With reference to our posts on the Atheist's Holy Day Thread, I present the links for easy following, and I also present summaries of the salient points of our exegeses:

Mavenbox: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-363977.32.html#msg5095008

Speaking for Christianity, when a person gets saved by confessing Christ as Saviour, it's the spirit that gets saved. The mind/ soul is not saved YET, but will be eventually renewed as you walk with God.

Deepsight: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-363977.32.html#msg5095027

Before i point out the tragedy of this unfortunate remark, please address it yourself. You're a bright girl, i am sure you see what's wrong with this statement. Go ahead. I am waiting.

Mavenbox: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-363977.32.html#msg5095959

Man is essentially a spirit. He owns a soul, and he lives in a body.

The spirit is what communicates with the divine. The soul is what controls the "gates" of the physical realms (5 senses) and the vast human experience, including emotions, logic and imagination, by virtue of those sensations. The body is the visa for the human being to stay on earth until the visa expires.

The "renewal" of the mind is in the present-continuous tense, and it's purpose is to appropriate God's perfect will. (Rom 12:1-2)
One can "preserve" the soul by faith and reliance on God through Christ Jesus (Heb 10:39)
One can "torture" their own soul by experiencing and/or participating in unholy things. (2 Pe 2:
Before Christ (the last Adam), the human spirit was not active. The spirit was dormant because it is the vital connection to God, and God sought to have that vital connection restored. (John 4:23-24)
So Christ came, and he had the vital connection that enabled life to be restored to the spiritually-dead (1 Cor 15:45)
The spirit is saved BY the life-giving Spirit (Christ), but the soul isn't (yet). many people say "I have saved 10 souls" after they have proselytized to 10 new converts. But in truth, they just saved 10 spirits, which is more important. So how does the soul get saved? By dwelling upon God's Word with a patient disposition to learn (i.e. meekness) and having heard it, doing what it instructs as well. By walking with God. (James 1:21-24, 1 Cor 13:12, Job 7:9)

Jas 1:21  So get rid of all uncleanness and the rampant outgrowth of wickedness, and in a humble (gentle, modest) spirit receive and welcome the Word which implanted and rooted [in your hearts] contains the power to save your souls.

Thus unlike the spirit which has obtained a perfect 100% reconnection with God, the soul needs to be continually nurtured by looking into the "mirror" (the Word of God, see Jas 1:21-24). So the spirit gets saved, but the soul needs a constant renewing.

Then I ended up with an analogy about computer systems and an internet connection a la spirit, soul and body of man.

DeepSight: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-363977.32.html#msg5100619

First off: let me say this: i have no problems whatsoever with the concept of spirit, soul and body that you laid out. ---
So no problems there. My problem is with your description of salvation. ---
Let me ask you what you understand by the word salvation.  And specifically what it entails to attain salvation. ---
In your perspective, it appears that salvation is attained through belief in Jesus Christ and the sacrifice at Golgotha. ---

We are both aware that the inner condition required of a human spirit inorder to attain the living light has always remained the same, and never changed.---and it is my positive conviction that that criteria remains love, love and only love. Love of God, love and wonder at creation, and love of fellow man.

In everything that i read in scripture, i am positively convinced that this is the standard only: and that millions of humans who lived and died without ever knowning of the carpenter from Nazareth called Jesus, still stand firmly in the love of God, and in that very salvation that Jesus preached, on account of their inner disposition and attunement towards love.

In this respect i am at odds with the claims of fanatical and fundamentalist christians (such as Noetic and Davidylan) that persons such as Mahatma Ghandi, who have devoted their entire livies to love of fellow man, and made unspeakable personal sacrifices in their life-long drive to spread peace and human brotherhood, must still stand condemned before God because they did not "accept" Jesus as their personal lord and saviour.

I am of the view that even if such an acceptance of christ is necessary, the definitive mode of "accepting" him - is only through the inculcation of the principle of love. This i believe is open to people of any religion and culture, and if you are interested i can refer you to much scripture even within the New Testament that supports this worldview.

---I do not believe that "confessing" Christ as saviour leads to salvation. And if at all it does, then the mode of confession is not by stating that Jesus is lord, or even by knowing of his existence at all, but by living according to the principle of love that he taught: whether or not one ever knows or acknowledges Jesus of Nazareth the man.

Secondly - and this is the core of my problem with your statement -

  1. What is salvation?

  2. What does it mean to be saved?

  3. Why is it the case that after the "acceptance" of christ, sin continues?

  4. Is the above persistence of sin not clear evidence that the "acceptance" of christ as saviour is meaningless?

  5. Cardinally; what distinguishes between the pre-acceptance state of the spirit and the post-acceptance state of the spirit?

In this your very own words show my case -

Quote by Mavenbox: The mind/ soul is not saved YET, but will be eventually renewed as you walk with God

Thus indicating that renewal comes through walking with God - through love - and regardless of any confession! In other words the "salvation by confession" that you talked about, you yourself have admitted to be useless unless one is able to walk with God! So what kind of salvation is that? Is it not clear from your very own words that the confession is meaningless and that "walking with God" is the real thing to strive for! Get my gist now?

Thus the idea that your "spirit" is saved by a mere "confession" (which any slowpoke can muster) is certainly in my mind dogmatic and reeks of a slavish adherence to an external ritualistic myth. I cannot see that such a "salvation" should take place, and the human being should, to be "saved" (again?) continue in the path of seeking the light: which has always been the true path: namely the path of seeking love. Particularly to make myself clear: i can see that the state of the man pre-confession and the state of the man post-confession are nothing; and spiritually meaningless compared to the state of a man pre-love, and the state of a man post-love; and this latter state has nothing at all to do with knowing the man Jesus, and remains open to people of every race, religion and culture.

Nuff. If you are interested in scripture that supports this worldview, i will oblige.

And herein continues our discussion.---

Still waiting, your patient dog. . .as ever

interesting thread. . . , .watching for updates

I sincerely apologize for the delay, I have been away from the internet for over 24 hours.

This week may be really busy for me, since the nature of my (other) job (besides computer programming) may require my attention at any time at all, and I must comply with no delay. So, with patience, I can explain every single thing I believe about salvation, and hopefully show you from the Bible that your points concerning salvation are wrong.

Unless of course, by your mention of salvation, you are not making reference to the same God who is my Father. In which case this entire argument is moot

To tell you the truth, there are volumes of things that I have come to understand and I can explain by faith, but time is a limitation in this realm. You have asked many questions, and as such my responses will as well be very long. Besides, this topic is very deep, as it is the hinge upon which the Christian faith is borne, so please bear with me (no pun intended) as I type it out in bits whenever I can sneak away to get online.

