Thread: {Christian Theology Question} Ascending into Heaven in Christianity

In the bible, it often maintains that to get into heaven you have to worship and revere Jesus.

John 14:6 ESV / 4

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Romans 10:9 ESV / 3 helpful votes

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

So now that it is established that according to Christian beliefs, one must worship Jesus to get into heaven, I ask why?

The God of the bible is frequently characterized by its believers as being Omnipotent.

According to the Encarta World English dictionary, Omnipotent is defined as - all-powerful: possessing complete, unlimited, or universal power and authority

So, the position that Christians maintain is that for one to get into Heaven, one must worship Jesus and ask him for forgiveness.

Christians acknowledge that a person can lead a moral life, but all people sin, and the penalty for sinning is to be shunned from entry into the "Kingdom of God".

However, why would it be necessary to outright ask Jesus/God for forgiveness if God is by his very nature omnipotent?

Consider that God is omnipotent, he does not need a direct plea for forgiveness. If a person is Moral and yet at the same time non Christian then it follows that if this person commits a wrong he will be regret his actions, be truly sorry for his actions, and most importantly he will try and make amends for his wrong doings in one way or another.

So, if an Omnipotent God truly knows what lies in the hearts of his subjects (man kind), if he knows that they truly regret and make amends for their wrong doings; why does he demand to be worshiped and asked for forgiveness?

Surely, if a person regrets and makes amends for their wrong doing they are as worthy as a believer who commits wrongs, yet makes no amends save for asking God for forgiveness?

Therefore, he would not need a direct request for forgiveness because he can judge a person's character in whole. He doesn't need to be plead to.

Consider these two extreme examples.

A)

This person is moral, he does his best not to slight others, he acknowledges and regrets that he has committed wrong doings in the past. Yet he does his best to be accountable and make amends for his past shortcomings. However, he is a non-Christian.

B) This man is a serial rapist and killer. He has no regrets, however he is sentenced to die by lethal injection. Although, during his whole life of murder and rape he has no remorse, now that he is facing his own mortality he makes a bargain with God. He asks for forgiveness in return for ascension into heaven.

According to accepted Christian theology, the man in example A would be denied entry into heaven, while the main in example B would be permitted entry based on him asking for forgiveness and repenting (to God) at the last minute.

However, asking for forgiveness is not necessary simply because God already knows, by his omnipotent nature, what is in a person's heart.

Why does he require a person to directly worship him and ask for forgiveness when he already knows whether a human being is truly repentant for their actions, and has taken steps to make amends and be accountable?

Why is he so specific and so strict when he knows that such unrealistic terms will surely condemn millions of good people to hell?

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

FORGET EVERYTHING Christianity has told you. Let's just use our heads, and just look at the actual language being presented to us. How about we start simply by pointing out what phrases are NOT in this phrase?

Here are some words that are not mentioned in Jesus ever famous phrase
1. HEAVEN! Wait a minute, heaven isn't even mentioned? That's right, heaven is not mentioned.
2. Enter or ascending into heaven. Jesus doesn't mention entering or ascending to anything.
3. Belief or faith. Jesus does not mention the necessity to believe in him.
4. The cross. Nor does Jesus mention the necessity to believe that he died on a cross for your sins so that you may "enter heaven"


NONE OF THAT IS IN THERE!! NONE OF IT!!!

So what is mentioned?

Jesus says we can only come to the Father through him. First let's look at this action, "through" Jesus. What does "through" Jesus mean? Obviously Christianity has equated this to mean through Jesus sacrifice on the cross. In other words, unless you believe Jesus died for you, you're going to hell!! But is that what "through" Jesus really means? The answer is in the first part. Reread it! Everyone!

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life"

All you have to do now is just substitute Jesus with what he says he is.

