A question for Jewish people on the site

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Going to have to nail you down on this one, I'm afraid. So, what must one do to be saved?

From Mark 10:

[17] And as [Jesus] was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
[18] And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
[19] You know the commandments: `Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'"
[20] And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth."
[21] And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not that you would accept!

Thread 28593

http://www.thehindu.com/2005/08/06/stories/2005080609730400.htm

How do you account for the fact that Hell appears to be populated by the Hindu gods and not those described by your religion?

Originally posted by David C
Thread 28593

http://www.thehindu.com/2005/08/06/stories/2005080609730400.htm

How do you account for the fact that Hell appears to be populated by the Hindu gods and not those described by your religion?

Maybe Mr Reddy realised he'd left the light or the oven on and came back. I know my father would come back from the dead if he thought for 1 second that someone was wasting electricity.


[edit; my dad isn't dead btw. But if he were.....]

Originally posted by lucifershammer
come, follow me.

(Talk about isolation of Scripture.)
So, to be saved, all that rich young ruler had to do was to physically follow Jesus, such as the apostles, (among them, Judas) the disciples and the some-time crowd had been doing?

The purpose of the dialogue was to reveal the insufficiency of the law unto salvation, as well as reveal the cost of salvation. There are those who misinterpret this particular passage and attempt to replicate some form of 'following Jesus,' including those wingnuts who physically lug crosses around, or capitulate themselves to other forms of self-flaggelation.

Nonetheless, you have answered honestly, according to your church's dictates. What of the person who does not follow Jesus, in any way, shape or form? What of the passages where Jesus insists, as He did to Nicodemus, that a man must be born again?

Originally posted by David C
Thread 28593

http://www.thehindu.com/2005/08/06/stories/2005080609730400.htm

How do you account for the fact that Hell appears to be populated by the Hindu gods and not those described by your religion?

Minor correction: Yama is Lord of the Dead (like Hades), not Hell. Yamapuri is the abode of both virtuous and evil souls.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Minor correction: Yama is Lord of the Dead (like Hades), not Hell. Yamapuri is the abode of both virtuous and evil souls.

They get to hang out together? Cool.

Originally posted by kirksey957
It is my perception that there is a lot of "thinking" in the spiritual forums that may not be anti-semetic, but seems to negate your traditions and faith in such a way as to say "we're better than you." It is also my perception that when this happens, usually atheists are the ones who defend you. Any thoughts on this?

Usually atheists ? Ha ha ha .....

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]they simply need to hold to the most basic ones you'll find in any penny Catechism.
For what? To be considered a baseline Catholic or for salvation?

(unless they turn to Fundamentalism)
Fundamentalism, in any field, is the gateway to fascism.[/b]

"Fundamentalism, in any field, is the gateway to fascism"

What about fundamentalist liberals like the marauder ?

Interesting regarding the "Communism, fascism, liberalism" thread.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
(Talk about isolation of Scripture.)
So, to be saved, all that rich young ruler had to do was to physically follow Jesus, such as the apostles, (among them, Judas) the disciples and the some-time crowd had been doing?

The purpose of the dialogue was to reveal the insufficiency of the law unto salvation, as well as reveal the cost of salvation. There ...[text shortened]... t of the passages where Jesus insists, as He did to Nicodemus, that a man must be born again?

(Talk about isolation of Scripture.)

Let's not go down that road... 😉

So, to be saved, all that rich young ruler had to do was to physically follow Jesus, such as the apostles, (among them, Judas) the disciples and the some-time crowd had been doing?

I think it was more important that he be willing to physically follow Jesus. That assent of will (as Mary did) to God's will for our lives was more important.

The purpose of the dialogue was to reveal the insufficiency of the law unto salvation, as well as reveal the cost of salvation.

Insufficiency - yes. Unnecessity - no.

Remember, the first thing Jesus says when asked the question is that one must obey the Law. The assent of will was what was lacking given that the person was already obeying the Law. In other words - you need both.

What of the person who does not follow Jesus, in any way, shape or form?

Such a person cannot be saved.

What of the passages where Jesus insists, as He did to Nicodemus, that a man must be born again?

Actually, I think a better translation is "born [from] above", but that's not too important for our current discussion; so I'll leave that one to the experts (Nemesio, vistesd, anyone else who knows - clarification?)

How does Jesus say a man should be born again/from above in John's Gospel? He says that a man should be born "of water and the Spirit" (3:5). Is he talking about two separate (re)births here - of water and of Spirit? No - he is talking about the same (re)birth (3:3,7).

