NationStates Jolt Archive

The Revelations does explain the consequences of making changes to scripture.

Read the passage. It specifies additions or subtractions from the book of prophecy.

Obviously, not ALL of the Greek scripture is prophetic, so the Revelations rule must only be talking about the 'book' it is in - the Book of Revelation.

Seriously, if you want to argue scripture, you should really read it once or twice.

Jesus isn't speaking of just man in this scripture, rather mankind ... so it is the same regardless of your sex.
I don't believe I'm in any position to decide what Jesus did and did not mean. Most of the Bible shows clearly that "mankind" really does refer to men; it's a damn sexist book, if you don't mind my saying so. I'm not about to ignore the context of the text on your say-so.

Nah, heaven is just off the M25. The thing about the only way being through Jesus was made up by Taxi drivers as diverting through an elusive mystical entity allows the meter to be left running longer.

I'm not sure how it would work out... 'Israel' is still waiting for Messiah, which means Jesus was a pretender, which means the New Testament is heretical and apostate.

I doubt that Israel is worried about the 'Christian' ideas of 'heaven', 'hell' or 'salvation'... they've got their deal made with Jehovah, and aren't going to be worried about what some wannabe messiah tried to teach.

If anyone should be worried, it should be all those that came AFTER Jesus, since they have been lead away from true relationships with Jehovah.

just looking at one group on one side of the fence.

of course if you are such a bible literalist that you would consider every jew to be damned, you probably should worry about your inaccurate reading of the implications of the messiah in the old testament and just why the "inerrant" old testament got its description of the messiah wrong.

but then you would probably no longer be christian. and i hear that adult circumcision is a bitch.

Nah, heaven is just off the M25. The thing about the only way being through Jesus was made up by Taxi drivers as diverting through an elusive mystical entity allows the meter to be left running longer.

thats so neil gaiman-esque!

just looking at one group on one side of the fence.

of course if you are such a bible literalist that you would consider every jew to be damned, you probably should worry about your inaccurate reading of the implications of the messiah in the old testament and just why the "inerrant" old testament got its description of the messiah wrong.

but then you would probably no longer be christian. and i hear that adult circumcision is a bitch.

I'll make a point of avoiding getting circumcised then. I'm a wuss like that. :D

But, you hit the nail on the head. The ONLY reason that the claim of 'messiah' means anything, is because Israel was waiting for him.

If Jesus was messiah - it means the Old Testament is wrong, because he sure as shit doesn't match the hebrew requirements of messiah. ANd their 'law' was ordained by God.

If Jesus was not Messiah, then the Jews were right - but that makes the New Testament wrong.

So - either the Old Testament is true and Jesus is a liar, or

the New testament is true, and God is the liar.

Or - of course, the other option... they are both 'books', and should be considered 'true' only in as much as they can be proven to be. :o

I'm not sure how it would work out... 'Israel' is still waiting for Messiah, which means Jesus was a pretender, which means the New Testament is heretical and apostate.

I doubt that Israel is worried about the 'Christian' ideas of 'heaven', 'hell' or 'salvation'... they've got their deal made with Jehovah, and aren't going to be worried about what some wannabe messiah tried to teach.

If anyone should be worried, it should be all those that came AFTER Jesus, since they have been lead away from true relationships with Jehovah.

Isreal is mistaken about Jesus not being the messiah, as all will soon see on the world stage. The Revelations explains this in it's account of the end days in the middle east. Satan will use there nonbelief to put his son in power here on Earth. The Anti-Christ will claim to be the awaited messiah, and will kill those who don't worship him. He will lead the nations of the Earth against Christ upon his return to Earth and Christ will defeat him ... The way I understand it one third of Isreal will be saved because they will evenually believe that Christ is the messiah.

thats so neil gaiman-esque!

No - that wouldn't work, Gaiman would have pointed out that the M25 is a symbol of the Devil... :)

It may be the topic of this thread, but does that change that anything. We can talk about it forever, it is what it is. Believe it or not.

whatever.

just dont be offended when i try to pull the discussion back to the topic at hand. if you want to prostelytize maybe you should start your own thread.

No - that wouldn't work, Gaiman would have pointed out that the M25 is a symbol of the Devil... :)

it is??

it is??

Sure is.

Isreal is mistaken about Jesus not being the messiah, as all will soon see on the world stage. The Revelations explains this in it's account of the end days in the middle east. Satan will use there nonbelief to put his son in power here on Earth. The Anti-Christ will claim to be the awaited messiah, and will kill those who don't worship him. He will lead the nations of the Earth against Christ upon his return yto Earth and Christ will defeat him ... The way I understand it one third of Isreal will be saved because they will evenually believe that Christ is the messiah.

If Israel is mistaken, that means their prophecies are not reliable.

If their prophecies are not reliable - how do we know Jesus is 'messiah'? Indeed - 'messiah' means nothing, if the Hebrew scripture isn't true.

Also - if you were even vaguely familiar with the Hebrew scripture, you'd know that Satan serves God, he doesn't fight against him.

That's the problem with Christians... they've paid so little attention to the text that Jesus is supposed to have been promised through, that they don't see the inconsistencies in the story.

it is??

Oh yeah. I thought everyone knew that.

"Many phenomena— wars, plagues, sudden audits— have been advanced as evidence for the hidden hand of Satan in the affairs of Man, but whenever students of demonology get together the M25 London orbital motorway is generally agreed to be among the top contenders for Exhibit A. "

-- Good Omens.

If Israel is mistaken, that means their prophecies are not reliable.

If their prophecies are not reliable - how do we know Jesus is 'messiah'? Indeed - 'messiah' means nothing, if the Hebrew scripture isn't true.

Also - if you were even vaguely familiar with the Hebrew scripture, you'd know that Satan serves God, he doesn't fight against him.

That's the problem with Christians... they've paid so little attention to the text that Jesus is supposed to have been promised through, that they don't see the inconsistencies in the story.


I guess you have made your decision

I guess you have made your decision

And I guess you chose to accept the ideas of others, rather than check for yourself.

If you are happy like that, more power to you. I'll find truth my own way.

Oh yeah. I thought everyone knew that.

"Many phenomena— wars, plagues, sudden audits— have been advanced as evidence for the hidden hand of Satan in the affairs of Man, but whenever students of demonology get together the M25 London orbital motorway is generally agreed to be among the top contenders for Exhibit A. "

-- Good Omens.

maybe terry pratchet wrote that bit!

now that you quote it, it does kinda come back to me. i loved that book.

neil gaiman is one of the few writers whose talent i envy.

I guess you have made your decision

shouldnt one's decision be based on the truth? even if its only the truth of logical inconsistencies in an inerrant stance on the bible?

The Revelations does explain the consequences of making changes to scripture.

Really? I've printed five-hundred copies of the bible on the same thin paper as the real bible, bound it in leather just like the real bible, and it looks exactly like the real bible.


Except, I've made a few changes in the text. Mere letter and grammar changes here and there, sparsely given, and very few will notice the difference. The thing is, these small changes make a huge impact and change on what the messages really mean. Scenes come out entirely differently, people say things that are now on the other side entirely of what they originally said, just because of these small changes.

I've scattered these bibles in every church within a ten-mile radius of where I live in Virginia two months ago, and nobody's noticed yet.

Who's protected the books I've switched out and destroyed? And who's protecting the people who are reading the false books I've put in their place? Nobody, apparently, because nothing's happened.

maybe terry pratchet wrote that bit!

now that you quote it, it does kinda come back to me. i loved that book.

neil gaiman is one of the few writers whose talent i envy.

Admitted, the 'flavour' there is more Pratchettesque than.. Gamainic(?)... but I had to make the link when both M25 and Gaiman were mentioned in the same context. :)

Yes - Gaiman rocks unbelievably hard. He's an inspiration to me as a writer... and a frustrating glimpse of what I may never be... :(

It frustrates me that people treat his 'comic' books as less important than other literature... he's one of the great authors, no matter which medium. (Mirrormask, ftw).

