Those that never heard the Gospel (testimony, disciples, history, Old Testament)

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by lifertexan

You posted a cut and pasted verse.I asked for YOUR opinion on the matter,of how it could work when the Bible is saying contradicting things.

Since you insist on playing childish games, I will answer in my own words, and that will be the final post to you.

Answer: I believe the Bible is the word of God and it's authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit. All the contradictions you have brought here have been explained. Since you obviously believe the Bible has errors and contradictions in it, then I don't see why you even bother reading it.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by lifertexan

The point is very minor,granted.But when the literalists condemn folks like they routinely do,I like to see how they respond to such things as this.And the Bible does not say Judas OWNED a field,it says Judas BOUGHT a field.That implies action on the part of Judas,and not merely the field being bought in his name with his money.

Not so, if another goes in my name and buys something that requires a deed then my name would go on the deed. After all the priest did not want anything to do with the field, so bought it in Judas's name.

[lifertexan]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Not so, if another goes in my name and buys something that requires a deed then my name would go on the deed. After all the priest did not want anything to do with the field, so bought it in Judas's name.

The Bible SAYS that Judas bought the field.Action on Judas's part.It also says that Judas fell headlong in that same field.So I guess that somehow the priests went and bought a field with Judas's money,and then somehow Judas waited around until the priests bought the field to commit suicide,and then he found the very field they bought and hung himself in it.

You believe that if you want.

Acts 1:18-19 18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

[python87]

Since you obviously believe the Bible has errors and contradictions in it, then I don't see why you even bother reading it. Why read something you don't believe is true?

That's just a silly question. Professor Steve Dutch, for example, doesn't believe whole bible is true, but he thinks it's sufficiently true. You might not believe Koran is true, but if you want to get insight into what Muslims believe and why, you should read it anyway. You don't read stuff because you know they are true you read them to test them.

[Bright Hope for Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by june 7th

From the article: "Let us, therefore, labor all the more to bring God's message of reconciliation to a world in desperate need of salvation (Rom. 10:13-15), knowing that there is no other way to reach Him except through His Son -- the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6)."

Here's the difficulty that June has with this concept, even according to the article: Either Jesus IS the Savior ("the Way, Truth, Life") or He's not. If June is some woman living in some remote mountain top village in Tibet, no doubt she has heard of this person Jesus Christ. In the event she has not, then according to the article, it is encumbant upon (and the 'duty' of) Christians to seek her out, give her a bible, and thus attempt to evangelize her. In essence the article is placing the responsibility upon the Christian; not upon that which either "is" or quite possibly "is not." In short, Christ's salvation is not universal in the sense that only those who have access to a certain book, way of understanding, and cultural mindset have the possibility of salvation.

So let's say that missionaries pay a visit to June in her Tibetan village. June hears about Jesus and how he is the Savior, and that in order for June to avoid the perils of the afterlife following her death, she needs to accept Jesus Christ as her savior. Now how, exactly, is that to happen? --And that is where June takes exception to the article and theory being put out here. A woman in Tibet may have HEARD OF the bible, HEARD OF Jesus Christ, but nonetheless, the likelihood that she will A) Even be able to read a bible unless it has been translated into her native language, she's stuck, and B) Even in the event the bible is translated into her native language, she has absolutely no cultural (western, Judeo-Christian) mindset or frame of reference in order to have any real opportunity to accept the contents of what she is reading. Remember, she's Tibetan. It would be tantamount to a Tibetan monk showing up at your front door, talking to you about the Tibetan Book of the Dead and instructing you as to which bardo you will end up inhabiting after death if you don't accept that belief. --Just how compelled would you be to do that?

So Jesus either was, or wasn't offering something, in June's mind. He either was, or was not a "savior" in June's mind. How is someone in Tibet NOT destined to hell according to this article and the opinion of the OP? In short, what June is saying is that the message behind why Jesus became human, the Son of God, but more importantly, the reason behind it (to save mankind) comes across to her as an extremely limited one, as it is inherently implied that it is dependent upon that which is logistic, and culturally relative. AND the article places the responsibility upon humans to "reach" the "lost." It in no way presumes that Christ as a savior was a universal savior who came for ALL mankind. Just some.

So from this, June can only assume that Jesus was a "conditional savior?" That just wouldn't make sense, if we are to believe the claims made in the bible. It also wouldn't make sense to accept that just because June who is sitting on a mountain side tending her lamas in Tibet is destined to hell through no fault of her own. --And yet, that is what is being put forth.

June's thinking: "Conditional savior." ~A somewhat odd concept when one contemplates the true meaning of the word "savior."


Take gentle care.

This thread is way off topic. June had the best point in the thread: Either Jesus IS the Savior ("the Way, Truth, Life") or He's not.

He IS!!

[python87]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Not so, if another goes in my name and buys something that requires a deed then my name would go on the deed. After all the priest did not want anything to do with the field, so bought it in Judas's name.

Yes but Acts make it seem Judas bought the field while he was alive.

Acts goes like this: "Judas betrayed Jesus, didn't give a damn about it, in fact he bought a field for himself, and one day his body burst open. It's called Blood Field because you don't expect someone's body to burst open (it says whole of Jerusalem heard about his body bursting open)"

Matthew is more like: "Judas felt terribly guilty about what he has done so he gave money to priests and hanged himself somewhere a while later (it doesn't even say it was on that field). Priests bought potter field because they couldn't keep the money and it was called Blood Field because it was bought with blood money."

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by lifertexan

The Bible SAYS that Judas bought the filed.Action on Judas's part.It also says that Judas fell headlong in that same field.So I guess that somehow the priests went and bought a field with Judas's money,and then somehow Judas waited around until the priests bought the field to commit suicide,and then he found the very field they bought and hung himself in it.

You believe that if you want.

Lifer lighten up a bit bud, who says they bought the field before Judus hung himself? for all we know Judus hung himself and the priest bought the field afterward which is probably why they called it the field of blood.

[python87]

Here's both passages again in case anyone cares anymore.

Matthew 27:4-6 4 "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Acts 1:18-19 18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by python87

Yes but Acts make it seem Judas bought the field while he was alive.

Acts goes like this: "Judas betrayed Jesus, didn't give a damn about it, in fact he bought a field for himself, and one day his body burst open. It's called Blood Field because you don't expect someone's body to burst open"

Matthew is more like: "Judas felt terribly guilty about what he has done so he gave money to priests and hanged himself somewhere a while later (it doesn't even say it was on that field). Priests bought potter field because they couldn't keep the money and it was called Blood Field because it was bought with blood money."

Like I said not every one write after the same fashion, some are choppy writer and if you take a good look at the way Acts discribes what happened you will see the choppiness I am speaking about. I see it because I myself write that way.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by python87

Professor Steve Dutch, for example, doesn't believe whole bible is true, but he thinks it's sufficiently true. You might not believe Koran is true, but if you want to get insight into what Muslims believe and why, you should read it anyway. You don't read stuff because you know they are true you read them to test them.

Yes, I suppose one can read something without believing it.