coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

Meghalo05

posted on Apr 13, 2008 - 11:34 PM

Blessed Lent,

I hope everyone enjoys this final week of lent and has a blessed pascha week. As Holy Week approaches I was wondering what you all's opinions are regarding some of the information or words in some of the expositions specifically towards the Jews. I don't have my Pacha book with me but I remember specifically many instances where the Exposition said Jews will receive eternal condemnation and will go to hell, etc. Words which in my opinion are very strong towards the Jews, and words which are not for us to say. Imagine if someone from another church or even some jews themselves came and heard this. Would they not question our religion of love? Our message of peace? Especially because the crucifixion of our Lord was God's will, and I know we as an Orthodox Church put the blame on no one for the shedding of Christ's blood. So why these words in these expositions? If any one has his or her pascha book on him it would be great if you could directly quote some of the words of the expositions exactly. I know there is some strong words on Good friday specifically. Anywho, I want to hear all of your opinions regarding this and I hope some of you understand where Im coming from. It makes me wonder what fathers of the church wrote these expositions and placed them in the most holy of weeks.

Glory to God in All Things

_________________
Abraham Ghattas

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

Hisservant

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 01:02 AM

honestly, everyone who is not christian is going to hell, go ahead and argue with me, but remember, "I am the way, the truth and the life." Everyone who rejects Him as the Christ, will go to hell.

_________________
Je `aripameu`i `w pa{oic@ `aripameu`i `w paNou]@ `aripameu`i `w pa`Ouro@ aksan`i qen tekmet`ouro.

Joined: Apr 09, 2008 | Posts: 17

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 02:44 AM

Meghalo,

So we don't start a discussion about nothing, you should find what you are talking about yourself and post it, then we can discuss it. Just to correct a few things you said, Christ Himself put the "blame" of His crucifixion on the High Priests, etc... He explicitly told the Father to forgive them for they knew not what they did. If they didn't do anything "wrong," they wouldn't be in need of forgiveness for His crucifixion. Be careful not to run away from one extreme by going to another.

This is a mere guess since I don't have the language infront of me, but I'm thinking the expositions are probably referring to the Jews that had Christ crucified, not all Jews for all times. Christ Himself while preaching said that unless the people's righteous exceeded that of the Pharisees (He was talking about the same leadership that later had Him crucified), they wouldn't be saved. So, Christ already had said they wouldn't be saved.

Hisservant,

And there was a time when circumcision was necessary for salvation (Old Testament); it was even argued in the time of the New Testament (Acts 15). For all we know, there may be another Testament between now and Judgment day which will fulfill Christ's words in some way you and I don't understand - remember, one of the primary reasons the Jews didn't believe Christ is that they thought the Messiah would be someone completely different based on their understanding of the Scriptures. So, in reality, we cannot really tell who's going where. All we can say is, "If the requirements do not change, then X." But we don't know if the requirements are going to change or not, so it's best to keep silent.

What we know for sure is that if someone follows the Bible, they will be saved; that's the message we should be focused on.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 410

Meghalo05

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 03:55 AM

Truth Seeker,

Christ saying something is different than us saying something. Christ is the judge, the God, the sinless one. He is the one who determines and gives salvation. Who are we as sinners to make judgments regarding the salvation of others? Especially during the holiest time of the week. How do you think non-Christians or Jews for that matter would view our expositions that judge in that manner.


Glory to God in All Things

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

minaS

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 04:03 AM

Hi,

Before we all start making absolute judgements I would like to share with you all a piece of wisdom that I heard from an interview of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of the Russian Orthodox Church. In discussing the sacraments he said that we are limited to the sacraments, but God is not. Superimposing a limitation on God is analogous to limiting He who is unlimited by nature. In the end, only God will decide who will be judged and who will be saved.

Also, a Coptic Orthodox priest once rhetorically inquired during a spiritual convention that if we, with our limited mercy, are concerned with the salvation of those who do not know God, then how much more is He, with His infinite mercy, concerned with the same?

