₦airaland Forum

Antichristian2:
If the earliest Christians within the first two centuries after Jesus did not need a New Testament to qualify their faith, why do modern Christians have such a need? If they did not sanction or consider any other writing beside the Old Testament to be scripture, then isn’t it a digression from the ‘true faith‘ of the earliest believers to incorporate something new as scripture? The first New Testament was codified and canonized by the heretic Marcion who believed that the Jewish YHWH was not the true God, the first time the largest Christian Church sanctioned a New Testament was during the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Carthage in 397 CE, some 360+ years after Jesus.

One of the more telling issues with the questioned posed above is that those who have responded to it believe that the question was tricky to answer. I agree it is tricky to answer, that’s the very reason I asked it in the first place! I therefore, don’t find that description of the question to be a problem, it’s more an affirmation that I framed the question properly in the first place. I’m essentially asking one question:

Is the New Testament required to be believed in for salvation in Christianity?

In other words, can someone be a believing Christian without having need for, or being dependent on the New Testament? Can someone reject it and yet, still be saved? This is effectively how the earliest Christians lived, without a New Testament. Some have tried to respond with the following passages:

*“Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15)
*“believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31)

These verses do not answer my question. What these verses teach is that you should believe in the good news, but it does not require belief in this or that or any other Gospel. The authors of Mark, over its centuries of development, never emended the text to say, “repent and believe in this gospel,” there’s a reason for that, the verse is conveying the point that it’s good to believe in what Jesus brought, i.e. his message, not the documents written by people decades later who never knew him. Rather, what is emphasized for belief is in him, Jesus, not any written work by any man. That’s the point I’m trying to make here. There is no requirement to believe in the New Testament as God’s inspired revelation to be saved in Christianity. Consider for a moment, this very important passage:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV).

It’s useful for lots of things, except for salvation. This passage does not state that belief in scripture is a requirement to be saved. Scripture is useful for many things, but it’s not a requirement. It’s like the difference between having an umbrella in the rain and not having one. Sure, the umbrella is useful and it is good for many things when it’s raining, but it’s not a necessity or requirement for when you’re going into the outside world. This is the distinction between something’s usefulness and it’s necessity, one is clearly not the other.

So then, the question begs itself, doesn’t it? Do you require the canonized and codified New Testament, to be believed in, as a requirement for your salvation in Christianity? The earliest Christians did not seem to think so, so why do you?

and God knows best.

delkuf:
who told you that the early Christian after don't need the new testament for salvation. What is the message of apostle Paul and the disciples. They preached the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The whole new testament is about the coming of the Lord Jesus-the son of God into this world to die and resurrect for the sins of the world

Antichristian2:
How can they need what they don't have? Did you even read the post at all?

Antichristian2:
If the earliest Christians within the first two centuries after Jesus did not need a New Testament to qualify their faith, why do modern Christians have such a need? If they did not sanction or consider any other writing beside the Old Testament to be scripture, then isn’t it a digression from the ‘true faith‘ of the earliest believers to incorporate something new as scripture? The first New Testament was codified and canonized by the heretic Marcion who believed that the Jewish YHWH was not the true God, the first time the largest Christian Church sanctioned a New Testament was during the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Carthage in 397 CE, some 360+ years after Jesus.

One of the more telling issues with the questioned posed above is that those who have responded to it believe that the question was tricky to answer. I agree it is tricky to answer, that’s the very reason I asked it in the first place! I therefore, don’t find that description of the question to be a problem, it’s more an affirmation that I framed the question properly in the first place. I’m essentially asking one question:

Is the New Testament required to be believed in for salvation in Christianity?