Having previously established that man is a spirit who owns a soul and lives in a body, I resume my argument.

What is salvation, you ask?
In the Bible, there are many words that are translated salvation, including deliverance, aid, victory, prosperity, protection, help, healing, safety, welfare, rescue (personal, national or spiritual), liberty, defense, etc.

In short, salvation (Greek: soteria) means to be rescued from disadvantage, whether it is in the present or the future. Soteria also means safety from harm, and from death (which are both forms of "disadvantage".

There are three kinds of death:
1. Spiritual death: A separation from God. The word "sin" was used when the Bible was translated into English because "sin" is actually a word employed in archery to describe the error when an arrow misses the bull's eye. So, to SIN is to miss the mark, to miss the target. In this case, the target is God, so to speak. Sin separates us from God, and we have inherited this sin, this separation, from Adam due to his error in Eden.

2. Physical death: A separation of the soul and the body. The human is no longer a valid citizen who can interact with the physical realms. This is one of the attributes of the spiritual death mentioned above.

Gen 3:19  In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

3. Eternal death: At the time one physically dies, their spiritual status (life or death) will indicate whether they are deserving of eternal death or not. Eternal death is an eternal separation from God, a final judgment in which sin will be eternally destroyed. This death is reserved only for the original sinner (lucifer, i.e. the devil) and also the ones who have sworn allegiance to him. This is the final point of spiritual death, separation from God(compare with a man who keeps driving further away from a rock and then falls over the precipice).

Before I explain what salvation entails, I must describe WHY exactly we need to be saved, so that the definition can be clearer. The Old testament is only a fore-shadow of the New Testament. I must outline a profoundly striking difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, since you have made reference to a "salvation" of the OT folk. The OT folk lived in different eras with respect to God's relationship with man, so you cannot generalize. Each OT era had a definition which man kept failing to live by. Each era was emphasized by someone or the other: Adam (Innocence to Conscience), Noah (Conscience to Human Kingdoms), Abraham (Human kingdoms to Promise), Moses (Promise to the Law), Samuel (the Law and the Prophets), David (the Law, the Prophets and the Kingdoms). And then began the New Testament (Grace and Salvation through Christ).

Each era had its own definitions, penalties for sin, and a plan for restoration of the God-Man relationship.

In Eden, Adam and Eve were innocent. That was the era of innocence. On one hand, there was God the Father, the Word and the Spirit of God and the angels who were with them. On the other hand, there was the renegade angel lucifer (who had tried to usurp God's rule and was expelled for insurbordination) and the angels that fought with him against God (one-third of the angelic host Revelations 12:4 and 9). Adam and Eve were on God's side without any argument, but lucifer tempted Eve, telling her that eating the fruit would make her just like God (or gods), which was true, God affirmed it in Gen 3:22.

Gen 3:22  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

But what made the temptation cunning was that just like when the devil tempted Christ Jesus, he quoted the truth but distorted its meaning. He lied by saying they would not die, because they did when they got separated from God. Then he buttressed his point by saying they would be like God, which was true. When Eve ate and gave Adam, man became "like God" i.e. man was no longer on God's side, he now formed a third party beside Good and Evil. He could now delve into either party and join forces with either. But the cunning part was that although man was now supposed to be a third party, what he really did was to enter into lucifer's party, because God had ALREADY instructed them not to eat the fruit. By eating the fruit, they were not on the fence like they wanted to be. Rather, they sold themselves into lucifer's hands. And thus lucifer became the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). It's like colonial rule. Adam and eve sold themselves into spiritual slavery). All the evil in the world today, only little of it will be prevented by God because the devil has inherited the earth. And that is why Christ came, so we can take it back. When we give instructions on earth now, they are held up against lucifer's purposes and they win. Whatever a believer has not appropriated is in the hands of lucifer to do as he wills.
(1Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. )

To prevent the possible existence of another eternal sinner  like lucifer, God didn't want man to eat of the tree of life, so he drove them out of Eden (Gen 3:22-23).

Ever since Moses delivered the Law, there was only one expectation to be in God's good books: a healthy fear of God. God didn't desire it to be like that, but it all started from Adam, too, right after he sinned. He was afraid because he was unclothed, not only physically but it also indicates vulnerability and a loss of innocence.

Gen 3:10  He said, I heard the sound of You [walking] in the garden, and I was afraid because I was unclothed; and I hid myself.
Exo 20:20  And Moses said to the people, Fear not; for God has come to prove you, so that the [reverential] fear of Him may be before you, that you may not sin.

So, the deal was that since man had now come to know good and evil choices (his conscience had been activated), the era of innocence ended and a new era of conscience prevailed. But the nature of evil and sin is like an epidemic, it tends to run out of control. Very soon, man's choice between good and evil tended ALWAYS to evil. It wasn't God's plan either, it was a continuation of Adam's sin.

Gen 6:5  The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6  And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.
Gen 6:7  So the Lord said, I will destroy, blot out, and wipe away mankind, whom I have created from the face of the ground--not only man, [but] the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air--for it grieves Me and makes Me regretful that I have made them.
Gen 6:8  But Noah found grace (favor) in the eyes of the Lord.
Gen 6:9  This is the history of the generations of Noah. Noah was a just and righteous man, blameless in his [evil] generation; Noah walked [in habitual fellowship] with God.

Noah was the reason why God did not blot out mankind entirely (YES. Entirely! I have seen the thread where Viaro and some others are arguing about a global / local flood, and I have concrete evidence for a global flood. Besides, it didn't even need to have been a global flood to wipe out all mankind, because people were not all over the earth in those days till God scattered them at Babel. But that is a digression, I will come back to it on the other thread).

Remember that man was still in the era of choices based on conscience? So God, as JUST as ever, told Noah to tell everyone that a flood was coming to wipe them all out. He gave them a fair chance BASED ON THEIR OWN JUDGMENT. They had a conscience to choose between good and evil, so they could have chosen to enter the Ark to avert the coming evil. But no, they laughed and scorned as Noah built the ark. The flood came and the only humans that survived were those in the Ark. God told Noah to repopulate the earth, and His intentions were such that Noah being a good man would bring up his generations the right way. But Noah made wine, got drunk, and his son (Ham) sodomized him (that's what the Bible means by "he saw his father's unclothedness". "See" there is to approve, discern, and experience for yourself) so Noah cursed him. By Ham (father of Canaan), sin continued to escalate. Throughout Israel's history, Canaan provided more and more trouble. Through him was born Cush, who fathered Nimrod.