Additionally, my spiritual father always says that one of the most important things to learn from the actions of the Jews in the Gospels is what not to do. Sometimes, along with knowing what is correct, it is important to know what not to do.

So, then, let us refrain from condemning anyone during this period of time, as we approach Holy Week, during which we should be focusing on improvement of self and God's plan for our salvation.

Mina

Joined: Jun 26, 2003 | Posts: 196

AMoussa01

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 05:21 AM

From Hisservant:honestly, everyone who is not christian is going to hell, go ahead and argue with me, but remember, "I am the way, the truth and the life." Everyone who rejects Him as the Christ, will go to hell.

Lets refrain from making our own judgements. Yes, logically, it would seem that only Christians would enter heaven; however, we are not God and only God himself can determine a person's judgement.

GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 | Posts: 521
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 01:00 PM

Meghalo,

Once Christ says something, we can regurgitate it. At that point, we're not doing any judging, we are expressing the judgment that has been passed by God.

Tony,

I wouldn't say that "logically" only Christians can go to heaven. I'd say that "logically" we don't know if the requirements will change at some time between now and Judgment day, therefore we don't know.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 410

mgeorge

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 05:29 PM

Dear Meghalo,
I won't claim that I read all the posts, so I may be echoing someone else. Forgive me.
First when the homilies and the expositions mention the Jews it is not meant to include all the Jews, but rather those who rejected the Lord. it is like when saint Paul in Romans 9 - 11 assures that the Jews are going to believe in Jesus, I don't think that he meant all the Jews collectively.

Second, we are not passing judgement on them, but rather echoing our Lord "you say you see therefore your sin remains." If Jesus didn't pass the judgment himself, we would not have dared to read these passages out loud.

Third, we are not picking at the Jews, if it was the Japanese who did it, we would have said "woe to you Japanese who crucified our Lord ..."

God bless.

_________________
Pray for me,
<b>Moheb</b>

<i>"Till we all come in the <u>unity of the faith</u>, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, <b>unto a perfect man</b>, unto the measure of the stature of <u>the fulness of Christ</u>" (Ephesians 4:13)</i> <b>AMEN.</b>

"εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη" - <b>ιησου χριστου</b>

Joined: Oct 31, 2003 | Posts: 329

ophadeece

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 05:53 PM

Dear Meghalo05,
I agree with mgeorge and I also would like something else which is just my personal contemplation. Our Coptic Orthodox Church follows the example of Jesus Christ in the art of symbolism, and to me it appears that the Jews are only used as a symbol of the evil one, as well as Judas who is used as a symbol of satan itself. That is again only my personal opinion.
God bless you and pray for us a lot

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 109
Location: Wolverhampton, UK

lowlyman

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 06:00 PM

Hi truth seeker

I think it is clear from the Bible that the high priest, the Jewish leaders, and the Romans are responsible for his crucifixion. They are guilty because they put profit before the truth. They did not believe that he is the Christ and son of God because there was nothing in it for them. He did not promise to make them rich or powerful, and he was liberating the poor and the sinner from their tyranny. Hence, they gave him up to be crucified. So I believe that anyone who behaves similar to the high priest is in fact crucifying Christ.

So if this was simply a case of them not understanding the Scripture properly, they would most certainly have believed after the resurrection. They did not believe because their sins prohibited them from believing and they did not want to repent. Instead, they tried to cover up the resurrection and squash the new movement of Christianity.


Another question that I have is why do they not believe today, especially since Christ came to them?
finally, Where from did you get the theory of another Testament that might occur? I have never heard that before and I don't think it's orthodox.

