Was God's Intent To Be Cryptic?

[POI]

Was God's/Jesus's Word(s) meant to sometimes be vague/mysterious?

Are humans just too stupid to collectively associate the correct intended conclusions behind some of these claimed Bible passages?

Should the reader of the Bible's claims, be at mere face value, even if the seemingly axiomatic claim does not look to comport with later human discovery?

Should the reader conclude, if the claimed passage does not align with discovery, that this is not what God actually meant?

Why would God not want His message(s) to be abundantly clear, which is evident by the reality that we have many mutually opposing sects in Christianity?

I'll stop here....

Thank you in advance!

[Tcg]

Message 2: Accept his Son as Lord and Savior

Here's another problem with this assertion. Even those who would agree with this statement, can't agree on how to interpret it. There is this little problem known as "Lordship Salvation."

Lordship Salvation Forgotten Truth or a False Doctrine?, Part 1

Manfred E. Kober, Th.D.

If you were Satan, which doctrine would you want to undermine? Which area of theology would you pervert, to prevent people from being saved? An individual may be wrong about the doctrine of the church or deny the millennial kingdom and yet doubtless be gloriously redeemed. However, if a person is wrong on the doctrine of salvation, specifically, the prerequisites for salvation, he misses the very heart of the gospel. One would expect Satan to attack in the area of soteriology. Indeed, he has! The informed and discerning believer soon realizes that there is a battle raging among evangelicals and fundamentalists over the matter of the conditions for salvation.

I. The Crucial Problem of Lordship Salvation:

A. The problem:
On the one hand there are those who insist that salvation is God’s gift and that trust in Christ is the only requirement for salvation. On the other hand, there are respected pastors and theologians who teach that unless an individual submits also to the Lordship of Christ at the moment of salvation, he is not really saved.

https://faith.edu/faith-news/lordship-s ... ne-part-1/

God's message is so cryptic that even those who agree with each other don't agree with each other. I'd suspect that those who believe in the perfectly unsupportable idea of eternal life would really want to know how to attain it. Given all the conflicting conclusions about this, and even these are in constant flux, one could spend their entire lives studying this issue and never reach a conclusion they were sure matched God's message.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

Good answer, but you don't have to keep graduating just to supposedly top up your qualification -level regularly.

Point noted. Depends on how you look at it...which goes back to the cryptic aspect of the Bible, admittedly.

I may be tipping my atheist hat a bit, but that sounds like 'You need to be informed by Faith to interpret the cryptic bits'. Which is of course why I love to see Bible -believers come to blows over who is Interpreting it correctly (read: Which of them is Inspired by God with the truth and which is just making it up).

[POI]

1. The criteria speaks nothing about (belief) in Jesus's message to the crowd here. If Belief was a requirement, why did He leave it out here????

I guess for the simple fact that he took it for granted that those who received the message would have known that the sheep (in context) are those who already had faith/belief in him.

But apparently not everyone knows.

That, followed by the fact that Jesus had already spoke on how much one's faith plays a role in where they stand with God...lets just take what he said even before he gave the sheep/goat parable..

Matt 17

19Afterward the disciples came to Jesus privately and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”

20“Because you have so little faith,” He answered. “For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” …

How do you know all the people He was speaking to, in Matthew 25, were present when He was speaking about the necessity for belief/faith in Matt 17 or elsewhere? Is it not possible not all knew that belief/faith was a prerequisite? And further still, for good measure, wouldn't Jesus just simply reiterate belief/faith in this entire parable? Again, He was apparently speaking about His criteria for Heaven. Being repetitive does not hurt.

Remember, the Gospel of John was not in circulation yet. Nor any written documents from Jesus for that matter.

Point?

People come and go. There existed no NT doctrines for anyone to read. Furthermore, most were illiterate anyways. Jesus was likely preaching to differing people, at differing times. If anyone asked for the way to salvation, if He did not tell each and every person that belief/faith is the core for salvation, ala Matt 25, some may come away with incomplete information.

The Gospels were not canonized until decades/centuries later.

