How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (1 Viewer)

[Sparky Polastri]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will, so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

Jesus Christ said otherwise and since He is God and He will judge all men I think He would know.

John 14:6 NKJV
[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

He said many paths to follow to do his will not to Salvation. Probably a good idea to read what he's posting.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will, so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

Jesus Christ said otherwise and since He is God and He will judge all men I think He would know.

John 14:6 NKJV
[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

I disagree! Sort of.

Before they were called Christians the earliest followers of Jesus were called "People of the Way". And while certainly these Christians before there were actually any Christians believed in Jesus at the exclusion of the Roman Gods, "the way" was more about following Jesus in embracing a "Christ-like" "way" of living. One of "loving thy neighbor". One of walking the same selfless, even if it means suffering path that Jesus had taken before them. A walk "with Jesus" means striving towards God, towards holiness, towards being "Christ like". Putting one's faith in following this "way" of life. Which was Jesus' "way", and the truth, and the life to follow.

Ultimately, once again we have another passage that tells us that "the way" is to take care of one another. At least that was the call to action of the original "People of the Way". Those most in tune with the teachings and meanings. And I see no reason why someone of another faith tradition, even one without any faith tradition at all would be unable to follow "the way" of "loving one's neighbor".

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will, so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

Jesus Christ said otherwise and since He is God and He will judge all men I think He would know.

John 14:6 NKJV
[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

He said many paths to follow to do his will not to Salvation. Probably a good idea to read what he's posting.

I just took another path to a reply. While what I wrote is true and reflects my beliefs, it does have a hole in it. At least a potential hole.

 

[Paddington]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will, so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

Jesus Christ said otherwise and since He is God and He will judge all men I think He would know.

John 14:6 NKJV
[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

He said many paths to follow to do his will not to Salvation. Probably a good idea to read what he's posting.

False. He was talking about Salvation. It's pretty clear. Here He said this:

John 3:36 NKJV
[36] He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will,so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

Jesus Christ said otherwise and since He is God and He will judge all men I think He would know.

John 14:6 NKJV
[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

He said many paths to follow to do his will not to Salvation. Probably a good idea to read what he's posting.

False. He was talking about Salvation. It's pretty clear. Here He said this:

John 3:36 NKJV
[36] He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Wrong "he". (At least in this context.)

And John 14:6 is an answer to John 14:5 which is all about mocking Thomas for not getting it, the point of the entire Gospel. To show that Jesus is the only light in the world and that we don't have our own inner light. Which depending on how far you stretch the idea of the "inner light" may or may not contradict the rest of the scripture. I presume that the followers of Thomas' Gospel had already started going too far when John is written. I know that Thomas evetually gets thrown in with the rest of the Gnostic Gospels so eventually I assume those followers take it too far, but maybe when I read Thomas through the lens of 60 years of modern Christianity I just the "inner light" in Thomas as the Holy Spirit, And ultimately find Thomas rather benign at worse and a confirmation of the New Testament at best. I see John as far more in the Gnostic traditions as far as I understand them. And, we also know that all the canonized Gospels were taken by one heretic sect or another "too far"* so why was Thomas' special? I think the Gospel of John is born out of church politics of one group of early Christians claiming another has it all wrong. And as far as the early church was concerned it was a home run. I'm not sure that was for all the right reasons though. With passages like this one abused to create something much more than an organization around a set of beliefs.

*Matthew’s gospel was used by the Jewish Ebionites, Luke was favored by the docetic Marcionites, Mark was used by the Adoptionists, and John by the gnostic Cerinthians/Valentinians.(source).

ETA: And I am assuming that the four canonized Gospels were co-opted by the heretical groups and not the other way around.
ETA2: And "confirmation" from a faith sense, not a historical sense.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will, so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

Jesus Christ said otherwise and since He is God and He will judge all men I think He would know.

John 14:6 NKJV
[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

He said many paths to follow to do his will not to Salvation. Probably a good idea to read what he's posting.

False.

Dwight?

 

[Paddington]

Maybe

 

[Paddington]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will, so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

Jesus Christ said otherwise and since He is God and He will judge all men I think He would know.

John 14:6 NKJV
[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

He said many paths to follow to do his will not to Salvation. Probably a good idea to read what he's posting.

False.

Dwight?

From The Office? Ha Ha

 

[Paddington]

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will,so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

Jesus Christ said otherwise and since He is God and He will judge all men I think He would know.