From Truth.Seeker:Meghalo,

So we don't start a discussion about nothing, you should find what you are talking about yourself and post it, then we can discuss it. Just to correct a few things you said, Christ Himself put the "blame" of His crucifixion on the High Priests, etc... He explicitly told the Father to forgive them for they knew not what they did. If they didn't do anything "wrong," they wouldn't be in need of forgiveness for His crucifixion. Be careful not to run away from one extreme by going to another.

This is a mere guess since I don't have the language infront of me, but I'm thinking the expositions are probably referring to the Jews that had Christ crucified, not all Jews for all times. Christ Himself while preaching said that unless the people's righteous exceeded that of the Pharisees (He was talking about the same leadership that later had Him crucified), they wouldn't be saved. So, Christ already had said they wouldn't be saved.






Hisservant,

And there was a time when circumcision was necessary for salvation (Old Testament); it was even argued in the time of the New Testament (Acts 15). For all we know, there may be another Testament between now and Judgment day which will fulfill Christ's words in some way you and I don't understand - remember, one of the primary reasons the Jews didn't believe Christ is that they thought the Messiah would be someone completely different based on their understanding of the Scriptures. So, in reality, we cannot really tell who's going where. All we can say is, "If the requirements do not change, then X." But we don't know if the requirements are going to change or not, so it's best to keep silent.

What we know for sure is that if someone follows the Bible, they will be saved; that's the message we should be focused on.

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 06:28 PM

lowlyman,

Are you supposed to be disagreeing with me in your post? Because your tone is one of disagreement, but you merely re-wrote what I had written, just differently. So, I don't really understand what you are getting it. Meghalo said that we shouldn't put "blame" on Jews for Christ's crucifixion. I said the expostions are probably written about the Jews who had Christ crucified and Christ asked the Father to forgive them, if they hadn't done anything wrong (blame worthy), they wouldn't need forgiveness. That means they DO have blame.

It's interesting that you are questioning my "next Testament" comment while talking so much about "Christian love" in other threads. It's simple. If the New Testament is to stay "in effect" until judgment day, not a single non-Christian will be saved. In fact, not a single non-Orthodox would be saved (since we believe that Biblically, an authoritatively administered baptism is necessary for salvation).

By "another Testament" I mean a change of requirements sometime before Judgment Day. For example, there was a change of requirements between the Old Testament and the New Testament (e.g. whether you get circumcised or not doesn't matter now). We don't know if there will be some other change of requirement. Indeed, if there's no change of requirement, things look pretty glim for non-Orthodox. We don't know if there will be a change or not, therefore, we shouldn't tell anybody they're going to hell (language used by hisservant above).

Let's be clear about this: I'm not saying there WILL be a change in requirements, I'm saying there MAY be a change in requirements.

mgeorge,

I agree with everything you've said (mostly because I've already said it before you in this thread ).

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 410

lowlyman

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 07:15 PM

Both. I am agreeing with you on what you stated below in the first paragraph.

I am disagreeing with you on:
"remember, one of the primary reasons the Jews didn't believe Christ is that they thought the Messiah would be someone completely different based on their understanding of the Scriptures."
Earlier, I stated why.

and I am disagreeing with you on the change of requirements before judgement day.

For instance, for people who live when the New Testament is in effect, there is no new requirement. To answer whether they will be saved or not, I prefer the answers of Bishop Ware or the answer given by St. Isaac's of Nineve which is, as I understand it, God's mercy will somehow save almost everyone except for very few.

as you can see, I am disagreeing with you for the sake of Christian love. lol

Disclaimer:
although I talk much about Christian love, I seem to be void of it.
May God forgive me and have mercy on me.

From Truth.Seeker:lowlyman,

Are you supposed to be disagreeing with me in your post? Because your tone is one of disagreement, but you merely re-wrote what I had written, just differently. So, I don't really understand what you are getting it. Meghalo said that we shouldn't put "blame" on Jews for Christ's crucifixion. I said the expostions are probably written about the Jews who had Christ crucified and Christ asked the Father to forgive them, if they hadn't done anything wrong (blame worthy), they wouldn't need forgiveness. That means they DO have blame.

