Salvation outside Christianity...?

[buffalo]

20 Many of them said, “He is possessed and out of his mind; why listen to him?” 21 Others said, “These are not the words of one possessed; surely a demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?” 22 The feast of the Dedication 9 was then taking place in Jerusalem. It was winter. 23 10 And Jesus walked about in the temple area on the Portico of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long are you going to keep us in suspense? 11 If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you 12 and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify to me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, 13 and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand. 30 14 The Father and I are one.” 31 The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.” 34 15 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated 16 and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not perform my Father’s works, do not believe me; 38 but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 (Then) they tried again to arrest him; but he escaped from their power. 40 He went back across the Jordan to the place where John first baptized, and there he remained. 41 Many came to him and said, “John performed no sign, 17 but everything John said about this man was true.” 42 And many there began to believe in him.

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

You’d have to have a thorough understanding of what a Noahide is, for then you could answer, for yourself, your additonal questions.

Why the evasivenisess? I understand what some people mean when they say that they are Noahide.

What I am asking you to clarify is this, are a “Lone Ranger” Noahide, or are you member of a denomination such as COGAF?

 

[Faithful_One]

Matt16_18:

Why the evasivenisess? I understand what some people mean when they say that they are Noahide.

What I am asking you to clarify is this, are a “Lone Ranger” Noahide, or are you member of a denomination such as COGAF?

Matt; the reason for his unwillingness to answer is given in my previous post - (it was posted at same time yours was) -It is the same reason he wouldn’t answer my question.

Apparently, the ‘Noahides’ are like many philosophies being promulgated recently; basically a religion (based on O.T.), but which appeals to people who have chosen to eliminate any reference to God’s justice and His requirement that sin be punished.

In doing so the adherants think they can gain God’s forgiveness without adhering to God’s requirement for a substitute to pay the price for sin.

Faithful One
"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin" - Heb. 9:21

 

[reen12]

Gee, there’s nothing like watching a Christian response
to one who does not share their beliefs.

Oh, for quiet reading of the Sages of Israel, and peaceful
prayer to the Master of the Universe.

I thank Him for drawing me to a faith that does not proselytize.

reen12
aka Tiny Tim

 

[Faithful_One]

reen12:

Gee, there’s nothing like watching a Christian response
to one who does not share their beliefs.

There’s nothing like watching the response of someone who, when asked directly, refuses to tell you WHAT they believe.

Faithful One

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Mickey:

It will likely you take you much study and prayer to arrive at satisfactory answers to your many questions. We are all pilgrims on a journey toward eternity. May God Bless you on your journey Iambic pen!

Thanks!

Matt16_18:

Here you need to be careful, because this isn’t taught anywhere in scriptures. Indeed, following your line of reasoning, abortion would be a sacrament of salvation, since aborted infants would automatically go to heaven. Abortion is most certainly NOT a sacrament of salvation!

Actually, I have thought of this exact same argument. Obviously, I don’t agree with it, so my line of reasoning (or rather, Protestantism’s line of reasoning), doesn’t work. I guess I have to say I really don’t know what happens to infants who die. What I can do, though, is entrust them to the perfect mercy of God.

But if you ask the Oriental Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox how the faithful can know when a particular Ecumenical Council is valid you will NEVER get a straight answer from the hierarchy of these churches. Obfuscation is all you will ever get. Which should lead you to ask, how is it possible that after two thousand years of Christianity, that the OO and the EO are totally incapable of answering such a fundamental question? The OO and the EO are just as incapable of answering this question as any Protestant sect, and that should raise alarms. If the faithful have no way of knowing if a particular Ecumenical Council is valid or not, then the faithful have no way of knowing what Christ’s church really teaches.

Hmmhh…I’ll have to study the Orthodox position more. I have to admit, I had never really looked into Orthodox Christianity. The only reason I brought it up is because my father mentioned to me that the Orthodox Church was older than the Catholic Church and had never accepted the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Well, I didn’t agree, but it did make me realize that I know little to nothing about Orthodox Christianity (the same was true of Catholicism until a few weeks ago…).

Does the Bible ever teach that it is the SOLE authority?

Well, to repeat your answer, no it doesn’t. To be honest, any argument against sola scriptura is really preaching to the converted at this point. I have read the arguments in favor of it but came away wholly unconvinced.