So, this (re)birth involves both water and Spirit. Where do we see water and Spirit together in John's Gospel? John [the Baptist] speaks of baptism involving water and spirit in chapter 1. That's what Jesus is talking about as well.

How do we know Jesus was talking about baptism? Just look at what he does next (after the conversation with Nicodemus) - he goes to Judea with his disciples and baptises people (v. 22).

That's what the whole "rebirth" thing is about - the sacrament of baptism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

I think it was more important that he be willing to physically follow Jesus.
This is what is meant by isolation of Scripture. The next two verses, Jesus gives His commentary on the situation facing that young man. Are you going to apply that to every situation?
The Gospels are the most difficult books in the entire Bible to exegete, and only one so trained should even attempt to do so. While containing some of the most straight-forward passages in the entire Bible, if one just opens up, starts reading and then applying, one will end up in an insane asylum, hospital for the maimed, and eventually the morgue... all in a fit of religious frustration.
That is not God's intent.
Insufficiency - yes. Unnecessity - no.
Of course the Law had a purpose, both nationally and spiritually for Israel. However, that Law has been fulfilled spiritually, and a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is no longer under the same. The latter has superseded the former, shadow replaced with substance.
Such a person cannot be saved.
So, if a person is aware of the salvation message, but instead, determines to live an exemplary life on their own, sans acceptance of the work done on the cross, are they saved?
Actually, I think a better translation is "born [from] above",
That is the more accurate translation. However, either 'born again' or 'born from above' carry such stigma for the unbeliever, it is usually a big part of their rejection.
So, this (re)birth involves both water and Spirit.
Again, the Gospels are treacherous waters to navigate without formal training, and Scripture should be allowed to interpret itself, prior to us super-imposing our view on the same.
What was written (and said) to one group of people in one age does not necessarily apply to those in another age. Scripture must be understood in context of the time in which it was written, among other factors.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The Gospels are the most difficult books in the entire Bible to exegete, and only one so trained should even attempt to do so. While containing some of the most straight-forward passages in the entire Bible, if one just opens up, starts reading and then applying, one will end up in an insane asylum, hospital for the maimed, and eventually the morgue... all in a fit of religious frustration.

A word to the wise.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A word to the wise.

😵😵

Originally posted by stocken
😵😵

Is your cell comfortable? Do you want me to send you anything?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is your cell comfortable? Do you want me to send you anything?

Currently, I'm in the hospital for the maimed. Whatever you feel is appropriate to send. An artificial limb would be great (any kind will do; arms, legs or pleasure stick)!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think it was more important that he be willing to physically follow Jesus.
This is what is meant by isolation of Scripture. The next two verses, Jesus gives His commentary on the situation facing that young man. Are you going to apply that to every situation?
The Gospels are the most difficult books in the entire Bible to exegete, and only ...[text shortened]... e must be understood in context of the time in which it was written, among other factors.[/b]

I'm not sure I understand what all this "isolation of Scripture" stuff is about - are you claiming that I took the Scripture verses we're discussing out of context?

How does my commentary on the young rich man in any way contradict Jesus'?

Regarding Scriptural exegesis, I agree with nearly all the points you've made. However, there is nothing novel about the interpretation I've given of the Scripture passages in question - it is how the Church has read and understood those passages for nearly two millennia. Indeed, the only thing you've missed is that the Gospels are best interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church - the body by whom and for whom the books of the Bible were written in the first place.

As long as one is grounded in that Tradition, one does not need a PhD to understand what the Gospels say. One is perfectly free to(indeed, one is obliged to) make a personal study of the Scripture.

Of course the Law had a purpose, both nationally and spiritually for Israel. However, that Law has been fulfilled spiritually, and a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is no longer under the same. The latter has superseded the former, shadow replaced with substance.

Let's not mix up the ritual obligations of the Mosaic Law (sacrifices, punishments, ritual purity etc.) with the moral obligations of the Natural Law. A believer in Christ is not bound by the former - but he is still bound by the latter.

A person who believes in Christ is not free to go around killing, raping, pillaging etc. He is still held accountable for his sins.

So, if a person is aware of the salvation message, but instead, determines to live an exemplary life on their own, sans acceptance of the work done on the cross, are they saved?

As I told BdN, that depends on the specific conditions of the individual. What is this person's motivation for leading an exemplary life?

Simply being aware of the salvation message is not the same as knowing it, understanding its necessity. Sometimes our culture and circumstances may interfere with our understanding of that message.