Then why are little kids forced to go to church, when they could be sleeping in on their weekends?

why do people go to church at all?

if your god/j.c./ghost thang died for you already, as a sort of insurance policy against you doing the whole sin thing; you should not have a need to go?

if god is all loving, then why did he create:
hell?
purgatory?
the back-pain game of limbo?
throw people out of eden when he should have known they were going to eat the fruit?
allow the raping of children by priests?
not stop the deaths of hundreds with the south east asia huricane?

if only god is allowed to judge, then why am i harrased to the point of contemplated suicide *im age 25 b.t.w.* for me being gay, pagan, left-handed, by "loving christians"?

you want hate? hate comes from we the people who bought weapons because we got tired of saying "leave us in peace" so much.

The Rafe System,
"We're Pagan and Athiest here"
FL Rafe

To put this as simply as possible and avoid "preaching" here is your answer. Christ died for the sins of man: PAST, present, and FUTURE. The people who lived in the days before Christ were still saved through Christ by believing in the promise of the coming Messiah.

Admitted, the 'flavour' there is more Pratchettesque than.. Gamainic(?)... but I had to make the link when both M25 and Gaiman were mentioned in the same context. :)

Yes - Gaiman rocks unbelievably hard. He's an inspiration to me as a writer... and a frustrating glimpse of what I may never be... :(

It frustrates me that people treat his 'comic' books as less important than other literature... he's one of the great authors, no matter which medium. (Mirrormask, ftw).

not that id know what other people think but once you have accepted that he is a great writer, why would you not take his "comic books" seriously?

i dislike gushing so ill leave it at that.

Really? I've printed five-hundred copies of the bible on the same thin paper as the real bible, bound it in leather just like the real bible, and it looks exactly like the real bible.


Except, I've made a few changes in the text. Mere letter and grammar changes here and there, sparsely given, and very few will notice the difference. The thing is, these small changes make a huge impact and change on what the messages really mean. Scenes come out entirely differently, people say things that are now on the other side entirely of what they originally said, just because of these small changes.

I've scattered these bibles in every church within a ten-mile radius of where I live in Virginia two months ago, and nobody's noticed yet.

Who's protected the books I've switched out and destroyed? And who's protecting the people who are reading the false books I've put in their place? Nobody, apparently, because nothing's happened.


What do you think will happen when you die and must answer to the Lord for those changes. I suggest you read the Revelation from a bible you didn't change. Because it is there, the fact that nothing has happened to you because of it yet is not a guarantee that nothing will happen.

And I guess you chose to accept the ideas of others, rather than check for yourself.

If you are happy like that, more power to you. I'll find truth my own way.

I hope you do find out the truth

Really? I've printed five-hundred copies of the bible on the same thin paper as the real bible, bound it in leather just like the real bible, and it looks exactly like the real bible.


Except, I've made a few changes in the text. Mere letter and grammar changes here and there, sparsely given, and very few will notice the difference. The thing is, these small changes make a huge impact and change on what the messages really mean. Scenes come out entirely differently, people say things that are now on the other side entirely of what they originally said, just because of these small changes.

I've scattered these bibles in every church within a ten-mile radius of where I live in Virginia two months ago, and nobody's noticed yet.

Who's protected the books I've switched out and destroyed? And who's protecting the people who are reading the false books I've put in their place? Nobody, apparently, because nothing's happened.

Amusingly, there have been a number of 'broken' Bibles...

800 AD: Bibles are circulated with the word 'gladius' incorrectly translated. The translators thought the word was 'gaudius' and translated it as 'joy', instead of 'sword'.

Thus - bibles were circulated with Jesus saying "I came not [only] to send peace, but joy" in Matthew 10:32, instead of "I came not [only] to send peace, but the sword".

The 800 AD bible also had one more ancestor in Luke's lineage for Jesus.

The Coverdale Bible, [/b]1535[/b] Psalms 91:3 mistranslates 'terror, as 'bugs': "Thou shall not nede to be afrayed for eny bugges by night".

1549: Beck's Bible: The 1549 Bible is circulated with the word 'balm' translated instead as 'treacle'.

1562: Geneva Bible: Known as "The Placemakers Bible", the 1562 translation had a copy error that has Jesus saying "Blessed are the placemakers", instead of "peacemakers". It also says "Christ condemneth the poor widow" in Luke 21, rather than "Christ commendth the poor widow"

1579: Geneva Bible: Known as "The Breeches Bible", the 1579 translation of the Geneva Bible was circulated with Adam and Eve translated as making 'breeches' instead of 'aprons' (the more conventional translation).

The 1604 Douia Bible mistranslated 'balm' as 'rosin'.

I could continue - I haven't even started on the King James, and there are literally dozens of historical problenms in that one.

Example: the 1631 translation of the KJV which accidentally missed an important 'not'. Known as "The Adulterous Bible", this edition Had Exodus 20:14 saying "Thou shalt commit adultery".

I hope you do find out the truth

I hope you do find out the truth, also.

At least I'm looking.

What do you think will happen when you die and must answer to the Lord for those changes. I suggest you read the Revelation from a bible you didn't change. Because it is there, the fact that nothing has happened to you because of it yet is not a guarantee that nothing will happen.

I suggest you also read Revelation. As I've already pointed out, the 'alteration' thing only applies to the Book of Revelation.

not that id know what other people think but once you have accepted that he is a great writer, why would you not take his "comic books" seriously?

i dislike gushing so ill leave it at that.

I don't mind 'gushing' when it's Gaiman. Dempublicents is a big fan, too. :)

What do you think will happen when you die and must answer to the Lord for those changes. I suggest you read the Revelation from a bible you didn't change. Because it is there, the fact that nothing has happened to you because of it yet is not a guarantee that nothing will happen.

When the lord brings up this situation, he'll most likely be laughing his ass off at the fact that nobody noticed while still walking around like they knew what the hell was going on.

He'd give me a pat on the back for originality and humor, and I'd get a gold star next to my name on the chalkboard.

I hope you do find out the truth

As well as I'm sure most people here hope you find it as well.

Yet another reason why I left Christianity...

If a fetus or a baby dies, it'll go to hell (in Islam, people who haven't reached the age of puberty (and, of course, fetuses) go automatically to Heaven if they die). If someone has heard absolutely NOTHING about Christianity and dies, he/she will go to hell (in Islam, he/she won't go to Hell (but Allah may deal with it in different ways)).

Yet another reason why I left Christianity...

If a fetus or a baby dies, it'll go to hell (in Islam, people who haven't reached the age of puberty (and, of course, fetuses) go automatically to Heaven if they die). If someone has heard absolutely NOTHING about Christianity and dies, he/she will go to hell (in Islam, he/she won't go to Hell (but Allah may deal with it in different ways)).

so, you think that Islam sounds better so you chose that?

I will invent a new religion where nobody goes to hell. Will you join?

besides I don't know of any Christians who think babies go to hell.

I don't mind 'gushing' when it's Gaiman. Dempublicents is a big fan, too. :)

Really? 'Gushing' can be very messy, no matter the persons involved.

Really? 'Gushing' can be very messy, no matter the persons involved.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

besides I don't know of any Christians who think babies go to hell.

Why wouldn't they? They can't 'choose' salvation...?

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Depends what form the gushing takes...

I don't mind 'gushing' when it's Gaiman. Dempublicents is a big fan, too. :)

Yes Gaiman is probably my 2nd favorite author. With Terry Pratchett taking the top slot.

Yeah, right. That's like telling me to stop criticising Nazism or communism, or telling me not to point out a miscalculation in a maths equation.

I think I speak for all open-minded people here when I say: SHUT UP!

