Christianity - the only way to Heaven? Surprising examples in Jesus' own words..

reply to post by hadriana

But no, I would not willingly give worship to any God that I found immoral, even if it was 'the only one.' I guess 'it' would just have to torture me.

that's where i disagree. i accept that it knows more than i do, and while some things feel unfair, i trust that it's only my limited perspective that leads me to that conclusion. it's like the parent-child relationship, except much wider. sometimes a child will ask why, and the reason is above what they can understand, so parents tend to say "because i said so".

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


"The righteous" were the Scribes and Pharisees. This applies right here:


"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

Nothing about the cross seems right to the natural man, it seems foolishness. But it's the truth, the spiritual world (kingdom) is inverse of the natural world.

In order to get clean you must get covered in blood, in order to be first you must be last, in order to achieve greatness you must become a servant, in order to be rich you must give away your money.

Self-righteousness and morality seem right to a man in his path to God, God finds that approach filthy rags.

Accept the free gift offered in Christ. Make that trade, your sin for His righteousness.

Originally posted by BULLETINYOURHEAD
There is no heaven! Enjoy life for what it is cause when you die there is nothing. Let me ask you Christians this if everything happens according to gods "Devine" plan, why do you prey? He can't change his Devine plan.

That statement doesn't even pass E=mc^2.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


Regarding Luke 16:19-31. The name Lazarus means "the one God helps." This is not significant but it is noteworthy. Now, note that in this passage, Jesus said nothing about what Lazarus' spiritual faith was like on earth - on the contrary to what you explain, the condition of his faith was actually revealed to us when he went to Abraham's bosom - it teaches us that it was not his poorness that got him there, but reveals to us his faith during his time on earth.

Here is a strong point: Luke chapter 16 has emphasis on Pharisees (hypocrites) and what they see are righteous is not righteous in the eyes of God. The rich man was living in wealth, good house, good clothes - exactly what the Pharisees thought was righteous living (looking good in front of others). But Jesus said, in Luke 16:15, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God."

And the issue of pre-dating Christ does not come into play here because it was a parable; a teaching.
The focus of this teaching was not about salvation - it was rather a lesson to the self-righteous. There are many other lessons in this parable, which are too much for me to write here, but you can find them here:

bible.org...

I ditto what NOTurTypical said in his post on the first page. Good catch.

Regarding Mark 2:15-17, when Jesus said "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners", take note that this was after the Pharisees came into the scene and they were the ones who asked the question. Throughout the Scriptures, the Pharisees are noted as prideful hypocrites who were so self-indulged and self-righteous. Christ Himself stated that the Pharisees were indeed hypocrites, take a look at Mark 7:5-8. And that's what Jesus meant when He said He didn't come to call the righteous. He was basically talking to the Pharisees, or better put, the people who profess that they're so right in everything with a prideful heart with no humility. "A self-righteous man does not realize his need for salvation, but a sinner does," Amen.

Take heed of these passages:
Psalms 14:3, "there is none who does good, no, not one"
Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
The second is a plainly laid out verse written by Paul who was one of the biggest persecutors and haters for Christians, but then became a Christian himself after having an encounter with the Lord.

So we know that Scripture does not contradict itself. We shouldn't always take Scripture for its face value, especially when it comes to citing Jesus. We must analyze the surrounding verses and visualize the event to help us understand the context.

About Luke 15:7, first notice that the entire chapter of Luke 15 talks about being lost:
The Parable of the LOST Sheep (verses 1 to 7)
The Parable of the LOST Coin (verses 8 to 10)
The Parable of the LOST Son (verses 11 to 31)

The main focus of the parable is to demonstrate how important it is to God for us to go to Him, after being lost.
Now notice that the sheep were already the shepherds', in other words, they had all "repented" (hence, they do not need to repent (Lk 15:7)). The one who went astray was the one who got "lost". Now read Romans 5:12-21, as it paints the picture pretty well about us being justified by faith in Jesus Christ.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, as I don't expect you to believe the truth and sense of my explanation.