Gen 10:8  Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first to be a mighty man on the earth.
Gen 10:9  He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.
Gen 10:10  The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar [in Babylonia].
Gen 10:11  Out of the land he [Nimrod] went forth into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah,
Gen 10:12  And Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah; all these [suburbs combined to form] the great city.

Note that in no place had God ever given any mighty man command over another man? Man chose to assemble into kingdoms and appoint or allow other men to RULE over them. And that's how we entered a new era: The era of human kingdoms, courtesy of Nimrod. As can be expected, idolatry increased because men would worship the mighty men who ruled over them. Whatever Nimrod (and other such sinful rulers) said was the law, so people cast off their consciences and followed their leaders into sin. When they gathered to defy God at Babel, God couldn't take it any more so he scattered them over the earth and confused their language. If they could imagine and carry out ANY task, then sin would multiply again because whatever Nimrod told them to do, they would do in unity against God. When they scattered, they proceeded to spread over the earth, each ones establishing their own kingdoms.

Gen 11:6  And the Lord said, Behold, they are one people and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do, and now nothing they have imagined they can do will be impossible for them.
Gen 11:7  Come, let Us go down and there confound (mix up, confuse) their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Gen 11:8  So the Lord scattered them abroad from that place upon the face of the whole earth, and they gave up building the city.

In that era of human kingdoms, God decided to create a special kingdom who would live for his purposes, since man had decided to segregate into kingdoms. God saw Abraham in the kingdom of Haran, near your of the Chaldees, and he chose him to be the guardian of a promise. Thus man entered an era of promise, and this old man was promised a kingdom beyond imagination, and he believed it. Through him, the Old Covenant was established. Through him, the New Covenant would also be established, but that would be in very many years after man has tried his best and it is evident that man cannot save himself from the sin of Adam, a spiritual separation from God.

This promise was believed and understood by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and then came Joseph whose brothers sold him into slavery such that he ended up in Egypt. Nothing takes God by surprise (he had discussed it with Abraham years ago in Genesis 15:13-16) so he was ready with Moses to lead them out of Egypt (as a physical anti-type of the spiritual salvation of Christ).

And, similar to my statement that began this debate, it took one night to take Israel out of Egypt but it took 40 years to take Egypt out of Israel! And the same way, Jesus saves people spiritually, but like a wound can get healed and scars take long to disappear, many sins they were used to may not just fall off like magic. They have to resist the devil before they watch him flee. And how does one resist the devil? By the Word of God! And the Word of God can no one fully appropriate unless they have the Spirit of God. Love, that you mentioned, is a fruit of the regenerated human spirit; it is not the initial pathway, it is an offshoot of salvation. No one can love (God's definition) unless they are saved.

Thus the Law was insitituted. Rules and laws were declared to enforce such fear, and to an extent it worked for most people. Just like a number of people would be criminals if not for the fear of the laws dealing with those crimes. Such fear would keep people from sinning, but it didn't really work because the fear of someone that you cannot see (God), cannot ALWAYS be with you as much as that of someone you can see. There had to be another way.

Two other eras followed in rapid succession: the Law and the Prophets, where the Prophets were the voice of God, and they helped to deal with circumstances where the Israelites couldn't handle by the Law because of their hard hearts; and the Law, Prophets and Kingdoms where Israel clamoured for kings like other world kingdoms. They started with Saul, then David and so on. I glossed over those two eras because the same spiritual dispensation covers both: The LAW!

As to Elijah, I will discuss more in my next post. Elijah did not go to heaven. None of the people up until the Thief on the Cross went to heaven. They went to paradise, a special place of hibernation as they waited for Christ's day. For the Jews, that place was referred to as Abraham's bosom, since Abraham was the first of the Jews. Jesus Christ did not go to heaven either, until he rose on that third day and made a shameful mockery of the devil and set open the gates of heaven for all mankind. All Hail! More on that later,

Before my next post (tonight or tomorrow), I want you to see these verses concerning this "Gospel of Salvation by Love" that you claim:

Love is the greatest, no doubt about that.
1Co 13:13  And so faith, hope, love abide [faith--conviction and belief respecting man's relation to God and divine things; hope--joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation; love--true affection for God and man, growing out of God's love for and in us], these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Who can actually walk in love? It is he who treasures God's Word and observes His message in its entirety. Ghandi is thus disqualified.
1Jn 2:5  But he who keeps (treasures) His Word [who bears in mind His precepts, who observes His message in its entirety], truly in him has the love of and for God been perfected (completed, reached maturity). By this we may perceive (know, recognize, and be sure) that we are in Him:

How can Gandhi really walk in love if he did not keep Christ's commands?
Joh 14:21  The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who [really] loves Me; and whoever [really] loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I [too] will love him and will show (reveal, manifest) Myself to him. [I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him.]

Joh 15:9  I have loved you, [just] as the Father has loved Me; abide in My love [continue in His love with Me].
How does the Father love?
Rom 5:8  But God shows and clearly proves His [own] love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) died for us.

This indicates that the death of Christ is what God's Love hinges on. It's not the death of a miserable carpenter, it's the death of the given Son of God to redeem man from his sin.

The Eternal plan of Salvation (a summary of this entire post)

Rom 5:10  For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, it is much more [certain], now that we are reconciled, that we shall be saved (daily delivered from sin's dominion) through His [resurrection] life.
Rom 5:11  Not only so, but we also rejoice and exultingly glory in God [in His love and perfection] through our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom we have now received and enjoy [our] reconciliation. [Jer. 9:24.]
Rom 5:12  Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned.
Rom 5:13  [To be sure] sin was in the world before ever the Law was given, but sin is not charged to men's account where there is no law [to transgress].
Rom 5:14  Yet death held sway from Adam to Moses [the Lawgiver], even over those who did not themselves transgress [a positive command] as Adam did. Adam was a type (prefigure) of the One Who was to come [in reverse, the former destructive, the Latter saving]. [Gen. 5:5; 7:22; Deut. 34:5.]
Rom 5:15  But God's free gift is not at all to be compared to the trespass [His grace is out of all proportion to the fall of man]. For if many died through one man's falling away (his lapse, his offense), much more profusely did God's grace and the free gift [that comes] through the undeserved favor of the one Man Jesus Christ abound and overflow to and for [the benefit of] many.
Rom 5:16  Nor is the free gift at all to be compared to the effect of that one [man's] sin. For the sentence [following the trespass] of one [man] brought condemnation, whereas the free gift [following] many transgressions brings justification (an act of righteousness).
Rom 5:17  For if because of one man's trespass (lapse, offense) death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive [God's] overflowing grace (unmerited favor) and the free gift of righteousness [putting them into right standing with Himself] reign as kings in life through the one Man Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).