Why wouldn't they? They can't 'choose' salvation...?

age of accountability?

so, you think that Islam sounds better so you chose that?

I will invent a new religion where nobody goes to hell. Will you join?

Not really. There were many other reasons. Those were reaons I doubted Christianity, not why I chose Islam.

besides I don't know of any Christians who think babies go to hell.

I know of no Christians who forbid pork or make their women be silent in church or make their women wear something that looks like a Hijab. Yet all these things are commanded in the Bible.

I think I speak for all open-minded people here when I say: SHUT UP!

And I think I speak for all closed-minded persons here when I say: CARRY ON!:)

Yes Gaiman is probably my 2nd favorite author. With Terry Pratchett taking the top slot.

Gaiman is probably my... 3rd favourite, I'd guess. Behind Sheri Tepper and Sharon Shinn. Pratchett is a top ten contender, though.

Since when does God have a waiting room for Heaven? Is it like a doctor's office? Because you know what, if heaven smells funny and hands out robes that won't close in the back, I may not want to go. <.< >.>

Since when did God have a brothel where men who have enough currency in the Jihad department can screw 72 virgins? And why 72? Why not 80 or 70? And why sex at all? isn't that something that's just for the propagation of the species and not for fulfillment of fleshy lusts?

age of accountability?

And? I don't see any scriptural reason to believe there is a special exception.

It would be illogical to grant salvation by grace, then take it away...

so, you think that Islam sounds better so you chose that?

I will invent a new religion where nobody goes to hell. Will you join?

besides I don't know of any Christians who think babies go to hell.

I think babies ARE hell.
"Spoken like a true father."
Tell ya what, you build a religion which makes perfect sense, is logical, does not overzealously punish failue and has a built-in method for disputing religious belief. I will then join that faith.

Christianity fails four of my criteria.

"There is no way to the Father except through Me" is a phrase rather hotly debated in even Christian circles, and is just another one of the many issues that divide Christians along "denominational" lines.

Personally, I think that it's often taken too literally in the English. Jesus also teaches that it is knowledge of the law that creates sin - I interpret that as meaning that if someone isn't aware that what they're doing is against some higher moral code, then they can't be held accountable for it.

If someone lives and dies and has never even heard of Yeshua bar Nazaret in their lifetime, are they condemned to hell? I'd say no. I'd be much quicker to believe that anyone anywhere who essentially follows Jesus' core teachings is eligible for eternal life. Now, that sounds a bit wishy-washy and "oh, anyone can get in," but I don't think that's entirely true - different societies have different belief systems - I think that if you're raised to think and believe a certain way and are never given the opportunity to learn differently, you can function in that belief set and "follow" Jesus. This doesn't mean that someone who thinks killing people indiscriminately is all right and does so is operating within that paradigm - I think that for the important issues, there are moral absolutes common throughout most of humanity.

THAT SAID, I do not think it is the place of ANY Christian to judge another human being and say that they'll "go to hell." I personally am infuriated by people who do this. There's little that's more detrimental to the state of the Christian church than Christians who go around condemning non-Christians. It's foolishness, and frankly unChristian.

Since when did God have a brothel where men who have enough currency in the Jihad department can screw 72 virgins? And why 72? Why not 80 or 70? And why sex at all? isn't that something that's just for the propagation of the species and not for fulfillment of fleshy lusts?

I don't know which religion teaches that.

Anyways, if you're thinking Islam, then you're wrong. The whole 72 virgins thing isn't recorded in Authentic Hadith nor in the Qur'an.

Gaiman is probably my... 3rd favourite, I'd guess. Behind Sheri Tepper and Sharon Shinn. Pratchett is a top ten contender, though.

im a big fan of sheri tepper too. and connie willis who has not written nearly enough books. i wish there was some way to force my favorite authors to produce!

I think babies ARE hell.
"Spoken like a true father."
Tell ya what, you build a religion which makes perfect sense, is logical, does not overzealously punish failue and has a built-in method for disputing religious belief. I will then join that faith.

Christianity fails four of my criteria.

yes but it has good music and quite often comes with cake.

that has to count for something

especially the cake.

age of accountability?

is there a bible verse that covers age of accounability? ive heard it all my life but dont know if it has a biblican basis.

And? I don't see any scriptural reason to believe there is a special exception.

It would be illogical to grant salvation by grace, then take it away...

If you haven't seen the exceptions, then despite all your pretentiousness, you haven't been paying attention.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;

Matthew 18:3
and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:13-15
13Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." 15And he laid his hands on them and went away.

Mark 3:28
"Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter,

Heaven was made for such as them, in fact, unless you become like a child you will not enter it at all...

snip

Even the Christian scholars/missionaries say that those verses merely state that a believer must be like a child in their emotional sense (I.E. not proud).

It still doesn't stop Paul of Tarsus from writing things against what Jesus (PBUH) taught when Paul of Tarsus says that all who don't accept Christ will go to Hell.

Even the Christian scholars/missionaries say that those verses merely state that a believer must be like a child in their emotional sense (I.E. not proud).

Umm, I think what you mean is they must be born again spiritually, not emotionally.

Umm, I think what you mean is they must be born again spiritually, not emotionally.

I don't know if you can say that not having pride is spiritual nor emotional (and yes, it's pride since the Disciples were arguing about pride when Jesus used the child example).

I don't know if you can say that not having pride is spiritual nor emotional (and yes, it's pride since the Disciples were arguing about pride when Jesus used the child example).

Oops, I misunderstood the context of your statement. I apologize.

Still, I disagree that it is emotional. Is pride tied in with emotions? Yes, but it is more spiritual, in my opinion. Plus, there isn't much of a connection between children and a lack of pride.

That we must be born of the Spirit and repent, so that we will be adopted in to God's family as His children, has a lot to do with it.

Yeah, right. That's like telling me to stop criticising Nazism or communism, or telling me not to point out a miscalculation in a maths equation.

You're borderline trolling, by admitting that you're always going to criticize Islam whenever you can. Knock it off.

Even the Christian scholars/missionaries say that those verses merely state that a believer must be like a child in their emotional sense (I.E. not proud).

It still doesn't stop Paul of Tarsus from writing things against what Jesus (PBUH) taught when Paul of Tarsus says that all who don't accept Christ will go to Hell.

ive never thought of those verses as being particularly about pride

i think he literally meant that we need to protect children. when he tells us we should be like children i think he means innocence, a positive attitude toward the world, openness to others, playfulness, all those things that would make someone more bearable for eternity.

If you haven't seen the exceptions, then despite all your pretentiousness, you haven't been paying attention.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;

Matthew 18:3
and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:13-15
13Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." 15And he laid his hands on them and went away.

Mark 3:28
"Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter,

Heaven was made for such as them, in fact, unless you become like a child you will not enter it at all...

None of those verses says anything about 'salvation', or the fact that children have an age of accountability, or that they won't be condemned for not having received the Word.

Sure, you can make extrapolations - but since none of them offers direct contradiction of the idea that the ONLY way to the Father, is through the Son, it is not scriptural.

Or - are you saying that the 'only way' part is wrong?

Let me see: John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins".

So - belief is required - if one doesn't believe, one 'dies in sin'.

Luke 13:3 "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish".

So - not just belief, but repentence is necessary.

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me".

So - there are no other 'mechanisms'... salvation can't be something you are 'born' to, 'bought' into, or given - except by Grace, through accepting Jesus.

I think the verses you cite are very cute, and show that Jesus had a fondnes for children - but they certainly don't replace John 14:6 (in any way I can see).

There is no God

There is no God

I'm glad we have you to clear things up for us. Philosophers have been debating that one for centuries with no success either way.

I'm glad we have you to clear things up for us. Philosophers have been debating that one for centuries with no success either way.

No problem,
I'll repeat it if you want.