3. John 3:16-18 is pretty crystal clear, yes. But if you cheery pick this passage, as you have just seemed to, the reader can walk away thinking all that is required for being saved is belief. Nothing about necessary works....

Not so fast there. You are the one who is cherry picking the sheep/goat parable and insinuating..

"I don't have to accept Jesus, because Jesus did not say I have to believe in him, all he said was for me to produce good works".

It sounds like that is what you are insinuating...so I provided a scripture where it states that it takes more than just good works to be in good standing with God/Christ...which is the ultimate, straight-to-the-point John 3:16, where it is stated that belief in the Son is a REQUIREMENT for everlasting life...or at the very least a prerequisite.

And I already stated that I am more on the faith+works side of things anyway, as that seems to be the clear from the Scriptures.

You have one distinct advantage here... You have a completed Book to pick apart, dissect, and place emphasis upon -- to taste. Jesus was giving differing lessons to differing people. Many may have come away with differing 'messages'. Some are told about belief and baptism alone. Some are told to sell their goods and follow. Some may have also been merely told they will be judged upon their works alone; and not told about 100% belief/faith.

4. Uuuum, sorry, but you just did that when you cherry picked John 3:16 above. Further, it goes a little deeper... You can 'successfully' argue:

A) grace alone
B) grace by faith
C) grace by works
D) grace by faith/works
E) other

This is why I can attend a universalist church, then go next door to a Unitarian church, then go next door to a Catholic church, then go next door to a Mormon church, then next door to a 7 day Adventist church, then next door to a JW church, etc etc etc.......... You think the message for being saved is the same from the small handful listed? Then just imagine when you expand the list to ALL the denominations in Christianity ALONE :0

Great point

My response to that is simple; accept Christ, and follow his commandments.

Do those two things and I am sure things will work itself out for the better in the long run. Just a hunch.

But what you state is not possible. You will lie until you die, regardless of how hard you try not to... I trust you agree there exists no such thing as a 'good' lie, in the eyes of God, right? And yet, we feel justified in all kinds of "lies''; for various well-intended reasons.

BTW, if belief is a requirement, then I guess all deceased infants are hosed.

Um, no.

Matt 19:14

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

This Verse does not negate my statement. It's fair to say that infants do not possess the ability to ascribe to positive beliefs in god(s). Does Jesus give these folks a free pass? And what about the humans born with severe brain damage? If you are either not yet developed in cognition, or, will never possess the ability to rationalize belief/faith, are these folks given a free pass?

BTW, you could then also ask how much belief is necessary?

100% full belief is necessary.

I would say my belief in everything varies. I would also say my belief in anything falls short of a full 100%. It's possible this entire exercise is a simulation. Hence, I must reserve my perceived shared reality, with you, at a mere 99.99%

How is 100% achieved exactly?

Maybe a professed 'atheist', who does enough good deeds, gets in?

Then that would contradict John 3:16. See how everything goes back to John 3:16.

You can produce all of the good deeds in the world, but until you get your sins atoned for, that is where the money is.

How do you know ALL the peeps in Matt. 25:31-46 were made aware of this additional "factoid"?

BTW, what about ex-Christians? Some argue "once saved, always saved."

Great point. That is an ongoing debate as it pertains that. But lets see what the Bible says..

1 John 2:19

"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

Regardless of what anyone says pertaining to that verse, that is what I appeal to as it relates to ex-Christians.

Me personally, I do not believe any true Christian will ever leave the faith. That is just my opinion.

That would be like telling a child (s)he never really believed in Santa Claus as a small child Sometimes new discovered evidence changes the minds of many...

But thank you for further acknowledging my OP, that there exists confusion... Even the earnest of believers will scratch their head, especially when pondering the topic of the criteria for salvation.

BTW, is your level of belief measured by your level of deeds/works?

Do you mean level of faith? While I agree, there may be (theoretically) levels of belief...but at the same time, either you believe in Jesus, or you don't.

Faith is a different thing...there are definitely levels of faith....although I don't think it has anything to do with deeds/works.

And there are obviously different levels of deeds.

Let me re-phrase here.... Actions speak louder than words... One can state they are a true-blue Christian. But if they actively break the law, and do not strive to help others as much as they can, "they may not be a true believer?"

