educate ourselves to be the best Catholics and Christians that we can be. To change rules or just simply ignore the ones we don’t like isn’t consistant with the teachings of either the Father or the Son. As the Son faced his impending crucifixion, don’t you think that the human side of him wished for anything but this painful torture? Yet the divine side of him knew that it had to be done this way to show us human sinners how much God loves us and is willing to do for us. God know we will screw up because he exists in all time and because we are human and have original sin…Quick does anyone know what the true original sin is? I will tell you, it is not having complete trust in our Creator and God.
continued —

 

[BlestOne]

If we only did things his way from the start huh? Well, the end result is always the same, it just takes us much longer when we do it our way. Look at Adam and Eve…we could all be living in paradice, but that darn lack of trust! Then look at Moses, they were ready to enter the land of milk and honey that they were promised way back to Abram in Genesis…yet they weren’t ready to give up the false Gods they were worshipping during their enslavement in Egypt. Eventually, they made it, just as eventually we will all be living in paradise, we make the journey longer and harder with our disobedience and mistrust of God. I could go on and on with examples but I think you get the picture here. If we trust in God we will do everything he says not pick and choose what to believe or follow. Doing that shows that we think we know better than God and is the same as Eve eating of the fruit because she wanted to have the knowledge of God.

 

[RyanL]

The logical approach is as follows:

1. Treat the Bible (specifically, the NT) as you would any other historical work. Is it historically accurate? It seems so, based on surrounding writings and archiological / anthropological discovery.
2. Read the claims made by this “historical Jesus”, and come to the understanding that there are only three possibilities: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.
3. The coherence of the “historical Jesus’” teachings tend to disprove the Lunatic assertion.
4. The preponderance of the evidence is that the “historical Jesus” actually performed all of the miracles attributed to him; this serves to disprove the Liar assertion, specifically regarding the resurection.
5. We are left with the assertion that the “historical Jesus” was who he claimed to be - God in the flesh.
6. The Bible, still viewed as a strictly historical work, makes several assertions:a. Jesus claimed that he was “the way, the Truth, and the Life”, and that “no one comes to the Father, but through [him]”.

b. Jesus established ONE Church, and promised that He would be with that Church until the end of time and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

c. Jesus gave to this ONE Church the authority to speak in His name (What you bind on earth…, He who hears you hears me…, whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven…, etc.).

d. Jesus put ONE man in charge of this Church - Peter. Jesus also provided that the office He gave to Peter would continue until Christ comes again.
7. If Jesus was who He claimed to be (as the preponderance of the evidence shows), we must trust His claims (provided that God does not lie - also logically demonstrable if requested).

1. The Church that Jesus established should still exist, given the divine promises made in 6 (b).
2. The Church that Jesus established could only be one whose history dates to the time period (i.e., 2000 years old).
3. Given the authority imparted by God Himself in 6 (c), we can trust the 2000 year old Church when they assert the inspiration of the Bible.
4. Based on 6 (d) and 9, we can know that the Church which Christ established is the Catholic Church, just as she claims.
5. The Catholic Church, in conjunction with the Scriptures and the entirity of Christian Tradition, assert that salvation is not an “any which way, choose your own path” type of deal. You have to be one with the Church Christ established, or invincibly ignorant of the same.
6. QED.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Marquette]

The last time I went to church the guy gave a sermon on John 3:16. Jesus died for the WHOLE WORLD, so get real. You’ll notice it didn’t say “for Catholics” or for Lutherans" or whatever. WHOLE WORLD means what it says. So if he died for everybody, everybody gets saved. Now I know you gotta believe in Him and all, but even Moslems believe Jesus was a prophet, so they’re saved too. And a lot of Jews I know say he was a good teacher and all. Maybe they don’t see Him as Messiah or whatever, but that’s ok too. And Jesus never condemned anybody in the Bible, He just told them to stop sinning. Well most people I know try to be good, decent people. Sure they screw up, but you know, basically, they try to be nice to their friends and family. Plus the Bible says God loves everybody. Shoot, He IS love. How could any God who IS LOVE send someone to hell? In the end, I believe every person who has ever lived will be saved because Jesus died for ALL and God loves everybody.

Probably Hitler and Stalin will go to hell because they were pure evil. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon5.gif But still it says Jesus died for everybody so probably for them too.

 

[Eireann]

Marquette:

The last time I went to church the guy gave a sermon on John 3:16. Jesus died for the WHOLE WORLD, so get real.