How do we come to the Father?
1. Through the WAY
2. Through the TRUTH
and
3. Through the LIFE





Think about that for a moment. It has NOTHING to do with worshiping a human being who died on cross. You don't even have to worship God! It's not in there! None of what Christianity stands for is in Jesus coded message. And btw, it's in the bible, Jesus admits to speaking in a coded language - an eastern practice.

When we understand that the only way to the Father is through the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we start to realize this has nothing to do with a religious practice. No. It's a way of being, a way of living, a way of doing. Jesus did not give us a "free ride to heaven". No. He is saying we must be just like him!!

Does this mean if we are "less than perfect" we go to hell? After all, Jesus was so brave and most agree he was very loving. Not many people feel they can measure up to Jesus. And if we don't live up to Jesus standard, does this mean we don't get to go to heaven?

No no no you see it doesn't work that way. It's for this reason that Jesus does not even mention entering heaven. Because you can not enter heaven anyways. Why can't you enter heaven? It's very simple, heaven is not a magical place in the sky you can 'enter' into. As Jesus explains in his next famous quote:


HEAVEN IS WITHIN YOU!!


Take famous quote one and famous quote two - and what does heaven become??? Not a magical place in the sky - BUT A STATE OF BEING!!! This state of being has many names. Take for example the Tao has the same definition of Christ, the Tao is the way, the truth and the life. I call this state of being the Christ Consciousness.

It's all there! In the bible! If you know where to look and can read through the distortion of the apostles who didn't get it!

Jesus PRAYS that we become One with God. It's one of the last chapters of the Gospel, and there you'll find his prayer that we all become One with God. So he doesn't believe that he alone is meant to be One with God - that's a lie created by the Church. No no. Jesus believes EVERYONE and ANYONE can become One with God.

To further illustrate this belief that heaven is a state of being where we are One with God, Jesus says more, a lot more. Another famous quote of his is where he explains that just as God is in him, and he is in God, so to is he (Jesus) within you. And if Jesus is within you, and God is within Jesus, where does this place God?

And if God is in Heaven, and Heaven is WITHIN YOU, where does this place God? it's been what, 2000 years? Can't we for once accept what Jesus actually taught?

Forget the lies of the Church. Jesus is more buddhist than the Church will ever accept.

And what about his mission on the earth? You can say that Jesus true mission on the earth was to illustrate that death is an illusion.

Juroara

That was one awesome post, Juroara!

Agreed. Those who are anti-Christianity tend to overlook the fact that there's just as many profoundly good messages in there as bad ones. The gospels are indeed full of valuable wisdom.

Its amazing how the church has come to embody such awful conservative values. They've perverted Jesus' message into something that can be at times truly grotesque. I guess these bad things tend to happen when people take a book too seriously.

Originally Posted by juroara

Forget the lies of the Church. Jesus is more buddhist than the Church will ever accept.
.

Great post. I have heard this theory in the past but never have I read such a well thought out post illustrating this POV until now.

I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense when you look at it. I might even read the parts of the new testament that detail Jesus's life now.

Originally Posted by juroara

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

FORGET EVERYTHING Christianity has told you. Let's just use our heads, and just look at the actual language being presented to us. How about we start simply by pointing out what phrases are NOT in this phrase?

Here are some words that are not mentioned in Jesus ever famous phrase
1. HEAVEN! Wait a minute, heaven isn't even mentioned? That's right, heaven is not mentioned.
2. Enter or ascending into heaven. Jesus doesn't mention entering or ascending to anything.
3. Belief or faith. Jesus does not mention the necessity to believe in him.
4. The cross. Nor does Jesus mention the necessity to believe that he died on a cross for your sins so that you may "enter heaven"


NONE OF THAT IS IN THERE!! NONE OF IT!!!

So what is mentioned?

Jesus says we can only come to the Father through him. First let's look at this action, "through" Jesus. What does "through" Jesus mean? Obviously Christianity has equated this to mean through Jesus sacrifice on the cross. In other words, unless you believe Jesus died for you, you're going to hell!! But is that what "through" Jesus really means? The answer is in the first part. Reread it! Everyone!