Hence, the more one helps others, and the more they abstain from 'sin', the more they are filled with 'faith/belief'?

[We_Are_VENOM]

How do you know all the people He was speaking to, in Matthew 25, were present when He was speaking about the necessity for belief/faith in Matt 17 or elsewhere? Is it not possible not all knew that belief/faith was a prerequisite?

A few things..

1. The fact that Jesus had a 3 year earthly ministry...and every single thing that he preached in 3 years wasn't covered in 4 Gospels....which means that what was recorded in the Gospels is probably not even half of what was covered in Jesus' 3 years of preaching work.

2. Jesus also had disciples (besides the 12) that were involving in the preaching work, not including John (and perhaps John's disciples) who were also preaching.

3. Jesus' message had spread for all to hear (in the area), and those who wanted to hear the message would have heard the message.

And further still, for good measure, wouldn't Jesus just simply reiterate belief/faith in this entire parable? Again, He was apparently speaking about His criteria for Heaven. Being repetitive does not hurt.

Well again, if Jesus took for granted that listeners would have known that the sheep/goat were folks of whom was down, or should have been down with him, then that minor detail wouldn't need to be mentioned.

That, followed by the fact that the Jews were not only familiar with, but expecting a Messiah to come and save them.

If all you have to do is produce good works in order to be saved, then all of that "Messiah" and "Savior" stuff would be deemed irrelevant.

People come and go. There existed no NT doctrines for anyone to read.

They didn't need the NT, because they had Jesus, his apostles, and his disciples. Why would you need an instruction manual on how to operate a machine if the designer/manufacture of the machine is right there before you?

The NT testament comes in to play after Jesus had ascended to heaven and was no longer present to set things straight...and after all of the apostles had been long gone from the scene.

Furthermore, most were illiterate anyways. Jesus was likely preaching to differing people, at differing times.

Sure, and all of those times, the message was apparently some variation of "produce good fruits, believe in the Son, for I am he".

If anyone asked for the way to salvation, if He did not tell each and every person that belief/faith is the core for salvation, ala Matt 25, some may come away with incomplete information.

LOL. Man, you sure have a lot of beef with Matt 25. What I find astounding is; of all of the alleged cryptic scriptures in the Bible, you choose that one, which to me isn't cryptic at all.

The Gospels were not canonized until decades/centuries later.

Sure, but the core message was preserved all the way up until then.

You have one distinct advantage here... You have a completed Book to pick apart, dissect, and place emphasis upon -- to taste. Jesus was giving differing lessons to differing people.

If your sister isn't present when your mother told you to vacuum the carpet before she got home from work..

And if you aren't present when your mother told your sister to have the dishes washed before she got home from work..

You and your sister (when you both compared notes) could either take it as...

1. Mother's message is contradictory!! She gave us different instructions. She told you to wash the dishes, and she told me to vacuum the carpet. Surely, there must be a glitch within the "what mother told us to do" system.

or, you both can take it as..

2. Mother told you to wash the dishes, and she told me to vacuum the floor before she gets home from work. So lets make sure we have the dishes washed and the carpet vacuumed before she gets home.

I don't know about you and your sister, but I know how me and my sister will interpret the message.

Many may have come away with differing 'messages'. Some are told about belief and baptism alone.

Did Jesus say this?

Some are told to sell their goods and follow.

Did Jesus say this? Sure, he told one guy this, but was that meant to be the universal golden standard for following him?

It is easy and take one small piece of scripture and run with it, thereby making an entire doctrine out of it.

That is part of the problem right there.

Some may have also been merely told they will be judged upon their works alone; and not told about 100% belief/faith.

Once you accept Christ (faith), then good works should follow anyway. The two should be a joint venture, instead of separate concepts.

If you accept Christ and good works are followed, then there should be no issue, should there.

But what you state is not possible. You will lie until you die, regardless of how hard you try not to... I trust you agree there exists no such thing as a 'good' lie, in the eyes of God, right? And yet, we feel justified in all kinds of "lies''; for various well-intended reasons.

