Read this: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Jesus1.html Excerpt below. And now I've got to take another sabbatical from this thread... the markets call. Catch you later folks. ---- We need to define what it means to believe in Jesus. How far can you be from the biblical Jesus and still be safe? Let's suppose you think Jesus died in Bethlehem. (The Bible says it was in Jerusalem.) Are you forever condemned for making this mistake in geography? Can God forgive you for this error? Okay, what if you think it happened in Damascus? In Rome? In darkest Peru? Surely God would overlook that mistake, wouldn't he? What if you thought it happened in heaven? Should a soul be tortured for countless ages because he misunderstood and thought the crucifixion happened in heaven? It seems to me that the location has nothing to do with it. Now, suppose somebody is mistaken about the time of Jesus' death. Most scholars say the crucifixion happened around 30 AD. (Although some think it never happened.) Suppose somebody thinks it was 100 BC? Is this person in eternal danger for making this historical error? How about 1800 AD? How about 2000 BC? How close does one need to be to the actual date? Is there a cutoff date, beyond which you are forever cursed? It seems to me that it would be silly to even suggest it. And how about the nature of his death? If we think the instrument of death was not a cross--some historians think it was actually a stake--are we doomed? Is a man a filthy heretic if he thinks Jesus was killed with a stake, a sword, or a gun? I think not. How about the pronunciation of the name? If we pronounce the name Hay-sus or Jay-thus or X-thus are we lost? What if we spell it Jethus or Jithus or Mithus or Mithas or Mithras? Are we doomed if we commit the social error of misspelling the name? I think not. How close do we need to be? How about the story of his life? Must we believe that Jesus walked on water? Must we believe that he told the women condemned in adultery to "Go and sin no more?" Probably not. After all, evangelical scholars now believe that this last story was inserted into the Bible many years later and does not belong there. If we need to know the exact details of his life, all are in peril. For we can never be sure exactly which stories, if any, were altered. If today's gospel texts were altered, how could we be expected to know what was in the original so we could believe it? What about Jesus' characteristics? Must we believe that his body was made of molecules? That he was of Jewish descent? Must we have the correct understanding of the nature of the incarnation? Surely, the answer is no. Surely these things do not condemn a person. Let's put it all together. What if somebody believes that the virgin-born son of God was named Max and was killed with a sword in Peru in 1950? Can he be saved by trusting in Max? Or is he condemned forever because he got so many details wrong? How many details can somebody have wrong without receiving condemnation? And why would it matter to God if a sincere person was mistaken on certain trivia? Would God cast a person out forever because he was mistaken on a question of history? But if you think that God could accept such a person, then it seems that your Christianity is not so exclusive after all. And it would seem that you agree that one need not believe the gospel stories to have salvation. What if somebody mistakenly thinks that the virgin-born Son of God was named Mithras or Horus and died in the spirit world? Is that close enough? If not, then exactly where was the line crossed? On the other hand, if these beliefs are close enough, then understand that, in ancient Egypt, many believed in Horus, a savior-god who supposedly died and rose again to bring salvation. Now did ancient Egyptians who trusted in the salvation provided by Horus truly receive salvation through Horus? Some Christians will tell me "No," that Jesus saves but Horus doesn't. But what if those Egyptians had used the name "Jesus" instead of Horus? Would they then have received salvation by accepting that "Jesus". Many will tell me that this would not be sufficient, that this would be a different Jesus. But why is their "Jesus" not considered to be the same? Some will say he is different, for the details of the life of Horus differ with the gospels. And yet the story of Horus is surprising close to the story of the gospels. (See sidebar.) Both are said to have had twelve disciples; both preached a Sermon on the Mount; both died of crucifixion; and both arose, according to the stories. So if the ancient Egyptians had changed the name of the dying savior from Horus to Jesus, would that have resulted in eternal salvation? Many will tell me, "No," for the real Jesus is the one from Nazareth. This Horus is from somewhere else. But is one to be condemnend forever for getting the mailing address of the Christ wrong? The story of salvation is losing all of its plausibility. It is starting to sound like believers are saying that whoever is close to their opinions of the savior will have eternal happiness, and those who have other views will be condemned. Why would God condemn people based on trivia? On the other hand, if you allow that one could differ on the location of the savior's life; differ on the name; differ on the date; differ on certain other details, and still have salvation, you have conceded salvation to the ancient Egyptian believers in Horus. Belief in the gospel would lose its importance. It seems to me that a loving God, if he exists, could not condemn a man who differed with God on what happened in history, provided he really wanted to be forgiven for his sins. How could God judge a man simply because he disagrees about whether a particular event is historical?