John 14:6 NKJV
[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

He said many paths to follow to do his will not to Salvation. Probably a good idea to read what he's posting.

False. He was talking about Salvation. It's pretty clear. Here He said this:

John 3:36 NKJV
[36] He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Wrong "he". (At least in this context.)

And John 14:6 is an answer to John 14:5 which is all about mocking Thomas for not getting it, the point of the entire Gospel. To show that Jesus is the only light in the world and that we don't have our own inner light. Which depending on how far you stretch the idea of the "inner light" may or may not contradict the rest of the scripture. I presume that the followers of Thomas' Gospel had already started going too far when John is written. I know that Thomas evetually gets thrown in with the rest of the Gnostic Gospels so eventually I assume those followers take it too far, but maybe when I read Thomas through the lens of 60 years of modern Christianity I just the "inner light" in Thomas as the Holy Spirit, And ultimately find Thomas rather benign at worse and a confirmation of the New Testament at best. I see John as far more in the Gnostic traditions as far as I understand them. And, we also know that all the canonized Gospels were taken by one heretic sect or another "too far"* so why was Thomas' special? I think the Gospel of John is born out of church politics of one group of early Christians claiming another has it all wrong. And as far as the early church was concerned it was a home run. I'm not sure that was for all the right reasons though. With passages like this one abused to create something much more than an organization around a set of beliefs.

*Matthew’s gospel was used by the Jewish Ebionites, Luke was favored by the docetic Marcionites, Mark was used by the Adoptionists, and John by the gnostic Cerinthians/Valentinians.(source).

ETA: And I am assuming that the four canonized Gospels were co-opted by the heretical groups and not the other way around.
ETA2: And "confirmation" from a faith sense, not a historical sense.

This is all a feable attempt to change what the Bible actually says. Jesus said He is the only Way to heaven. Here is another one for you to try to explain away

Acts 4:12 NKJV
[12] Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This is all a feable attempt to change what the Bible actually says. Jesus said He is the only Way to heaven. Here is another one for you to try to explain away

Acts 4:12 NKJV
[12] Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

I am sorry I don't see a single mention of the word heaven in John 14:6. And even if it was there, it would not change the fact, the fact that early Christians, the "people of the way" were concerned with living a "Christ-like" way of life. Do you know what "Christian" means? It is a case where a group decided to "own the slur" as it means "little Christ". The early followers tried to follow Jesus's way, to be "little Christ". But of course the hole in all of this is that these "People of the Way", these "little Christ" are following Jesus decades before John is written so they probably weren't interpreting this passage since it wasn't known to anyone yet.

My contention all along is that the earliest Christian communities believed in, put their faith in a "way of life" first and the rest of the message followed. I don't believe that I am putting words into your mouth when I say that you suggest that you believed in the salvation first and then that changed your way of life. My entire point is that while this is great for you and those like you, that when it comes to converting those that don't believe in heaven or hell at all that they can believe in a "little Christ" way of life which may or may not lead them to greater faith.

While it still doesn't say explicitly heaven, you'd probably be better served with John 10:9. Either way, Jesus is the gatekeeper in these interpretation. If you reject my interpretation then it says nothing about how one should live their life prior to approaching the gate. It doesn't say that when one of the atheist here gets to the gates and says, "Wow you existed after all!" that isn't faith enough to get through.

Have you ever heard of the Apocalypse of Peter. I think you'd like it as it is one of the earliest, graphic descriptions of hell. And while its authenticity was already doubted, it was among the books in the earliest known list of the New Testament canon. And in the early days it seemed to be popular. By the time the canon was formalized it had fallen pretty much out of favor. While one can only speculate on why at this point, changes to later versions may provide a hint on why. You see in early versions when we reach end times Jesus goes down to hell and brings with him everyone to heaven. Later version he just brings the select few. Another reason it may have fallen out of favor is that it suggests that everyone spends time tormented in hell before that day Jesus arrives.

Other than the change in the story to align with how the proto-Catholics were taking the story, I'm not terribly interested because its hell is impossible to reconcile with a loving God which is what I'd like to believe to be the reason that it was dropped. "Like to believe", don't have much faith that this is actually true since hell is such big business and has been for quite a while.