I

consider it an honor to pray for you to receive the gift of wisdom and discernment in your quest to know the uncompromised truth. I invite all the other faithful Catholics reading this thread to pray for you too.

I thank you very much for this! After all, “the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

 

[reen12]

Dear Iambic Pen,

quote: Iambic Pen

How do I know that when the Orthodox/Roman Catholic split happened, that the Orthodox Church wasn’t the correct church? I also remember reading about how when Augustine of Canterbury arrived in Britain, he discovered Christians there who were shocked by some of the Catholic Doctrines he was preaching. How do I know they weren’t more correct than Augustine? I don’t accept the common Protestant idea that there was some sort of underground “true” church hiding from Catholicism for 1500 years. However, I also don’t believe that just because Catholicism was accepted by the majority, that that automatically means it’s true.

There is no way I can counter the claim that Peter was appointed head of the Church. And that the current occupant of the chair of Peter is the direct successor to Peter.

So…
when I thought about unbaptized babies, or those who hear
the Gospel and are unmoved by it, I had to pose the
following questions:

-if I cannot live, with integrity, with Catholicism’s theological
inability to say, with certainty*,* that these little people see God
in the Face
-if that inability is based on the Church’s theology of
original sin

Then:
-the Church’s theology is deficient in some critical way, as in:

quote: reen12

But, you see, my heart tells me that if a religon cannot
state with certainty that God accepts the souls of
unbaptized babies, then that religion is deficient in
some critical way.

But, if deficient, how square that with Divine origin?

Down went the dominoes…
It no longer mattered whether Benedict XVI was the
direct successor…

---

When the split between Catholicism and Orthodoxy
took place, those who accepted ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia,
went with Rome. I still don’t see how, based on the New Testament, the claim of Petrine authority can be countered,
for those who accept Jesus as Messiah.

BTW, I understand that Orthodoxy has a different theology
of original sin.
[Any Orthodox posters aboard this thread?]
Is my understanding correct, in this regard?

This only complicated things even more.
If Orthodoxy’s understanding was correct, then how
could Petrine authority be upheld…

Every best wish,
reen12*

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

In regard to Judaism and the Noahides, it appears that the non-acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah is based partially on information(see www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm) about Jesus that Christians do not believe. According to the Babylonian Talmud, Jesus and his disciples practiced sorcery, led Jews into idolatry, and were sponsored by gentiles “for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship.” It also says that Jesus “was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent.” And it also says that Jesus “learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh.” So, when Jews and Christians talk about Jesus, they come into the conversation with completely different ideas about what He actually did. I should say, though, that I’m not sure how reliable the site is, as they also claim to be pretty sure they know who the Messiah is (which I’m pretty sure Judaism as a whole has certainly not done).

God Bless!

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

reen12:
Hey, I started working on my last post before I read your last one. Thanks for the explanation of your viewpoint and for all your other posts! I do admit I wish the Church could state with certainty that infants are saved, but I guess I don’t go from there to believing the Church isn’t true. There are a lot of things we as people, Christian or not, simply don’t know.

Just a quick note: my previous post was not intended as an attack on Judaism or Gentile believers in Judaism. I’m merely trying to illustrate the Jewish viewpoint. If there is anything in my post that is false, please correct me. Thanks for posting!

God Bless!

 

[reen12]

Dear Iambic Pen,

Here’s something you can rely on:

ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1605

Please consider both the answer of the rabbi, and the
tone of his response.

Best wishes,
reen12

PS: We must have been posting at the same time.
I guess my point is, if people would follow the dictates
of their own faith more steadily, there be a whole lot
less unpleasantness in the world.

The Jews have a dedication to not speaking badly of
someone, even if you know for a fact that the individual
has sinned. *

Here it is:
torah.org/learning/halashon/chapter1.html
and
torah.org/learning/halashon/

 

[adventistnomore]

Faithful One:

Apparently, the ‘Noahides’ are like many philosophies being promulgated recently; basically a religion (based on O.T.), but which appeals to people who have chosen to eliminate any reference to God’s justice and His requirement that sin be punished.

In doing so the adherants think they can gain God’s forgiveness without adhering to God’s requirement for a substitute to pay the price for sin.