True, but not all accept the truth, remember in the Bible Jesus replied to the question what is the way ?

John 14:6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

Luke 13:23 And a certain man said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But he said to them: 24 Strive to enter by the narrow gate; **for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. ** 25 But when the master of the house shall be gone in, and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without, and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering, shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are.

 

[trumpet152]

RyanL:

The logical approach is as follows:

1. Treat the Bible (specifically, the NT) as you would any other historical work. Is it historically accurate? It seems so, based on surrounding writings and archiological / anthropological discovery.
   **
2. Read the claims made by this “historical Jesus”, and come to the understanding that there are only three possibilities: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.**
3. The coherence of the “historical Jesus’” teachings tend to disprove the Lunatic assertion.
4. The preponderance of the evidence is that the “historical Jesus” actually performed all of the miracles attributed to him; this serves to disprove the Liar assertion, specifically regarding the resurection.
5. We are left with the assertion that the “historical Jesus” was who he claimed to be - God in the flesh.
6. The Bible, still viewed as a strictly historical work, makes several assertions:a. Jesus claimed that he was “the way, the Truth, and the Life”, and that “no one comes to the Father, but through [him]”.

b. Jesus established ONE Church, and promised that He would be with that Church until the end of time and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

c. Jesus gave to this ONE Church the authority to speak in His name (What you bind on earth…, He who hears you hears me…, whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven…, etc.).

d. Jesus put ONE man in charge of this Church - Peter. Jesus also provided that the office He gave to Peter would continue until Christ comes again.
7. If Jesus was who He claimed to be (as the preponderance of the evidence shows), we must trust His claims (provided that God does not lie - also logically demonstrable if requested).

1. The Church that Jesus established should still exist, given the divine promises made in 6 (b).
2. The Church that Jesus established could only be one whose history dates to the time period (i.e., 2000 years old).
3. Given the authority imparted by God Himself in 6 (c), we can trust the 2000 year old Church when they assert the inspiration of the Bible.
4. Based on 6 (d) and 9, we can know that the Church which Christ established is the Catholic Church, just as she claims.
5. The Catholic Church, in conjunction with the Scriptures and the entirity of Christian Tradition, assert that salvation is not an “any which way, choose your own path” type of deal. You have to be one with the Church Christ established, or invincibly ignorant of the same.
6. QED.

God Bless,
RyanL

Though I disagree with much said here, I will focus my post on your second and sixth points

Read the claims made by this “historical Jesus”, and come to the understanding that there are only three possibilities: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord."

An interesting idea, but I think that this can easily be seen as not a claim to deity (in the sense that you say it), and Christ still be be an honest, sane man. All you must do is look at it from the Eastern perspective. Jesus was a mystic.

We are left with the assertion that the “historical Jesus” was who he claimed to be - God in the flesh.

Of course he did, for we are all God. This point proves his wisdom. He knew, like those of the Eastern world, that we are God.

a. Jesus claimed that he was “the way, the Truth, and the Life”, and that “no one comes to the Father, but through [him]”.

No one in that are came to God (or learned of God) through anyone but Jesus, for Jesus was the enlightened one. Jesus was the teacher. This is all that this means.

b. Jesus established ONE Church, and promised that He would be with that Church until the end of time and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Did he now? I doubt it. Of course, Jesus had followers who made up this “one church” business, but doubt that enlightened man like Jesus would make this church that you speak of. The author of Matthew was obviously biased when he wrote this.

c. Jesus gave to this ONE Church the authority to speak in His name (What you bind on earth…, He who hears you hears me…, whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven…, etc.).

Who’s to say that no one else was given this authority? Where is that written?

d. Jesus put ONE man in charge of this Church - Peter. Jesus also provided that the office He gave to Peter would continue until Christ comes again.

He gives Peter the keys (in theory: see reply to point B) and the ablity to bind and loose. But this ability to bind and loose was given to apostles (as seen in John), therefore they were also given the keys. Jesus gave these “keys” (or better put: gateways to the doors of knowledge) to all men, not just Peter.

Again, not my beliefs.

 

[RyanL]

trumpet152:

Though I disagree with much said here, I will focus my post on your second and sixth points

Ok. I’m ready.

An interesting idea, but… look at it from the Eastern perspective. Jesus was a mystic.

Well, I must admit; the idea is not mine. It’s C.S. Lewis’. Furthermore, what Jesus is reported to have historically said is a claim to diety - The “I AM” statements of John show Jesus as claiming the Hebrew title for God as his own. This is attested to both within the Bible and without.

