Everyone goes to hell, right?

[Joshua260]

No.

Jesus says: "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

He says nothing about his own righteousness.

It is clear in the passage.

You are attempting to put words in his mouth.

Or was jesus wrong?

I'm not putting words in the mouth of Jesus; it's just that the concept of me being covered in the righteousness of Jesus is found elsewhere in scripture, is it not?

Let's use an analogy to illustrate. The museum says that I cannot get in unless I have 10 dollars (that's your quote). I don't have 10 dollars, but someone else pays my way in (that's my statement)...guess what? I still get in.

So, your OP is misguided. As I said, the saved will not enter into heaven based on their righteousnesses, but solely on the righteousness of Jesus which covers them.

 

[workmx]

I'm not putting words in the mouth of Jesus; it's just that the concept of me being covered in the righteousness of Jesus is found elsewhere in scripture, is it not?

Let's use an analogy to illustrate. The museum says that I cannot get in unless I have 10 dollars (that's your quote). I don't have 10 dollars, but someone else pays my way in (that's my statement)...guess what? I still get in.

So, your OP is misguided. As I said, the saved will not enter into heaven based on their righteousnesses, but solely on the righteousness of Jesus which covers them.

Then why didn't jesus mention it.

Why rely on the second hand word of St Paul?

Sorry - I have to disagree.

Jesus made himself clear on this point: to get to heaven people must follow the 613 commandments and be righteous.

 

[aiki]

Matthew 5:17-20 (NKJV)
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Given this is it clear that everyone who does not uphold every one of the 613 commandments only gets "heaven lite".

Nope. Jesus is setting the standard for entrance into God's kingdom beyond the hope of any man to attain by himself. The Pharisees were the religious elite among the Jews. If their righteousness had to be exceeded, the average Jew was never going to measure up. And this was exactly the point Jesus was trying to make. Heaven could not be reached by mere observance of the law because no one could perfectly keep the law.

But one was among them who would fulfill the law perfectly: the Messiah, Jesus Christ himself. And when he did, he would become the narrow way through which all must pass into God's kingdom. It is in light of this truth that Jesus says of himself, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes unto the Father but by me," (Jn. 14:6) and "I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall go in and out and find pasture." (Jn. 10:9)

And if we do not uphold the 613 commandments and are less righteous than scribes and Pharisees, will go to hell.

If not for the saving work of Christ on the cross, perhaps, yes. But you have taken the passage from Matthew 5 out of context, artificially separating it from the rest of the Bible's verses which qualify and clarify it. No wonder, then, that you have quite got the wrong end of the stick about what Jesus is saying.

So, I am assuming that everyone goes to hell.

Is that correct?

Nope. See above.

Selah.

 

[workmx]

There seems to be a few options here:
1. Jesus was wrong (and thus, we know more than god); or
2. St Paul was right (and thus, he knew more than god); or
3. Jesus was right (and thus everyone will go to hell).

 

[aiki]

There seems to be a few options here:
1. Jesus was wrong (and thus, we know more than god); or
2. St Paul was right (and thus, he knew more than god); or
3. Jesus was right (and thus everyone will go to hell).

Or: 4. See my previous post.

Selah.

 

[workmx]

Matthew 5:17-20 (NKJV)
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Nope. Jesus is setting the standard for entrance into God's kingdom beyond the hope of any man to attain by himself. The Pharisees were the religious elite among the Jews. If their righteousness had to be exceeded, the average Jew was never going to measure up. And this was exactly the point Jesus was trying to make. Heaven could not be reached by mere observance of the law because no one could perfectly keep the law.

But one was among them who would fulfill the law perfectly: the Messiah, Jesus Christ himself. And when he did, he would become the narrow way through which all must pass into God's kingdom. It is in light of this truth that Jesus says of himself, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes unto the Father but by me," (Jn. 14:6) and "I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall go in and out and find pasture." (Jn. 10:9)

If not for the saving work of Christ on the cross, perhaps, yes. But you have taken the passage from Matthew 5 out of context, artificially separating it from the rest of the Bible's verses which qualify and clarify it. No wonder, then, that you have quite got the wrong end of the stick about what Jesus is saying.

Nope. See above.

Selah.

If that is true, why didn't jesus say it?

Why teach in parables? Why not just say what you mean?

It is so ambiguous aand open to interpretation and this is a god... Seriously?

 

[aiki]

If that is true, why didn't jesus say it?

Why teach in parables? Why not just say what you mean?

It is so ambiguous aand open to interpretation and this is a god... Seriously?

As I noted in my first post to you, Jesus did say that he was the sole way to God. See also John 3.

Selah.

 

[workmx]

Or: 4. See my previous post.

Selah.

If true, jesus omitted important infomation. That sems very human (to err is human...) and not godlike.

On what basis did he omit the information:
1. imcompetance?
2. malevolence?
3. ignorance?

 

[Targaryen]

If that is true, why didn't jesus say it?

Why teach in parables? Why not just say what you mean?

It is so ambiguous aand open to interpretation and this is a god... Seriously?

Parables exist because they are ambiguous, that's why Jesus used them as models. so that everyone could see something in the story that applied to them.

Sure, it may not seem straight forward but the spiritual is rarely straight forward in any teaching, Christianity is not the only one that relies on the metaphysical.

 

[workmx]

As I noted in my first post to you, Jesus did say that he was the sole way to God. See also John 3.

Selah.

And as I said earlier, we not talking about that.

Why not say it here?

 

[workmx]

Parables exist because they are ambiguous, that's why Jesus used them as models. so that everyone could see something in the story that applied to them.

Sure, it may not seem straight forward but the spiritual is rarely straight forward in any teaching, Christianity is not the only one that relies on the metaphysical.