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life"

All you have to do now is just substitute Jesus with what he says he is.

How do we come to the Father?
1. Through the WAY
2. Through the TRUTH
and
3. Through the LIFE





Think about that for a moment. It has NOTHING to do with worshiping a human being who died on cross. You don't even have to worship God! It's not in there! None of what Christianity stands for is in Jesus coded message. And btw, it's in the bible, Jesus admits to speaking in a coded language - an eastern practice.

When we understand that the only way to the Father is through the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we start to realize this has nothing to do with a religious practice. No. It's a way of being, a way of living, a way of doing. Jesus did not give us a "free ride to heaven". No. He is saying we must be just like him!!

Does this mean if we are "less than perfect" we go to hell? After all, Jesus was so brave and most agree he was very loving. Not many people feel they can measure up to Jesus. And if we don't live up to Jesus standard, does this mean we don't get to go to heaven?

No no no you see it doesn't work that way. It's for this reason that Jesus does not even mention entering heaven. Because you can not enter heaven anyways. Why can't you enter heaven? It's very simple, heaven is not a magical place in the sky you can 'enter' into. As Jesus explains in his next famous quote:


HEAVEN IS WITHIN YOU!!


Take famous quote one and famous quote two - and what does heaven become??? Not a magical place in the sky - BUT A STATE OF BEING!!! This state of being has many names. Take for example the Tao has the same definition of Christ, the Tao is the way, the truth and the life. I call this state of being the Christ Consciousness.

It's all there! In the bible! If you know where to look and can read through the distortion of the apostles who didn't get it!

Jesus PRAYS that we become One with God. It's one of the last chapters of the Gospel, and there you'll find his prayer that we all become One with God. So he doesn't believe that he alone is meant to be One with God - that's a lie created by the Church. No no. Jesus believes EVERYONE and ANYONE can become One with God.

To further illustrate this belief that heaven is a state of being where we are One with God, Jesus says more, a lot more. Another famous quote of his is where he explains that just as God is in him, and he is in God, so to is he (Jesus) within you. And if Jesus is within you, and God is within Jesus, where does this place God?

And if God is in Heaven, and Heaven is WITHIN YOU, where does this place God? it's been what, 2000 years? Can't we for once accept what Jesus actually taught?

Forget the lies of the Church. Jesus is more buddhist than the Church will ever accept.

And what about his mission on the earth? You can say that Jesus true mission on the earth was to illustrate that death is an illusion.

Interesting post, j. But when you say 'It's not in there' do you mean in the Bible or in the verses you qouted? Because the idea that Christianity is the onyl way into heaven is all throughout the Bible. If you want examples I can give you a bundle.

As far as the 'would the rapist go to heaven?' well... I am in no condition to say he's damned. But faith without works is dead. and Not all who sya to me Lord, Lord will enter paradise and Many will be surprised on that day (the day of judgment.) There's more like those as well.

On the other hand, salvation is subjective. It is written I will save whomever I will save (in the context of allowing gentiles not just Jews into paradise.) Also, To whom much is given, much will be expected. to whom little is given, little will be expected.

I actually agree that heaven is a state of being. After all, outside of the temporal realm, we wouldn't have heavenly experiences but simply be in God's glory. And if hell is the absence of God, it would likely be ceasing to exist. But that last part is speculation.

The problem with discussing Christianity with both adherents and opponents is that the modern churches are teaching a degenerate shadow of the original teaching. The adherents are promoting this degenerate view and the opponents are ridiculing it (successfully I might add), but neither side gets us any closer to understanding the mysterious language of the source texts of early Christianity.

Like most television-viewing Americans, few Christians even read their bibles anymore (Yes, I know this is a generalization and I know there are exceptions, but the point is that trends happening in society as a whole affect the church as well.) The ones that do read, read modernized versions that are less objective than even the King James Version. Modern evangelicals also expressly teach that Christ's teachings were not important compared to his death and resurrection, so there is not a deep interest in actually looking at what he preached, so much as the historical trivia surrounding his life. I know someone will disagree with me about this, but very few preachers will really talk about Christ's actual teachings and the higher law Christ proposes from the pulpit. The point being that there is very little inquiry into the meaning of Christ's actual teachings.