No problem,
I'll repeat it if you want.

Go ahead. It makes no difference.

None of those verses says anything about 'salvation', or the fact that children have an age of accountability, or that they won't be condemned for not having received the Word.

Sure, you can make extrapolations - but since none of them offers direct contradiction of the idea that the ONLY way to the Father, is through the Son, it is not scriptural.

Or - are you saying that the 'only way' part is wrong?

Let me see: John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins".

So - belief is required - if one doesn't believe, one 'dies in sin'.

Luke 13:3 "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish".

So - not just belief, but repentence is necessary.

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me".

So - there are no other 'mechanisms'... salvation can't be something you are 'born' to, 'bought' into, or given - except by Grace, through accepting Jesus.

I think the verses you cite are very cute, and show that Jesus had a fondnes for children - but they certainly don't replace John 14:6 (in any way I can see).


You forget, God reveals himself to little children and infants. Perhaps you simply assume, like the apostles did when Jesus was indigent with them, that the children and infants can’t have understanding and thus, they can’t have faith and belief yet, so there is no reason to allow them to come to Jesus until they've grown up, but Jesus says you and the apostles that wanted to stop the children from coming to him, are simply wrong. Jesus says that children and Infants DO accept salvation and God’s salvation plan IS revealed to them, even when it is not revealed to the wise and those that have come to understanding (grown ups).

Luke 10:21
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

Simply because it is Gods will, it is revealed to them, and thus, we know that they CAN believe and have faith because God revealed it to them (as a matter of fact, an infant might not be able to not believe, that would be a better question). But Heaven, as from the verses I’ve already quoted previously have shown, Heaven is specifically made for little children and those that are like them. Little children are not saved despite the rules of belief and faith told elsewhere in the scripture for everyone else, they are saved because of those very rules. Little children and infants have faith and salvation in Jesus Christ, as it is revealed to them…

Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

If God calls them, they are saved. If you want to believe that little children can’t believe or can't have faith, then you will have to prove that they are incapable of it in the scriptures because Jesus plainly says that they can believe and that we must be like them. So far you've only quoted scriptures that say a person must have faith and believe but it has not ruled out the ability for infants and little children to have faith and believe themselves. Having an understanding mind will not give us salvation, mercy and grace give us salvation, we do not have to have a understanding mind to have mercy and grace and faith and belief. If anything having an understanding mind might be a detriment, a handicap, a deterrent to accepting salvation through faith and belief, a little child or infant does't have that understanding mind to get in the way of accepting salvation.

You forget, God reveals himself to little children and infants. Perhaps you simply assume, like the apostles did when Jesus was indigent with them, that the children and infants can’t have understanding and thus, they can’t have faith and belief yet, so there is no reason to allow them to come to Jesus until they've grown up, but Jesus says you and the apostles that wanted to stop the children from coming to him, are simply wrong. Jesus says that children and Infants DO accept salvation and God’s salvation plan IS revealed to them, even when it is not revealed to the wise and those that have come to understanding (grown ups).

Luke 10:21
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

Simply because it is Gods will, it is revealed to them, and thus, we know that they CAN believe and have faith because God revealed it to them (as a matter of fact, an infant might not be able to not believe, that would be a better question). But Heaven, as from the verses I’ve already quoted previously have shown, Heaven is specifically made for little children and those that are like them. Little children are not saved despite the rules of belief and faith told elsewhere in the scripture for everyone else, they are saved because of those very rules. Little children and infants have faith and salvation in Jesus Christ, as it is revealed to them…

Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

If God calls them, they are saved. If you want to believe that little children can’t believe or can't have faith, then you will have to prove that they are incapable of it in the scriptures because Jesus plainly says that they can believe and that we must be like them. So far you've only quoted scriptures that say a person must have faith and believe but it has not ruled out the ability for infants and little children to have faith and believe themselves. Having an understanding mind will not give us salvation, mercy and grace give us salvation, we do not have to have a understanding mind to have mercy and grace and faith and belief. If anything having an understanding mind might be a detriment, a handicap, a deterrent to accepting salvation through faith and belief, a little child or infant does't have that understanding mind to get in the way of accepting salvation.

are you suggesting that god reveals himself to ALL children and that ALL children believe?

my bible has the "little children" of luke10 as "childlike". the contrast is between the wise--the learned pharisees who reject jesus--and the childlike--the uneducated disciples who are nonetheless open to the word of god.

You forget, God reveals himself to little children and infants. Perhaps you simply assume, like the apostles did when Jesus was indigent with them, that the children and infants can’t have understanding and thus, they can’t have faith and belief yet, so there is no reason to allow them to come to Jesus until they've grown up, but Jesus says you and the apostles that wanted to stop the children from coming to him, are simply wrong. Jesus says that children and Infants DO accept salvation and God’s salvation plan IS revealed to them, even when it is not revealed to the wise and those that have come to understanding (grown ups).

Luke 10:21
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

Simply because it is Gods will, it is revealed to them, and thus, we know that they CAN believe and have faith because God revealed it to them (as a matter of fact, an infant might not be able to not believe, that would be a better question). But Heaven, as from the verses I’ve already quoted previously have shown, Heaven is specifically made for little children and those that are like them. Little children are not saved despite the rules of belief and faith told elsewhere in the scripture for everyone else, they are saved because of those very rules. Little children and infants have faith and salvation in Jesus Christ, as it is revealed to them…

Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

If God calls them, they are saved. If you want to believe that little children can’t believe or can't have faith, then you will have to prove that they are incapable of it in the scriptures because Jesus plainly says that they can believe and that we must be like them. So far you've only quoted scriptures that say a person must have faith and believe but it has not ruled out the ability for infants and little children to have faith and believe themselves. Having an understanding mind will not give us salvation, mercy and grace give us salvation, we do not have to have a understanding mind to have mercy and grace and faith and belief. If anything having an understanding mind might be a detriment, a handicap, a deterrent to accepting salvation through faith and belief, a little child or infant does't have that understanding mind to get in the way of accepting salvation.

The biblical Jesus likes kids just like God wanted humans in the Adm&Eve story: without knowledge. Knowledge is what keeps people from believing, while lack of knowledge makes people manipulable and ultimately dependent. Just like Judaism and Christianity wants their followers to be. Faith is not about belief or even salvation, it's about control (via the doctrine that salvation is something necessary). Welcome to the real world.

And why is this forum so slow?

are you suggesting that god reveals himself to ALL children and that ALL children believe?

my bible has the "little children" of luke10 as "childlike". the contrast is between the wise--the learned pharisees who reject jesus--and the childlike--the uneducated disciples who are nonetheless open to the word of god.

Well, he didn't say... Just the boy children, or, just the girl children, or, just the Jewish children, or, just the Black children or just the White Children...

All children have faith and believe until they are taught otherwise or their own 'understanding' leads them away from faith and belief.

The biblical Jesus likes kids just like God wanted humans in the Adm&Eve story: without knowledge. Knowledge is what keeps people from believing, while lack of knowledge makes people manipulable and ultimately dependent. Just like Judaism and Christianity wants their followers to be. Faith is not about belief or even salvation, it's about control (via the doctrine that salvation is something necessary). Welcome to the real world.

And why is this forum so slow?

Yep. The Christian/Jewish/Islam overlords are out for us. They want our braaaaaains!
I consider myself quite knowledgable. 11 GCSEs - 5 As and 6 Bs - and doing 4 A levels - History, Psychology, Physics and English - is quite challenging. I'm certainly not stupid.
Am I Christian? Yes.

Well, he didn't say... Just the boy children, or, just the girl children, or, just the Jewish children, or, just the Black children or just the White Children...

All children have faith and believe until they are taught otherwise or their own 'understanding' leads them away from faith and belief.

but your verses dont say that ALL children are involved even if you insist that in luke10 he wasnt referring to his disciples but actual children.