In other words, can someone be a believing Christian without having need for, or being dependent on the New Testament? Can someone reject it and yet, still be saved? This is effectively how the earliest Christians lived, without a New Testament. Some have tried to respond with the following passages:

*“Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15)
*“believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31)

These verses do not answer my question. What these verses teach is that you should believe in the good news, but it does not require belief in this or that or any other Gospel. The authors of Mark, over its centuries of development, never emended the text to say, “repent and believe in this gospel,” there’s a reason for that, the verse is conveying the point that it’s good to believe in what Jesus brought, i.e. his message, not the documents written by people decades later who never knew him. Rather, what is emphasized for belief is in him, Jesus, not any written work by any man. That’s the point I’m trying to make here. There is no requirement to believe in the New Testament as God’s inspired revelation to be saved in Christianity. Consider for a moment, this very important passage:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV).

It’s useful for lots of things, except for salvation. This passage does not state that belief in scripture is a requirement to be saved. Scripture is useful for many things, but it’s not a requirement. It’s like the difference between having an umbrella in the rain and not having one. Sure, the umbrella is useful and it is good for many things when it’s raining, but it’s not a necessity or requirement for when you’re going into the outside world. This is the distinction between something’s usefulness and it’s necessity, one is clearly not the other.

So then, the question begs itself, doesn’t it? Do you require the canonized and codified New Testament, to be believed in, as a requirement for your salvation in Christianity? The earliest Christians did not seem to think so, so why do you?

and God knows best.

Ojuntana:
Your post is misleading
It's like asking if the Old Testament is required for salvation since the children of Israel in the wilderness never read it.

The Bible let's us know that the scrolls and parchments of the OT were brought together as one during the period of Exile by Ezra.

In the same vein. The compilation of the Qur'an as we know it today was done hundreds of years after Muhammad claimed to receive the revelation. So the people who followed Muhammad couldn't have read the Qur'an as we have it today.

Note that the topic of salvation never occurred in the OT nor the Qur'an. The concept of salvation signifies the existence of original sin. The Qur'an does not recognise that concept. Neither does the OT. It is in the NT that such exists

sonmvayina:
FYI the gathering in Carthage was not an ecumenical council. It was a synold and was chaired by st Augustine.
For more than 350+ years there was no new testament. This is because what became Christianity was still being cooked by the church fathers and many forgeries were still being done.

Antichristian2:
It is unlike that. The Children of Israel were with Moses then Joshua after so those are living books on their own!

Where was it brought together in the Bible? How many books of the OT was there in it? This is essentially false!

This is false. The Qur'an was recited during the lifetime of the Prophet and compiled by the foremost companion of the Prophet Abu Bakr about 2 years after the demise of the Prophet.

Salvation from hell exist in the Qur'an. I don't know your own definition of Salavation that does not exist in the OT and Qur'an. Probably you meant human sacrifice/ blood atonement salvation!

Ojuntana:
Where the disciples not with Jesus when he was alive? Are you aware that out of the four writers of the gospel, only Luke did not have first hand contact with Jesus?

Go and read the book of Ezra. The scrolls of books that make up the OT were recovered and compiled during his time as leader of the Israelites. Before then, such compilation of scrolls into a single parchment did not exist. Instead, the children of Israel were required to memorise the basic laws.

You mean the Qur'an was recited as we have it today? You don't have to tell lies. The Qur'an was recited in parts. The Qur'an you have today is that which was compiled by Uthman years after Muhammad's death. The fact that none of the followers of Muhammad had any complete version of the Qur'an with them when he was alive alone shows the brazen illogical aspect of your claim

Kindly explain what salvation from hell implies. Does the Qur'an say all men have sinned and come short of God's glory?

Antichristian2:
How can they need what they don't have? Did you even read the post at all?

delkuf:
please can you bring out your questions. You are asking lot of things

Antichristian2:
Is the new testament a requirement for Salvation?

delkuf:
is it that, is Christianity the only requirement for salvation or Christianity is part of the requirements for salvation. Which I you saying

Antichristian2:
The topic of this thread is what i stated earlier!

Antichristian2:
Ah! See lies No be only Luke! It is not only the Gospel that is called New Testament! What about all the letters of Paul? What about Mark and Paul who never met Jesus? Paul wrote almost half of the New Testament. He wrote more than all apointed disciples altogether!