Of course he did, for we are all God. This point proves his wisdom. He knew, like those of the Eastern world, that we are God.

We are God? Deu 6:4, and Job 39 et seq. should clear that right up. That is not what the Bible claims (including Jesus - see Matt 25:31 et seq.).

No one in that are came to God (or learned of God) through anyone but Jesus, for Jesus was the enlightened one. Jesus was the teacher. This is all that this means.

And what of Abraham, Isaiac, or Jacob? Moses? They went through a chronologically later historical teacher? Seems a bit anachronistic of you. Either Jesus was an egomaniacal loony, a liar, or God. The option of being “a good teacher” isn’t open to us; He didn’t intend for it to be.

Did he now? I doubt it. Of course, Jesus had followers who made up this “one church” business, but doubt that enlightened man like Jesus would make this church that you speak of. The author of Matthew was obviously biased when he wrote this.

Doubt all you want; bring proof to assert a claim. Stating that something is so doesn’t make it so; Matthew’s claims are the same as all of the other NT writers. They are internally consistent regarding this principle, as are the extra-biblical historical sources. Are all of them biased in an attempt to fool you?

Who’s to say that no one else was given this authority? Where is that written?

Argument from silence. Invalid argument, and therefore a logical fallacy.

He gives Peter the keys (in theory: see reply to point B) and the ablity to bind and loose. But this ability to bind and loose was given to apostles (as seen in John), therefore they were also given the keys. Jesus gave these “keys” (or better put: gateways to the doors of knowledge) to all men, not just Peter.

Parallel Isaiah 22:22 and Matt 16:18. The keys go to one man, and are a signature of the office. You have not demonstrated either that (1) the keys = “doors of knowledge” or (2) the keys were given to anyone by Peter. Again, this is an argument from silence and therefore an invalid argument.

Next?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[trumpet152]

RyanL, before I attempt to recover some of my dignity, I must say, “Nicely done!” for that was an excelent post.

Well, I must admit; the idea is not mine. It’s C.S. Lewis’. Furthermore, what Jesus is reported to have historically said is a claim to diety - The “I AM” statements of John show Jesus as claiming the Hebrew title for God as his own. This is attested to both within the Bible and without.

I would like to see some of these “I AM” statements he made. You will notice that they are all in John if you look. John, of course, is the least trustworthy of all the gospels. Many scholars beleive to be written around 120 AD! By this time, the “Christ alone is God” idea had taken effect. Now, I would agree that those who believe this will go to heaven, for Christ is God just like we are.

We are God? Deu 6:4, and Job 39 et seq. should clear that right up. That is not what the Bible claims (including Jesus - see Matt 25:31 et seq.).

On the Old testament statements, let’s rise above that shall we? Surely we are not going to lower ourselves to ancient pagan myths? Just because some of Christ’s disciples who misunderstood his teacings accepted these books, it certainly doesn’t mean we should.

On the New Testament quote, I doubt Jesus said those words. Again, I would imagine that the author of the book was biased when recording this “historical” statement.

And what of Abraham, Isaiac, or Jacob? Moses? They went through a chronologically later historical teacher? Seems a bit anachronistic of you. Either Jesus was an egomaniacal loony, a liar, or God. The option of being “a good teacher” isn’t open to us; He didn’t intend for it to be.

Forgive my typo in the above post. It should read that Jesus was the means in which they heard this** in that area**. This also means during that time.

Doubt all you want; bring proof to assert a claim. Stating that something is so doesn’t make it so; Matthew’s claims are the same as all of the other NT writers. They are internally consistent regarding this principle, as are the extra-biblical historical sources. Are all of them biased in an attempt to fool you?

No, this is of course not an attempt to fool me. They were deceiving themselves. This way the Jesus they followed for all those years was more than a guru. He was the YHWH of the Jews in their minds. They didn’t understand what he really taught. Many teachers are not respected in their own time (Jesus was one of these, for he was crucified).

Argument from silence. Invalid argument, and therefore a logical fallacy.

Point taken. I can admit a mistake. I will than fall back to the biased opinion of the authors of the gospels. This takes care of the issue just as well.

 

[cocot]

Quotes and passages from a book written by men. Big deal.
Organized religion is just a crutch for stupid people anyway. They are all hypocrites. Look at the Catholic church, with all their money they should sell some of their possesions and give the money to the poor.