I am of the belief that God will judge us based on how much/hard we fought the temptation to sin...and at that point, only God knows what is the threshold from saved/unsaved at that point.

So, if you are a liar (knowing that lying is a sin), how much did you fight the temptation to lie?

As a wise man once said (I think Thomas Aquinas)

"You can't stop a bird from landing on your head, but you can stop it from building a nest (on your head)."

This Verse does not negate my statement. It's fair to say that infants do not possess the ability to ascribe to positive beliefs in god(s). Does Jesus give these folks a free pass? And what about the humans born with severe brain damage? If you are either not yet developed in cognition, or, will never possess the ability to rationalize belief/faith, are these folks given a free pass?

Wait a minute, so you asked about the salvation of infants, and I gave a verse which Jesus states that the kingdom of heaven belongs to children (infants)...yet, the verse does not negate your statement?

Don't know what more you could ask for there. Yes, children and humans born with severe brain damage gets a free pass.

If anyone thinks otherwise, then we obviously have differing views on the character of God/Jesus.

I would say my belief in everything varies. I would also say my belief in anything falls short of a full 100%. It's possible this entire exercise is a simulation. Hence, I must reserve my perceived shared reality, with you, at a mere 99.99%

How is 100% achieved exactly?

Allow me to explain myself..

My belief in God: 100% absolutely positively

My belief in Jesus: 90%

My faith: It depends. I have 100% faith that Jesus can heal anyone I lay my hands on (in his name)...but I have less faith that he actually will.

Strengthening our faith is what we should thrive for.

I originally stated that 100% belief in Jesus is required, but I changed it to 90% (after thinking about it).

I have about 90% belief that Jesus existed as the Bible illustrates...and I live my life as though he does.

How do you know ALL the peeps in Matt. 25:31-46 were made aware of this additional "factoid"?

I don't know if they were made aware of it at that time...but even if they weren't, God will judge us based on what we know, not on what we don't or didn't know.

If you didn't know, then you aren't accountable for what you didn't know.

That would be like telling a child (s)he never really believed in Santa Claus as a small child Sometimes new discovered evidence changes the minds of many...

But we are talking about messages from the Bible, remember? Since that is the case, my point from that scripture stands.

But thank you for further acknowledging my OP, that there exists confusion... Even the earnest of believers will scratch their head, especially when pondering the topic of the criteria for salvation.

No doubt there is confusion.

Let me re-phrase here.... Actions speak louder than words... One can state they are a true-blue Christian. But if they actively break the law, and do not strive to help others as much as they can, "they may not be a true believer?"

Hence, the more one helps others, and the more they abstain from 'sin', the more they are filled with 'faith/belief'?

The Bible doesn't give us a threshold or anything we can quantify as to how much we should help others, so I can't answer that.

I can only say do whatever the Holy Spirit guides you to do. As far as sin, yes, abstain from sin, obviously.

[POI]

How do you know all the people He was speaking to, in Matthew 25, were present when He was speaking about the necessity for belief/faith in Matt 17 or elsewhere? Is it not possible not all knew that belief/faith was a prerequisite?

A few things..

1. The fact that Jesus had a 3 year earthly ministry...and every single thing that he preached in 3 years wasn't covered in 4 Gospels....which means that what was recorded in the Gospels is probably not even half of what was covered in Jesus' 3 years of preaching work.

2. Jesus also had disciples (besides the 12) that were involving in the preaching work, not including John (and perhaps John's disciples) who were also preaching.

3. Jesus' message had spread for all to hear (in the area), and those who wanted to hear the message would have heard the message.

Your points don't resolve my question. If such a Jesus existed, He traveled from point to point. Not all followed Him. Hence, some would hear some stuff said by Him, and then He would moved on. Not all were getting all details consistently. And I doubt all other necessary messages were making their way back to the ones successfully and reliably, via oral tradition

If John 3:16 was an absolute must, then it seems He would be sure to start every speech with this mantra, as a prerequisite. And not instead hope that such a message would make it all the way back to everyone, before they die Remember, the reason I spotlighted Matt 25, is Jesus was speaking about the criteria for Heaven. If John 3:16 was paramount, then why no mention of it to all?

