REMIX: Who Can Be Saved?

The man is an Apologist.Nuff Said!

And you have never explained how someone can have a relationship/communion with God.How do you know that your relationship is not with Satan or Allah or Ganesha or just a bad burrito?

Because you assert people avoid such a communion! But unless you can explain how such a thing is possible it is silly to claim anyone avoids it. I don't and have never claimed such a thing. I have asked how it is possible to know such a thing and no one has ever had an answer. The Muslim says Allah in knowable. The Hindu says Ganesha is knowable. Yet neither explains how.

Remember that Deuteronomy is written by authors that from a Christian perspective are unbelievers; by Jews. It is a series of lectures, three major sermons attributed to Moses and set before the Conquest of Canaan. There are three main themes; the creation of a peoples called Israel, the God of that peoples and the covenant (contract) between that God and that Peoples.

Jesus was addressing folk that did not believe Jesus was God.

Let's get the basics straight; there were not attempts to change the Great Commission, according to what was written the Great Commission was changed.And how could anyone know what the motives of the authors of the stories were and why would their motives even matter?

The motives of the Sheep and Goats never mattered; that is the whole point of he parable.

Absolutely. It is what was done that was significant and NOT the motivation. The Goats thought motive had value and Jesus clearly pointed out that they were wrong. What happens to the Goats after they rise from the dead is a different issue and one no one can answer.Edited by jar, : hit wrong key

LOLAgain, there is no way to know or even guess about the motivation of any author; nor is it of any relevance.

Again, the point is that the Great Commission WAS changed.It is simply additional evidence that the Bible is the product of humans each creating the narrative they want to market.

You should not.You should look at the whole body of writings and be honest about what is written. You should stop looking for things that can be taken out of context to suit YOUR agenda. Stop quoting John 3:16 and look at what follows as well: Note that it goes on to explain that it is the acts, the actions that count and not simply belief or worship. The "condemnation" is not salvation but rather behavior and actions.

The fact that other people commit the same errors does not change the fact that they are still errors.

Kinda, you want a God that will rescue Phat.So you only accept those parts of the Bible stories that can be claimed to support the end product YOU want.What I point out that Jesus repeatedly says that YOU need to do it.Nor is there any evidence that any God ever came and rescued us.But we have been given the GREAT GIFT of knowledge of right and wrong and if we do what is right we won't need rescuing.

Notice Faith that not one of your examples shows God rescuing anyone.

Learn to read, Phat.There is NOTHING in what you quoted about hereditary sin or the fall or anything related to the Genesis 2&3 fable.Once again, you are simply trying to find and failing to find support for your position."Sanctify us also that we may faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you in unity, constancy, and peace; and at the last day bring us with all your saints into the joy of your eternal kingdom"Notice it talks about serving, stuff YOU do, not what others long dead did.But if you had fully read your link you would come across both the origin of the dogma of Original Sin (which you and I have discussed in the past) as well as the modern understanding.

quote:

---

The shared sinful condition of all humanity. This Christian doctrine is drawn from the Pauline writings, such as Rom 5:12-19 and 1 Cor 15:21-22, which suggest that humanity shares by nature in the fall of Adam described in Gn 3. Paul likewise urges that the consequences for humanity of Adam's fall are to be reversed through saving participation in Christ's victory over sin and death.

---

So two passages from Paul are what is used to justify the whole concept of Original Sin and if you actually go and read those passages they misrepresent what is actually written in Genesis 2&3.Reading on you would have seen:

quote:

---

Although the consequences of original sin have not been emphasized as strongly in Anglicanism as in other Protestant traditions, Article IX of the Articles of Religion, "Of Original or Birth-Sin," states that "man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil"

---

Again, even there it talks about the consequences of the individual's behavior and nature, not what those long dead might have done or even what the individual actually does.Your source ended with:

quote:

---

Original sin may be understood as humanity's innate self-centeredness. A consequence of this condition is human weakness and fallibility relative to sin. Another consequence is the influence of human sinfulness in our history and environment, to which we are subjected from birth. These influences all serve to restrict the actual freedom of moral choices, requiring us to look to God for hope and salvation.

---

Again, if you look at the whole of the Episcopal Church's position it is that we are charged to rise above any innate self-centerdness.Salvation if it should happen in the theological context will be after one is dead. What is needed in reality is an attempt to improve the actual living conditions for those folk not dead.