But why do it? It is a matter of life/death and eternal torture, if we take the propositions of christainity seriously.'

Sure a good, loving god would give us simple unambiguous messages.

Instead we have indirect accounts of metaphors given from a middle eastern man who lived 2000 years ago. Seems like weird (possibly perverse) behaviour for a god.

 

[NorrinRadd]

If true, jesus omitted important infomation. That sems very human (to err is human...) and not godlike.

On what basis did he omit the information:
1. imcompetance?
2. malevolence?
3. ignorance?

Perhaps to weed out obnoxious skeptics.

 

[workmx]

Perhaps to weed out obnoxious skeptics.

And possibly not just the obnoxious ones...

So some reasons this reminds me of the Religious Education teacher I had in my catholic high school.

 

[Targaryen]

But why do it? It is a matter of life/death and eternal torture, if we take the propositions of christainity seriously.'

The eternal torture bit is a bit hard to take. I would argue that the idea of Hell is forever being cut off from god, at least in the christian understanding. but then, I don't know of many mainline Christians that believe in hellfire anymore.

Sure a good, loving god would give us simple unambiguous messages.

Instead we have indirect accounts of metaphors given from a middle eastern man who lived 2000 years ago. Seems like weird (possibly perverse) behaviour for a god.

Yes we have metaphors. Remember too that the culture at that time also was very rooted in an oral interpretation of events. It's not much to use the assumption,like in other cultures that only a certain percentage of individuals had the ability to read or write then. And if going on what was true of other cultures, then such a thing would be a device of the priesthood. And in Jesus' case, that would be the Jewish priesthood.

Also you have to take in another facet into consideration during Jesus' lifetime. The Romans. An invading culture with no ties to either the Jewish aristocracy or the faith. They had their puppets no doubt, but they were puppets. they served Rome, and one of the conditions at that time was the concept that the Emporer of Rome was in fact the son of a god. so anything that challenged that, was in fact challenging Rome. Not good if you are a Palestinian Jew with a group of followers that you don't want to see killed or anyone else that may choose to listen to you. Nor would you want to challenge too harshly the Jewish Priesthood yourself, you still would like to follow the then Jewish practise of making sacrifice in the Temple.

So what do you do? You couch your teachings in an ambiguous but yet fairly easy to unravel (how you unravel it is another story) way. You can thus take the meaning that comes to you in that story and choose to apply it if you feel it is of merit.

 

[agua]

But why do it? It is a matter of life/death and eternal torture, if we take the propositions of christainity seriously.'

Sure a good, loving god would give us simple unambiguous messages.

Instead we have indirect accounts of metaphors given from a middle eastern man who lived 2000 years ago. Seems like weird (possibly perverse) behaviour for a god.

I'm not sure why current peoples have troubles understanding Jesus' parables but He told us why some people in His day did.

Mat 13:12-15 KJV For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (13) Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: (15) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

People could hear according to their heart condition and if their condition was hard ( against Yahweh ) they did not understand. Seems fair to me.

 

[aiki]

If true, jesus omitted important infomation. That sems very human (to err is human...) and not godlike.

On what basis did he omit the information:
1. imcompetance?
2. malevolence?
3. ignorance?

Why are you being so simplistic in your consideration of Christ's words? And why are your only conclusions about his motives evil ones? What's your beef with Jesus? Why are you so eager to see him in a bad light?

Why could it not have been that it was simply not the right time to be plain about who he was and what he was going to do on the cross of Calvary? Maybe Jesus knew that the confusing things he spoke of in Matthew 5 would provoke more thought, more interest, in his words and in who he was than just flatly spelling out his role as the Saviour of the world. Perhaps his sermon provoked many to question him afterward in one-on-one discussions that were never recorded in Scripture. You see? Jesus was not necessarily the incompetent, malevolent, ignoramus you seem to want him to be.

Selah.

 

[gord44]

And possibly not just the obnoxious ones...

So some reasons this reminds me of the Religious Education teacher I had in my catholic high school.

Hehe good point.

"Now remember class. Don't ask too many questions. Don't be TOO curious. If something doesn't seem right, DON't question it. If you question it you are doing the devils work."

 

[aiki]

Oh, please! What a lot of rubbish! Over the centuries since Jesus walked this earth all the questions one could think to ask have been asked many times. And answers - good answers - have been given. It is ignorance - and perhaps not a little hubris - that prompts you to suggest Christians are generally afraid of inquiry into their faith.

Selah.

 

[Angelquill]

Sin... hmm? That is a curious idea.

What is sin?

Sin is what causes harm. Things like stealing, lying, adultery, murder...those are pretty obvious. Child abuse, gluttony, promiscuity...nobody would argue with the harm these behaviors cause.
Sin begins in one's heart. Remember what Jesus said about lusting after a woman...you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. Does that mean the quick glance and the thought "man she's hot"? Yes, and no. If you go on about your business and forget all about her, perhaps not so much...but if all you can think about is getting her into bed, regardless of any other circumstances (like for instance, inconvenient details such as spouses), then it has become sin in you.
So, you see, sin can mean different things in different people.

And why did god make us with sin?

Why did God make us sin?
He didn't. He did, however, give us free will.

I don't see much love in the bible: IMO it reads more like the diary of a sadist.

If you don't see much love in there, you evidently have not read the Gospels.
Honestly, if you want to see what love looks like, look at the cross...

 

[dcalling]

So, you are having a case for purgatory?

It is clear from the quote: heaven or not heaven.

So, you are saying that it is: heaven or hell or purgatory?

The quote talks about heaven only, and it is clear even the smallest in heaven is still in heaven. The quotes does not mention hell either.