Yep. The Christian/Jewish/Islam overlords are out for us. They want our braaaaaains!
I consider myself quite knowledgable. 11 GCSEs - 5 As and 6 Bs - and doing 4 A levels - History, Psychology, Physics and English - is quite challenging. I'm certainly not stupid.
Am I Christian? Yes.Why? And for what purpose?

Why? And for what purpose?

Why? Because I've had experiences - which carry on for a couple of years, so I won't go into detail here, the amount of text will kill my fingers - and for what purpose? Eternal paradise in Heaven.
Also, I fail to see how Christian doctrine is attempting to control people. Or any other religion, for example. Care to explain how?

but your verses dont say that ALL children are involved even if you insist that in luke10 he wasnt referring to his disciples but actual children.

It does says little children...

Luke 10:21

NASB:
At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

NIV:
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

KJV:
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes:

ESV:
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;

NRSV:
At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants;


Are you using the The Living Bible perhaps? If so, that's your problem, easily fixed, throw it away, it has far too many 'alterations' to even be useful, many more than just this example.

Why? Because I've had experiences - which carry on for a couple of years, so I won't go into detail here, the amount of text will kill my fingers - and for what purpose? Eternal paradise in Heaven.
Also, I fail to see how Christian doctrine is attempting to control people. Or any other religion, for example. Care to explain how?

Lots of people have these experiences, then put the credit for them in the hands of a random deity. How are you so sure it's the christian god that made you feel that way or gave you that experience or thought or feeling or whatever? Lemme answer that for you: you're not. You hope it's a particular deity.

It's all about control. Knowledge is power, and the possibility of those who are under control suddenly becoming aware and able just scares the bejeezus out of those who are currently in power, so they say something along the lines of "God wants you to just not question him. Just... believe. Because we say so, and you'll get a lollipop in heaven. Don't question him - what's the word I'm looking for - have faith, not knowledge."

There were even times when those who knew certain things or questioned certain things were considered evil or witches or demons - that's how far it went. If you knew how to make fire and it looked kinda scary when you did it, you were a witch. If you dressed a certain way and your shadow resembled something kinda creepy, you could be a witch. If you were an unlucky bastard and, while you were trying to convince someone you weren't a witch, you said the words "I AM NOT A WITCH!", at the end of "WITCH!" lightning happened to strike, you were fucking screwed, because it would be seen as the power of a witch to threaten with the forces of nature.

It's just all ridiculous hearsay meant to scare people into acting a certain way so that they're easier to manipulate.

It does says little children...

Luke 10:21

NASB:
At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

NIV:
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

KJV:
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes:

ESV:
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;

NRSV:
At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants;


Are you using the The Living Bible perhaps? If so, that's your problem, easily fixed, throw it away, it has far too many 'alterations' to even be useful, many more than just this example.

no im using the catholic bible and if you look at your verse in context, the whole chapter is about the disciples being sent to various towns to preach. it has nothing to do with children.

but even if you insist that it IS talking about children, it isnt talking about ALL children.

It does says little children...

Luke 10:21

NASB:
At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

NIV:
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

KJV:
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes:

ESV:
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;

NRSV:
At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants;


*Hijack*
Five different, mainstream Bible translations. That all say something different. Learned after all is not the same as intelligent, nor the same as prudent. Rejoicing in spirit is vastly different from rejoicing in the Holy Spirit. A subtle difference between infant and little child can be made.

And some people say God would not allow imperfect translations to exist. Fools.

no im using the catholic bible and if you look at your verse in context, the whole chapter is about the disciples being sent to various towns to preach. it has nothing to do with children.

but even if you insist that it IS talking about children, it isnt talking about ALL children.

I'm fairly certain there's more than one Catholic bible.

I'm fairly certain there's more than one Catholic bible.

As well as more than one Catholic version of Christianity - though the Roman Catholics are by far the largest of them.

Lots of people have these experiences, then put the credit for them in the hands of a random deity. How are you so sure it's the christian god that made you feel that way or gave you that experience or thought or feeling or whatever? Lemme answer that for you: you're not. You hope it's a particular deity.

It's all about control. Knowledge is power, and the possibility of those who are under control suddenly becoming aware and able just scares the bejeezus out of those who are currently in power, so they say something along the lines of "God wants you to just not question him. Just... believe. Because we say so, and you'll get a lollipop in heaven. Don't question him - what's the word I'm looking for - have faith, not knowledge."

There were even times when those who knew certain things or questioned certain things were considered evil or witches or demons - that's how far it went. If you knew how to make fire and it looked kinda scary when you did it, you were a witch. If you dressed a certain way and your shadow resembled something kinda creepy, you could be a witch. If you were an unlucky bastard and, while you were trying to convince someone you weren't a witch, you said the words "I AM NOT A WITCH!", at the end of "WITCH!" lightning happened to strike, you were fucking screwed, because it would be seen as the power of a witch to threaten with the forces of nature.

It's just all ridiculous hearsay meant to scare people into acting a certain way so that they're easier to manipulate.

I'm still failing to see how any organised religion controls anyone. Take Christianity for example - the most obvious rules in the Bible? The Ten Commandments, obviously. A good set of moral rules. But, they are in no way trying to control you or force you to do something against your will. That's what your implying here-the Church is attempting to manipulate millions of people here for power. Granted, the Catholic Church is immensely wealthy and powerful - which really bugs me - but people, more often than not, follow the Word of God as how they interpret it, rather than the word of the Church.
The "witch" examples you gave are a tad outdated. I like to think the general public has wisened up a tad since the Salem Witch Hunts.

I'm still failing to see how any organised religion controls anyone. Take Christianity for example - the most obvious rules in the Bible? The Ten Commandments, obviously. A good set of moral rules.

Look closely at what you just wrote. The answer to your question is hidden in it.

Look closely at what you just wrote. The answer to your question is hidden in it.

Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal? Adultery? Those are hardly controlling people against their will.

I'm fairly certain there's more than one Catholic bible.

*shrug*

it doesnt negate that the verse isnt really talking about children.

I'm still failing to see how any organised religion controls anyone. Take Christianity for example - the most obvious rules in the Bible? The Ten Commandments, obviously. A good set of moral rules. But, they are in no way trying to control you or force you to do something against your will. That's what your implying here-the Church is attempting to manipulate millions of people here for power. Granted, the Catholic Church is immensely wealthy and powerful - which really bugs me - but people, more often than not, follow the Word of God as how they interpret it, rather than the word of the Church.
The "witch" examples you gave are a tad outdated. I like to think the general public has wisened up a tad since the Salem Witch Hunts.

Yeah, a bit. In certain parts. You'd be surprised.

But for the past 1900 years (give or take a few) the church was essentially the most powerful force in europe, and the pilgrims brought the strictest form of christianity with them to the Americas.

A good example of how it's still affecting us today would be gay rights. What's the #1 reason people use against it? Religion. Back during Jesus' time, people weren't NEARLY as populated as they are now, and wars were going on all the time killing more and more people - they wanted people to have more kids so we wouldn't be in danger of being underpopulated or overrun, so homosexuality and any type of sex that didn't result in childbirth was shunned "in the name of god himself, the man who created the universe and you" (note the word MAN - another one of those controlling themes), and once birth control came about, they were still following their old rules, so they were forced to shun that too - condoms and the pill, condemned. Because of it, AIDS and unwanted childbirth runs rampant through Africa and the rest of the world.

But now we're OVERpopulated. We need to STOP making so many babies, but religion rarely ever changes or admits mistake, because it never had any ground to stand on in the first place - they're not about to point that out now. The Catholic church waited up until just recently to say "Okay, maybe babies that die don't go to hell." and they had to BS their way through that so it didn't seem like they made a mistake in the first place.

no im using the catholic bible and if you look at your verse in context, the whole chapter is about the disciples being sent to various towns to preach. it has nothing to do with children.

but even if you insist that it IS talking about children, it isnt talking about ALL children.