I grew up in the church and began reading the bible at about age 11. I have stopped too many churchfolk in mid-conversation by showing them verses they never knew existed. Their inevitable response is to claim you cannot use one verse to decide what is true, but they will say this even about ideas that are repeated multiple times. I always offer to show them more verses but they decline and go away telling me I need to believe what their pastor or their bible study leader tells them.

Anyhow I began reading the bible aloud a few years ago and I began to notice how many new ideas popped out at me. I realized that the bible was actually meant to be read this way (out loud).

There are a number of verses that really turn mainstream orthodoxy on its head. For example Isaiah 45:7 claims God creates both good and evil. Quite frankly, I like a God that takes responsibility like that, but most folk just ignore this verse.

There are also a number of similarities between Christ and Buddha. For example, both fasted and meditated 40 days and were tempted three times before starting their ministry. John's gospel does not leave time for this event to happen at all, suggesting it was not a literal occurance but rather a symbol. Why would early Christians use Buddhist symbology to represent Christ's development? Each person may have a different answer but my point is that Christianity (and Judaism as well for that matter) did not develop in a vacuum - there are numerous examples in the scriptures of symbols taken from other traditions. So I think it is safe to conclude that those who wrote the Bible were validating those traditions. Early Christians were not afraid of other paths. This alone signals that the outer form of Christianity is not the only way. Christ said that he did not come to close any doors but only to open a new one.

The idea of heaven is tricky. It is clear that Christ did not merely view it as a location, because he said that the kingdom of heaven is within you (some translations read among you.)

It is also not true that the Bible teaches you must pray and accept Jesus into your heart to experience heaven. The bible does teach that following laws and rules cannot get one into heaven because following laws without a higher understanding of their purpose is mere automation.

In Mathew's gospel Christ postulated in the sermon on the mount (which I believe can be taken as representing the essence of Christianity in a nutshell) that one needed to be perfect to enter heaven. He says this at the beginning and the end of his sermon, showing a well-thought out and coherent thesis. He does not say that if you pray to him, God will treat you as if you were perfect. Rather he says that perfection does not come through outer deeds (otherwise there would be no hope at all) but through an inner attitude that is beyond our ordinary awareness. The laws of earlier times were given so that humanity would be aware that it was missing this inner attitude. Christ gives numerous examples of how the law is less important than the inner attitude and then concludes by saying that his followers will in fact become perfect (which is translated as being merciful in Mark's gospel.) If you want to come to grips with Christianity, forget everything the churches tell you and meditate on the sermon on the mount.

Christ's idea is developed throughout the New Testament as the concept of the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. Following the outer rite is only important if one does it for the right purpose (e.g kindness, compassion, desire to become godly.)

The ultimate consequence of this is that once one has the inner attitude of Christ, one naturally begins to conduct oneself so purely that one's good works are noticeable and one naturally fullfills the law. This idea is the one Churchgoers always disagree with because they are uncomfortable with it. However the new testament is virtually saturated with the idea that Christ's true followers are in fact perfect. Nowhere does it claim they are viewed by God as if they were perfect (although I am aware that there are verses that can be twisted to mean this). Once you understand Christ's teaching that this is an inner perfection rather than an outer one then you can understand that being perfect does not mean someone never makes a mistake. Rather it means their inner spirit is perfect because it is fulfilling its divine purpose.

So now this post has gone on too long. I had some extra time on my hands and the topic interests me. Thanks for reading and I'll put in another post that has some of those bible citations that refute the idea that Christians are merely viewed by God as if they were perfect.