People come and go. There existed no NT doctrines for anyone to read.

They didn't need the NT, because they had Jesus, his apostles, and his disciples. Why would you need an instruction manual on how to operate a machine if the designer/manufacture of the machine is right there before you?

The NT testament comes in to play after Jesus had ascended to heaven and was no longer present to set things straight...and after all of the apostles had been long gone from the scene.

You've missed my point here. I trust I explained further above?

If anyone asked for the way to salvation, if He did not tell each and every person that belief/faith is the core for salvation, ala Matt 25, some may come away with incomplete information.

LOL. Man, you sure have a lot of beef with Matt 25. What I find astounding is; of all of the alleged cryptic scriptures in the Bible, you choose that one, which to me isn't cryptic at all.

LOL. What is actually funny, is that you cleave to John 3:16 as mandatory. A single Verse. My counter point has ~15 Verses aboutthe necessity for salvation. None of which mention belief. ...And I already prefaced why this passage is significant above.

The Gospels were not canonized until decades/centuries later.

Sure, but the core message was preserved all the way up until then.

Negative. I've explained above...

You have one distinct advantage here... You have a completed Book to pick apart, dissect, and place emphasis upon -- to taste. Jesus was giving differing lessons to differing people.

If your sister isn't present when your mother told you to vacuum the carpet before she got home from work..

And if you aren't present when your mother told your sister to have the dishes washed before she got home from work..

You and your sister (when you both compared notes) could either take it as...

1. Mother's message is contradictory!! She gave us different instructions. She told you to wash the dishes, and she told me to vacuum the carpet. Surely, there must be a glitch within the "what mother told us to do" system.

or, you both can take it as..

2. Mother told you to wash the dishes, and she told me to vacuum the floor before she gets home from work. So lets make sure we have the dishes washed and the carpet vacuumed before she gets home.

I don't know about you and your sister, but I know how me and my sister will interpret the message.

You have given a false analogy.

In your argument, it would be that at least one of those two tasks is compulsory by all. If one does one task, and one does another task, one did not do the compulsory task.

Maybe they must BOTH wash a certain amount of dishes? Your examples does not align, or not analogous....

belief + works (is not equal to) dished + vacuuming

Many may have come away with differing 'messages'. Some are told about belief and baptism alone.

Did Jesus say this?

The real question IS, what did Jesus really say? I know what the Gospel of Mark says here:

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Some are told to sell their goods and follow.

Did Jesus say this? Sure, he told one guy this, but was that meant to be the universal golden standard for following him?

It is easy and take one small piece of scripture and run with it, thereby making an entire doctrine out of it.

That is part of the problem right there.

Negative. He tells would-be followers/disciples---

Luke 14 states:

33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

Now, was this a metaphor of sorts, or, to be taken literal???? Maybe YOU have not given up 'everything'?.?.?.?.?.?.?

Some may have also been merely told they will be judged upon their works alone; and not told about 100% belief/faith.

Once you accept Christ (faith), then good works should follow anyway. The two should be a joint venture, instead of separate concepts.

If you accept Christ and good works are followed, then there should be no issue, should there.

Well, it depends.... A true follower might give up everything? Maybe you do not qualify?

But what you state is not possible. You will lie until you die, regardless of how hard you try not to... I trust you agree there exists no such thing as a 'good' lie, in the eyes of God, right? And yet, we feel justified in all kinds of "lies''; for various well-intended reasons.

I am of the belief that God will judge us based on how much/hard we fought the temptation to sin...and at that point, only God knows what is the threshold from saved/unsaved at that point.

So, if you are a liar (knowing that lying is a sin), how much did you fight the temptation to lie?

As a wise man once said (I think Thomas Aquinas)

"You can't stop a bird from landing on your head, but you can stop it from building a nest (on your head)."

Seems you have missed my point. You stated you must follow His Commandments. Not lying is one of the 10. But you will willfully lie, until you die As a stated prior, I doubt ANY lie is deemed 'good'.

This Verse does not negate my statement. It's fair to say that infants do not possess the ability to ascribe to positive beliefs in god(s). Does Jesus give these folks a free pass? And what about the humans born with severe brain damage? If you are either not yet developed in cognition, or, will never possess the ability to rationalize belief/faith, are these folks given a free pass?