 

[Paddington]

This is all a feable attempt to change what the Bible actually says. Jesus said He is the only Way to heaven. Here is another one for you to try to explain away

Acts 4:12 NKJV
[12] Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

I am sorry I don't see a single mention of the word heaven in John 14:6. And even if it was there, it would not change the fact, the fact that early Christians, the "people of the way" were concerned with living a "Christ-like" way of life. Do you know what "Christian" means? It is a case where a group decided to "own the slur" as it means "little Christ". The early followers tried to follow Jesus's way, to be "little Christ". But of course the hole in all of this is that these "People of the Way", these "little Christ" are following Jesus decades before John is written so they probably weren't interpreting this passage since it wasn't known to anyone yet.

My contention all along is that the earliest Christian communities believed in, put their faith in a "way of life" first and the rest of the message followed. I don't believe that I am putting words into your mouth when I say that you suggest that you believed in the salvation first and then that changed your way of life. My entire point is that while this is great for you and those like you, that when it comes to converting those that don't believe in heaven or hell at all that they can believe in a "little Christ" way of life which may or may not lead them to greater faith.

While it still doesn't say explicitly heaven, you'd probably be better served with John 10:9. Either way, Jesus is the gatekeeper in these interpretation. If you reject my interpretation then it says nothing about how one should live their life prior to approaching the gate. It doesn't say that when one of the atheist here gets to the gates and says, "Wow you existed after all!" that isn't faith enough to get through.

Have you ever heard of the Apocalypse of Peter. I think you'd like it as it is one of the earliest, graphic descriptions of hell. And while its authenticity was already doubted, it was among the books in the earliest known list of the New Testament canon. And in the early days it seemed to be popular. By the time the canon was formalized it had fallen pretty much out of favor. While one can only speculate on why at this point, changes to later versions may provide a hint on why. You see in early versions when we reach end times Jesus goes down to hell and brings with him everyone to heaven. Later version he just brings the select few. Another reason it may have fallen out of favor is that it suggests that everyone spends time tormented in hell before that day Jesus arrives.

Other than the change in the story to align with how the proto-Catholics were taking the story, I'm not terribly interested because its hell is impossible to reconcile with a loving God which is what I'd like to believe to be the reason that it was dropped. "Like to believe", don't have much faith that this is actually true since hell is such big business and has been for quite a while.

Here is another

John 8:24 NKJV
[24] Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins

 

[Paddington]

Here is another one:

I John 5:12-13 NKJV
[12] He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. [13] These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

Life here is referring to Eternal Life in heaven rather than Eternal Life In Hell.

 

[Paddington]

This is all a feable attempt to change what the Bible actually says. Jesus said He is the only Way to heaven. Here is another one for you to try to explain away

Acts 4:12 NKJV
[12] Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

I am sorry I don't see a single mention of the word heaven in John 14:6. And even if it was there, it would not change the fact, the fact that early Christians, the "people of the way" were concerned with living a "Christ-like" way of life. Do you know what "Christian" means? It is a case where a group decided to "own the slur" as it means "little Christ". The early followers tried to follow Jesus's way, to be "little Christ". But of course the hole in all of this is that these "People of the Way", these "little Christ" are following Jesus decades before John is written so they probably weren't interpreting this passage since it wasn't known to anyone yet.

My contention all along is that the earliest Christian communities believed in, put their faith in a "way of life" first and the rest of the message followed. I don't believe that I am putting words into your mouth when I say that you suggest that you believed in the salvation first and then that changed your way of life. My entire point is that while this is great for you and those like you, that when it comes to converting those that don't believe in heaven or hell at all that they can believe in a "little Christ" way of life which may or may not lead them to greater faith.

While it still doesn't say explicitly heaven, you'd probably be better served with John 10:9. Either way, Jesus is the gatekeeper in these interpretation. If you reject my interpretation then it says nothing about how one should live their life prior to approaching the gate. It doesn't say that when one of the atheist here gets to the gates and says, "Wow you existed after all!" that isn't faith enough to get through.

Have you ever heard of the Apocalypse of Peter. I think you'd like it as it is one of the earliest, graphic descriptions of hell. And while its authenticity was already doubted, it was among the books in the earliest known list of the New Testament canon. And in the early days it seemed to be popular. By the time the canon was formalized it had fallen pretty much out of favor. While one can only speculate on why at this point, changes to later versions may provide a hint on why. You see in early versions when we reach end times Jesus goes down to hell and brings with him everyone to heaven. Later version he just brings the select few. Another reason it may have fallen out of favor is that it suggests that everyone spends time tormented in hell before that day Jesus arrives.