What was compilled exactly? Who compiled it? How was the compilation preserved? Where are your evidence?

Na you dey lie. The Prophet read the Qur'an in all its forms to the scribes with him during his life time. The Qur'an was compiled by Abu Bakr the first Caliph after the demise of the Prophet. After the death of Abu Bakr, the Qur'an was with the second Caliph Umar. Uthman the third Caliph retrieved the copy of the Qur'an from Hafsah (daughter of third Caliph and wife of the Prophet) to make copies he transmitted everywhere! It seems your ignorance is legendary!

Anyone who believes in and affirms the oneness of Allah in worship, etc as he should would be eventually saved from the fire.
To every man is the sin apportioned to him or her. The best of people are those who repents (sincerely) after committing the sin.

Antichristian2:
Is the new testament a requirement for Salvation?

MaxInDHouse:
There is just one version of God's word but due to the New Covenant which took effect at Pentecost the scriptures were splited into two:
Old Testament (Hebrews/Aramaic)
New Testament (Greek)
The Old Testament was written in two languages the first set was written in the language of Abraham (Hebrew) the later part was written in the language of ancient middle east (Aramaic) this occurred because after the Israelites were taken to exile by Assyrians and Babylonians most of their children can't speak or understand the Hebrew language anymore that's why it's appropriate to write their scriptures in the language they understands.
The New Testament was written in Greek language because by the time Jesus walked the earth it was Greek that most people understands and his disciples writing the stories have become familiar with many disciples who aren't Israelites so to make it easy for all Christians throughout the Mediterranean axis to understand the scriptures they have to write it in the language that's common.

Back to your question:
Is the new testament a requirement for Salvation?
YES!
The New Testament is the only means of salvation.
From Abel to John the baptist all lived by what they knew as good or written in the laws given to Moses but God told Moses himself that salvation is yet attainable not until the prophet who will come in the manner of Moses seal the second covenant {Deuteronomy 18:18-19} if salvation was attainable through the law or lifestyle of God's friends who live before the law what further need should there be for someone else to bring another covenant? Hebrews 7:11; Jeremiah 31:33
So while all servants of God from Abel to John the baptist were declared righteous for hope of resurrection they are not yet fit for everlasting life which is salvation that's what Jesus meant when he said:

"Truly I say to you, among those born of women, there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist, but a lesser person in the Kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it." Matthew 11:11-12

So before John the baptist people like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Elijah, Daniel and others were all born through women none is as great as John the baptist before God but the least person in God's memory for salvation (everlasting life) is greater than John the baptist.

Why?
Because from the day John the baptist baptized Jesus the race for everlasting life began as Jesus the way, the truth and the life began his earthly ministry so only his followers as in those practicing what he taught are adequately qualified for everlasting life.
That's why Jesus told a man who has kept all the laws of God that the only thing that could hinder him from entering God's Kingdom (everlasting life) is to forgo worldly pursuit and become a disciple of Christ! Luke 18:18-23
So the same goes to all those mentioned in the Bible before John the baptist whoever refuses to become a Christian among them can't be saved!

Antichristian2:
So which verse from the NT are you quoting here to support the motion that the new testament is needed for Salvation?
And since you are a JW, do you believe in KJV and other New testament versions apart from your NWT?

Agbegbaorogboye:
The Gospels is the main theme of the New Testament just as the Pentateuch is the bedrock for the OT. You cannot have letters from Paul if you did not have the Gospels. Mark met Jesus. Paul met Jesus on the way to Damascus and also met him in a vision.

Go and read the book of Ezra. You are writing from a place of ignorance which is why you asked a question that even your religion falls foul of. Before you can start pointing out faults in others, it is only reasonable that you ensure that you're above faults yourself.