Faithful One
"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin" - Heb. 9:21

Well… the belief in the salvaton of God-fearing gentiles (“Noahides”) is older than Christianity. I agree however that for Christians, an essential issue is the question of atonement. That is the cruz of Pau’s argument in Romans 1 & 2. What good does it do you to be faithful to God if your soul still carries the stain of sin. God’s justice in the Old Testament demanded atronment: that a sacrifice be made. In the Eternal Covenant, this is Jesus Christ, who alone can truly wash away sin. (Hebrews 9-10)

I questioned Judaism at one point in my life, but despite all its attractions, I saw a faith that has changed drastically in its practice over the course of 3,000 years. There are no sacrifices today with the temple destroyed (weakening the ancient concept of atonement). Several other observances of Torah have been abandoned through time. Something wasn’t right.

Christianity satisfied my questionings deeply. I (with a deep sense of sadness) see it as no surprise that the turning point in Jewish history (the First and Second Jewish Wars which led to the exile of all Jews from Israel) occurred soon after the founding of Christianity. Christianity seemed to have a prophetic vision into the immediate future of Israel. The temple, its ceremonies, its sacrifices… all would permanently vanish within a few decades. And sure enough, the Apostolic message provided the needed solution (a view of the Eternal Priesthood, Sanctuary, and Sacrifice only typified by the previous ceremonies).

It was as if the destruction of the Levitical system still in place within Jerusalem indcates and is a witness to the temporal* natue of Judaism. It was not permanent, never intended to be. The gradual abandonment of many of the cultural requirements of Torah by Jews, both before and long after the Temple’s destruction, also indicate that Torah was a temporal institution. Today, something is lacking within Judaism: many Jews and interested observers are attracted to the eternal principles of Judaism (i.e. monotheism) but are troubled by the temporal and cultural aspects of Torah, no longer observed, impossible to obeserve, etc.

But Christianity, a few decades before that terrible period which radically altered Jewish history, provided the answer and prepared tried to prepare Israel for it. (Read especially preaching of St. John the Baptist, the rebukes of Christ against the religious leaders of his day, and the synoptic apocalypse of Christ in Matt. 24-25, foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem.)

And Christianity did this while truly affirming (and deepening/epanding) the Noahide principle. Gentile converts to Christianity reverenced the Old Testament order, but were not obliged to follow all of its demands beyond the piety of Noahic law (Gen 8; Acts 15), and the profoud moral teaching of Christ with all of its radical demands. Christianity welcomed gentile converts, and provided fascinating insights into Biblical soteriology in the process. (If the gentiles are saved only by the demands of faith and morals what is the meaning of the Jewish ceremonial observances?)

The answer Christianity gave was that all are saved upon the same premise: faith (faithful observance of the Law written within our hearts). The Jewish ceremonial observances are not eternal, but prefigure an eternal covenant. That covenant is realized within Jesus Christ. Thus also, the people of God are not divided into two distinct camps, but united within the same Holy Spirit. (Acts 10)

The theology of the New Testament overwhelmed me (as it never had before) with its perfect solution to Judaism’s biggest riddle.

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

I do admit I wish the Church could state with certainty that infants are saved, but I guess I don’t go from there to believing the Church isn’t true. There are a lot of things we as people, Christian or not, simply don’t know.

Exactly. We can’t know certain things because God has chosen not to reveal these things.

Reen claims that all children will see God face to face, but by what authority does she make this claim? Some rabbi says that aborted babies go to heaven, and apparently that is enough for her. But why should I accept the opinion of a rabbi that does not recognize Jesus as his Messiah? Why is this rabbis’s opinon on a matter that is not explicitly revealed in scriptures any more authoritative than a garden variety sola scriptura Protestant’s opinion?

 

[reen12]

I keep having to remember, that this is a Catholic
website, and that the views of other faiths will be
addressed from a Catholic theological position.

Here is Judaism, speaking on it’s own behalf:

jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq042.html

Best,
reen12 :tiphat:

 

[adventistnomore]

(… continued)

I considered being a Noahide (respecting those who bore the privilege/responsibility of being Jews), or, if I could endure it, a full proselyte, but my study led me to question: why? Am I not already a Noahide?