Other than the change in the story to align with how the proto-Catholics were taking the story, I'm not terribly interested because its hell is impossible to reconcile with a loving God which is what I'd like to believe to be the reason that it was dropped. "Like to believe", don't have much faith that this is actually true since hell is such big business and has been for quite a while.

When the Bible talks about eternal life it's talking about eternal life in heaven with Christ. It doesn't have to say the word heaven in the passage.

Next these other books that you are referring to such as the Apocalypse of Peter, they were not written until after the lifetimes of the witnesses. They were written between 1-250 AD. Peter did not write that book. That is the reason why it was rejected from the Canon.

 

[On The Rocks]

This is all a feable attempt to change what the Bible actually says. Jesus said He is the only Way to heaven. Here is another one for you to try to explain away

Acts 4:12 NKJV
[12] Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

I am sorry I don't see a single mention of the word heaven in John 14:6. And even if it was there, it would not change the fact, the fact that early Christians, the "people of the way" were concerned with living a "Christ-like" way of life. Do you know what "Christian" means? It is a case where a group decided to "own the slur" as it means "little Christ". The early followers tried to follow Jesus's way, to be "little Christ". But of course the hole in all of this is that these "People of the Way", these "little Christ" are following Jesus decades before John is written so they probably weren't interpreting this passage since it wasn't known to anyone yet.

My contention all along is that the earliest Christian communities believed in, put their faith in a "way of life" first and the rest of the message followed. I don't believe that I am putting words into your mouth when I say that you suggest that you believed in the salvation first and then that changed your way of life. My entire point is that while this is great for you and those like you, that when it comes to converting those that don't believe in heaven or hell at all that they can believe in a "little Christ" way of life which may or may not lead them to greater faith.

While it still doesn't say explicitly heaven, you'd probably be better served with John 10:9. Either way, Jesus is the gatekeeper in these interpretation. If you reject my interpretation then it says nothing about how one should live their life prior to approaching the gate. It doesn't say that when one of the atheist here gets to the gates and says, "Wow you existed after all!" that isn't faith enough to get through.

Have you ever heard of the Apocalypse of Peter. I think you'd like it as it is one of the earliest, graphic descriptions of hell. And while its authenticity was already doubted, it was among the books in the earliest known list of the New Testament canon. And in the early days it seemed to be popular. By the time the canon was formalized it had fallen pretty much out of favor. While one can only speculate on why at this point, changes to later versions may provide a hint on why. You see in early versions when we reach end times Jesus goes down to hell and brings with him everyone to heaven. Later version he just brings the select few. Another reason it may have fallen out of favor is that it suggests that everyone spends time tormented in hell before that day Jesus arrives.

Other than the change in the story to align with how the proto-Catholics were taking the story, I'm not terribly interested because its hell is impossible to reconcile with a loving God which is what I'd like to believe to be the reason that it was dropped. "Like to believe", don't have much faith that this is actually true since hell is such big business and has been for quite a while.

When the Bible talks about eternal life it's talking about eternal life in heaven with Christ. It doesn't have to say the word heaven in the passage.

This is all a feable attempt to change what the Bible actually says. Jesus said He is the only Way to heaven. Here is another one for you to try to explain away

Acts 4:12 NKJV
[12] Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

I am sorry I don't see a single mention of the word heaven in John 14:6. And even if it was there, it would not change the fact, the fact that early Christians, the "people of the way" were concerned with living a "Christ-like" way of life. Do you know what "Christian" means? It is a case where a group decided to "own the slur" as it means "little Christ". The early followers tried to follow Jesus's way, to be "little Christ". But of course the hole in all of this is that these "People of the Way", these "little Christ" are following Jesus decades before John is written so they probably weren't interpreting this passage since it wasn't known to anyone yet.

My contention all along is that the earliest Christian communities believed in, put their faith in a "way of life" first and the rest of the message followed. I don't believe that I am putting words into your mouth when I say that you suggest that you believed in the salvation first and then that changed your way of life. My entire point is that while this is great for you and those like you, that when it comes to converting those that don't believe in heaven or hell at all that they can believe in a "little Christ" way of life which may or may not lead them to greater faith.

While it still doesn't say explicitly heaven, you'd probably be better served with John 10:9. Either way, Jesus is the gatekeeper in these interpretation. If you reject my interpretation then it says nothing about how one should live their life prior to approaching the gate. It doesn't say that when one of the atheist here gets to the gates and says, "Wow you existed after all!" that isn't faith enough to get through.