However an important question for you to consider is that if you believe that there is more ways to heaven than Jesus, - because in your original post you tell us that Jesus Himself implied these things - then why did Jesus die on the cross? And why would he say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through Me" ? For if we are to be justified by some other means, the death of Christ on the cross would have been in vain, not to mention it would come into contradiction with a lot of other verses that straightforwardly talk about Him being an atonement for our sins.

Galatians 2:21, "For if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ died in vain." Amen.

reply to post by Yellow

The name Lazarus means "the one God helps."

Lazarus is the Greek, Eleazar is the Hebrew, it means "comforter".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Yellow

 

The name Lazarus means "the one God helps."

Lazarus is the Greek, Eleazar is the Hebrew, it means "comforter".

Oh, sorry and thanks for correcting.

Also, to the OP, take a look at my post again, I edited it and added in the explanation for Luke 15:7.

Originally posted by Yellow

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Yellow

 

The name Lazarus means "the one God helps."

Lazarus is the Greek, Eleazar is the Hebrew, it means "comforter".

Oh, sorry and thanks for correcting.

Also, to the OP, take a look at my post again, I edited it and added in the explanation for Luke 15:7.

No problem, now read the Abraham and Issac story with "comforter" in mind and see what revelation comes from it. What typology comes to mind?

reply to post by Yellow

We shouldn't always take Scripture for its face value, especially when it comes to citing Jesus. We must analyze the surrounding verses and visualize the event to help us understand the context.

Why do we have to be careful about analyzing the words of the Living Word...?

I would suggest that what you are doing is missing my point. I'm not saying that people should follow a path other than Christ - what I'm saying is that God is infinitely more merciful than humans can give Him credit for, and that if someone should happen to die without having come to a faith in Christ, that they would not necessarily go to Hell.

No-one here has properly answered the words of Jesus regarding the lost sheep, and the ''ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent''. Why would the Living Word say that there are sheep who do not need to repent, if it was not true?? There are countless examples of Jesus saying 'I tell you the truth...' and several examples from prophecy where he is cited as one in whom no falsehood can be found. It would seem that your explanation is more in line with God seeking out wandering Christians as opposed to those who had not previously known of the faith.

Consider the example of a tribe deep in the Amazon jungle - these have never heard the gospel, or even seen foreigners. Are we to assume that they were born into this beautiful world, to live out a simple life, and then to automatically burn in Hell for eternity? Hardly. God is merciful, and I would assume that the angels would preach the gospel to such as haven't heard or understood it in this lifetime.

I believe that when we are faced with the gospel and truth of Christ we should follow, as most of us are in need of forgiveness - our consciences dictate such. At the end of days we are judged by God alone, and Jesus' own words seem to suggest that some will be considered righteous without having come to faith by repentance. Personally, I came to faith by repentance, was baptised in water and in Spirit, and belong to a charismatic church. I have always felt very uncomfortable with the doctrine that those who do not believe specifically in the Christian faith will automatically be sent to Hell, regardless of their intentions in this world.

God is merciful - I know this from experience. I do not believe that he condemns people in the way purported by so many.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
But no, I would not willingly give worship to any God that I found immoral, even if it was 'the only one.' I
that's where i disagree. i accept that it knows more than i do, and while some things feel unfair, i trust that it's only my limited perspective that leads me to that conclusion. it's like the parent-child relationship, except much wider. sometimes a child will ask why, and the reason is above what they can understand, so parents tend to say "because i said so".

Yep, that's all part of the idea of Christian submission to authority. It is a very big difference in religious philosophy. That's a basic part of Christian life.
One I think is dangerous, I might add.

Like I said, I'm a pagan. I can still love Christ and that shouldn't confuse you, it doesn't me. Is he not worth of it, stripped of his diety, virginity, miracles, and resurrection? Were his teachings on love and compassion not enough to set him as a wonder? I think he had his rebellious mystic side too.

