Christian Denominations - Heaven and Hell

quote:

---

Jesus was raising the standard for people who wanted to get into heaven by good works.

---

Now see IMO this is another one of those interpretations that doesn't fit what is written in the story. Giving to the poor was not new. When I read the OT (which is also inspired by God) and then read the story of the man wanting to know what he needs to do to inherit (not earn) eternal life, I don't see that the bar was raised to inherit eternal life, but I do see an additional action added to see if the young man would give up everything to follow the physical Jesus. So what I read is that Jesus listed the minimum necessary for inheriting eternal life, none of which included the commandments dealing with God, giving to the poor, following Jesus, believing that Jesus was the Messiah, believing that Jesus died for the sins of mankind, believing Paul's message of grace/faith, or being baptised. If anyone gave up everything to follow the physical Jesus they received a bonus so to speak.To fulfill the law in Jewish tradition is to interpret it correctly. Jesus was Jewish and taught the Jews, therefore he would use language traditions the Jews understood.

quote:

---

Theopneustos, which means inspired by God, to indicate the special act by which God inspired the Scriptures"

---

So you feel that according to 2Tim all scripture is inspired by God no matter who wrote it (known or unknown), when it was written, what it says, when it was added to the canon or who added it to the canon. If it has been deemed holy scripture, then it is inspired by God, which would also mean that when it is removed from the canon it is not holy scripture anymore. Tanakh
Catholic
Protestant
New TestamentNow how does this cover the Book of Mormon which is considered to be another testament of Jesus Christ and scripture by their group. Can I accept that this book is also inspired by God and useful for training etc.?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

good lord. stop preaching and simply answer the question.

quote:

---

That's true. I don't want you to miss out on eternal life.

---

Well, that's a nice thought, thank you mike.However, if belief is all it took to get eternal life, then you will be spending all of eternity with a great many bad, bad people.

quote:

---

Does this mean I fear death? Well, I fear hell more than the mind ending. I'll admitt that.

---

Well, that's what I have essentially been saying all along, so thanks for meeting me in the middle.I have to say that it's a little sad that fear is a key part of why you believe.It might also seem that the brain is the mind - while investigating the brain only. That's true. I don't want you to miss out on eternal life.Does this mean I fear death? Well, I fear hell more than the mind ending. I'll admitt that.

quote:

---

It might seem that way if you are reading mike at evc.

---

I can only form my image of the person you are by what I read here, it's true.

quote:

---

It might also seem that the brain is the mind - while investigating the brain only.

---

Yeah, yeah, yeah.Show me a mind without a brain and then we can investigate them seperately.

quote:

---

But Shraff hasn't got an ego problem IMHO. Her baba is sweet.

---

Hey, wow, that's another nice comment from mike.Thank you again.

quote:

---

Is it just me, or are all mike's excellent geniuses?

---

This sentence no verb.

How did you know I was a High School debater, in an Episcopal High School. That was back in the 50's sometime. But I did not compare you to "Exclusionist Christian sects", I said the Christian Theology you were espousing was and is Exclusionary. It is. When you say only those who profess some belief, who have the secret decoder ring and know the handshake are in, all else are out, you are being Excusionary.Sorry, that's a fact.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, that would be a comparision. Obviously it must have been back in the 50's, because you have to relearn a few things. One problem is your selective rebuttal of my arguments (which is quite odd since you were the one makeing the accusations of me being out-of-context and exclusionary).
Examples:
After you bring up Matthew 25, I show how each parable in Matthew 25 ultimately demonstrates what I'm saying. You only respond to one parable. [edit: My mistake, I got you mixed with someone else on the second example]. When I earlier on listed the Bible verses I had used as further support and mentioned that you had not addressed any of them, you still did not address even one.Also, it took you the longest amount of time for your accusations of me being "out-of-context" to go beyond just a prima facie claim.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-01-2005 00:49 AM

The man who asked Jesus how to get into heaven certainly didn't consider giving to the poor, and he still wasn't considering it after his question was answered. So, regardless of whether or not his command was new, it's still showing that the man can't possibly get in by works. But why would they do that? Would they leave everything and follow Jesus? Did their actions earn them salvation, or were there actions a result of their salvation in Jesus? Look to my explanation of James 2:14-26 in Message 60 to find the answer. Checking out the Protestant link, that Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Bible (except for splitting up some of the books, which is incosequential since it's the same content), so I would be willing to accept it because it's based on the Hebrew Bible, and the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. As for the New Testament, I'll take a closer look into that one, but I'm going to assume the four gospels are safe for now.