The prophet read? I thought the first chapter of the quran established Muhammad's inability to read? Was that a lie then? Your version of events is totally different from what is known. It is known that the present version of the Quran was compiled by Uthman. True or not? As a matter of fact, there are other versions today. But the most popular one was compiled by Uthman. Do you dispute that?

Do you mean Islamic belief is that by default, all men are heading for hell except they affirm the oneness of Allah?

Do you then imply that Muhammad's father for example is in hell right now since he never affirmed the oneness of Allah in worship? And also his mother? And also your forebears as well? Is that the Islamic view of salvation? Cause I am just hearing this for the first time. Where can this be found in your books?

delkuf:
yes the new testament is a requirement for our salvation

MaxInDHouse:
Pick any version of the Bible and read!

let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·reneʹ, whom you executed on a stake but whom God raised up from the dead, by means of him this man stands here healthy in front of you.  This is ‘the stone that was treated by you builders as of no account that has become the chief cornerstone.’ Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” Act 4:10-12

That name "JESUS CHRIST" came about in the New Testament so all those who don't know that name can't exercise faith in him or what he taught so they're still under probation!

Antichristian2:
How does all these this prove the topic of this thread now?

Antichristian2:
Mark never met Jesus. And Paul never met Jesus while he was on earth! That's a fact.

You are yet to answer the question as regards your Ezra! What was compilled in Ezra exactly? Who compiled it? How was the compilation preserved? Where are your evidence?

Read it from memory! He recited the whole Qur'an yearly with Angel Gabriel and twice the year he died. The version Uthman compiled was the same as the one Abu Bakr compiled. Uthman was the one who sent copies of this manuscript everywhere, hence he is more popular with it. Uthman didn't compile the Qur'an from scratch!

Yes, by Allah, what is meant is God, the uncreated creator of all that exists! The language does not matter but the belief. No one who dies joining partners with Allah will enter Paradise! Even if they commit other sins that require them to be punished in hell for many years, the belief in the oneness of Allah will later get them out!

The Prophet was asked by a man where is his dead father. The Prophet told him he's in the fire. When he turned away the Prophet called him back and told him the Prophet's father and the man's father are in hell.

Anas reported: Verily, a person said: Messenger of Allah, where is my father? He said: (He) is in the Fire. When he turned away, he (the Holy Prophet) called him and said: Verily my father and your father are in the Fire. Sunan Ani Dawud 4718, Sahih Muslim 203 Book 1 hadith 406.

Antichristian2:
Where is the evidence?

delkuf:
because it was in the new testament show us the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ into this world. And how does and resurrected from the dead. Without the new testament, we won't have had the event of the coming of the Lord Jesus and his death and resurrection

Agbegbaorogboye:
Unfortunately for you Mark did. He is the Mark usually referred to in Acts and was among the other disciples Jesus sent out in Luke. While Paul never met Jesus, he had similar experience with Muhammad who never met Allah face to face but was communicated through visions by a spirit according to him. So if Paul's claim is to be discounted, then that of Muhammad must suffer same fate.

Ezra compiled the books of the laws and the prophets. It is written in the book of Ezra. It is his compilation that majorly forms OT today. If you insist that the NT does not serve any useful purpose, then it will be same for the Qur'an and indeed all other religious texts since humans existed before any religious text was ever written

But this is a lie because he kept receiving quranic revelation till the year he died. So he couldn't have ever recited the complete Qur'an every year since he dies not stop releasing new surah. It is untrue that the Uthman version is same with Abu Bakr. You do not know that for a fact. Uthman had some other Qur'an manuscripts burnt. How do you know those ones he burnt where not the original manuscripts and the one you read today is a corruption? Uthman promulgated his own Qur'an.

This means then that Orunmila is in heaven not hell since he never joined partners with God right?
Besides, you did not show from your books where it is said that joining persons with Allah means you're not saved. The debate is salvation from Islamic perspective. There are other monotheistic religion apart from Islam. That means they are saved by Islamic standards and then, salvation is generic not unique to Islam

MaxInDHouse:
Nobody can be saved without Jesus!