There are MANY verses. None of them differeniate between different 'types' of infants and small children. So where does it say "this infant but not that one?"

However, the many verses are found all over the place, some I have already quoted...

Matthew 18:3
and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 21:16
and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, "'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babiesyou have prepared praise'?"

Mark 10:13-15
And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."


And finally, we are told how to act like infants…

1 Peter 2:1-3
So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation-- if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

If we don’t put away all malice and deceit and hypocrisy and envy and slander, and be like the infant, we can’t manage to be good Christians. An infant IS the example because the Infant IS the epitome of belief and faith, Infants and little children ARE “Christians” (until they learn or choose to be otherwise).

*Hijack*
Five different, mainstream Bible translations. That all say something different. Learned after all is not the same as intelligent, nor the same as prudent. Rejoicing in spirit is vastly different from rejoicing in the Holy Spirit. A subtle difference between infant and little child can be made.

And some people say God would not allow imperfect translations to exist. Fools.

Her version says :childlike, not infant vs. little children, I have no problem with infant, babe, or little children being used, they all mean the same thing, saying "Childlike" though, is an entirely different meaning.

Yeah, a bit. In certain parts. You'd be surprised.

But for the past 1900 years (give or take a few) the church was essentially the most powerful force in europe, and the pilgrims brought the strictest form of christianity with them to the Americas.

A good example of how it's still affecting us today would be gay rights. What's the #1 reason people use against it? Religion. Back during Jesus' time, people weren't NEARLY as populated as they are now, and wars were going on all the time killing more and more people - they wanted people to have more kids so we wouldn't be in danger of being underpopulated or overrun, so homosexuality and any type of sex that didn't result in childbirth was shunned "in the name of god himself, the man who created the universe and you" (note the word MAN - another one of those controlling themes), and once birth control came about, they were still following their old rules, so they were forced to shun that too - condoms and the pill, condemned. Because of it, AIDS and unwanted childbirth runs rampant through Africa and the rest of the world.

But now we're OVERpopulated. We need to STOP making so many babies, but religion rarely ever changes or admits mistake, because it never had any ground to stand on in the first place - they're not about to point that out now. The Catholic church waited up until just recently to say "Okay, maybe babies that die don't go to hell." and they had to BS their way through that so it didn't seem like they made a mistake in the first place.

I haven't read anything in the Bible condemning condoms or the pill. It's purely the Catholic Church's stance - and their interpretation of the Bible. I really do not like the Catholic Church, they're rather hypocritical. They preach other Christians not to be greedy, but at the same time are immensely wealthy, with their churches covered in gold and the Pope and cardinals - all living in the lap of luxury.

I reiterate, I haven't seen anything in the Bible against condoms or the pill. Of course, I've seen about homosexuality. But, I have my own stance on that - they can do whatever the hell they want, it's not my business.

Funny, the Church also refuted purgatory recently as well.


EDIT: Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, I'm very tired and I have English on my mind.

I haven't read anything in the Bible condemning condoms or the pill. It's purely the Catholic Church's stance - and their interpretation of the Bible. I really do not like the Catholic Church, they're rather hypocritical. They preach other Christians not to be greedy, but at the same time are immensely wealthy, with their churches covered in gold and the Pope and cardinals - all living in the lap of luxury.

I reiterate, I haven't seen anything in the Bible against condoms or the pill. Of course, I've seen about homosexuality. But, I have my own stance on that - they can do whatever the hell they want, it's not my business.

Funny, the Church also refuted purgatory recently as well.


EDIT: Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, I'm very tired and I have English on my mind.

Well all through the thread, most noteably the most recent pages, there's quotes of the bible telling people to be childlike and like infants, etc etc. I remember something on the Discovery channel saying something along the lines of "the king needed to keep the christians under control, so he urged for the creation of a bible as he saw fit". Priests who were most likely in the pocket or under other influence of the government just sat around and voted on which stories would go in the bible and which wouldn't. The chapter with Jesus dying and going through hell for three days - there were two versions of it, and they picked the one that better suited their purposes. That alone makes it invalidated.

The easiest example I can give of the bible encouraging ignorance and unquestioning loyalty is with the story of Adam and Eve. You know how it went. Don't eat the fruit - I've created you to not have enough innate intelligence to comprehend that disobeying me is wrong, but if you disobey me then you'll die! Oh and I dare you to try and ignore that snake I put there - he's a clever bastard. But knowing how vulnerable and innocent you are, and how the snake will take advantage of that, I've still put him there to lure you into eating the fruit so that you may be intelligent and damned, and know the consequences of seeking knowledge that you won't ever do it again.

Her version says :childlike, not infant vs. little children, I have no problem with infant, babe, or little children being used, they all mean the same thing, saying "Childlike" though, is an entirely different meaning.

poot, it doesnt matter if the parallel construction of wise..childlike is better than the nonparallel wise...children or vice versa.

he wasnt talking about children.

he was talking about his disciples. if you read the chapter it comes from it makes no sense for him to go from exulting about a successful evangelist trip by 70 of his guys to suddenly say that children are somehow given by god religious truths that wear off once they get to be adults.

he is saying that those smart guys with all their high-falutin' edumacation dont recognize god's word when they hear it but these guys who are as ignorant as children had no problem with it.

If we don’t put away all malice and deceit and hypocrisy and envy and slander, and be like the infant, we can’t manage to be good Christians. An infant IS the example because the Infant IS the epitome of belief and faith, Infants and little children ARE “Christians” (until they learn or choose to be otherwise).

so you dont hold the necessity of knowing anything about christianity as requisite for being christian? you dont have to accept jesus christ as your personal lord and savior? you think you can lose salvation?

Did all the people before him go to straight hell and not pass go or collect $200?

Nope.

so you dont hold the necessity of knowing anything about christianity as requisite for being christian? you dont have to accept jesus christ as your personal lord and savior? you think you can lose salvation?

Not knowing exactly what you are trying to get at, I'll try to be very clear...

The necessity of knowing anything about Christianity before becoming a Christian only begins when one has any ability to 'know' anything at all (if you never get understanding at all, by dying too soon or your mind never develops from an illness or mental handicap etc., holding it back) you won’t be able to choose anything accept God’s grace. I.e., we can not create our own salvation through our own intellectual understanding, but we can forsake our own salvation through our intellectual choices (if we are capable of making those choices).

So what happens to infants who die?

Everyone needs to know that we are saved by mercy and grace alone, a singular gift we cannot possibly earn on our own merit… Salvation is from God through Christ's death on the cross. We are not merely saved by accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior, as if salvation was dependent on anything we can perform ourselves. Our faith in Christ, our acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior, our good works and our repentance of personal sins etc., are the fruits of the grace, proofs of God working through us, but they are not ‘why’ we are saved.

Through baptism we are born again, by receiving sanctifying grace which makes us right with God, but we are not saved through the baptism itself (as I had to recently talk about that with someone else recently, I wanted to make that clear at the onset). But IF we are baptized as adults or if we were baptized when children (infants, babes, sucklings and whatnot), salvation is a gift from God alone, not our baptism nor our own acts.

It is impossible that any of us could accept Christ, or salvation, through him without God's grace. Infants cannot demand or deny baptism for themselves, and neither can they deny Christ is Lord, but they are saved through Christ because they do not deny him (and as such, Christians should baptize their children). Adult converts, however, have it differently, with their understanding and ability to choose freely, they may reject God's grace and reject salvation through sin when they choose to willfully choose the world over Christ.

So, salvation in Christ is a free gift, but we can still earn damnation through sin. Infants and babes can’t choose sin, yet.