A perfect post. And perhaps ironically (Or maybe not) while reading what you wrote I kept thinking about Castaneda's ideas (don Juan's ideas... ) about Impeccability... very similar to Christ's views on perfection. Veeery interesting....

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

. And perhaps ironically (Or maybe not) while reading what you wrote I kept thinking about Castaneda's ideas (don Juan's ideas... ) about Impeccability... very similar to Christ's views on perfection. Veeery interesting....

Yes.. very astute to compare Castaneda's ideas about impeccability to Christ's idea of perfection.

I read Castaneda in my late teens/early twenties. For a while I thought it totally negated my Christian background. But once I began to drop my belief that the bible was a historical document and just look at it mythologically, I found-to my surprise-that the bible was illustrating some pretty enlightened concepts.

Like the myth of Jesus chasing the moneychangers out of the temple. Whether it actually happened historically is not relevant to me. It really means that one has to get the greedy impulses out of one's mind before one can experience the sacred. The idea is that one cannot approach spirituality like a moneychanger, one can't say: "If I do x, I will receive y as a reward." I think this is exactly the point Castaneda was making as well.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

The problem with discussing Christianity with both adherents and opponents is that the modern churches are teaching a degenerate shadow of the original teaching. The adherents are promoting this degenerate view and the opponents are ridiculing it (successfully I might add), but neither side gets us any closer to understanding the mysterious language of the source texts of early Christianity.

Like most television-viewing Americans, few Christians even read their bibles anymore (Yes, I know this is a generalization and I know there are exceptions, but the point is that trends happening in society as a whole affect the church as well.) 1 The ones that do read, read modernized versions that are less objective than even the King James Version. Modern evangelicals also expressly teach that Christ's teachings were not important compared to his death and resurrection, so there is not a deep interest in actually looking at what he preached, so much as the historical trivia surrounding his life. I know someone will disagree with me about this, but very few preachers will really talk about Christ's actual teachings and the higher law Christ proposes from the pulpit. The point being that there is very little inquiry into the meaning of Christ's actual teachings.

I grew up in the church and began reading the bible at about age 11. I have stopped too many churchfolk in mid-conversation by showing them verses they never knew existed. Their inevitable response is to claim you cannot use one verse to decide what is true, but they will say this even about ideas that are repeated multiple times. I always offer to show them more verses but they decline and go away telling me 2 I need to believe what their pastor or their bible study leader tells them.
Anyhow I began reading the bible aloud a few years ago and I began to notice how many new ideas popped out at me. I realized that the bible was actually meant to be read this way (out loud).

There are a number of verses that really turn mainstream orthodoxy on its head. For example 3 Isaiah 45:7 claims God creates both good and evil. Quite frankly, I like a God that takes responsibility like that, but most folk just ignore this verse.
There are also a number of similarities between Christ and Buddha. For example, both fasted and meditated 40 days and were tempted three times before starting their ministry. John's gospel does not leave time for this event to happen at all, suggesting it was not a literal occurance but rather a symbol. Why would early Christians use Buddhist symbology to represent Christ's development? Each person may have a different answer but my point is that Christianity (and Judaism as well for that matter) did not develop in a vacuum - there are numerous examples in the scriptures of symbols taken from other traditions. 4 So I think it is safe to conclude that those who wrote the Bible were validating those traditions. Early Christians were not afraid of other paths. This alone signals that the outer form of Christianity is not the only way. Christ said that he did not come to close any doors but only to open a new one.
The idea of heaven is tricky. It is clear that Christ did not merely view it as a location, because he said that the kingdom of heaven is within you (some translations read among you.)