Have you ever heard of the Apocalypse of Peter. I think you'd like it as it is one of the earliest, graphic descriptions of hell. And while its authenticity was already doubted, it was among the books in the earliest known list of the New Testament canon. And in the early days it seemed to be popular. By the time the canon was formalized it had fallen pretty much out of favor. While one can only speculate on why at this point, changes to later versions may provide a hint on why. You see in early versions when we reach end times Jesus goes down to hell and brings with him everyone to heaven. Later version he just brings the select few. Another reason it may have fallen out of favor is that it suggests that everyone spends time tormented in hell before that day Jesus arrives.

Other than the change in the story to align with how the proto-Catholics were taking the story, I'm not terribly interested because its hell is impossible to reconcile with a loving God which is what I'd like to believe to be the reason that it was dropped. "Like to believe", don't have much faith that this is actually true since hell is such big business and has been for quite a while.

When the Bible talks about eternal life it's talking about eternal life in heaven with Christ. It doesn't have to say the word heaven in the passage.

Next these other books that you are referring to such as the Apocalypse of Peter, they were not written until after the lifetimes of the witnesses. They were written between 1-250 AD. Peter did not write that book. That is the reason why it was rejected from the Canon.

I’m going to go hard in disagreeing with you that eternal life begins in heaven.
Eternal life happens at the moment you believe. John 5:24
Eternal life isn’t just about living forever it’s about possessing the Life of Christ within us.
John 17:3
1 John 5:11-13

This is a fundamental truth.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When the Bible talks about eternal life it's talking about eternal life in heaven with Christ. It doesn't have to say the word heaven in the passage.

Where does John 14:6 mention eternal life?

And the earliest Christians (to the degree one wants to think of them as unified) were looking for Jesus to return within their lifetimes to establish God's kingdom here on earth. The idea of a place in heaven (assuming heaven is not on earth) comes later.

Next these other books that you are referring to such as the Apocalypse of Peter, they were not written until after the lifetimes of the witnesses. They were written between 1-250 AD. Peter did not write that book. That is the reason why it was rejected from the Canon.

When do you think John and 1 John were written? And by who? I know your answers, those answers only make sense to those quoting KJV and a few others.

1 John's author probably witnessed the split in his community and the founding of, what he considered a heretical church that he is writing about, but beyond that!

And Peter, like Matthew, like John (at the least) would have been illiterate and not writing anything, especially in Greek. So, I certainly made no such claim. Since except for a few of Paul's letter, most of the New Testament is anonymously penned. And it doesn't matter.

 

[Paddington]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will, so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

Jesus Christ said otherwise and since He is God and He will judge all men I think He would know.

John 14:6 NKJV
[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

He said many paths to follow to do his will not to Salvation. Probably a good idea to read what he's posting.

False.

Dwight?

This is spot on and I will now read every one of his post in Dwight's voice with his cadence, tone, and natural condescension.

It’s funnier (maybe more fitting) in Kevin’s voice

I know who Dwight is but who is kevin?

Clearly not an Office fan

I think Onknow who you are talking about. Yes I have seen every episode, just didn’t know every name in the show.

 

[Paddington]

Wrong "he". (At least in this context.)

He knows. Just more intentional conflations.

I am not causing intentional anything, except truth seeking.

 

[FBG Moderator]

Please drop the mocking other posters with the reading in _____ voice.

 

[Zow]

Please drop the mocking other posters with the reading in _____ voice.

Understandable.

That said, I'm not sure how statements like "False," "This is a [feeble] attempt to...," and "Here is another one for you to explain away" are being excellent to a fellow poster and promoting meaningful discourse. Frankly, the comparison deemed out of bounds stemmed from those sorts of demeaning and condescending statements.

 

[FBG Moderator]

Please drop the mocking other posters with the reading in _____ voice.

Understandable.

That said, I'm not sure how statements like "False," "This is a [feeble] attempt to...," and "Here is another one for you to explain away" are being excellent to a fellow poster and promoting meaningful discourse. Frankly, the comparison deemed out of bounds stemmed from those sorts of demeaning and condescending statements.

Everyone can be more cool.

If you see something well over the line, please report it.

"Here is another one for you to explain away" is likely not well over the line.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Let's stop this one for now.

The back and forth mocking, insults snark and condescension are too tiring. Let's take a break and I'll start a new thread soon and maybe a fresh start will help things.