Calm your tone please. Preacher? I don't think so. I haven't preached. I simply addressed a misconception. The question was, "what does it take to get in." You do not have to completely and fully understand the bible and Christianity in order to ascertain what it takes. The bible is clear on what it takes. Whether you subscribe to Arminianism or Calvinism, etc. That particular thing is foundational. If you say, "well the Catholics believe this..." True. But at their foundation, a faith in Jesus as Savior exists. That's what Christianity is. Regardless of sects. If a sect states that it's not that, like Gnostics, then it's not Christian, but based upon Christianity.
But that is not what Jesus himself said. Look, for instance at Matthew 19: 16-21 16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. Here was Christ's big chance to set the record straight. How do we get eternal life? If these verses in Matthew are correct, we get eternal life by obeying the commandments and giving to the poor. But John 5:24 says, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." So what do we need to do? Do we need belief alone, or do we need to keep the commandments and give to the poor? Could it be that your Lord and Master goofed when it came to explaining salvation in the story recorded by Matthew?
Glad you brought that up actually. That's not the only part that talks about obeying commands. 1st John has something similiar: 1John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1John 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. And there are quite a few of Jesus's commandments in addition to the 10 commandments. But this is a foundational one: John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. So what does born again mean? He was quite cryptic with Nicodemus, that's for sure. up until this point: John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. And you already know John 3:16 As I said, it's only a starting point for conversation. To go a little deeper: Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. But to breakdown the passage you supplied, you have to first understand the Hebrew religion which was thought of as one of works. The young man in that passage was looking for things to do to earn eternal life. No where in the bible could anyone ever do anything to earn eternal life. Yet this young man did all the things Jesus asked him to do. So Jesus gave him another commandment proving that there is no one who can do all things perfectly. You have to also know that in the culture of the Hebrews, wealth was considered an affirmation of righteousness. For the young man to give up his wealth, he would have to acknowledge that he isn't righteous. Note also that he callle dJesus a Good man because he saw in him or heard of him that he was a righteous man. That's why Jesus rebukes him and says, "none are good except God." Ok but you might say, "isn't having faith a work or thing to do?" Ok, try believing something you know to be false. Like 2+2=5. You can't do it can you? Of course not. You can't make yourself believe anything. You either do or you don't. You can come to believe or disbelieve over time. But it's not an active process on your part. So in that, belief is not a work. It takes zero conscious effort to believe. You either do or you don't.
They are numerous. Start here and there should be footnotes to similiar ones in a bible with such notes or concordance: Romans 4:24-25
You are putting your interpretation on what the bible says. Earlier you said it was clear. Christians always struggle with this. They tend to fit into the three interpretations I have heard for these verses: 1. What Jesus said is true--one must do good works to have eternal life. The verses that (apparently) teach faith alone are misinterpreted. 2. What Jesus said used to be true. But things have changed. 3. What Jesus said is not literally true. He asked for something impossible, so he didn't really mean it. Therefore one is saved by faith alone. Here is (supposedly) God's book to set the record straight and guide us to heaven. And yet Christians can't decide if works are required, works used to be required but now are not, or if works were never required. Why is not the Bible clear on such a basic issue?
1 Peter 3:18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit
I started a detailed response but figured here's the best bet. I don't like having to "preach" per se. I also don't like to invest too much time in the subject simply because it will always revert to the fact that I can't prove God exists. Even though I'm confident that I could prove my case on this particular subject, would you really be interested in reading that much posting? I'd have to post much because hecklers may come in midstream just looking to vent their frustration or hatred with Christianity (not that I blame them, considering...) and I might inadvertently get sucked into addressing it. And there will be all sorts of tangeants. But more importantly, I'd have to address each of your objections which come from a POV of one trying to discredit the bible instead of discrediting the adherrents of it for not following what it says. So, if you're really interested in the subject which is fairly easy to navigate, simply do a study on faith and works in the NT. In the end you'll be asking yourself or at least thinking to yourself, "This is pretty straight forward. Why do all the Christians seem to get this all mixed up?" Protestants, the usual faith only crowd, just seem to blow through many key books and passages that clearly show that faith must be evidenced. Catholics, the works crowd, seem to fail at embracing what Jesus actually said and what his mission was all about. But don't use atheist or christian websites to help your understanding along. Each has an agenda to uphold. Just read the bible, use a concordance, and come to your own conclusion with an open mind. Read the Gospels, Romans, Ephesians, James, Jude, 1st and 2nd Corithians, Hebrews and Galatians. Piece it all together. See what you come up with. You're a smart person. Trust your assessments. If you can do that with an open mind you'll see why institutional Christianity is the reason for all these so called misunderstandings of basic foundational principles. These misunderstandings are deliberate and necessary to support certain creeds. What a history Christianity has had since 300AD.