Antichristian2:
It is clear Mark was not among the 12 disciples. Show us where Mark was sent out in the Luke you claimed!
And Muhammad doesn't need to meet Allah! Just as no Prophet ever met Allah except from behind a screen! Angel Gabriel has always ben sent to Prophets to deliver Allah's messages and revelations. Muhammad didn't claim he saw Jesus that blinded him. Paul claim he saw a bright light that called itself Jesus. Just a one time event. Muhammad's own was a 23 years event. Even the companions of Muhammad saw the Angel come to teach them Islam as a man! Who saw Paul see Jesus? He didn't see Jesus. He saw a light. Hence he wrote in 2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

I know you can't explain any part of your Christianity without mentioning Islam. What was compilled in Ezra exactly? Who compiled it? How was the compilation preserved? Where are your evidence that Ezra compiled it?



What is meant by the review is that Jibreel reviewed the Qur’an with the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) every year in Ramadan.

It was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah that Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: He [the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)] told me: Jibreel used to review the Qur’an every year with him once or twice, but this year he reviewed it with him twice. He said: “I think that my death has drawn near, so fear Allah and be patient, for what a good example I am for you.” Narrated by Muslim (2450).

According to a report narrated by al-Bukhaari (3624), “Jibreel used to review the Qur’an with me once every year, but this year he has reviewed it with me twice, and I think that my death is approaching, and you [Faatimah] will be the first of my family to join me.” So I [Faatimah] wept, then he said: “Does it not please you that you will be the leader of the women of Paradise, or of the believing women.” So I smiled at that.

Among the Sahaabah, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ood and Zayd ibn Thaabit witnessed this review.

As for the Compilation by Uthman:
Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh (4988) from Anas ibn Malik that Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman came to ‘Uthman at the time when the people of Sham (Syria) and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah was alarmed by their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran, so he said to 'Uthman, "O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! Save this nation before they dispute about the Book (Quran) as the Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsah saying, "Send us the manuscript of the Quran so that we may make copies of the Mus-haf and we will return the manuscript to you."

Hafsah sent it to 'Uthman. Then 'Uthman ordered Zayd ibn Thabit, 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Sa’eed ibn al-‘As and ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham to copy out the manuscripts. 'Uthman said to the three men who were from Quraysh (the tribe of which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was a member), “In case you disagree with Zayd ibn Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraysh, for the Quran was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.

'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

Did you live with Orunmila? Who did he worshipped till he died? We judge people by what is apparent. Only Allah sees the heart.

Allah has told us that he will forgive all sins for the one who repents to Him. He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Say: ‘O My slaves! who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily, Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful’” [Az-Zumar 39:53]

This includes all sins, even Shirk (association of partners with Allah). Whoever repents, Allah will accept his repentance.

“And those who invoke not any other god along with Allah, nor kill such person as Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse and whoever does this shall receive the punishment. The torment will be doubled to him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein in disgrace; Except those who repent and believe (in Islamic Monotheism), and do righteous deeds; for those, Allah will change their sins into good deeds, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Al-Furqan 25:68-70]

“Surely, disbelievers are those who said: “Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no god (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One God (Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall on the disbelievers among them. Will they not turn with repentance to Allah and ask His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Al-Ma’idah 5:73-74]

Verily! Allah forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners in worship with Him, but He forgives whom he pleases sins other than that, and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, has indeed strayed far away.[An-Nisaa 4:116]

Antichristian2:
So there's no proof in the new testament that the new testament is required for salvation?
It could have all been a ruse!

Antichristian2:
How were people saved when John was preaching repentance and before him?

MaxInDHouse:
You are shooting yourself in the foot and it's just a pity that AntiChristian the Muslim will find it really hard to believe that Jesus never did all the things Quran told them which Muhammad himself confirmed.
So whatever disqualifies Jesus and Christianity has rubbished both Allah, Quran, Muhammad, Islam and Muslims all together!