It's interesting that you are questioning my "next Testament" comment while talking so much about "Christian love" in other threads. It's simple. If the New Testament is to stay "in effect" until judgment day, not a single non-Christian will be saved. In fact, not a single non-Orthodox would be saved (since we believe that Biblically, an authoritatively administered baptism is necessary for salvation).

By "another Testament" I mean a change of requirements sometime before Judgment Day. For example, there was a change of requirements between the Old Testament and the New Testament (e.g. whether you get circumcised or not doesn't matter now). We don't know if there will be some other change of requirement. Indeed, if there's no change of requirement, things look pretty glim for non-Orthodox. We don't know if there will be a change or not, therefore, we shouldn't tell anybody they're going to hell (language used by hisservant above).

Let's be clear about this: I'm not saying there WILL be a change in requirements, I'm saying there MAY be a change in requirements.

mgeorge,

I agree with everything you've said (mostly because I've already said it before you in this thread ).

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 07:32 PM

lowlyman,

I understand you better now. However, we may both be right here (we might be talking about different points in a continuum). For example, the Jews that didn't believe, didn't believe because their sins had caused them to misundertand the Scriptures, and therefore were expecting a Messiah that was nothing like Christ. That misunderstanding of Scriptures made it that no matter what Christ did, they wouldn't believe.

The point I was trying to make with Meghalo is that before Christ came, Jews knew one thing and one thing only - that they are God's people, that they had been given Israel, etc... It was an occupation with materialistic things. It's impossible to argue that a promise of land flowing with "milk and honey" was not "materialistic" in the Christian sense of things today. This is a "change." Which is fine, because God can do whatever He wants.

Today, having seen that a change is possible (b/c we're in the NT, which is different from the OT), we cannot rule another change out. If you think about it, I'm really not saying anything different from Bishop Ware, I'm just more explicit about the meaning of his words.

It's very clear from the NT that if you don't believe in Christ you won't go to Heaven. For Bishop Ware to suggest that most people will be saved, then he's suggesting a change from the NT. These implied meanings in things confuse people, especially those outside the faith. You see what I'm saying? Bishop Ware is suggesting a "change" without saying it. He's a smart enough man to know that "no one can get to the Father except through Me" is a very absolute statement.

"Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, but those who do not get baptised may be saved." That sentence has two contradictory statements. A better explanation is, "If things remain as they are, baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, but if requirements are changed, those who have not been baptised may be saved; we don't know if there's going to be a change or not, so the best thing to do is believe and know for certain that you will be saved if you stay in the faith."

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 410

Hisservant

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 07:51 PM

From AMoussa01:From Hisservant:honestly, everyone who is not christian is going to hell, go ahead and argue with me, but remember, "I am the way, the truth and the life." Everyone who rejects Him as the Christ, will go to hell.

Lets refrain from making our own judgements. Yes, logically, it would seem that only Christians would enter heaven; however, we are not God and only God himself can determine a person's judgement.

GB
Tony

These weren't my words, they were said at Bible study by a Priest.

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. John 5:24- 25

Unless you accept Christ as your God and Savior you can not enter heaven, of course there is a different Judgment for those who have not heard of Christ. If you are Christian I am not saying that you will enter heaven, but I am saying if you're not Christian you're not going to heaven, since you have rejected Christ.

_________________
Je `aripameu`i `w pa{oic@ `aripameu`i `w paNou]@ `aripameu`i `w pa`Ouro@ aksan`i qen tekmet`ouro.

Joined: Apr 09, 2008 | Posts: 17

lowlyman

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 07:58 PM

I think the issues are complex indeed. lowly.

From Truth.Seeker:lowlyman,

I understand you better now. However, we may both be right here (we might be talking about different points in a continuum). For example, the Jews that didn't believe, didn't believe because their sins had caused them to misundertand the Scriptures, and therefore were expecting a Messiah that was nothing like Christ. That misunderstanding of Scriptures made it that no matter what Christ did, they wouldn't believe.