Rom 5:18  Well then, as one man's trespass [one man's false step and falling away led] to condemnation for all men, so one Man's act of righteousness [leads] to acquittal and right standing with God and life for all men.
Rom 5:19  For just as by one man's disobedience (failing to hear, heedlessness, and carelessness) the many were constituted sinners, so by one Man's obedience the many will be constituted righteous (made acceptable to God, brought into right standing with Him).
Rom 5:20  But then Law came in, [only] to expand and increase the trespass [making it more apparent and exciting opposition]. But where sin increased and abounded, grace (God's unmerited favor) has surpassed it and increased the more and superabounded,
Rom 5:21  So that, [just] as sin has reigned in death, [so] grace (His unearned and undeserved favor) might reign also through righteousness (right standing with God) which issues in eternal life through Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) our Lord.

I will continue in the next post. 

Maven, that's a whole epistle you wrote there.

I am entirely disatisfied with your points.

Rather than pick them to bits, for the sake of brevity i will focus only on a few at a time.

mavenbox:

I must outline a profoundly striking difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, since you have made reference to a "salvation" of the OT folk. The OT folk lived in different eras with respect to God's relationship with man, so you cannot generalize. Each OT era had a definition which man kept failing to live by.

Each era had its own definitions, penalties for sin, and a plan for restoration of the God-Man relationship.

Ever since Moses delivered the Law, there was only one expectation to be in God's good books: a healthy fear of God.

Remember that man was still in the era of choices based on conscience?

Have a look at the bits of text i have selected above from your epistle.

Do you realize that your very clear surmise is that God routinely changes the criteria for communion with him?

Is that noit suggestive of imperfection? Is pure divinity capable of such?

Do you not debase God with this suggestion?

Do you realize that when you talk about an era of choices based on conscience you insinuate that God has only made things far more difficult today: to wit: whereas the ancient man living in your so called "era of choices based on Conscience" only had to follow the disctates of his conscience to be saved, the arrival of christ on the scene has complicated things by introducing a fresh requirement: namely that all men, regardless of their cultural backgrounds must believe that a carpenter who lived in Galilee 2000 years ago is their lord and personal saviour. Barring this, no salvation for anybody.

I hope you realize how bizzarre and ritualistically dogmatic this sounds.

Besides are you not able to sense that God can by no means expect all men to dovetail into the same religion or culture. He can only provide conscience as a guide.

I positively assert that your characterization of Divinity as an element that changes is theologically, scripturally and philosophically wrong: as Divinity being perfect is incapable of change, much less the sort of change whereby the criteria for salvation is constantly changed. I state to you that you dishonour and insult God by making this suggestion.

Might i ask you what you might think if there happen to be intelligent beings living in other parts of the cosmos. Would you suggest to me that such beings must also accept the carpenter from Israel in this world to be "saved". . .? ? ? ? ? ?

Broaden your thoughts.

How can Gandhi really walk in love if he did not keep Christ's commands?

With this statement i am certain that you are not familiar with the life and times of Mahatma Ghandi. I will therefore urge you to do some research online about him before reverting to me.

I will also urge you to compare his life and disposition to the commands Christ set forth within the beatitudes.

And as an aside, maybe you should also ponder on the beatitudes. Because they set forth very clearly the qualities required to be saved.

All of which Ghandi had in massive amounts.

Deep Sight:

With this statement i am certain that you are not familiar with the life and times of Mahatma Ghandi. I will therefore urge you to do some research online about him before reverting to me.

I will also urge you to compare his life and disposition to the commands Christ set forth within the beatitudes.

And as an aside, maybe you should also ponder on the beatitudes. Because they set forth very clearly the qualities required to be saved.

All of which Ghandi had in massive amounts.

 
Oga dearest Deepsight, haven't we already been over the Ghandi thing? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-361617.32.html#msg5065947

No we haven't for you have offered me nothing that will contradict the beatitudes.

For it is explicitly stated -

The meek. The text says that they will "inherit the earth".

The merciful. The text says that they will "obtain mercy".

The pure of heart. The text says that they will "see God".

The peacemakers. The text says that they will be called "the sons of God".

Thus making very clear indeed the sort of qualities required for salvation - all of which Ghandi scores very highly in, certainly much more highly than the plethora of Pastors in Nigeria who many may preseume are "heaven bound."

I strongly dislike it, and it makes me shudder that people can be so ritualistically dogmatic as to imagine that men of sincere hearts and minds, of compassion and goodwill, cannot be accepted by God on account of some Jewish ritual.

You debase and dishonour God.

Deepsight, I am off the pc once again. Im mobile now and even T9 isnt so nice. Proper replies tomorrow. As for the long gist, i wanted to be sure that you and all other readers do not misunderstand me at all, since your question is deep. After all, as Jesoul said, all of this has been discussed in the past, and truthfully one such thread with you and Davidylan was where i 1st saw you on Nairaland. But my own method is to teach as if we are in kindergarten, so that even if afterwards you still do not agree, the evidence will be there for those who will have questions in years to come.

God never changed the criteria. He is indeed perfect. His purposes are gradually revealed to man because we cannot comprehend it all at once. His purpose has always been Jesus, and the Bible says the law was a schoolmaster to train people in preparation for Grace. Jesus is a fulfilment of all the eras, and it wasnt God changing the rules, it was Adam and all his sinful seed. God never moved, as the Bible says Christ is the lamb of God who was slain before the foundations of the earth. THAT HAD ALWAYS BEEN THE PLAN. But man thought he was wise in his own eyes and he kept trying to do right by himself.

If Aliens exist, God didnt mention then cos they are not our business. The Aliens you mention do not need Jesus because Adam was not one of them. They didnt inherit the sin from Adam so they dont need to inherit salvation from Christ.

I studied Ghandi when i was a teenager. I actually like the guy. What a hero. In hell? I do not know. But if he knew of Christ and ignored his excuse, he is enduring hell, i know. If he did not know, then God will deal with him justly, by measures known only to him. But he knew. As YOU do too. Good thing you are still alive, Deepsight.

Update: the beatitudes? That was before Christ was sacrificed, you know? Same reason the thief on the cross entered paradise. But now the paradise project is closed. The keys to heaven and hell are in the same hands: that of Jesus. Choose.

