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

[ananda]

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.

Can you be completely sure of that, without a time machine to verify?

 

[Chinchilla]

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%.

So your claim is that somebody who wanted people to not believe in Christ on purpose hid his true gospel for near 2000 years so people can't be saved ?

 

[ananda]

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 .

Yes, and I've read many that claim that they have additional scriptures, which includes things like other pronouncements of church councils and popes (and that these authoritative pronouncements led to the establishment of what you would probably exclusively consider scripture, the common Bible).

 

[Chinchilla]

Yes, and I've read many that claim that they have additional scriptures, which includes things like other pronouncements of church councils and popes (and that these authoritative pronouncements led to the establishment of what you would probably exclusively consider scripture, the common Bible).

That's why we ought to prove all things from NT with OT , it's not like somebody has suddenly revelation which was never spoken of prior to that , even book of Revelation is not new event , Ezekiel and Isiaah wrote about this topic also .

For example .

Ephesians 2:8-9 and Psalms 49:6-8

 

[ananda]

So your claim is that somebody who wanted people to not believe in Christ on purpose hid his true gospel for near 2000 years so people can't be saved ?

No; my question is: how much do you need to believe to be saved.

 

[ananda]

That's why we ought to prove all things from NT with OT , it's not like somebody has suddenly revelation which was never spoken of prior to that , even book of Revelation is not new event , Ezekiel and Isiaah wrote about this topic also .

It is my understanding that many believe that their councils and popes speak with prophetic anointing, much like the prophets in both the NT and OT spoke prophetically without prior proof.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you be completely sure of that, without a time machine to verify?

No, but since there are other ways than the Correspondence Theory by which to configure one's view of Truth, it isn't clear as to just how much verification should play a role in a person's beliefs. Likewise, there are also other ways to configure one's theoretical assumptions about epistemology as they relate to knowledge more generally other than to rely on, say, Foundationalism or pure Evidentialism.

Right now, when you ask, "Can you be completely sure of that?" you're inadvertently tipping your hand, telling us what kind of epistemological expectation you have on a personal level. And the thing is, our respective, personal affinities for a particular kind of epistemological construct, especially for things metaphysical, is a somewhat arbitrary choice on the part of any one of us. So..............................

 

[Chinchilla]

No; my question is: how much do you need to believe to be saved.

Acts 16:30-31 King James Version (KJV)
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Nothing more .

 

[ananda]

No, but since there are other ways than the Correspondence Theory by which to configure one's view of Truth, it isn't clear as to just how much verification should play a role in a person's beliefs. Likewise, there are also other ways to configure one's theoretical assumptions about epistemology as they relate to knowledge more generally other than to rely on, say, Foundationalism or pure Evidentialism.

Right now, when you ask, "Can you be completely sure of that?" you're inadvertently tip your hand in telling us what kind of epistemological expectation you have on a personal level. And the thing is, you're personal affinity for a particular kind of epistemological construct, especially for things metaphysical, is a somewhat arbitrary choice on the part of any one of us. So..............................

Sure, we all have variations in our personal epistemological expectations.

 

[ananda]

Acts 16:30-31 King James Version (KJV)
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Nothing more .

It seems like many of your fellow Christians, even on this thread, might disagree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure, we all have variations in our personal epistemological expectations.

So................my point is that Reality as it may actually be isn't necessarily reflective of what any one of us expects the Truth about Reality to be, right? So........something can be 'true' even if it isn't fully open, (or in the case of existentialists such as Kierkegaard, isn't really open at all), to the process of verification.

 

[ananda]

So................my point is that Reality as it may actually be isn't necessarily reflective of what any one of us expects the Truth about Reality to be, right? So........something can be 'true' even if it isn't fully open, (or in the case of existentialists such as Kierkegaard, isn't really open at all), to the process of verification.

Yes, but my question isn't about human verification; it's about how much must one believe of whatever the "real Jesus" taught.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, but my question isn't about human verification; it's about how much must one believe of whatever the "real Jesus" taught.

Yes, I know that's your question, my friend. But what I'm trying to point out is that if God Himself hasn't provided a way for us to verify certain truths to the Nth degree of certitude, then we have another question to answer: How are we going to be able to discern and understand particular kinds of ontological structures in reality (i.e. Truths) about some entity (X) when we can only see it through a distorted aperture or lens?

So, your question should really be something more along the line of: What are the minimum ideas I have to accept in relation to Jesus of Nazareth in order to be saved in the "Christian Way"?

 

[Chinchilla]

It seems like many of your fellow Christians, even on this thread, might disagree.

I don't care if others disagree or agree . You should yourself search Scriptures because in them you have eternal life , not even trusting me.

I can give you shortcut but you must make decision for yourself what you believe not any pastor / priest or elders in your place .

John 5:39 King James Version (KJV)
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.




It reminds me of 1 Kings 18:20-40 Eliijah alone vs prophets of BAAL . Majority was for Baal and see how it ended .

 

[JackRT]

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

That judgment is well above my pay grade ---- and yours.

 

[RDKirk]

Thank you for your answer.

What's the Name of the Lord that saves & why? YHWH? Jehovah? "Name of the Lord"? Jesus? Iesous? Yeshua? Yehoshua? Joshua? Allah? Buddha?

He knows who you mean, if you mean Him.

For He is not a man like me, that I can answer Him,that we can take each other to court.

If only there was someone to mediate between us, to lay his hand on both of us.

Let Him take His rod away from me so His terror will no longer frighten me. -- Job 9

Job did not know the name of Jesus, but Job knew he needed Jesus.

 

[ananda]

Yes, I know that's your question, my friend. But what I'm trying to point out is that if God Himself hasn't provided a way for us to verify certain truths to the Nth degree of certitude, then we have another question to answer: How are we going to be able to discern and understand particular kinds of ontological structures in reality (i.e. Truths) about some entity (X) when we can only see it through a distorted aperture or lens?

So, your question should really be something more along the line of: What are the minimum ideas I have to accept in relation to Jesus of Nazareth in order to be saved in the "Christian Way"?

That is an acceptable question.

 

[ananda]

I don't care if others disagree or agree . You should yourself search Scriptures because in them you have eternal life , not even trusting me.

I can give you shortcut but you must make decision for yourself what you believe not any pastor / priest or elders in your place .

John 5:39 King James Version (KJV)
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

It reminds me of 1 Kings 18:20-40 Eliijah alone vs prophets of BAAL . Majority was for Baal and see how it ended .

Thanks, my personal goal isn't eternal life; I am merely curious how Christians who believe in believe-ism come to know how much they must believe.

 

[ananda]

That judgment is well above my pay grade ---- and yours.

Would you agree that those who seek salvation cannot know that they are truly saved, then?

 

[ananda]

He knows who you mean, if you mean Him.

For He is not a man like me, that I can answer Him,that we can take each other to court.

If only there was someone to mediate between us, to lay his hand on both of us.

Let Him take His rod away from me so His terror will no longer frighten me. -- Job 9

Job did not know the name of Jesus, but Job knew he needed Jesus.

In essence, it seems to me that you are stating that as long as we know we need something greater than us, then that is well, since he knows - no matter the name we use.