The point I was trying to make with Meghalo is that before Christ came, Jews knew one thing and one thing only - that they are God's people, that they had been given Israel, etc... It was an occupation with materialistic things. It's impossible to argue that a promise of land flowing with "milk and honey" was not "materialistic" in the Christian sense of things today. This is a "change." Which is fine, because God can do whatever He wants.

Today, having seen that a change is possible (b/c we're in the NT, which is different from the OT), we cannot rule another change out. If you think about it, I'm really not saying anything different from Bishop Ware, I'm just more explicit about the meaning of his words.

It's very clear from the NT that if you don't believe in Christ you won't go to Heaven. For Bishop Ware to suggest that most people will be saved, then he's suggesting a change from the NT. These implied meanings in things confuse people, especially those outside the faith. You see what I'm saying? Bishop Ware is suggesting a "change" without saying it. He's a smart enough man to know that "no one can get to the Father except through Me" is a very absolute statement.

That sentence has two contradictory statements. A better explanation is, "If things remain as they are, baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, but if requirements are changed, those who have not been baptised may be saved; we don't know if there's going to be a change or not, so the best thing to do is believe and know for certain that you will be saved if you stay in the faith."

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

AMoussa01

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 10:22 PM

From Truth.Seeker:Tony,

I wouldn't say that "logically" only Christians can go to heaven. I'd say that "logically" we don't know if the requirements will change at some time between now and Judgment day, therefore we don't know.

It is "logical," understandable , and normal for us to think that only Christians would enter heaven for the sole reason that Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the life." Logically speaking, you would have to know Christ to inheret eternal life; but its not enough just to know him but rather believe in him. However, just because it seems logical doesnt mean we can make our own judgements; which was the point i was trying to make. Why? Because we are not God and only God can determine a person's fate. Our human minds are limited and therefore we can not discern such things.

GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 | Posts: 521
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 11:25 PM

Tony,

You are putting forth two contradictory ideas. If it's "logical" that only Christians can go to Heaven, then it's "illogical" to say that we can't say that non-Christians won't go to Heaven. This is due to the law of non-contradiction (i.e. you can't be Christiand and not Christian at the same time). In other words, just by saying only Christians will go to Heaven, then you're saying all non-Christians will go to hell. It's like saying, "Only doves are white, but I can't tell a crow that it's not white."

Infact, since Christ is the one that said no one can get to the Father except through Him, then if you think the logical implication of that is that only Christians will be saved, you're not passing judgments on non-Christians, you're merely re-stating what Christ said.

The point I'm making is that you CAN say, "according to the NT, it's logical that only Christians could be saved." HOWEVER, we have no idea whether or not the NT is the final requirement before judgment day. The natural response is that there's nothing in the NT to indicate that there's "another testament." I'd say the requirements of the Old Testament never indicated that there may be a NT. Try to find something in Leviticus that indicates taking an animal to the temple and slaughtering for your sins indicates a NT is to come. BUT, do it without using the NT.

I'm not saying there's going to be "another testament." I'm saying that there's a possibility, and since there's a possibility and we don't know what those requirements will be, we can't really say who's not going to Heaven. This "another testament" I'm talking about is just a change in "requirement" to enter Heaven.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 410

AMoussa01

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 11:48 PM

From Truth.Seeker:Tony,

You are putting forth two contradictory ideas. If it's "logical" that only Christians can go to Heaven, then it's "illogical" to say that we can't say that non-Christians won't go to Heaven. This is due to the law of non-contradiction (i.e. you can't be Christiand and not Christian at the same time). In other words, just by saying only Christians will go to Heaven, then you're saying all non-Christians will go to hell. It's like saying, "Only doves are white, but I can't tell a crow that it's not white.".

