Are you still saved if you believe in the wrong things about Jesus?

[SkyWriting]

In other words, the remaining 99% of the other texts are irrelevant.

They are all unnecessary, according to scripture.
(by the way, 1% would still be 12 pages)

19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

 

[JackRT]

Thanks for sharing. Do you also believe that "Every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." (Thomas 114:3)?

There is no problem at all in that verse if you understand the context out of which Thomas was speaking. At that time the prevailing philosophy throughout the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern world was dualism --- everything was seen in pairs of opposites:
right/left
spiritual/carnal
intelligent/dull
male/female
Every characteristic on the left was considered good while everything on the right was considered bad or undesirable. Seen in this context we get a much better appreciation of where Thomas was coming from --- the female had to become like the male in order to be saved. This seems completely wrong headed to us but dualism was simply the only way people had to see the world in that time and place.

 

[ananda]

Well you need the Scriptures of OT to prove this vers is true . You need to prove that Christ died for your sins according to OT .

Amos 3:7
“Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”

Do you believe that Christ died for your sins, with his mother Mary serving as co-redemptrix?

 

[ananda]

Jesus wasn't into doctrine. He talked mostly about how we live our lives. He did teach us things about God. But I'm not aware that he suggested tests of belief for salvation. He talked about judgement, but it was based on a life showing signs of love of God and neighbor. When asked point blank about salvation he pointed at the 10 commandments. (A lot of Christians seem to think he didn't mean it, but I don't see why.)

In the Synoptics, Jesus places more emphasis on believing the message he brought them in him (though he certainly saw himself as God's agent, and at times even implied at least a functional identity with God). In John, however, the picture is a bit different. But believing in Jesus for John seems more like a commitment than a set of beliefs. It parallels Jesus' talk about being a follower or disciple in the Synoptics.

Remember that more than half of Christians are inclusivists. That means that we think non-Christians can be saved.

Is it acceptable to believe that Jesus was a bodhisattva, saving people in that fashion?

 

[ananda]

Sorry but the gnostic gospels like Thomas or Mary have been shown to be fakes centuries ago.

By whom, and what if they were wrong? There seems to have been minority groups which accepted those gospels.

 

[ananda]

They are all unnecessary, according to scripture.
(by the way, 1% would still be 12 pages)

19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

If someone believes that those qualities, power, and nature is Buddhist Dhamma?

 

[ananda]

They are all unnecessary, according to scripture.
(by the way, 1% would still be 12 pages)

19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

duplicate post

 

[ananda]

There is no problem at all in that verse if you understand the context out of which Thomas was speaking. At that time the prevailing philosophy throughout the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern world was dualism --- everything was seen in pairs of opposites:
right/left
spiritual/carnal
intelligent/dull
male/female
Every characteristic on the left was considered good while everything on the right was considered bad or undesirable. Seen in this context we get a much better appreciation of where Thomas was coming from --- the female had to become like the male in order to be saved. This seems completely wrong headed to us but dualism was simply the only way people had to see the world in that time and place.

OK. Would that be an acceptable belief, then?

 

[hedrick]

Is it acceptable to believe that Jesus was a bodhisattva, saving people in that fashion?

Acceptable in what sense? I think it fails to take into account some of the truth about Jesus. It's not an adequate assessment of him to be considered Christian. But could someone who believes that be saved? I think it's possible.

Of course there's some question whether a Buddhist would want to be saved in the Christian sense...

 

[Chinchilla]

Do you believe that Christ died for your sins, with his mother Mary serving as co-redemptrix?

No it's against Scriptures

Isaiah 43:11-12 King James Version (KJV)
11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.


1 Timothy 2:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

[Chriliman]

Are you still saved if you believe in the wrong things about Jesus?

For example, let's say you believe in 99% of the things you're "supposed to" about Jesus. But that 1% are errors, e.g. wrong ideas about his death/sacrifice; wrong ideas about his mission; wrong ideas about the responsibilities of the disciple; or, even wrong ideas about his name & its pronunciation, or any other detail about him.

If yes, you believe you're still saved, then at what percentage are you unsaved? 98% true beliefs? 75%? 49%? 1%?

Part of being saved is being saved from wrong beliefs(about anything), this is also known as sanctification.

 

[JackRT]

In my view being "saved" is about a spiritual transformation, not about correct belief. Faith is not an unquestioning belief in a set of propositions, rather it an abiding trust in God.

 

[HTacianas]

Are you still saved if you believe in the wrong things about Jesus?

For example, let's say you believe in 99% of the things you're "supposed to" about Jesus. But that 1% are errors, e.g. wrong ideas about his death/sacrifice; wrong ideas about his mission; wrong ideas about the responsibilities of the disciple; or, even wrong ideas about his name & its pronunciation, or any other detail about him.