Wait a minute, so you asked about the salvation of infants, and I gave a verse which Jesus states that the kingdom of heaven belongs to children (infants)...yet, the verse does not negate your statement?

Don't know what more you could ask for there. Yes, children and humans born with severe brain damage gets a free pass.

If anyone thinks otherwise, then we obviously have differing views on the character of God/Jesus.

Wait a minute? You stated belief is required. Now you want to argue for exceptions?

Children does not necessarily mean newborns/toddlers/infants.

Furthermore, if you believe anyone, without the capacity for belief, gets a free pass, can you back it up with Verse? And if so, then this AGAIN negates the necessity for belief?.?.?.?.?.?

I would say my belief in everything varies. I would also say my belief in anything falls short of a full 100%. It's possible this entire exercise is a simulation. Hence, I must reserve my perceived shared reality, with you, at a mere 99.99%

How is 100% achieved exactly?

Allow me to explain myself..

My belief in God: 100% absolutely positively

My belief in Jesus: 90%

My faith: It depends. I have 100% faith that Jesus can heal anyone I lay my hands on (in his name)...but I have less faith that he actually will.

Strengthening our faith is what we should thrive for.

I originally stated that 100% belief in Jesus is required, but I changed it to 90% (after thinking about it).

I have about 90% belief that Jesus existed as the Bible illustrates...and I live my life as though he does.

Interesting. Maybe your current faith is not enough? Dare not question the Bible too much more; for you may come away with >90%, moving forward

Let me re-phrase here.... Actions speak louder than words... One can state they are a true-blue Christian. But if they actively break the law, and do not strive to help others as much as they can, "they may not be a true believer?"

Hence, the more one helps others, and the more they abstain from 'sin', the more they are filled with 'faith/belief'?

The Bible doesn't give us a threshold or anything we can quantify as to how much we should help others, so I can't answer that.

I can only say do whatever the Holy Spirit guides you to do. As far as sin, yes, abstain from sin, obviously.

Nice unfalsifiable answer But as I noted above, you CANNOT abstain from sin. Please reference the prior 'lie' examples alone.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's a heck of a lot there and frankly I don't think I could handle a response of that length. But I did not Venom's point about being Christian and not sinning. But the problem there is that we get Christians that have and do sin and use Christianity as the cover. They may even believe it. I'll leave it there as I'd get into areas I wouldn't want to, but this idea that being Christian will somehow stop one sinning is not too reliable, which is why the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy (see 'Not a Real Christian' way of damage limitation) had to be devised and even at the start of Christianity, Paul pushed that same idea in Romans - that becoming a Jesus -believer would somehow turn the Christian into a sinless saint, but in Corinthians he was having to plead with his converts to stop the orgies just because they thought Christianity made them sinless. But he never wanted to know that his Theology had just collapsed, as it seems that this 'Jesus makes you sinless' idea being very unreliable has failed to be understood by believers even today.

[POI]

There's a heck of a lot there and frankly I don't think I could handle a response of that length. But I did not Venom's point about being Christian and not sinning. But the problem there is that we get Christians that have and do sin and use Christianity as the cover. They may even believe it. I'll leave it there as I'd get into areas I wouldn't want to, but this idea that being Christian will somehow stop one sinning is not too reliable, which is why the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy (see 'Not a Real Christian' way of damage limitation) had to be devised and even at the start of Christianity, Paul pushed that same idea in Romans - that becoming a Jesus -believer would somehow turn the Christian into a sinless saint, but in Corinthians he was having to plead with his converts to stop the orgies just because they thought Christianity made them sinless. But he never wanted to know that his Theology had just collapsed, as it seems that this 'Jesus makes you sinless' idea being very unreliable has failed to be understood by believers even today.

The responses there are getting quite lengthy for sure....

We_are_venom presents a multitude of conflicting issues. Not because his logic is necessarily flawed, but because the concept of 'Christianity', regardless of how you want to slice it, is contradictory at it's source.