It would be illogical. But like i said, we are not God and we therefore cannot say that non-Christians would go to hell. I am merely stating that, with our limited thinking, it would seem logical; I am in no way saying that non-Christians would go to hell. Even though it may seem logical, it still doesnt mean i can pass a judgement on a particular person. This is because we are not "all-knowing" like i mentioned before in my previous post. Hope this made sense.

Bottom line: It is beyond us! Also remember that God surpasses logic.

GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 | Posts: 521
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

Hisservant

posted on Apr 14, 2008 - 11:51 PM

From Truth.Seeker:
Tony,

You are putting forth two contradictory ideas. If it's "logical" that only Christians can go to Heaven, then it's "illogical" to say that we can't say that non-Christians won't go to Heaven. This is due to the law of non-contradiction (i.e. you can't be Christiand and not Christian at the same time). In other words, just by saying only Christians will go to Heaven, then you're saying all non-Christians will go to hell. It's like saying, "Only doves are white, but I can't tell a crow that it's not white."

Infact, since Christ is the one that said no one can get to the Father except through Him, then if you think the logical implication of that is that only Christians will be saved, you're not passing judgments on non-Christians, you're merely re-stating what Christ said.

The point I'm making is that you CAN say, "according to the NT, it's logical that only Christians could be saved." HOWEVER, we have no idea whether or not the NT is the final requirement before judgment day. The natural response is that there's nothing in the NT to indicate that there's "another testament." I'd say the requirements of the Old Testament never indicated that there may be a NT. Try to find something in Leviticus that indicates taking an animal to the temple and slaughtering for your sins indicates a NT is to come. BUT, do it without using the NT.

I'm not saying there's going to be "another testament." I'm saying that there's a possibility, and since there's a possibility and we don't know what those requirements will be, we can't really say who's not going to Heaven. This "another testament" I'm talking about is just a change in "requirement" to enter Heaven.




You bring up a nice point but, when God says something it is final. So it is impossible that there is achange in the "requirement, you know what I mean? Nothing has changed, and if you look at multiple verses it is not likely that there will not be "another testament" simply because it says in Matthew 24 29-31


29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This is Christ talking about the end time. And I was not judging, it is what it is, there is no changing what the scriptures say.

_________________
Je `aripameu`i `w pa{oic@ `aripameu`i `w paNou]@ `aripameu`i `w pa`Ouro@ aksan`i qen tekmet`ouro.

Joined: Apr 09, 2008 | Posts: 17

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 15, 2008 - 12:58 AM

Tony,

A big "NO!" to your "God surpasses logic." God does not surpass logic, God is the foundation of logic since He is the foundation of reason. God cannot make a square circle since it's logically impossible. I agree we're not "all-knowing," so I put it in terms of a change in the future which we may not know about.

Hisservant,

When God says something, it's only final if He meant it to be final. Like I said, in the Old Testament, God NEVER said, "Circumcision will not be necessary after the Word's coming." Many people with Jewish descent were arguing that circumcision was necessary for Gentiles since "the requirements don't change" (Acts 15). They "lost." Just that example should signal that what may look apparent to us may not be.

I know there is uneasiness whenever the words "God" and "change" are mentioned together, since God doesn't change. Just keep in mind I'm not saying that God changes, I'm saying that the requirements that He puts down for entry into Heaven could change. There's a big difference between the two. God would have always known that He is going to change the requirements, so it's not like it's something new for Him, it's something new for us.

A few comments about the passage you pointed to:

1) We don't know if the angels collecting the elect is the same thing as Judgment Day, and since Judgment Day is when everyone goes to where they'll be for eternity, a change could occur after the gathering of the elect.

2) If you meant the NT is in effect until the anti-Christ, I'd say that's fine. Keep in mind when I say "another testament" I put it in quotes for a reason. I'm not really talking about a new covenant, I'm talking about a unilateral change of requirements by God. In other words, God is more than free to change the requirements 1,000 years from now and have them apply retroactively.