More later. And i havent even answered your other questions,

@ Deepsight

I feel for u. . .ur soul must be troubled.
This is probably the 100th time u are bringing up this Ghandi issue.

noetic15:

@ Deepsight

I feel for u. . .your soul must be troubled.
This is probably the 100th time u are bringing up this Ghandi issue.

Deep Sight:

No we haven't for you have offered me nothing that will contradict the beatitudes.

For it is explicitly stated -

The meek. The text says that they will "inherit the earth".

The merciful. The text says that they will "obtain mercy".

The pure of heart. The text says that they will "see God".

The peacemakers. The text says that they will be called "the sons of God".

Thus making very clear indeed the sort of qualities required for salvation - all of which Ghandi scores very highly in, certainly much more highly than the plethora of Pastors in Nigeria who many may preseume are "heaven bound."

I strongly dislike it, and it makes me shudder that people can be so ritualistically dogmatic as to imagine that men of sincere hearts and minds, of compassion and goodwill, cannot be accepted by God on account of some Jewish ritual.

You debase and dishonour God.

I agree with deepsight here, christian dogma has made most of us miss the reall point and message in the gospel of Jesus.

JeSoul:

 
Oga dearest Deepsight, haven't we already been over the Ghandi thing? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-361617.32.html#msg5065947

The problem with this approach which I totally agree with, as it happens, is that it exposes a glaring short-coming in the christianity project.

Man is not made righteous by works.

Man is made righteous by Faith in the sacrifice of Christ.

Now the question is: How many human beings do we know that, after having cerebrally accepted the fact of christ's sacrifice, have actually become more righteous humans, more loving, have actually become a new creation. Has this happened to you JeSoul, has it happened to you Noetic, has it happened to any one in your church or in your neighbourhood? Is there anyone in your religious community that you could stand side by side with Gandhi and say that they are indeed paragons of a loving heart?

I don't know how else to emphasise that the redemption is actually a real event that occurs and not just an intellectual notion that can be accepted or dismissed. Everybody experiences Hunger and after eating satiation. However they want to call the experience is up to them but when a hungry man sees food he is not gonna care what you call it or how you articulate it.

I know too many people that make a big deal of professing your formula for redemption (JeSoul) and I have seen nothing redeemed in them. Now if this was a product being sold in the market, by now someone would have called in the Office of Fair Trading to come and arrest you for duping people. There is no evidence for the claims you make of your product.

AIO and KunleOshob have missed the entire point. The fact that there are phony Nigerians does not make us all fraudsters. If there are professed Xtians who do not walk in love, then their faith without works is dead and their reward is sure. Deepsight's point is that salvation has nothing to do with the man Jesus, and if at all it does, it is only about his teachings on love.
That is what God is all about with respect to man: his son dying in our place so as to discharge and acquit us. Jesus death was not a coincidence after he taught on walking in love, as Deepsight would have us believe. THAT WAS THE PLAN FOR SALVATION. The same way Adam went from disobedience to walking in sin to death, Jesus went from obedience to walking in love to life. Its a very simple equation but it is unpalatable to those who are perishing. If one denies THAT simple spiritual equation of Jesus being the last Adam, then that one denies salvation for himself! On earth today there are two types of man with two types of life: Adam and Christ. As long as you have ever heard of Christ, the Adam project for you has been shut down, and you need to choose life or death. Your works wont count for anything until you are in Christ.
Its dead easy. Adam CHOSE to obey Satan's counsel and sin, THUS man inherited sin, Jesus CHOSE to obey God's counsel and be without sin, THUS man inherited life through him. But since all men came through Adam's choice, all men need to come through Jesus' choice too in order to be saved! It does not stop there, for Jesus also had to die in place of ALL the Adam seed. The love that we can walk in, is as a consequence of salvation. Those who walk in love before men and knew of Christ and didnt switch to that line will be judged based on Adam's sin, which they inherited.
I can explain and make it even simpler, but i dont think that is necessary because i notice its often the more intelligent people who dont understand this. Making it simpler wont help them.

mavenbox:

AIO and KunleOshob have missed the entire point. The fact that there are phony Nigerians does not make us all fraudsters. If there are professed Xtians who do not walk in love, then their faith without works is dead and their reward is sure. Deepsight's point is that salvation has nothing to do with the man Jesus, and if at all it does, it is only about his teachings on love.
That is what God is all about with respect to man: his son dying in our place so as to discharge and acquit us. Jesus death was not a coincidence after he taught on walking in love, as Deepsight would have us believe. THAT WAS THE PLAN FOR SALVATION. The same way Adam went from disobedience to walking in sin to death, Jesus went from obedience to walking in love to life. Its a very simple equation but it is unpalatable to those who are perishing. If one denies THAT simple spiritual equation of Jesus being the last Adam, then that one denies salvation for himself! On earth today there are two types of man with two types of life: Adam and Christ. As long as you have ever heard of Christ, the Adam project for you has been shut down, and you need to choose life or death. Your works wont count for anything until you are in Christ.
Its dead easy. Adam CHOSE to obey Satan's counsel and sin, THUS man inherited sin, Jesus CHOSE to obey God's counsel and be without sin, THUS man inherited life through him. But since all men came through Adam's choice, all men need to come through Jesus' choice too in order to be saved! It does not stop there, for Jesus also had to die in place of ALL the Adam seed. The love that we can walk in, is as a consequence of salvation. Those who walk in love before men and knew of Christ and didnt switch to that line will be judged based on Adam's sin, which they inherited.
I can explain and make it even simpler, but i dont think that is necessary because i notice its often the more intelligent people who dont understand this. Making it simpler wont help them.

Very good

Actually No! I haven't missed the point at all, I know the point you are trying to press very well and I have even pressed it myself in the past.  What I am saying is that the point is spurious.  It is complete utter rubbish.  And you are doing the predictable obvious, despicable, cowardly thing that is done when you try to put the blame on nigeria and nigerians.  I never mentioned anything about nigerians.  

Forget about nigeria, where have you seen or met any human being whether from Hong Kong o, whether from Azerbaijan o, whether from Ecuador, whether from papua new guinea, whether from north pole or south pole  . . . , where have you met any human being that was transformed into a love filled individual by professing the spurious nonsense you've written about at such great (and tediously tiresome) length.   Where?  

I'm not talking about some christians falling short of the mark.  No, I've asked for one, uno, eni, un, which ever language you like to say it, that has become a paragon of loving virtue as a result of getting and not 'missing the entire point' as you put it.  
By the way that is such a pathetic way to argue.  so and so does not agree with me so therefore he doesn't get it, he doesn't understand me.  poor me!  That comes from an arrogance that does not admit that you might be wrong and that is why there is no agreement.  