5 It is also not true that the Bible teaches you must pray and accept Jesus into your heart to experience heaven. The bible does teach that following laws and rules cannot get one into heaven because following laws without a higher understanding of their purpose is mere automation.
In Mathew's gospel Christ postulated in the sermon on the mount (which I believe can be taken as representing the essence of Christianity in a nutshell) that one needed to be perfect to enter heaven. He says this at the beginning and the end of his sermon, showing a well-thought out and coherent thesis. He does not say that if you pray to him, God will treat you as if you were perfect. Rather he says that perfection does not come through outer deeds (otherwise there would be no hope at all) but through an inner attitude that is beyond our ordinary awareness. The laws of earlier times were given so that humanity would be aware that it was missing this inner attitude. Christ gives numerous examples of how the law is less important than the inner attitude and then concludes by saying that his followers will in fact become perfect (which is translated as being merciful in Mark's gospel.) If you want to come to grips with Christianity, forget everything the churches tell you and meditate on the sermon on the mount.

Christ's idea is developed throughout the New Testament as the concept of the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. Following the outer rite is only important if one does it for the right purpose (e.g kindness, compassion, desire to become godly.)

6 The ultimate consequence of this is that once one has the inner attitude of Christ, one naturally begins to conduct oneself so purely that one's good works are noticeable and one naturally fullfills the law. This idea is the one Churchgoers always disagree with because they are uncomfortable with it. However the new testament is virtually saturated with the idea that Christ's true followers are in fact perfect. 7 Nowhere does it claim they are viewed by God as if they were perfect (although I am aware that there are verses that can be twisted to mean this). Once you understand Christ's teaching that this is an inner perfection rather than an outer one then you can understand that being perfect does not mean someone never makes a mistake. Rather it means their inner spirit is perfect because it is fulfilling its divine purpose.
So now this post has gone on too long. I had some extra time on my hands and the topic interests me. Thanks for reading and I'll put in another post that has some of those bible citations that refute the idea that Christians are merely viewed by God as if they were perfect.

1. I actually trust the NIV more than King James, personally.

2.Agh! I hate that. What about 'seek out your own salvation with fear and trembling' or Pauls writings on the Division of the church in Corinthians?

3. Or in Exodus 9, where Pharoah was raised up by God for a purpose. Or in Romans 9. God has the right to raise some for noble and others for ignoble uses.

4. Eh, I highly disagree with that interpretation. You mentioned the sermon on the mount. This is where Christ states that narrow is the gate leading to righteousness and wide the gate to destruction. Also, in Matthew 7, 'Only he who does the will of my father in heaven' reaches paradise. And the Bible, especially the pentatude is extremely clear that only one religion has the whole truth. Analogies to other faiths is not the same as confirming them as truth. There is only one truth. If you disagree I would be very interested in seeing the scripture to back it up.

5. You are right that salvation criterion is not a solid doctorine. Most assuredly salvation is subjective for each person. 'To whom much has been given much will be expected, to whom little has been given little will be expected,' yeah? However, criterion for being a brother or sister in Christ while on this Earth is spelled out for us. If I may, what is the root of the gospel of the second covenant? What does it begin with?

6. That's interesting. I'll have to research that.

7. But the Lord does forget our sins. That's all throughout Hebrews.

Originally Posted by spockman

4. Eh, I highly disagree with that interpretation. You mentioned the sermon on the mount. This is where Christ states that narrow is the gate leading to righteousness and wide the gate to destruction. Also, in Matthew 7, 'Only he who does the will of my father in heaven' reaches paradise. And the Bible, especially the pentatude is extremely clear that only one religion has the whole truth. Analogies to other faiths is not the same as confirming them as truth. There is only one truth. If you disagree I would be very interested in seeing the scripture to back it up.

Hello! I'm back to ramble!

There are two questions you need to ask yourself

1. What is the will of thy Father?

And the reason why I am asking this of you is because you are some how inferring that the Fathers will is to somehow join an outer religion. To join Christianity. When Christianity in the form it is today didn't even exist when Jesus walked the earth.

Its also very interesting that Jesus would say that his will is his Fathers will. And you can read this statement in two ways. That Jesus has some how given up free will, and asks you to do the same, in essence be the mindless sheep who attend sunday mass. Or, that by knowing your true self, that by knowing your true will, you know the Fathers will - because they are one and the same.