Can you at least agree with me that this is a possibility? Again, clearly there was a "change" from OT requirement of circumcision to the NT.

P.S. I'm not into the whole "do not judge" thing as INTERPRETED in this day and age. So, you don't have to discuss that part of things with me. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to say that I can't tell a murderer that what he just did is wrong because then I'm "judging him." Christ put it in a great way: first remove the plank from your eye, then you'll see clearly to remove the spike from your brother's eye. In other words, worry about yourself first before you worry about others since you're as much of a sinner as every one else.

For this same reason, I'd say that if someone thinks that only Christians will be saved, he should just go ahead and say then non-Christians will go to hell.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 410

AMoussa01

posted on Apr 15, 2008 - 01:03 AM

From Truth.Seeker:Tony,

A big "NO!" to your "God surpasses logic." God does not surpass logic, God is the foundation of logic since He is the foundation of reason. God cannot make a square circle since it's logically impossible. I agree we're not "all-knowing," so I put it in terms of a change in the future which we may not know about.

My apologies, i wrote this in a very big rush... i did not mean logic as a whole, i meant to say that God surpasses our logic. Hense, he is God. Again, i am sorry for this mistake, i was in a hurry. Other than this, my arguement remains...

GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 | Posts: 521
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 15, 2008 - 01:47 AM

Thanks for the clarification. Could I get you to agree that unless something changes with respect to the NT requirements for salvation, then no non-Christian will be saved? (Notice that if you answer "yes," then you're not passing judgment, you're simply relying on theology from the NT). If you agree to that, then you and I don't really disagree.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 410

Hisservant

posted on Apr 15, 2008 - 02:24 AM

From Truth.Seeker:Thanks for the clarification. Could I get you to agree that unless something changes with respect to the NT requirements for salvation, then no non-Christian will be saved? (Notice that if you answer "yes," then you're not passing judgment, you're simply relying on theology from the NT). If you agree to that, then you and I don't really disagree.

any non Christian will not be saved, that is my answer. It's based on NT theology, and the idea of a another testament would be very unlikely, what other prophecies besides those of the last day are left to be fulfilled?

I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND, THE LIFE.

NO ONE CAN GO TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME.


These two quotes show me that there is no way to heaven except through Christ, prove me wrong. please, and im not saying that in a rude way but more of a if I am wrong I want you to post it, even if its the smallest detail.

_________________
Je `aripameu`i `w pa{oic@ `aripameu`i `w paNou]@ `aripameu`i `w pa`Ouro@ aksan`i qen tekmet`ouro.

Joined: Apr 09, 2008 | Posts: 17

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 15, 2008 - 02:48 AM

Hisservant,

I'm not claiming that you are wrong, I am claiming that you MIGHT be wrong. Since out of the two of us, your claim is the more absolute one, it is up to you to prove that there is no possibility that the requirements will change. Of course the danger of that is that you would infact, be saying, God could not change the requirements. "Very unlikely" (like you put it) and "possible" don't contradict each other. I.e. if there's a 1% chance of something happening, it's possible AND very unlikely.

So, the question is, are you prepared to say, with absolute certainty, that the requirements will not change?

A simple example off the top of my head: what if we're misinterpreting "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one can come to the Father except through me?" We're interpreting it as Christ saying that we must belive in Him when we are alive (note that all of us will "believe in Him" after we're dead because it's going to be very clear that He is infact our Lord). Couldn't He have meant that without His "approval," no one can go to Heaven? Couldn't that "approval" come about at ANY time?

Like I have been saying, I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, I'm saying this is possibly the case.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 410

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 15, 2008 - 03:03 AM

P.S. I was talking to Tony in the "Thanks for the clarification" post. I appreciate your thoughts nonetheless. I don't know if you read my response to you or if you thought my response to you was the one I meant for Tony. In case you missed it, my response to you was the one at 6:58 PM.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 410