If yes, you believe you're still saved, then at what percentage are you unsaved? 98% true beliefs? 75%? 49%? 1%?

The "things" we are to believe about Jesus are found in the Nicene Creed. Interestingly enough, the Nicene Creed (and nearly the entire New Testament) was written specifically to refute Gnosticism, which had its own beliefs about Jesus. Gnosticism was a collection of loosely related belief systems that blended some teachings of both Christianity and Judaism with their own inherent beliefs. Generally, Gnostics believed in a superior invisible god who created all things invisible, including the human soul, while a lesser god, of sorts, created all things material. The first line of the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

The Gnostics also had their own teachings about Jesus. Those teachings were resoundingly rejected by Christian Orthodoxy early on, and the Creed was modified to reflect those orthodox beliefs. Such as:

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

So to say that Jesus was merely a spirit being, had no corporeal body, and was never crucified would run afoul of Christian orthodoxy.

As another for-instance, everyone knows that Jesus walked on water. Almost everyone. I believe that the account of Jesus walking on water is an analog to the conversion of Peter. If it isn't it would be one heck of a coincidence. Now that is merely an opinion of mine of a non-essential nature.

So to answer your question, yes and no. There are some beliefs binding on all Christians regarding Jesus, and there is room for opinion on others. Provided that a person does not espouse a belief contradicting the teachings of the Church they remain orthodox.

 

[Dave-W]

By whom, and what if they were wrong? There seems to have been minority groups which accepted those gospels.

The minority group - the gnostics - WROTE those documents and tried to pass them off as written by the apostle or His mother. They did not appear until about a century after the supposed authors were dead and gone. Pseudopigrapha.

They were written specifically to support their heretical beliefs.

 

[ananda]

Acceptable in what sense? I think it fails to take into account some of the truth about Jesus. It's not an adequate assessment of him to be considered Christian. But could someone who believes that be saved? I think it's possible.

Of course there's some question whether a Buddhist would want to be saved in the Christian sense...

To get back to my OP, my question is more geared towards the how much must one believe, rather than the what must one believe.

 

[ananda]

No it's against Scriptures

Isaiah 43:11-12 King James Version (KJV)
11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.


1 Timothy 2:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I think in this case, many Catholics might suggest that you have rejected the 1% found in their scriptures that teaches Mary is co-redemptrix.

 

[ananda]

Part of being saved is being saved from wrong beliefs(about anything), this is also known as sanctification.

No belief is necessary, then?

 

[ananda]

In my view being "saved" is about a spiritual transformation, not about correct belief. Faith is not an unquestioning belief in a set of propositions, rather it an abiding trust in God.

Is it adequate for the Muslim to trust in God, to be saved?

 

[Chinchilla]

I think in this case, many Catholics might suggest that you have rejected the 1% found in their scriptures that teaches Mary is co-redemptrix.

Matthew 7:13-14 King James Version (KJV)
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


Do you seek truth or seek opinions of people ? I don't please man but God .

They have the same Scriptures just ignore what they say , it's not like we have different Bible.

Also man does not decide who goes to heaven or not but God .

 

[ananda]

The "things" we are to believe about Jesus are found in the Nicene Creed. Interestingly enough, the Nicene Creed (and nearly the entire New Testament) was written specifically to refute Gnosticism, which had its own beliefs about Jesus. Gnosticism was a collection of loosely related belief systems that blended some teachings of both Christianity and Judaism with their own inherent beliefs. Generally, Gnostics believed in a superior invisible god who created all things invisible, including the human soul, while a lesser god, of sorts, created all things material. The first line of the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

The Gnostics also had their own teachings about Jesus. Those teachings were resoundingly rejected by Christian Orthodoxy early on, and the Creed was modified to reflect those orthodox beliefs. Such as:

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

So to say that Jesus was merely a spirit being, had no corporeal body, and was never crucified would run afoul of Christian orthodoxy.

As another for-instance, everyone knows that Jesus walked on water. Almost everyone. I believe that the account of Jesus walking on water is an analog to the conversion of Peter. If it isn't it would be one heck of a coincidence. Now that is merely an opinion of mine of a non-essential nature.

So to answer your question, yes and no. There are some beliefs binding on all Christians regarding Jesus, and there is room for opinion on others. Provided that a person does not espouse a belief contradicting the teachings of the Church they remain orthodox.

If I'm not mistaken, the "orthodox" beliefs are merely those which were believed by the majority at the time. However, my question isn't about what men believed, but what the "true Jesus" taught (whatever that might be) - that might include many "gnostic" writings, which would then imply that "orthodox Christianity" believes (say, for example) 75% of the "right things" about Jesus, but are wrong about 25%.