I believe its the latter, because Jesus shows a lot of personality in his teachings. Like showing his own personal anger. Or showing his preference to pray and worship in nature rather than in a man made building. His actions make me believe that Jesus was following his own conviction, and NOT preconceived ideas of what the Fathers will is or isn't

2. Exactly which religion does Jesus testify contains the only truth?

I ask which religion does Jesus testify to contain the only truth, because I make a clear distinction between the words of Jesus and the words of his followers. Why? Don't forget the founder of the Christian religion denied Christ three times. That's why.

If you want to know what Jesus true message is all about, you need to ignore the interpretations of his followers that didn't get him.

I agree with Olysseus. Christianity DID NOT EXIST in the form it does today when Jesus walked the earth. And early Christianity was so vastly different it would be unrecognizable. Early Christians did not believe in a centralized religious power. No early christian would have ever allowed for there to be a Pope, let alone a hierarchy of priests. Several early christians adopted the philosophy that they can be JUST LIKE JESUS, that is, that Jesus is NOT special, but rather an example of what all humans can become.

One day Rome decided it would use Christianity to instill power. For this it needed a Pope. It needed a hierarchy, and it needed people to believe that the Church was the only key and entry way into heaven. The new centralized Roman Catholic Church created the belief that Church is the only way into heaven by editing what should and what should not be a part of the bible.

And by naming those who did not believe in the need for an OUTER church HERETICS. These heretics were murdered. Their own holy texts concerning the life and teachings of Jesus were almost entirely destroyed.

Except for a few texts that laid secret for hundreds of years.

When we rediscovered these holy texts about the teachings of Jesus, they were a bombshell!!! They showed a Jesus speaking in Koans. Now Koans are a zen buddhist practice. Because Koans are so specifically a buddhist practice at this time in history, it has led many historians to believe that Jesus came in contact with buddhists. And many historians believe this took place in that strange missing gap of Jesus life in the bible. And it was only AFTER Jesus returns from this missing time period does he profess to be One with God. Before that, he just obviously frustrated with religious dogma.

Koans can not be taken literally, it is a way of speaking that is meant to confuse the logical mind, so that you go past the logical mind and dig deeper.

Given that these other holy texts not in the bible illustrate Jesus speaking in Koans, and Jesus in the bible admitting to speaking in rhymes - the true Jesus is begging you to read between the lines!! And to NOT take him so literally.

It is intentional that it is hard to find the true messages of Jesus life and teachings. The bible was manipulated to be used as a tool of power by the Roman empire. Manipulation required that truth of Jesus needed to be withhold. Right now the vatican is withholding from the world historical, cultural and religious documents within their archives, that not even the average catholic is allowed to read or know about. Why?

Why does a church need to withhold holy text from its own followers? Unless these holy texts would make the followers question the validity of the church.

I for one think its a crime for the vatican to do this. These texts would still be a part of our human history and culture, and the lies need to end.

Thanks for your considerate reply. There are some people that would be uncomfortable with what I said and you expressed your disagreement respectfully. Props to you. That said, we will simply have to agree to disagree on some things for the time being.

Originally Posted by spockman

1. I actually trust the NIV more than King James, personally.

Glad you found a version you liked. I am partial to the KJV simply because I am a little weird and like Shakespearian English. But I did not mean to imply that KJV is the best translation or even a great translation, only that all translations are the work of humans. There is no need to convince everyone that any English translation is all good. There is no need to believe that all the details of the bible have been innerrantly handed down because when you read the bible you can still see a common thread running from Genesis to Revelation. All you need to do is understand what that common thread is.

My larger point is that people should not rely on hearsay to determine what Christianity consists of. They should look at the source texts themselves (not the details, but the common threads). Otherwise we all wind up running in circles, trying to explain the words of everyone who ever claimed to be a Christian. This applies to me as well of course. I don't intend to convert anyone to my way of experience.