I don't have all of the answers (and I'll be going to sleep soon), but here's some of what I have.

---

Marcion's canon:
It appears that Marcion was a Gnostic, and here's an interesting fact on him.Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia

---

Revelation should be in the New Testament because
1: It's God-inspired and the Word of God. 2. The command to not add or subtract from Revelation because it comes from God (22:18-19) is also seen in Dueteronomy (4:2, 12:32). Several canons (including Marcion) exclude Revelation.

---

I also might have stumbled onto something here. I don't quite understand this, but take a look and see if you can pull anything out of this:
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia
Some abbreviations: c-century, ca-circa, NT-new testament MSS-manuscripts

---

I hope you're not randomly pulling links without understanding them, purpledawn. I certainly don't think you find yourself in the situation of accepting a Gnostic canon.

quote:

---

The man who asked Jesus how to get into heaven certainly didn't consider giving to the poor, and he still wasn't considering it after his question was answered.

---

Now you don't know that for a fact. The man was unwilling to sell everything he possessed and give it to the poor and then follow the physical Jesus, but odds are that if he was following the other commandments realistically he probably gave something to the poor. Maybe a little, maybe alot, and maybe nothing. Not an assumption we can make.Remember Jesus said that this was the one thing he lacked to gain treasure in heaven, not that he lacked anything for eternal life. Taken at face value, the story does not show that the man can't get eternal life by following the commandments.

quote:

---

I wrote:
So what I read is that Jesus listed the minimum necessary for inheriting eternal life.

​

commike37 writes:

​

But why would they do that? Would they leave everything and follow Jesus? Did their actions earn them salvation, or were there actions a result of their salvation in Jesus? Look to my explanation of James 2:14-26 in Message 60 to find the answer.

---

Who is they and why would they do what? The disciples did leave everything to follow the physical Jesus, but Jesus did not require all Jews to leave everything and follow him on his circuit of spreading the good news. He supposedly said that those who did so would be rewarded in the present age and in the age to come.This story discusses eternal life not salvation. Do you consider salvation (deliverance, preservation, safety) and eternal life to be interchangeable?The author of James was not writing about what to do to receive salvation or inherit eternal life. He was instructing the people how to behave in temporal life. The part you shared was discussing faith without deeds, not deeds without faith. "Faith without deeds is dead." Abraham was counted as righteous (just, lawful) because he believed, but would God have continued to count him as righteous if he hadn't done what God told him to do? As the author of James said: His (Abraham) faith was made complete by what he did.I don't know of a place in the Bible, yet, that shows an upright/lawful individual being condemned by Jesus or God because they didn't believe in Jesus or God. Upright/lawful meaning a person who honors his parents; does not murder, steal, or give false testimony; does not defraud; and does not commit adultery.

quote:

---

In Message 55 you stated:
It's not exactly God-breathed, but it still fits my point on how an author could pre-date approval because his writing is inspired by God.

---

Concerning inspired scripture, you missed my point. Let me try again.Do you feel that according to 2Tim all scripture is inspired by God no matter who wrote it (known or unknown), when it was written, what it says, when or who added the writing to the canon or to what group the canon belongs?If yes, how does this cover the Book of Mormon which is considered to be another testament of Jesus Christ and scripture by their group. Can I accept that this book is also inspired by God and useful for training etc.?If no, how does one discern which canon is correct?The various links to the canons showed that our own canon went through changes over a period of time by different people and other canons do exist and are considered scripture by the respective groups.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Hi Shraff. But Shraff, it isn't a key part of my belief. If I fear hell more than death, then wouldn't I want to believe in death rather than an afterlife?I know you think fear of death is why I believe. But I'm young and male - I don't particularly think too much about death, what with thinking I'm invincible etc. Listen, I believe because I know that Christ is the truth.If I fear hell, then it's because I think it exists, not because anyone has pushed me into belief. I was never asked to believe or told I'd go to hell. Well, I just imagine Ellie when I think of you - you're exactly the same. ....I admitt that eternal life I want. But I think I am more than an animal, and I believe that God is true. But if you think it's all because of fear that I believe, then can I convince you anyway? How can I change an idea you insist upon having?