So, salvation in Christ is a free gift, but we can still earn damnation through sin. Infants and babes can’t choose sin, yet.

so as far as youre concerned salvation is not ours to gain but rather its ours to lose? the default position (so to speak) is saved?

poot, it doesnt matter if the parallel construction of wise..childlike is better than the nonparallel wise...children or vice versa.

he wasnt talking about children.

he was talking about his disciples. if you read the chapter it comes from it makes no sense for him to go from exulting about a successful evangelist trip by 70 of his guys to suddenly say that children are somehow given by god religious truths that wear off once they get to be adults.

he is saying that those smart guys with all their high-falutin' edumacation dont recognize god's word when they hear it but these guys who are as ignorant as children had no problem with it.

Your understanding is not incorrect. Your limiting the scripture to ONLY that is your mistake here, it means more, it almost always means more... As such though, I'll explain further how children and infants can and do praise and worship and believe and have faith...



Matthew 21:14-17 (ESV)
And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant, and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read,

"'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies
you have prepared praise'?"

And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany and lodged there.

And here we see how we are created, as human beings, loved by God, and why Jesus referenced that psalm...

Psalm 8 (ESV)
O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.

Out of the mouth of babes and infants,
you have established strength because of your foes,
to still the enemy and the avenger.

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?

Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings[b]
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,
all sheep and oxen,
and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!

We are nothing and we are everything. God creates children in a state of acceptance to him. Infants and Babies receive Christ because God has revealed it to them, thus, they are saved.

so as far as youre concerned salvation is not ours to gain but rather its ours to lose? the default position (so to speak) is saved?

From infancy, yes, for how long though, who knows? One month old? Two years old? Eighteen, twenty? Different ages for different folks most likely, God Judges through Jesus Christ, it's not for me to say when Jesus Christ can be denied.

Jesus is more than a name, one does not have to hear the gospel to reject it.

We are nothing and we are everything. God creates children in a state of acceptance to him. Infants and Babies receive Christ because God has revealed it to them, thus, they are saved.

i dont find myself convinced by the verses you site. it seems ridiculous to me that infants know anything.

id rather contend that the purity of the infant soul guarantees it a spot in heaven.

From infancy, yes, for how long though, who knows? One month old? Two years old? Eighteen, twenty? Different ages for different folks most likely, God Judges through Jesus Christ, it's not for me to say when Jesus Christ can be denied.

Jesus is more than a name, one does not have to hear the gospel to reject it.

or to accept it? can one follow this extra-biblical jesus without being a christian and still be saved?

or to accept it? can one follow this extra-biblical jesus without being a christian and still be saved?

From what we can gather from the scriptures...

Romans 2:13-15
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.


So even though they may never have heard of Jesus Christ, they will be judged through him... They won't all fail. But it says they will recognize it when they hear it.

From what we can gather from the scriptures...

Romans 2:13-15
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.


So even though they may never have heard of Jesus Christ, they will be judged through him... They won't all fail. But it says they will recognize it when they hear it.

which tends to support the more liberal interpretation of "no one comes to the father but through me" as meaning that you dont have to be a christian to enter heaven you just have to be OK in jesus' opinion.

which tends to support the more liberal interpretation of "no one comes to the father but through me" as meaning that you dont have to be a christian to enter heaven you just have to be OK in jesus' opinion.

To be "okay" in Jesus opinion IS to be a Christian. A Christian will know Jesus' voice when they hear his words. A Christian that hears his voice will obey his words.

i dont find myself convinced by the verses you site. it seems ridiculous to me that infants know anything.

id rather contend that the purity of the infant soul guarantees it a spot in heaven.

They don't have 'knowledge' as you and I have it, they have revelation by what is reveled to them. Purity does not get one into Heaven, God's Mercy and Grace through Jesus Christ gets one into heaven. Jesus saves them, they don't save themselves.

I'm not sure I understand that either. Limbo is a game you play usually when you're really drunk, Its not a place you go after you die!

Au contraire, i can think of several limbo contests i bore witness to that made me feel like skewering out my intestines with a rusty swiss-army corkscrew.

To be "okay" in Jesus opinion IS to be a Christian. A Christian will know Jesus' voice when they hear his words. A Christian that hears his voice will obey his words.

So are you saying that Christianity is true because a Christian knows it is because he/she heard Jesus?

Hmm...

Islam is true because I KNOW it is and I had a dream where Muhammad (SAW) was telling me that Islam is correct. Islam must be true.

There must be much deeper arguments than that...

They don't have 'knowledge' as you and I have it, they have revelation by what is reveled to them. Purity does not get one into Heaven, God's Mercy and Grace through Jesus Christ gets one into heaven. Jesus saves them, they don't save themselves.

that really doesnt make a lick of sense.

that really doesnt make a lick of sense.

When a child is born, does it know what an electric light is? Does it understand that a light bulb runs on electricity, which comes from a wire from a power source, then it runs through a filament in a bulb which creates friction and heat and then illumination comes from this source? Can they explain it or understand it? No, they do not understand it, and they have no way of understanding it, but they are still in the light of the bulb and they see the light all the same.

Instead of understanding the infant simply accepts the revelation of the light. It doesn't know why there is light bulb but it knows that there is light because it is what it observes through revelation of existence and living.

In the same way, God reveals himself to the infant, they have perfect faith in God because they do not doubt, they accept and believe what they are exposed to simply because they are exposed to it. God reveals himself to them like the light from a lamp exposes it’s light to them and they believe and have faith and appreciate God because they have been exposed to it.

Until they learn to turn away from God, they accept God.

The devil's in the double posts.
*nods*

So are you saying that Christianity is true because a Christian knows it is because he/she heard Jesus?

Hmm...

Islam is true because I KNOW it is and I had a dream where Muhammad (SAW) was telling me that Islam is correct. Islam must be true.

There must be much deeper arguments than that...

Nope. I never said that, you should read it again. You completely misunderstood the entire conversation.

Did all the people before him go to straight hell and not pass go or collect $200?

There was no Hell or Devil before Jesus. These were Christian creations.

When a child is born, does it know what an electric light is? Does it understand that a light bulb runs on electricity, which comes from a wire from a power source, then it runs through a filament in a bulb which creates friction and heat and then illumination comes from this source? Can they explain it or understand it? No, they do not understand it, and they have no way of understanding it, but they are still in the light of the bulb and they see the light all the same.

Instead of understanding the infant simply accepts the revelation of the light. It doesn't know why there is light bulb but it knows that there is light because it is what it observes through revelation of existence and living.

In the same way, God reveals himself to the infant, they have perfect faith in God because they do not doubt, they accept and believe what they are exposed to simply because they are exposed to it. God reveals himself to them like the light from a lamp exposes it’s light to them and they believe and have faith and appreciate God because they have been exposed to it.

Until they learn to turn away from God, they accept God.

so youre saying that god, who cant be bothered to speak to adult believers, speaks to babies instead? that he reveals himself to those who cant possibly understand what is being revealed to them and leave those who could perhaps benefit from the revelation in the dark?

now im not one to insist that all beliefs should be supported by scripture but that neither makes logical sense, nor it is supported by common theological thought, nor is it particularly supported by the verses you used.

the only way that i might agree is that god obviously prefers the clueless to the mature thinker. he punished adam and eve for eating the fruit that gave them knowlege of good and evil. he would have preferred that they stay childlike in their innocent obedience to his orders.

There was no Hell or Devil before Jesus. These were Christian creations.

There were plenty of underworlds and evil gods though.

There were plenty of underworlds and evil gods though.

there is even a buddhist hell. not that i know how it works.

You forget, God reveals himself to little children and infants. Perhaps you simply assume, like the apostles did when Jesus was indigent with them, that the children and infants can’t have understanding and thus, they can’t have faith and belief yet, so there is no reason to allow them to come to Jesus until they've grown up, but Jesus says you and the apostles that wanted to stop the children from coming to him, are simply wrong. Jesus says that children and Infants DO accept salvation and God’s salvation plan IS revealed to them, even when it is not revealed to the wise and those that have come to understanding (grown ups).