--- As you state about 'sin'.... He states you should try not to 'sin'. Well, okay...? Then I guess no one would ever make it to heaven. Why? Try to exclude lying from the equation. See how far you get on your job, relationships, and/or virtually any realm. No one would be employed, no one would ever keep a relationship. Maybe this is why the concept of 'grace' was invented? But then, does this mean 'sin' is irrelevant; when bringing up grace?

--- And how about we_are_venom's argument for the necessity for belief? How do dead infants and the severely brain damaged fair? If (s)he has an answer, (s)he must still trip all over themself; by then redacting the necessity for belief.

--- Or how about the arguments for 'works'? Luke 14 clearly tells the reader to give up everything, if you want to follow Him. Well, is this figurative, literal, other?

--- Or how about when Jesus tells a group what it takes to be saved, but does not mention the necessity for belief in His provided teaching?

The list goes on and on....

There looks to be no way to rationally square all the Bible's assertions, with the concept of 'salvation' coherently.

[TRANSPONDER]

Questions that have constantly come up in discussion and for the life of me I can't recall any coherent response other than 'God knows best and all will be made perfectly clear in God's good time', which is at least easy to understand.

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

Your points don't resolve my question.

But they do. If the disciples were going around preaching as Jesus was, then the folks that missed key elements of what Jesus said prior would have gotten it from the disciples at other times.

If such a Jesus existed, He traveled from point to point. Not all followed Him. Hence, some would hear some stuff said by Him, and then He would moved on. Not all were getting all details consistently. And I doubt all other necessary messages were making their way back to the ones successfully and reliably, via oral tradition

Then those people will be judged by God based on the little (of the message) that they did receive, and not what they didn't receive.

Ignorance (willful ignorance) won't be held against us. But knowledge will.

If John 3:16 was an absolute must, then it seems He would be sure to start every speech with this mantra, as a prerequisite. And not instead hope that such a message would make it all the way back to everyone, before they die Remember, the reason I spotlighted Matt 25, is Jesus was speaking about the criteria for Heaven. If John 3:16 was paramount, then why no mention of it to all?

And who is to say that he didn't?

What we have in the Gospels are highlights of what he said over the course of a 3 year ministry.

But even based on what we read, it is clear that his followers had the "This is our guy. He is the one." mentality going on.

So apparently whatever he was saying was enough to draw them in, whether it was recorded in the Gospels or not.

After all, what do you think this was all about..

12 The next day rthe large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem.

13 So they took branches of spalm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, t“Hosanna! Blessed is uhe who comes in the name of the Lord, even vthe King of Israel!”

Sounds like "This is our guy" to me.

You've missed my point here. I trust I explained further above?

No, I get the point. You said "there existed no NT doctrines for anyone to read", and I responded to that by saying you don't need NT doctrines when you have Jesus in your presence. He IS the doctrine.

So you have Jesus on earth and the vicinity for three years...along with his disciples, on nonstop preaching tours throughout the region.

I would like to think that that would be more valuable than written (NT) work.

LOL. What is actually funny, is that you cleave to John 3:16 as mandatory. A single Verse. My counter point has ~15 Verses aboutthe necessity for salvation. None of which mention belief. ...And I already prefaced why this passage is significant above.

And I already responded to that with the real life "Mother said wash the dishes/vacuum the carpet" scenario.

Negative. I've explained above...

Then I must of missed it. The message was preserved.

You have given a false analogy.

In your argument, it would be that at least one of those two tasks is compulsory by all. If one does one task, and one does another task, one did not do the compulsory task.

Maybe they must BOTH wash a certain amount of dishes?

Did Mother say they must BOTH wash a certain amount of dishes? See, you are adding to the scenario and giving hypotheticals when it isn't necessary.

That is part of the problem...and the fact that you are even asking the question, is why there is so much confusion.

It is Satan inspired, which goes back to the event at the Garden of Eden where Eve would rather listen to sideline questions and scenarios instead of simply obeying God.

Your examples does not align, or not analogous....

belief + works (is not equal to) dished + vacuuming

It is analogous. You are the one implying that there is a contradiction between Matt 25 and John 3 because, according to you, two separate groups are given conflicting instructions as to what must be done for salvation.

