Yes, because prophecy would not have been fulfilled if He hadn't. If prophecy weren't fulfilled, then God would be unreliable and untruthful, and we know that isn't true.
You fail to answer the question though, there is no reason for Jesus to die if there is universalims. So there would be no reason for the prophecies, there are plenty of non-Messiah prophecies that prove the trustworthyness of God. Also Jesus says He is the only way to the Father, so by saying that isn't true, you are effectively saying God is untrustworthy. So what is it? Is He trustworthy or isn't He?
Yes, and isn't that the greatest demonstration possible of His love for us? I'm awestruck when I reflect on that.
Definitely is
No it wouldn't. There have been many martyrs who could've chosen to escape martyrdom. All they had to do was lack integrity. Are you suggesting the martyrs wasted their lives?
Jesus died for a reason, and the martyrs died for a reason. Yet Jesus died for a very specific reason. If he didn't die for that specific reason, which would be the case in universalism, then it was the most idiotic act in history because he could have escaped with integrity.
It's your assumption that He led the only perfect life in the history of mankind. I'm right there with you believing He led a perfect and sinless life, just not that He was the only one. I will go so far as to say there are very very few who could fit the bill. They don't come around often.
That I believe that isn't strange is it? I am a Christian on a Christian forum, and the Bible says this was the case, so I have no reason to doubt that. You are ofcourse free to differ opinion regarding this matter.
Yes, just look at the difference between 2nd grade and 5th grade. Obviously 2nd grade is "false." There's no possibility those "grades" are all "true" and it's really just part of one big system of education.
Poor analogy. 5th grade does not overwrite the 2nd grade teachings, it expand on them, yet the difference between the different religions are complete. There is hardly any common ground, as such there is no such thing as universalism.
Judaism gave people a relationship with God before Christianity ever came on the scene. I read that in my Bible somewhere.
Jesus told the Jews that they did not know God, because they had no relationship with Him. Besides the Jews don't belief in being saved through a relationship with God, they believein holding the law to be saved. Completely different bases.
Is Christianity "false" then, since obviously it's different than Judaism?
Christianity in my view, is the completion of the Abrahamic religions. Judaism was the right religion till 2000years ago, with the Birth of Jesus everything changed. However the Jews off all non-Christians are the closest to the truth.
You see, you actually do hold to a form of universalism yourself. It's just more limited than my version.
My only universalist view is that everybody can be saved, but only through Christ
Creation stories are man's attempt to understand where he came from, and if you know anything about story telling, you don't tell a story the same way regardless of the culture or age group you're speaking to. It's called addressing your audience.
And if you're going to make a comment about creation stories, from evidence in the world that God made and by using our brains that God gave us, we know those creation stories are not scientifically "true." They are not untrue though. They have spiritual truths and those are the point of those stories.
btw, Genesis has 2 creation stories, and they are not wholly compatible. If you want to maintain having "different" creation stories makes other religions false, you'll have to grapple with the incosistency of these 2 creation stories in your Bible first, because by your logic the Bible would be false itself since it has differing creation stories. Given a choice between rejecting the Bible and rejecting your logic, guess which one I'd prefer?
That is your opinion, an opinion I don't share. The entire Bible is given by God not something made up by man. Other creation stories however as you say are not given by God, hence the difference. As for science, ever heard of Creationism? In my opinion an extremely valid form of science, completely in agreement with The Bible, so no problems there I'm afraid.
And actually there are no two creation stories in the Bible, it's one and the same event. In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.
There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life.
Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day.
Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages.
Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general.
Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict.
Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and
Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.
The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life.
Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man.
Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of
Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.
You say I should educate myself, I'd suggest you'd be wise to do the same thing.
1. God doesn't change but WE do. Surely you're not suggesting that God is such a poor teacher that He is incapable of teaching according to the needs and capacities of the class? Even mere humans can do that and recognize the necessity to do so. I believe God is way beyond smarter than us.
2. What God makes perfect, fallible humans can (and do) mess up over time.
God can teach anyone, but that does not change His truths. God has shown He can reach every person through Christianity, so yes he can reach everyone. It is not without reason we see Christianity all over the world, it be in Asia, it be in South America, the Western World, Africa, or even the Middle-East. Yes they all experience in a very slightly different way, set in their culture, but the Truths of God are still the same. And this is why I don't believe in Universalism, because it Changes His truths. It isn't in rituals, or things like that, it is in facts, and as such it can't be true, because God's truths NEVER change.
Or perhaps your understanding of universalism is just limited.
Ah well, welcome to humanity, friend. We all have our limits.
Or perhaps you don't see how flawed your reasoning is. Ah no worries, you'll learn to truth one day, I just hope for you before it's to late.