It strikes me as odd that it would seem so wrong to people to be their own authority. That basic 'it strikes me as weird you would think that or believe that is the right way to be" is what makes us followers of different paths. No big mystery there.

reply to post by hadriana


Sorry, but everything has a chain of command. You only THINK you're in authority. When this life is over, you won't be judging yourself, but you will be judged. God gave you life and he can take it away. You have nothing and absolutely no power. You were only given the power to choose which authority you want to follow.

Originally posted by hadriana

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
But no, I would not willingly give worship to any God that I found immoral, even if it was 'the only one.' I
that's where i disagree. i accept that it knows more than i do, and while some things feel unfair, i trust that it's only my limited perspective that leads me to that conclusion. it's like the parent-child relationship, except much wider. sometimes a child will ask why, and the reason is above what they can understand, so parents tend to say "because i said so".

Yep, that's all part of the idea of Christian submission to authority. It is a very big difference in religious philosophy. That's a basic part of Christian life.
One I think is dangerous, I might add.

Like I said, I'm a pagan. I can still love Christ and that shouldn't confuse you, it doesn't me. Is he not worth of it, stripped of his diety, virginity, miracles, and resurrection? Were his teachings on love and compassion not enough to set him as a wonder? I think he had his rebellious mystic side too.

It strikes me as odd that it would seem so wrong to people to be their own authority. That basic 'it strikes me as weird you would think that or believe that is the right way to be" is what makes us followers of different paths. No big mystery there.

One thing that may be missing for you, is the underlying theme of rebellion within the Kingdom of God, laced throughout scripture. We are informed that rebellion to His authority occurred at some time in our past. To me, scripture is for only those called to be sons of God, therefore the purpose of instruction is to raise that child for the Kingdom. Christ came for that purpose, to take on the flock given to Him. If we use real life examples, parents who allow their children to become rebellious have families that are in chaos. Companies fire employees for rebellion. Why is it difficult for us to even think that the Kingdom of God is not composed of rebellious souls? The secular world today is teaching and instructing our children to be rebellious against any and all authority? Why? Because the world is fast succumbing to darkness - that darkness that is rebellion to the One True God. Our beliefs are being changed from faith in God to faith in self because it leads individuals to a state of mind that is hostile to even the idea of submitting to anyone - let alone God. Can you imagine the level of rebellion that will lead armies and kingdoms prepared to FIGHT Jesus on His return? It's happening today, all around us. At one time atheists would simply shrug their shoulders when asked about God, today many of their replies reflect animosity, hatred and seething. That isn't normal - that is a mind purely aligned against God. Against even the thought of submitting to Him in any capacity.

Originally posted by LionOfGOD
As i see it, "heaven" is either filled with only christians or muslims,
and the idea of having to spend an eternity with either of those groups
gives me a headache.
Thanks but i´ll pass.

edit on 14-4-2012 by LionOfGOD because: (no reason given)

Wow. Let's not be hasty. Let us examine this claim... It seems to me that those who most loudly proclaim their religious beliefs seem to be furthest from the path laid out by Jesus. Do you really think these people, these ruthless, merciless naysayers will be there? I believe you have to put more energy into helping others and spreading love and kindness rather than telling other people what to do and pointing out what you assume to be flaws every chance you get. You know, lead by example. Of course that's just my opinion... But hey, believe what you want If you really believe those people deserve to go to heaven, who am I to argue? I'd like to think that if you met a true Christian, you would enjoy spending time with them and they would surely not give you a headache because they would be polite and helpful. And you may not even know they were Christian unless you brought up the subject of religion or afterlife or something. And they wouldn't be pushy about it at all either.

A worthy topic of discussion.
I have always thought along the lines that God/Christ is the end judge and not the many belief systems that we have. It has always bothered me that some Christians take to the opinion that because they believe and have been baptized into Christianity that they have the right to place judgement on others, that one is reserved for only one. A truly righteous person will always be seen and heard by God regardless of his religious standings and that even applies to those who have never known of Christ. God is merciful and would never overlook a single soul that has walked upon the earth.
Groups and individuals that run around spouting judgements at others will eventually be judged by that measure, God help them.

I have a wonderful sociological experiment idea for someone out there to consider.
I bet the resulting paper could even get published.