A Jew would answer that Christianity has altered the Jewish faith, and its theology is unacceptable to Judaism. And it certainly has. But wouldn’t the advent of the Eternal Covenant bring new realities into focus? Would it not expand some requirements, minimize some observances, deepen still more? Many issues are theological: Christianity provides deeper or clearer insights into the heart of redemption, God, man, eternity.

Affirming that God is Absolutely One, it reveals that He is Triune also: one nature/essence in three hypostases. (A sensitive issue I know, but one for another thread). It’s soteriological paradigm, its sacamental vision, its moral depth and rigor, its eschatology… Christianity is utterly transcendent where Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and Nehemaic Judaism was innately material/pragmatic. It’s very heart and core is meant to be an eternal.

And yet, Christianity is, and realizes, the eternal expression of Judaism. It is permanently and unchangeably Jewish. We may dissect the theological differences between us, but no two world religions share a more intimate connection than Judaism and Christianity, because Christianity breathes its Jewish origins/identity.

• Hugo

 

[reen12]

Hi, Matt16_18,

But why should I accept the opinion of a rabbi that does not recognize Jesus as his Messiah?

Based on your beliefs, makes perfect sense to me.

Best,
reen12 :tiphat:

 

[adventistnomore]

reen12:

I keep having to remember, that this is a Catholic
website, and that the views of other faiths will be
addressed from a Catholic theological position.

Here is Judaism, speaking on it’s own behalf:

jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq042.html

Best,
reen12 :tiphat:

Well… no, views of other faiths are addressed from the perspective (albeit sometimes limited) of the individuals who post on the forum. Hehe… including mine.

That being said, I appreciate the link you posted. It provided a very agreeable and sensible answer to my questions. The issue of sacrifices only for unintentional sin is an intriguing one. Will do some more reading.

 

[reen12]

Hi, adventistnomore,

quote: adventistnomore

But wouldn’t the advent of the Eternal Covenant bring new realities into focus?

If a new, Eternal Covenant were possible, yes.

quote:adventistnomore

Well… no, views of other faiths are addressed from the perspective (albeit sometimes limited) of the individuals who post on the forum. Hehe… including mine.

…:tiphat:

Best,
reen12

 

[adventistnomore]

Lol,

Reen12, I must admit you are one of my favorite posters on this forum.

 

[adventistnomore]

Ok… here’s my skepticism as work (from the Jews for Judaism site):

Animal sacrifices are only prescribed for unwitting or unintentional sin

I guess my questions center around the point: If the provision for sacrifices only involved involuntary sins, where did the Christian concept of full substituionary atonement for even voluntary sin arise from? I’m thinking this over because Christianity arose within Judaism, the apostles were all Jewish, and the record of Acts claims that the faith was embraced by a few priests and religious teachers during the formative years of its theology (of course, Paul stands out among them). In other words, Christianity isn’t a naively gentile creation, and should have a solid foundation in Jewish thought. I can’t imagine that the Christian concept of atonement has NO precedents within Jewish theology. (I’m sure you understand my doubt).

I’m thinking Lev16 (Yom Kippur). The concept of sin transfer, atoning sacrifice, and the removal of sin via the scapegoat is present. Now, the text states:

“He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head.” (v. 20)

Are we thinking of voluntary sins and rebelions in this passage, or is it simply involuntary sins? Obviously, penitential prayers are effective, but isn’t the sacrifice a sacrifice for voluntary sins?

 

[reen12]

Hi, adventistnomore,

Wait a minute…

I took a bit of a rest, and while doing so, I considered the
following:

-if a righteous gentile is considered one who follows the
Noahide Laws - which includes no idolatry

-and the Catechism states that all who do not know of
Christ etc*.may* be saved

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.htm
#1260

-where is an idol worshipping individual- who never heard
of the One God- better off, in terms of salvation?
With Christianity.

If the teaching on Lashon Hara only apply to a fellow
member of Judaism:

torah.org/learning/halashon/chapter8.html#Heretic
[see #8}

*now where am I ???

Additionally, there is your quote:

I’m thinking Lev16 (Yom Kippur). The concept of sin transfer, atoning sacrifice, and the removal of sin via the scapegoat is present. Now, the text states:

Quote:
“He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head.” (v. 20)

That’s the one point I’ve been trying to avoid.

Bless your heart, adventistnomore, and thank you for
your kind words, a couple of posts above.

reen12
aka 'Tiny Tim…who needs an Alka Seltzer