That "if" is a big one there. You are out of context. Let's go back to the original question. I think that pretty well establishes it. How can you come to the Father through Jesus if you don't believe in Jesus? No one can perfectly follow the Commandments, so no one can get into heaven by themselve (see Romans 3:23). The standard for what is or is not Scripture is established by God, and humans merely try to find out what does or does not fit this standard. Any book wrongfully included in the canon is not Scripture. Likewise, the Bible in it's original text (Hebrew and Greek) is God-inspired, but any human error in translation is not God-inspired.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-01-2005 21:49 AM

I'm using the text in Mark 10:17-31In Message 68 you made the assumption that the man asking Jesus how to inherit eternal life "certainly didn't consider giving to the poor."I wrote in Message 70 "Now you don't know that for a fact. The man was unwilling to sell everything he possessed and give it to the poor and then follow the physical Jesus, but odds are that if he was following the other commandments realistically he probably gave something to the poor. Maybe a little, maybe alot, and maybe nothing. Not an assumption we can make."

quote:

---

That "if" is a big one there.

---

Not really. I guess I should have written "since" he was following the other commandments.

quote:

---

You are out of context. Let's go back to the original question.

---

Not sure how you figure I have read the story incorrectly.Original question: The answer: End of answer. Then the man declares that he has kept these commandments since he was a boy.Then Jesus states: Jesus specifically says that by doing this the man will gain treasure in heaven, not eternal life. Giving up everything is extra. As I explained in Message 61 Jesus supposedly promised that those who gave up everything to follow him would receive a hundred times as much in their present age and in the age to come. Unfortunately neither that verse nor the conversation it was a part of is an example of an upright/lawful individual being condemned by Jesus or God because they didn't believe in Jesus or God.When an author writes a work, he/she has a purpose, theme, plot, goal etc., however you want to say it, they are inspired for a reason. The finished work has a purpose. As I mentioned earlier the author of James was dealing with temporal life.As I'm sure you know, the books of the Bible, old and new, were written over a period of time to different audiences. When you pull a verse from a conversation written in the book of John to support, prove, confirm, etc., a statement in another book; you run into problems. The author of John did not set out to support or explain the Book of Mark. The author of John gave several prerequisites for eternal life. Do any of these support what Jesus said to the man? No.
To understand what the author of John was trying to promote, you would need to go to the Book of John thread and continue discussion there.My point for this thread and the story we are discussing is that the man asked straight out what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus gave a straight answer, which did not mention belief that Jesus was the messiah.As I stated before, Jesus gave the man the minimum necessary for eternal life, the rest is icing on the cake. Do you advocate that Jesus was wrong in what he told the man?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

The standard for what is or is not Scripture is established by God, and humans merely try to find out what does or does not fit this standard. Any book wrongfully included in the canon is not Scripture. Likewise, the Bible in it's original text (Hebrew and Greek) is God-inspired, but any human error in translation is not God-inspired.

---

Where does God establish this standard?How would we know if something is wrongfully included in the canon?Unfortunately for us the original texts supposedly don't exist anymore. So all we are left with are copies not inspired by God and translations not inspired by God.Your definition leaves us with nothing inspired.My understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that the Scripture in question is at a minimum the Law and the Prophets and at the most the Hebrew Bible of the time.I base this on verse 14-15 If 2 Timothy was written by Paul, as I said before, the Hebrew scriptures would have been the holy scripture in mind. Paul was supposedly writing to Timothy and advising him that the hebrew scripture was inspired by God and useful for teaching, training, etc., righteousness (just, lawful behavior).Now if later authors wish to state that what became the NT scripture is inspired by God and useful for training, they can, but putting Paul's approval on anything canonized after his time is opening the door to difficulty.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Hang on, I'm being misquoted here. I never said anything about copies not being God-inspired, and I never said anything about translations not being inspired. All copies and translations are God-inspired, too, but any mistakes in translating or copying are not God-inspired. The Old Testament rules were part of God's old covenant with Israel. Jesus establishes a new covenant in the New Testament "This cup is the new covenant of my blood..." We are not bound by Old Testament Law, but instead do good works as a result of grace. Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments with two commandments: Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself. This means that the Ten Commandments are relevant, but we follow them not because of legalism, but because of love, for Christ first loved us.And to what point is this argument relevant? What are you trying to accomplish here? Are you going to make all of the Bible irrelevant because of this, and thus ruin this whole discussion because we can't quote any part of the Bible and know that it's God-inspired and true?
Yann Martel once said in Life of Pi, "To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."