You start with picking 5 NFL teams (National Football League)
You assign 20 people to each team. so 100 people total.
the 20 people for each team need to be assigned as follows.....5 that know the game inside and out. 5 that love the game.
5 that have only seen a Super Bowl or two. and 5 that wouldn't know the difference between Manchester United and the Dallas Cowboys.

Now send each group of 20 into a room and have them exchange ideas about why their team is the best and of course educate the 5 that have no clue about NFL football, about football and why their 20 people have the best team.

The fun begins when you set the 100 people free and have them debate with the other "Teams" about why their team is the greatest and why the other teams suck.

I see this exact thing unfold every time I read one of these "religion or Christianity" threads.
It is chaos because, for example, you have the "no nothing about the NFL" who are the people who don't know the difference between religion and spirituality or think they are mutually exclusive of one another, battling with the group who knows the "game and rules" inside and out but lacks seeing anything more than the pure statistics and rules.

Of course every combination occurs on these threads. 5 teams, 5 groups per team and don't forget to include the 5 different groups within their own team.

Do you know what would be constructive? If you could have the people who know and love the game from each team, debate or discuss an issue, any issue, and I bet people would be amazed at the amount of issues they would agree on.
We aren't ever going to see that are we? People would need to be told what group they were in first, then they would need to be convinced that in fact, they are in that group.....for example. The Christian Fundamentalist....they think they are in the "love and know the game" group.....of course they aren't......they are the "know the rules and care only about the statistics, and they believe their statistics prove they are better than the other 4 teams.......When you get that group engaged with that same group from a different team....well, we all know how that dialog turns out over the ages.

If you all were really interested in constructive religious/spiritual debate, collaboration, education, or community
You could start out by creating subgroups like I suggested but of course more descriptive, like; group 1 team 1 would be the "Christian Fundamentalist" without that label though...it would be....those that believe the literal meaning of the Bible, and consider themselves Christian. Group 1 Team 2 would be the Muslim Fundamentalist....and so on.
The challenge is creating no more than 4 or 5 groups. (number of teams makes no difference) then of course having people "know" themselves good enough to accurately put themselves into the appropriate group.
Then of course you need other people to have the ability to recognize when someone does not belong in that group and provide honest feedback.....example......If a thread was started that was open for all Group #2's from all Teams....it wouldn't take long to recognize if a Group #1 person was posting....It is important to understand that the Group #1 person might not have a clue that they in fact belonged in Group #1....maybe while following the thread that person came to realize that they like Group 2 better than Group 1.

I am not suggesting that every ATS member pick a group and add it somewhere below their avatar or in their signature, but for those of you that are very interested in the religion/spirituality topic and threads, this might be
revolutionary in how people around the world can turn this war causing topic into something constructive.
It could all start here on ATS, imagine that.
I am not suggesting that the "Anti everything" group be excluded from starting their own threads. But threads that are started for a specific Group should be allowed to proceed unmolested. Lurking is greatly encouraged.

I do suggest that threads intended for one team and one group are kind of pointless since it would amount to nothing but preaching to the choir.

I have no delusions about anyone attempting this endeavor, let alone it being successful, there are too many Group 1 and Group "anti" members on ATS that have no volitional control and would be compelled to post on one of these Group only threads.
But I would love to lurk on a Group 1 vs Group Anti thread......not because I would be keeping tabs on how many people got banned...but because I think there would be lurkers who might have been leaning towards one of these groups but after seeing it played out, would choose a healthier group to be a member of. That would make
this whole thing worth it.

Comment to Op's thread........I'm in Group 2.

reply to post by hadriana

Yep, that's all part of the idea of Christian submission to authority.

submission to god alone, not manmade doctrines. very important distinction.

I can still love Christ and that shouldn't confuse you

i think it's strange and paradoxical that you love and respect a figure for some of his teachings, when his complete teachings contradict your own beliefs.