I am saying do both. In the same way the brother and sister must do both in order to remain in good standing with their parent.

The real question IS, what did Jesus really say? I know what the Gospel of Mark says here:

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

But notice he did not say "whoever does not believe AND ISN'T baptized will be condemned".

Hmmm.

Negative. He tells would-be followers/disciples---

Luke 14 states:

33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

Now, was this a metaphor of sorts, or, to be taken literal???? Maybe YOU have not given up 'everything'?.?.?.?.?.?.?

Obviously, Jesus was speaking in a hyperbole sense.

Because if you take it literally, then what is left after "everything". Nothing, correct?

So disciples of Christ wouldn't even have clothes on their backs, and that is obviously not what Jesus would have intended.

This scripture can be interpreted as you have to be willing to give up everything, even your life, for Christ.

Well, it depends.... A true follower might give up everything? Maybe you do not qualify?

I don't believe it should be interpreted that way...but if I stood along side of you at the judgement seat of Christ, and the question was..

"Who has done more for my kingdom" and the question was posed to both of us..

I am confident that I will be looked at more favorably by God than you would be.

Seems you have missed my point. You stated you must follow His Commandments. Not lying is one of the 10. But you will willfully lie, until you die As a stated prior, I doubt ANY lie is deemed 'good'.

I got your point. As I stated, there is a difference between slipping up and lying every so often...and being a habitual liar.

One is a life long practice, and another one is a mistake you make (or simply walking off the tracks) every so often.

Big difference. Apples and oranges.

Wait a minute? You stated belief is required. Now you want to argue for exceptions?

I shared with you the scriptural reason for the exceptions, which were the words of Jesus. It is his exception, not mines.

Children does not necessarily mean newborns/toddlers/infants.

Mark 10:13

13 People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them.."

Well, I will let you decide what does "little children" mean in this context.

Furthermore, if you believe anyone, without the capacity for belief, gets a free pass, can you back it up with Verse? And if so, then this AGAIN negates the necessity for belief?.?.?.?.?.?

Sure, again...Mark 10:13-16.

Its funny, because if the Bible would have stated that little children or anyone without the capacity for belief will still go to hell for their disbelief, I am sure you would be one of the ones fuming with disgust as to how unfair and how evil God is.

But yet, we have a scripture (and just common sense in general) which clearly states that this is NOT the case, and that is STILL appears to be hard for you to accept.

See, nothing will satisfy folks who think like you. That is why I draw the conclusion that this isn't about belief, it is about the continuing need of a justification as to why you SHOULDN'T believe.

Reminds me of when Christian apologist Frank Turek once said, about how atheists fume over the fact that God allows so much evil in this world....but these same atheists get angry at God when he does something about the evil (exterminating evil nations).

When God lets evil manifests itself (evil people), God is wrong for allowing it...but once he intervenes and put a stop to them/it, now, he is an evil God.

Laughable. Just can't win.

Interesting. Maybe your current faith is not enough? Dare not question the Bible too much more; for you may come away with >90%, moving forward

I said 100% is what we should thrive for, didn't I?

Nice unfalsifiable answer But as I noted above, you CANNOT abstain from sin. Please reference the prior 'lie' examples alone.

I also stated that (in my opinion) it is a matter of how hard we tried to abstain from sin. When sin attacks us, some people fight back. Some fight more than others.

However, some just take the butt whooping with no effort to defend themselves.

Big difference, and God can certainly distinguish between the two.

[TRANSPONDER]

I really ought to stay out of this but I'm obliged to observe that the above Is the problem. our Venomous pal has to excuse, explain, interpret dismiss and make stuff up in order to try to make this work, even though really it doesn't.

Particularly with this idea that the disciples discussed this with people so they get all that they didn't get from Jesus. So why didn't the writers of the Bible get it? Why is there so much that appears to be a directive that you have to Interpret as metaphorical? Why is there so much important theological stuff in John that the others didn't even hint at? Why, in short, did God communicate what was needed in a book so cryptic that it takes a large measure of Faith to not conclude that it is the flawed work of men and is not very convincing?