Back to the matter of Nigerians and fraudsters.  The fact that there are phony nigerians does not make us all fraudsters, i agree, but you ,my dear, [b]ARE [/b]a fraudster.  I said previously that if what you are touting is a product being sold in any market you would have been lynched by now, forget about the Office or Fair Trading, or even Nigeria's own EFCC.  You are making a claim for your product that has no experiential basis.  Your entire scherade is based using long assed convoluted arguments to hoodwink people and then you try to use some kind of intellectual superiority to say that those that don't fall for it don't get it.  

Where is the Power and the Truth in the message?  there is none, only spurious debating.

And furthermore I don't think you know the premises for the whole Jesus is the last Adam point.
Let me just stop now, before this becomes an extended rant.  I don't know where to start or finish with you, to be honest.

Na wa for this AIO guy. Did you Really read what i wrote? The organization may be faulty cos im not wit my laptop now, im using my phone.

When I mentioned Nigeria, could you not see that i was not referring to Nigeria as you have now assumed? I was saying the same way you cant judge a book by its cover and say all Nigerians (or Japanese or russians or Eskimos or Italians, who cares?) are the same, you shouldnt say all Christians are the same. Always try to read through my posts before you start tearing it apart, ok? Maybe you have been rolling with the wrong people, so you keep peddling the lies that you have not met any Christian who was the better for it. I know very many, and time will tell all the more over time. Besides, i can speak for myself, who used to worship idols before i became a Christian as a teenager. You do not know me in reality so starting to pursue the differences in my life is a moot point right now. If you used to be a pastor and this is what you have become, it is only evident that you never got it at all in the first case. Or how can a human being decide to abandon the human life and become a sparrow? If you truly had the life of God, you wouldnt have abandoned it. Its people like you that you must have been referring to when you said people accept Christ and they are not changed. I guess thats what people who used to know you and now look at you from afar will say of you now. Pity.

mavenbox:

Maybe you have been rolling with the wrong people, so you keep peddling the lies that you have not met any Christian who was the better for it.

Maven: he did not say there are no christians who are the better for being christians. He challenges you to point out ONE who is the better for the dogma of "confessing" Jesus or accepting him as lord and personal saviour.

He means to say that that is not what makes anybody a better person. Love and goodness of volition does.

Deepsight,

surely you must see a contradiction with you cherry picking only the beatitudes as the criteria for salvation whereas there are tons of other verses that say one must believe in Jesus as the son of God and accept His sacrifice to be saved?

You cannot pick only one "Jewish dogma" from the entire scriptures and ignore the other ones that don't support and even contradict your position.

It was the same Jesus that taught the Beatitudes that taught in John 3:17 "He who doesn't believe is condemned already".

mavenbox:

Na wa for this AIO guy. Did you Really read what i wrote? The organization may be faulty cos im not wit my laptop now, im using my phone.

When I mentioned Nigeria, could you not see that i was not referring to Nigeria as you have now assumed? I was saying the same way you cant judge a book by its cover and say all Nigerians (or Japanese or russians or Eskimos or Italians, who cares?) are the same, you shouldnt say all Christians are the same. Always try to read through my posts before you start tearing it apart, ok? Maybe you have been rolling with the wrong people, so you keep peddling the lies that you have not met any Christian who was the better for it. I know very many, and time will tell all the more over time. Besides, i can speak for myself, who used to worship idols before i became a Christian as a teenager. You do not know me in reality so starting to pursue the differences in my life is a moot point right now. If you used to be a pastor and this is what you have become, it is only evident that you never got it at all in the first case. Or how can a human being decide to abandon the human life and become a sparrow? If you truly had the life of God, you wouldnt have abandoned it. Its people like you that you must have been referring to when you said people accept Christ and they are not changed. I guess thats what people who used to know you and now look at you from afar will say of you now. Pity.

Okay o, you've made a claim and yes you're right I don't know you so I cannot comment.  However I, unlike you, have been involved in christianity all my life and I have seen no evidence that one becomes love filled by accepting an argument.  

I supposed you're gonna tell us that you pick up snakes too.  Again I can't argue with that as I do not know you.

But I warn anybody that might be taken in by you that your posts are fraudulent.  Forget about throwing personal insults or people looking at me and saying 'pity' or whatever.  All that I know and can interact with is the posts that you put up and I repeat, your posts are fraudulent and I've seen no evidence of the claims that you are making.  I put it to you that you cannot demonstrate your claims.  

Perhaps, since we don't know each other, you could point me out a famous christian that everyone knows that you can set vis a vis Gandhi and show how the christian is a paragon of loving virtue due to having grasped the point that I so sadly continue to miss.  

Let me repeat yet again, and I am not peddling lies (that in itself is a lie from you, I'm sure your pants much have burnt to a cinder by now)  I have not met, neither do I know of any christian that is better (by which I mean loving-hearted) due to having accepted the articles of faith of any christian denomination.  

You know what?  Just out of curiosity can you give us an anecdote of someone whose heart was filled with love when they realised, 'Aah!  Jesus is the second Adam and he died so I'm going to heaven'.  Forget about whether or not I'll believe you, I just wanna hear a good story.

JeSoul:

Deepsight,

surely you must see a contradiction with you cherry picking only the beatitudes as the criteria for salvation whereas there are tons of other verses that say one must believe in Jesus as the son of God and accept His sacrifice to be saved?

You cannot pick only one "Jewish dogma" from the entire scriptures and ignore the other ones that don't support and even contradict your position.

It was the same Jesus that taught the Beatitudes that taught in John 3:17 "He who doesn't believe is condemned already".

But he made clear what belief entails. He made clear that belief is demonstrated by obeying his commands of love.

So that's belief, Jesoul. . .

Hang on, i have two powerful scriptures for you on this. . .

Pastor AIO:
Now the question is: How many human beings do we know that, after having cerebrally accepted the fact of christ's sacrifice, have actually become more righteous humans, more loving, have actually become a new creation.

Are you saying you've never seen any? I have.

I see the issue you're presenting, BUT all I'm asking is that you or Deepsight prove from the scriptures that this:

Man is not made righteous by works.
Man is made righteous by Faith in the sacrifice of Christ.

  - is false, untrue and is not the way to salvation put forth in explicit terms by the scriptures. Shikena.