Luke 10:21
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.


Hmm - my bible gives 'nepios' as 'babes', and my concordance says that it can mean 'not of age', infants... people who are merely childish, and those who are unskilled or untaught.

Of all of those meanings, "thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto the untaught..." seems the most sensible construction - the only one that truly addresses the 'wise' precedent.

I wonder why people choose to translate it as infants instead? Just to make them feel that God is less cruel?


Simply because it is Gods will, it is revealed to them, and thus, we know that they CAN believe and have faith


That isn't a logical deduction from the 'facts'.

...because God revealed it to them (as a matter of fact, an infant might not be able to not believe, that would be a better question). But Heaven, as from the verses I’ve already quoted previously have shown, Heaven is specifically made for little children and those that are like them.


No, not at all. Heaven is for those who show the innocence and trust that is defined as childlike.

...Little children are not saved despite the rules of belief and faith told elsewhere in the scripture for everyone else, they are saved because of those very rules. Little children and infants have faith and salvation in Jesus Christ, as it is revealed to them…

Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

If God calls them, they are saved. If you want to believe that little children can’t believe or can't have faith, then you will have to prove that they are incapable of it in the scriptures because Jesus plainly says that they can believe and that we must be like them. So far you've only quoted scriptures that say a person must have faith and believe but it has not ruled out the ability for infants and little children to have faith and believe themselves. Having an understanding mind will not give us salvation, mercy and grace give us salvation, we do not have to have a understanding mind to have mercy and grace and faith and belief. If anything having an understanding mind might be a detriment, a handicap, a deterrent to accepting salvation through faith and belief, a little child or infant does't have that understanding mind to get in the way of accepting salvation.

As for the Acts verse, I have to assume you know that 'children' here doesn't mean literal infants - but offspring. Indeed - a quick look at the Greek gives us 'teknon', which my concordance gives as 'offspring' as it's primary definition. The concordance then goes on to show how teknon is a very commonly used metaphorical symbol, also - most notably, in the New Testament, for 'disciples'.

Thus - logically, Acts 2:39 (in the context of the passage) promises the 'gifts of Holy Spirit' to the offspring, or disciples, of the 'wordly Jews'.


Honestly - you are either trying too hard to find any reference which even hints at 'children' as a possible meaning... or you are deliberately trying to obfuscate. I choose to believe you are just erroneously missing the meanings.

It does says little children...

Luke 10:21

NASB:
At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

NIV:
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

KJV:
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes:

ESV:
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;

NRSV:
At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants;


Are you using the The Living Bible perhaps? If so, that's your problem, easily fixed, throw it away, it has far too many 'alterations' to even be useful, many more than just this example.

Most Bibles are translated according to 'received' translation. They alrady KNOW what they think the text means, and it has to be specifically argued against for any revision to be made.

The only even vaguely honest attempt at a 'classic' Bible in recent times, has been the "New World" translation... and even that still follows the basic formula.

There are MANY verses. None of them differeniate between different 'types' of infants and small children. So where does it say "this infant but not that one?"

However, the many verses are found all over the place, some I have already quoted...

Matthew 18:3
and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 21:16
and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, "'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babiesyou have prepared praise'?"

Mark 10:13-15
And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."


And finally, we are told how to act like infants…

1 Peter 2:1-3
So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation-- if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

If we don’t put away all malice and deceit and hypocrisy and envy and slander, and be like the infant, we can’t manage to be good Christians. An infant IS the example because the Infant IS the epitome of belief and faith, Infants and little children ARE “Christians” (until they learn or choose to be otherwise).

Being like a child, is not the same as being a child.

We are also told that a mere birth is not enough, and we have to be 'reborn'.

Other verses call for both faith AND repentence... and for calling on Jesus as saviour. Since nothing you have shown even vaguely suggests overthrowing that central premise, we are forced to accept that 'babies are saved' (whilst being a lovely sentiment) just isn't scriptural.

Her version says :childlike, not infant vs. little children, I have no problem with infant, babe, or little children being used, they all mean the same thing, saying "Childlike" though, is an entirely different meaning.

Yes. Well done - that is the point. 'Nepios' doesn't always mean a literal infant of child, and - in the context, it makes more sense for it to mean something very different. 'Teknon' doesn't always mean 'child', and, in the context, it makes more sense for it to mean something very different.

Ignore your agenda for a moment, and an honest look at the Greek doesn't even vaguely suggest that literal children are intended.

To be "okay" in Jesus opinion IS to be a Christian. A Christian will know Jesus' voice when they hear his words. A Christian that hears his voice will obey his words.

But, one could easily argue that one could "know Jesus' voice when they hear his words", without ever learning the NAME of 'Jesus' (which, let's be honest - isn't actually the scriptural name at all, now is it?), or hearing the accepted translations of scripture.

Indeed, if one is to believe one could be 'saved' in some backwoods tribe that never met a Christian missionary, one HAS to assume that the ability to see 'god' manifest in nature must be a route to salvation... no?

When a child is born, does it know what an electric light is? Does it understand that a light bulb runs on electricity, which comes from a wire from a power source, then it runs through a filament in a bulb which creates friction and heat and then illumination comes from this source? Can they explain it or understand it? No, they do not understand it, and they have no way of understanding it, but they are still in the light of the bulb and they see the light all the same.

Instead of understanding the infant simply accepts the revelation of the light. It doesn't know why there is light bulb but it knows that there is light because it is what it observes through revelation of existence and living.

In the same way, God reveals himself to the infant, they have perfect faith in God because they do not doubt, they accept and believe what they are exposed to simply because they are exposed to it. God reveals himself to them like the light from a lamp exposes it’s light to them and they believe and have faith and appreciate God because they have been exposed to it.

Until they learn to turn away from God, they accept God.

On the contrary - until we learn of the concept of 'god' or 'gods', we are Atheists.

Simple enough experiment to prove, I assume - let us find out which god 'feral children' follow - if any.

...well I had never imagined that the Bible could be this tedious and meaningless until seeing Grave_n_idle and PootWaddles post.

...well I had never imagined that the Bible could be this tedious and meaningless until seeing Grave_n_idle and PootWaddles post.

Thanks for taking the time to share an informed opinion, and some deep insight.

Or, you know, what you did.

If you find the scripture tedious and boring, you could just not even click on threads discussing it... or you could flip straight to the Song of Solomon, and let the ancient Hebrew porn vibes wash over you.

According to medieaval murals, Jesus, upon his death went to hell and rescued all those who came before him before heading to heaven. Of course this is a load of poppycock becuase the historic facts point to he fact that Jesus neve existed.

According to medieaval murals, Jesus, upon his death went to hell and rescued all those who came before him before heading to heaven. Of course this is a load of poppycock becuase the historic facts point to he fact that Jesus neve existed.

well true. but for the purposes of discussion we tend to agree on certain ground rules like accepting that getting into heaven is only possible if there is a god and a heaven and even a jesus since he's the one the question is about.

this thread still isn't dead? Jesus is godless freak, and so are his followers. This dude is no way to any heaven, EVER. The god he is supposed to be the son and incarnation of is the fabrication of a bunch of Jewish "scholars" who wanted to create an alternative history for their "people" that has just always existed at the mercy of the ancient superpowers in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, Persia, and Rome. The very idea that the Jewish-Christian mono-god exists who places one ethnic group over all others is inherently racist and ultimately inhuman. This idea/concept of this god requests complete submission and thus is the arch-opposite of a free and enlightened humanity. For the sake of this planet Judaism, Christianity, and Islam must be banned. Have you learned nothing from history? :rolleyes: