No Other Name Under Heaven...

[seer]

Acts Chapter Four:

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Form the earliest Gospels, to the last Gospel. Form the earliest letters to the later letters. To the Book of Revelation. One thing is clear - salvation and eternal life can only be found in and through Christ Jesus. Christianity rejects pluralism in all it's forms. And the pluralist, if he is honest, must reject Christianity and it's Lord...

[Beanieboy]

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." So, I asked a believer, "Yeah, but didn't he say that when he was still alive? He didn't say "but by me* (*pending on my crucification and resurection. Void where prohibited by law.) He said it to people while he was living. What did he mean then?" The believer answered, "Well, he meant his resurrection." I asked, "Then why didn't he say that? These people were farmers, not scholars, nor fortune tellers." The believer answered," well, they would know eventually."

Eventually? So, they walked away thinking, "what's he babbling about" and would figure it out years later?

No. I reject YOUR christianity and YOUR version of God.

[technomage]

Seer, you still have unfinished business in the Locker Room.

Justin

[geebob]

"Well, he meant his resurrection." I asked, "Then why didn't he say that? These people were farmers, not scholars, nor fortune tellers." The believer answered," well, they would know eventually."

Why should the gospel be so simple that there has to be a precise specific way to put it? What if it's more complex than that? And what if it had to be lived first.

[Beanieboy]

Why should the gospel be so simple that there has to be a precise specific way to put it? What if it's more complex than that? And what if it had to be lived first.

I don't know.
Perhaps he was speaking to common people something that even a MDiv would struggle with, and therefore, talked over their heads so that they said, "um, yyyyeah, ok," feigned understanding, waved a goodbye, and wandered off.

But Christ spoke of a camel and the eye of a needle, The Parable of the Seeds, talked about separating wheat from chaff... He made it simple. And I'm supposed to believe that when he said, "I am the way", he really meant, "I WILL be the way" and somehow, the common people would just have to figure that what he said and meant are two different things?

I suppose that could be true. It's seems like a far fetched explanation.

[geebob]

But Christ spoke of a camel and the eye of a needle, The Parable of the Seeds, talked about separating wheat from chaff... He made it simple. And I'm supposed to believe that when he said, "I am the way", he really meant, "I WILL be the way" and somehow, the common people would just have to figure that what he said and meant are two different things?

It's not about "the common people" figuring out some complex theological understanding (which is not to say there isn't a complext theological understanding). it's about relationship. And it is a present tense relationship with Jesus that makes the difference. So Jesus was right to say "I am the way". Salvation meant to follow Jesus in his teaching and example, in his teaching about life and about himself. And as relationships develope, so does a right relationship, "salvation" with God. And now God has died for us on the cross and now that we are aware, we must recognize this and internalize it.

[Beanieboy]

It's not about "the common people" figuring out some complex theological understanding (which is not to say there isn't a complext theological understanding). it's about relationship. And it is a present tense relationship with Jesus that makes the difference. So Jesus was right to say "I am the way". Salvation meant to follow Jesus in his teaching and example, in his teaching about life and about himself. And as relationships develope, so does a right relationship, "salvation" with God. And now God has died for us on the cross and now that we are aware, we must recognize this and internalize it.

This makes the crucifiction questionable, then.
If he is the way before the crucifiction, and told people that the only way to God was through him, then those who followed him had salvation without Christ's sacrifice, didn't they?

He was, after all, forgiving people of their sins before it all happened.

[seer]

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." So, I asked a believer, "Yeah, but didn't he say that when he was still alive? He didn't say "but by me* (*pending on my crucification and resurection. Void where prohibited by law.) He said it to people while he was living. What did he mean then?" The believer answered, "Well, he meant his resurrection." I asked, "Then why didn't he say that? These people were farmers, not scholars, nor fortune tellers." The believer answered," well, they would know eventually."

Eventually? So, they walked away thinking, "what's he babbling about" and would figure it out years later?

No. I reject YOUR christianity and YOUR version of God.

Then you rejecting Christ Jesus. You are simply playing word games. The Gospels and Epistles are clear - there is no salvation apart from Christ. The honest thing to do is to reject Christ and Christianity...

[shunyadragon]

Acts Chapter Four:

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Form the earliest Gospels, to the last Gospel. Form the earliest letters to the later letters. To the Book of Revelation. One thing is clear - salvation and eternal life can only be found in and through Christ Jesus. Christianity rejects pluralism in all it's forms. And the pluralist, if he is honest, must reject Christianity and it's Lord...

How about the new name

Revelation 3:12 Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

[seer]

Revelation 3:12 Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

Yes, this is speaking to those already saved at the end of history. They will then know Christ in a new more personal way. They were not saved through this new name and it is still only He who saves. So this did not undermine my point - that salvation is only found in/through Christ.

But I have been meaning to ask you something Shuny. If you find out, in the end, that the God of the Bible is the one true Creator - would you love Him? Worship Him?

[shunyadragon]

Revelation 3:12 Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

Yes, this is speaking to those already saved at the end of history. They will then know Christ in a new more personal way. They were not saved through this new name and it is still only He who saves. So this did not undermine my point - that salvation is only found in/through Christ.

Does not resolve the problem the return of Christ is to have a new name and it is not Jesus Christ, therefore there is a conflict. Jesus has more than one name.

But I have been meaning to ask you something Shuny. If you find out, in the end, that the God of the Bible is the one true Creator - would you love Him? Worship Him?

The God of the Bible is the one true Creator and the God of all religions and I love him and worship, but I do not except your Stone Age worldview of God.

[seer]

Does not resolve the problem the return of Christ is to have a new name and it is not Jesus Christ, therefore there is a conflict. Jesus has more than one name.

A "new name" does not necessarily mean what you think it does. It could be refering to a Title. But again, it is still Christ Jesus, this "new mame" is only known by those who are first saved by believing on Jesus. So the exclusive claims of Christianity remain.

The God of the Bible is the one true Creator and the God of all religions and I love him and worship, but I do not except your Stone Age worldview of God.

Then you reject the God of Jesus Christ. Which again makes Christ a false prophet...

[shunyadragon]

Does not resolve the problem the return of Christ is to have a new name and it is not Jesus Christ, therefore there is a conflict. Jesus has more than one name.

A "new name" does not necessarily mean what you think it does. It could be refering to a Title. But again, it is still Christ Jesus, this "new mame" is only known by those who are first saved by believing on Jesus. So the exclusive claims of Christianity remain.

Still your usual duck, bob and weave act. It says a new name not a title.

[geebob]

Bean

This makes the crucifiction questionable, then.

if your understanding of the crucifixion is unreasonably rigid, then I suppose it would.

If he is the way before the crucifiction, and told people that the only way to God was through him, then those who followed him had salvation without Christ's sacrifice, didn't they?

yes. And it is likely that they would not have maintained that salvation had there not been a sacrifice. It is a relationship. Relationships that don't progress will stagnate and will die. Given the history of sin and rejection, this is where redemption had to go.


Seer and Shunyon,

when you understand the meaning of being saved in the name of Jesus, your disagreement becomes moot. There is no other name by which men are saved means there is no other authority. This is how it was understood and it is understood in this fashion even today. If you do something in a company's name, it doesn't become undone just because the company changes names.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=geebob]Bean

if your understanding of the crucifixion is unreasonably rigid, then I suppose it would.

yes. And it is likely that they would not have maintained that salvation had there not been a sacrifice. It is a relationship. Relationships that don't progress will stagnate and will die. Given the history of sin and rejection, this is where redemption had to go.

Seer and Shunyon,

when you understand the meaning of being saved in the name of Jesus, your disagreement becomes moot. There is no other name by which men are saved means there is no other authority. This is how it was understood and it is understood in this fashion even today. If you do something in a company's name, it doesn't become undone just because the company changes names.

Actually I believe salvation is in the name of God, Jesus was the intermediary.

This is how it was understood and it is understood in this fashion even today.

Of course, this is how it is undertood in traditional Christianity, but my contention is the traditional Christianity is the Greco Roman Chrestianity and not the Christianity of the Jewish messiah Yeshua.

I agree changing names does not change change things, but seer would not agree.