Whether or not man has fallen short, you don't see them live up to the standard or they doesn't express love or live out their faith is of no consequence. The bottomline is this, is this the formula for salvation Jesus Himself taught or not?

 cos I have a huge problem with this next statement you made calling it "Jesoul's formula":  

I know too many people that make a big deal of professing your formula for redemption (JeSoul) and I have seen nothing redeemed in them. Now if this was a product being sold in the market, by now someone would have called in the Office of Fair Trading to come and arrest you for duping people. There is no evidence for the claims you make of your product.

 Again, I didn't write any scriptures, I simply quoted them. Or does John 3:17 not exist in your copy?

The fact that perhaps in PastorAIO's world, he has seen no christians living out the faith of Jesus in works, actions, deeds, love etc surely does not become rule, true and standard everywhere else in the world that there are no christians who trust in their faith to save them, but also have works of love and righteousness?

  I'm not advocating simply a profession of faith I have never done that anywhere as that's not what the bible teaches - I stated explicitly on the other thread this profession of faith without works of righteousness is infact dead and cannot save.

Deep Sight:

But he made clear what belief entails. He made clear that belief is demonstrated by obeying his commands of love.

So that's belief, Jesoul. . .

Hang on, i have two powerful scriptures for you on this. . .

  Lol . . . your powerful scriptures? Acts 10:34?

You can post verse after verse my dearest Deepsight, but it will not overshadow or negate the biblical fact that "belief in Jesus" is not just to do works of love - but is first and foremost to accept we are sinful and are in need of a savior - this is belief in Jesus as taught by the bible.

  all the works of love and righteousness will naturally follow this, not the other way round. And attempting to put the carriage before th horse in this case is tantamount to Is 64:6.

JeSoul:

Lol . . . your powerful scriptures? Acts 10:34?

Yes i know you are happy to dismiss that scripture laughingly and with a wave of the hand simply because it does not suit your dogma. Who's cherry-picking now?

"belief in Jesus" is not just to do works of love

Let me give you a poser. Do you realize that if you go to rural india now and start preaching this gospel of yours to native hindus, your assertion will sound nothing short of bizzarre to them. Occultic, even.

Will you assert to me that honest, sincere and simple-minded individuals amongst them (who according to you lot would have been merrily on their way to heaven since they had not heard of Jesus) would suddenly stand condemned on account of the fact that the word you have brought to them is so drastically alien that it means nothing to them?

If that is the case, you will do more good to such people by refraining from preaching your gospel to them, so that they may be judged on conscience, as your gospel comes with a terrible and draconian weight - to wit - believe that my carpenter died for your sins or guess what - you are going to hell! _{And to hell with the fact that you are a good, kind, compassionate, loving, honest lover of your fellow-man; how dare you refuse to believe that my carpenter is God, and he died for your sins. Oya, staright to hell!}

AIO, having established you as another blind discussant, screaming "lies" without proof and claiming that im a fraud when you dont know jack about me, i just relegated you to a growing list of NL religion folk (headed by Olabowale) that i wont respond to most of the time. Even Jesus didnt answer all the questions asking him to prove himself. I owe you nothing. And nothing more on this topic.


I can hardly wait to leave this field &get on a PC so i can stop this T9 joke. JeSoul summarizes for me again. What wisdom! Let me add, DeepSight, these questions;
1. What does it mean to be a Christian and how does one get it?
2. Is there any difference between Gandhi's teaching and the Gospel of Christ? What are the differences between these hard teachings?
3. The beatitudes was a hard teaching. But was it fundamental, i.e. Can one start out by being pure in heart, meek, or peaceful just of itself, or did Gandhi do it all because he felt like it? Can any human being for the sake of it assume those traits? If so, is there any prerequisite?

Please, I need to know . .

If  God is Love . . .

How can an ungodly man practice Love?

JeSoul:


Are you saying you've never seen any? I have.

Mind you, I'm not saying that I haven't seen a christian that didn't practice love.  I'm saying that I haven't seen a christian that due to accepting the doctrines that you and mavenbox espouse have practiced love.  The correlation that I question is between accepting the doctrine and becoming filled with love.

Man is not made righteous by works.
Man is made righteous by Faith in the sacrifice of Christ.

While in a sense I accept what you said above, I believe that a) I understand it differently to you, and b) that John 3:17 does not mention a sacrifice of any sort.  Earlier verses do mention that the son shall be lifted up like the serpent, and that is the closest thing in the whole passage that can be taken to mean his sacrifice on the cross (but by really forcing the issue).  However that is not to say that I don't accept the sacrifice.

noetic15:

@ Deepsight

I feel for u. . .your soul must be troubled.
This is probably the 100th time u are bringing up this Ghandi issue.

Deepsight, you made reference to the fact that you do not know many Christians who, by accepting Christ, became a better person? What does a Better Person mean? Who is the judge? Do you remember the man who fulfilled all the law since childhood, including love, and Jesus asked him to sell all he had and follow him but he couldnt? He had fulfilled all human law but that was nothing before God. So, what are the standards for being good? Is it when you give your best to help people, or when you give all, or when you die in the process? If love is the prerequisite for salvation, how much love? How do we know Gandhi hit the mark and didnt stop at 20% because of the human limitations? What is the measure? What are the limits that guarantee a pass mark? Can we know, since God is the judge to weigh out our measures of love or is mankind doomed then?

mavenbox:

AIO, having established you as another blind discussant, screaming "lies" without proof and claiming that im a fraud when you dont know jack about me, i just relegated you to a growing list of NL religion folk (headed by Olabowale) that i wont respond to most of the time. Even Jesus didnt answer all the questions asking him to prove himself. I owe you nothing. And nothing more on this topic.


I can hardly wait to leave this field &get on a PC so i can stop this T9 joke. JeSoul summarizes for me again. What wisdom! Let me add, DeepSight, these questions;
1. What does it mean to be a Christian and how does one get it?
2. Is there any difference between Gandhi's teaching and the Gospel of Christ? What are the differences between these hard teachings?
3. The beatitudes was a hard teaching. But was it fundamental, i.e. Can one start out by being pure in heart, meek, or peaceful just of itself, or did Gandhi do it all because he felt like it? Can any human being for the sake of it assume those traits? If so, is there any prerequisite?

Suit yourself.  First I was too stupid to understand your formula and now I'm just blind.  Well done!!