It strikes me as odd that it would seem so wrong to people to be their own authority.

people should research, meditate on, and decide what they think is right apart from the influence of others, but when faced with god, i could not deny him.

i think christ is the only path to heaven, but the hopi indians worship the same god as christians, and i think many hindu's also do. they share common themes, such as the hindu concept of "being born twice" and the hopi making a "covenant" with the great spirit to spare them from a flood.

the missing years of christ's life between 12 ish and 30, well i think he traveled to asia and other places around the world. the message and god is the same, yet the specific rituals for worshiping differ between cultures.

Originally posted by hadriana

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
But no, I would not willingly give worship to any God that I found immoral, even if it was 'the only one.' I
that's where i disagree. i accept that it knows more than i do, and while some things feel unfair, i trust that it's only my limited perspective that leads me to that conclusion. it's like the parent-child relationship, except much wider. sometimes a child will ask why, and the reason is above what they can understand, so parents tend to say "because i said so".

Yep, that's all part of the idea of Christian submission to authority. It is a very big difference in religious philosophy. That's a basic part of Christian life.
One I think is dangerous, I might add.

Like I said, I'm a pagan. I can still love Christ and that shouldn't confuse you, it doesn't me. Is he not worth of it, stripped of his diety, virginity, miracles, and resurrection? Were his teachings on love and compassion not enough to set him as a wonder? I think he had his rebellious mystic side too.

It strikes me as odd that it would seem so wrong to people to be their own authority. That basic 'it strikes me as weird you would think that or believe that is the right way to be" is what makes us followers of different paths. No big mystery there.

That is because the Romans took over the Christian Faith and changed it to suit their empire buidling ways. You shall respect your father and your god whatever he does. Emperors of Romans was pericived as gods also in those times. More than humans. I think ill belive in the Gnostic way of looking at Christ. In fact Christ was anti the establishment. A Rebel. He would have been in the occupy movement if he was an american at this time.

Christinety have been used as an enslaving religon and people have been forced to belive by adding the bit about hell in ancient time or by getting in trouble if they did not fall in line. You can say the Christian religon have been very anti jesus teaching by their actions. The gay sin/hate is the same thing. Be like us, do not be different, do not question us or go to hell. I do not like bullies so if bullies are going to heaven then please give me another place to be in with a tree for shade that I can sit under with a couple of cats or other animals that are affectionate that I can play around with.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by hadriana

 

Sorry, but everything has a chain of command. You only THINK you're in authority. When this life is over, you won't be judging yourself, but you will be judged. God gave you life and he can take it away. You have nothing and absolutely no power. You were only given the power to choose which authority you want to follow.

Well once again, Christians are not able to think outside their own box. Each of you has given me reasons based on scripture to not believe the way I do, that your way is the only right way, that you KNOW how it is, because the scripture says so.

No, not everything has a chain of command. Chickens do. Christians often talk about flocks. I don't flock.

As for the power I have, I believe it is the power I am able and willing to take. Funny thing is, I don't generally choose to. lol The more I am able to have whatever I want, the less I find that I want.

No one gives me anything. I am my own authority. I believe that the soul is eternal. I'm not stupid enough to think that someone else could not take power and kill me or harm me. Authority does exist, but I don't believe it was set in place by GOD but by man. I don't believe ANY king has a divine right to rule. They are only kings and they are only allowed to rule because people give their power up to them willingly. lol

Originally posted by apushforenlightment
I do not like bullies so if bullies are going to heaven then please give me another place to be in with a tree for shade that I can sit under with a couple of cats or other animals that are affectionate that I can play around with.

I'll save you a spot by me in the Summerlands. But, if you want, should we find ourselves roasting in some eternal hell, we'll plot against the wretched creature that put us there.

Originally posted by hadriana

Originally posted by apushforenlightment
I do not like bullies so if bullies are going to heaven then please give me another place to be in with a tree for shade that I can sit under with a couple of cats or other animals that are affectionate that I can play around with.

I'll save you a spot by me in the Summerlands. But, if you want, should we find ourselves roasting in some eternal hell, we'll plot against the wretched creature that put us there.

Thats a plan . All for one and one for All. Hmm that really have a different meaning now than before.