4. Eh, I highly disagree with that interpretation. You mentioned the sermon on the mount. This is where Christ states that narrow is the gate leading to righteousness and wide the gate to destruction. Also, in Matthew 7, 'Only he who does the will of my father in heaven' reaches paradise. And the Bible, especially the pentatude is extremely clear that only one religion has the whole truth. Analogies to other faiths is not the same as confirming them as truth. There is only one truth. If you disagree I would be very interested in seeing the scripture to back it up.

Yes, the gate is narrow, it requires nothing less than a complete change of thinking, which by the way, is the correct translation of the word metanoia, incorrectly translated (even in the NIV) as repentance.

The pentateuch teaches that one should have no other God before the highest. It does not matter what name you call God; if you worship the Jehovah of the Pentateuch and give more thought to your own sense of self- worth than to the absolute, than you are putting another god in place of the absolute.

Actually I think Christ's position would be that no religion has the whole truth. All religious beliefs and actions are futile until one has found the inner spirit that believes and acts without expectation of future material reward. This is part of what got Christ crucified; people couldn't handle that level of "metanoia" .

5. You are right that salvation criterion is not a solid doctorine. Most assuredly salvation is subjective for each person. 'To whom much has been given much will be expected, to whom little has been given little will be expected,' yeah? However, criterion for being a brother or sister in Christ while on this Earth is spelled out for us. If I may, what is the root of the gospel of the second covenant? What does it begin with?

I also find the verse you referenced very interesting; I would think it backs my position. The criterion for being a Christian is literally to be Christ-like. I would not call myself a Christian for this reason. I am a student of Christ.

As to your second question, what is your motive is for asking it? Is it a genuine inquiry coming from a heartfelt search? Or is it an insincere question because you wish to give me your answer? Answers to such big ideas can only be understood when there is a genuine heartfelt search. That's why Christ said "seek and you shall find"; the spirit of genuine inquiry is always necessary for growth.

The gospel of the second covenant can be understood from Psalms 40:8-10 -
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire; my ears you have opened: burnt offering and sin offering you did not require. Then I said, Behold I come: in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do your will, O my God, your law is within my heart."

6. That's interesting. I'll have to research that.

I'll post my research so you have a reason to see what verses I'm looking at. Again, unless someone is genuinely interested it won't be useful to them

7. But the Lord does forget our sins. That's all throughout Hebrews.

Yes, We have to understand that we have sinned (Literally meaning we have missed the mark) and that there is a way to be free from sin. This does not mean that we are free from the consequences of sin, but are refined gradually, with the end that we will be perfected in an objective sense. The Eastern Orthodox church still emphasizes this. Hebrews also emphasizes that once we have begun to awake to the inner spirit, we must move on towards perfection. Hebrews 6:1, 11:40, 13:21 and others hint at this.

B) This man is a serial rapist and killer. He has no regrets, however he is sentenced to die by lethal injection. Although, during his whole life of murder and rape he has no remorse, now that he is facing his own mortality he makes a bargain with God. He asks for forgiveness in return for ascension into heaven.

I have not read through all the posts so if this was mentioned, please forgive me.

Man B would not get into Heaven because it sounds as if he was not sincere. God does not bargain or make deals either. The only reason the man repented was to save himself from Hell, not because he loves God and wants to turn from his sins and wants a stronger relationship with God. Becoming a Christians is not a simple forgive me God now I have a get out of Hell free card. You must have a desire to grow closer to him.

Haha, exactly Davej!

Serial killing and rape has nothing to do with Jesus - The Way, The Truth and The Life. If anything, these deeds take one away from Heaven.

Originally Posted by SkA_DaRk_Che

A)

This person is moral, he does his best not to slight others, he acknowledges and regrets that he has committed wrong doings in the past. Yet he does his best to be accountable and make amends for his past shortcomings. However, he is a non-Christian.

Whether he is a Christian or not says nothing more than his religious preference. Like the power of Love: "The Way, The Truth and The Life" is not restricted to religion.