What else?  Oh, I scream lies.  It was only 3 or so post ago when you called me a liar, saying I was peddling lies.  It is in response to this that I called you a liar since you can make such a statement without even knowing me.  Oh yeah, and people look at me and think, 'pity'.  ooor, poor me, I'm so pitiful.  I'm pitiful, stupid and blind, because I can't grasp the wonderful beautiful smart Mavenbox's arguments.  Oh spare me glorious Mavenbox for I am but a pitiful soul in need of your maven abilities to dispense the wonderful theology of the heavenly realms to enrich my destitute estate.  Your gracious majesty, do spare me from relegation to the Olabowale heap ( Olabowale?  that's actually scary, no joke!) , it is true, I am unworthy.  
I shouldn't have said it was a lie that you could tell that I'm lying by saying I never saw the correlation.
I shouldn't have called your posts fraudulent for  making claims that you cannot demonstrate.
I should have just accepted your insults like the poor pitieous wretch vermin of a worm that I am.  
O spare me, spare me, great Mavenbox.  Show mercy, I beseech thee.

Deep Sight:

Yes i know you are happy to dismiss that scripture laughingly and with a wave of the hand simply because it does not suit your dogma. Who's cherry-picking now?

  Emi ke? cherry pick? I hold every consonant, syllable, vowel, comma and period in greatest of regards. I have addressed Acts 10 fully on the other thread and showed you how it does infact go hand in hand with John 3:17, the beatitudes and every other verse.

 But you're still standing there, feet dugg firmly in the mudd, armed with the beatitudes, fending off every other verse that contradicts your position.

 I don't mean to argue with you my husband, I'm simply saying "this is what the bible teaches", by all means if you'd like to believe otherwise it is your certainly your God-given perogative. I'm simply saying don't say the bible only teaches the beatitudes is the way because it doesn't.

Let me give you a poser. Do you realize that if you go to rural india now and start preaching this gospel of yours to native hindus, your assertion will sound nothing short of bizzarre to them. Occultic, even.

 I agree 1000%. 1Cor 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God

Will you assert to me that honest, sincere and simple-minded individuals amongst them (who according to you lot would have been merrily on their way to heaven since they had not heard of Jesus) would suddenly stand condemned on account of the fact that the word you have brought to them is so drastically alien that it means nothing to them?

If that is the case, you will do more good to such people by refraining from preaching your gospel to them, so that they may be judged on conscience, as your gospel comes with a terrible and draconian weight - to wit - believe that my carpenter died for your sins or guess what - you are going to hell! _{And to hell with the fact that you are a good, kind, compassionate, loving, honest lover of your fellow-man; how dare you refuse to believe that my carpenter is God, and he died for your sins. Oya, staright to hell!}

I don't think I've ever asserted such a thing.

I have consistently maintained FAITH in God is what saves. There are scores of non-christians, non-jews lauded in the scriptures for their faith . . . they never had the Torah, never knew who Jesus was yet expressed the kind of faith in God that He requires.

Those who heard the gospel, understood it and still chose instead to hold onto their works - instead of faith in God/Christ - are the ones the bible condemns.

Pastor AIO:

Mind you, I'm not saying that I haven't seen a christian that didn't practice love.  I'm saying that I haven't seen a christian that due to accepting the doctrines that you and mavenbox espouse have practiced love.  The correlation that I question is between accepting the doctrine and becoming filled with love.

  There you go again.
  Is this the gospel of Maven and Jesoul and Noetic? or the Gospel of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John? please direct the credit to the proper authority.

  Overall, I'm not so sure we're saying completely different things. I have not now nor ever said a doctrine is what saves, please show me a quote where I insinuated such? so please don't dash me wetin I nor do. I have said FAITH FAITH and FAITH in Christ - which must lead to good works is what justifies and saves.

While in a sense I accept what you said above, I believe that a) I understand it differently to you, and b) that John 3:17 does not mention a sacrifice of any sort.  Earlier verses do mention that the son shall be lifted up like the serpent, and that is the closest thing in the whole passage that can be taken to mean his sacrifice on the cross (but by really forcing the issue).  However that is not to say that I don't accept the sacrifice. 

Forgive me, I meant John 3:18.
And Pastor please kindly read this thread to see where I stand, cos it seems in your beef against pentecostalism you're lumping everyone into the same box.   https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-361617.32.html#msg5065947

I said you were screaming "lies" meaning that you were screaming that i was lying. Wait, did you see those quotation marks i.e. "lies". Do you now see why I said you were a blind discussant? It was not a slight on you. Unlike DeepSight and just like Olabowale, You dont read carefully before you respond. Apologies for taking your time with my long post.

@Topic: today we are comparing Gandhi and Christ a la salvation. Sometime in the future, maybe men will worship Job for his longsuffering. He was a good man too.

Deep Sight:

No we haven't for you have offered me nothing that will contradict the beatitudes.

For it is explicitly stated -

The meek. The text says that they will "inherit the earth".

The merciful. The text says that they will "obtain mercy".

The pure of heart. The text says that they will "see God".

The peacemakers. The text says that they will be called "the sons of God".

Thus making very clear indeed the sort of qualities required for salvation - all of which Ghandi scores very highly in, certainly much more highly than the plethora of Pastors in Nigeria who many may preseume are "heaven bound."

I strongly dislike it, and it makes me shudder that people can be so ritualistically dogmatic as to imagine that men of sincere hearts and minds, of compassion and goodwill, cannot be accepted by God on account of some Jewish ritual.

You debase and dishonour God.

how could u Deepsight?how could call Jesus death Jewish ritual?i dont even know where u belong?are u a christian?are u born again at all?

mavenbox:

AIO, having established you as another blind discussant, screaming "lies" without proof and claiming that im a fraud when you dont know jack about me, i just relegated you to a growing list of NL religion folk (headed by Olabowale) that i wont respond to most of the time. Even Jesus didnt answer all the questions asking him to prove himself. I owe you nothing. And nothing more on this topic.


I can hardly wait to leave this field &get on a PC so i can stop this T9 joke. JeSoul summarizes for me again. What wisdom! Let me add, DeepSight, these questions;
1. What does it mean to be a Christian and how does one get it?
2. Is there any difference between Gandhi's teaching and the Gospel of Christ? What are the differences between these hard teachings?
3. The beatitudes was a hard teaching. But was it fundamental, i.e. Can one start out by being pure in heart, meek, or peaceful just of itself, or did Gandhi do it all because he felt like it? Can any human being for the sake of it assume those traits? If so, is there any prerequisite?

my dear mavenbox,they cant see what u are seeing?i see the discussion becoming endless.why not consider this part of the scripture below:
1 Tim 6:3-5

3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
KJV

maven,can u read that?from such withdraw thyself?i feel u have better things to do with your time.thanks!