How To Get To Heaven When You Die

DO YOU ACCEPT JESUS GIFT OF SALVATION BELIEVING HE DIED N ROSE AGAIN FOR YOUR SINS?

  • YES

    Votes: 48 16.4%
  • NO

    Votes: 148 50.5%
  • I ALREADY ACCEPTED JESUS GIFT OF SALVATION BEFORE

    Votes: 62 21.2%
  • OTHER

    Votes: 35 11.9%

  • Total voters
    293
Status
Not open for further replies.
The muslims want you to think that they worship the same god as Christians and Jews do. They don't. Yaweh is the God of the Bible. allah is the muslim God. Yes it is their word for god, but it only refers to the islamic god. Never heard of ahura mazda other than the name of a car named a mazda.

Your first assertion is interesting. The fact is that the Christians Mohamed knew have diasappeared from History. He was very familiar with Ebionite Christianity which had established itself solidly in Western Arabia by the 6th century. Waraqah ibn Nawfal a cousin of Mohamed's wife Khalijah was a learned Ebionite Christian monk who regularly discussed religious issues with Mohamed.

The Ebionites looked to the Jewish Christianity of James the brother of Jesus for leadership. As such they acknowledged Jesus as a great holy man but objected to his deification, particularly in the Trinity which the Ebionites regarded as nonsense. The Ebionites revered Jesus for his humanity and as a great prophet and teacher. The Ebionites also objected to any divine aspect of Mary though she was revered as being 'an ideal' for women.

The Ebionites only used one gospel, that of Matthew though they seem to have acquired it before the initial two chapters were added (the nativity story)

The Ebionites were especially hostile to Paul of Tarsus, who they saw as perverting the original teachings of Jesus to conform with Hellenistic philosophy.

However, after the destruction of the second temple in AD70 and the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, the Ebionites became a religious isolate. But there is no doubt that Mohamed's concept of God as one and only is almost entirely attributable to this Christian sect. The fact that he called his one God Allah, the name of the chief Arabian Pagan god was a sensiible move in the same tradition as when the Christians converted the Pagan fertility festival of Eostre into the Christian festival of Easter.

So I regret to say that your notion that Allah and God are different is completely incongruent with historical fact. Allah and Yaweh are one. both emanating from the Jewish tradition.

Ahura Mazda is the name of God in the monotheistic religion of Zoroastrianism, sometimes called Mazdayasna. At the time of Christ Zoroastrianism was the greatest monotheistic religion in the world. It was the official religion of the Persian empire from about 540 BC until the Moslem conquests post 700 AD, 1,200 years.
Jesus would have been well aware of it because his everyday language, Aramaic was the official language of the Persian empire.

The nativity story has a strong connection with Zoroastrianism, these days the story of the three wise men from the east is often seen as a quaint relic - a story for children, but in its original context it was vitally important. The men were called Maji (the specific title of a Zoroastrian priest). Maji were the advisors and officials to the Emperor of Persia. the greatest empire of its day. The story therefore is not just a quaint tale for children but a political staement about the Emperors representitives paying homage to the new Lord (Jesus).

However, the most fundamental impact of Zoroastrianism on Judaism and Christianity is much older. Zoroastrianism first came to the notice of the west in about 540 BC when Cyrus the Great of Persia released the Jews from their Babylonian captivity. Zoroastrianism had much earlier origins with the Aryan invaders who emerged from central Asia in the late second millenium BC. One wave of invaders went south into India and founded Hinduism and its early scriptures (the Vedas) from about 1700-1500 BC. Zoroaster and his predecessors stayed North through Bactria and Eastern Iran and it is here that their earliest scriptures the Gathas were proclaimed in Avestan, an extinct Old Persian language. Some of their ritual still connects the two streams, examples being the prevalence of vegetarianism and the veneration of particular animals.

Zoroaster was the first to preach the idea that Mazda had granted men 'freewill' to choose right or wrong. He was the first to preach the idea of a day of Judgement and the concept of hell, and of a future saviour (Saoshant). He also preached the equivalent of the golden rule in the mantra of "good thoughts, good words, good deeds. To this day the religion is known as the "Good religion" in India.

It'd take too long to explain all the connections but this wiki article is a decent start:-

http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Prior to the Jews exile to Babylon by Nebuchanezzor circa 587BC the Jews had been flip flopping over the establishment of monotheism from one king of Israel to the next for 500 years + ( See Kings and Judges) When Nehemiah and Ezra returned from Babylon to Israel after 539 BC they had experienced a successful monotheistic state and they set out to completely expunge the old Gods in favour of Yaweh in their own country . That experience of living in Babylon forced the issue and was clearly a necessary pre-requisite to the development of Christianity.

That's all for now but just as a topical note: if your church has been any charitable help to the Yazidis who were victimised by ISIL recently, you have been helping some of the heirs of Zoroastrianism. Other groups include the Manicheans and the Mithraic traditions some of which even pre-date the Zoroastrians in their origins.
 
My two cents.... There are similarities between many gods. Definitely certain faiths are intertwined. But I don't think Allah or the others have been here from the beginning as an entity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as one and all that means. I do think gods have similarities. But they are not the same.

I've always wondered why the big push to have everybody's God be the same? Fear?
 
Moses claimed to worship the god of Abraham, and so do Muslims. The article in your link offered no contrary evidence, and only gripes that calling Yahweh Allah would lead to confusion, just like what happened at Babel.

Claiming to worship the God of Abraham isn't the same as actually doing it. The muslims also think that Ischmael is the chosen son and not Isaac. They believe that Jesus didn't really die on the cross. They give the credit to the one who betrayed Jesus, Judas Iscariot. They don't worship the God of the Bible.
 
Your first assertion is interesting. The fact is that the Christians Mohamed knew have diasappeared from History. He was very familiar with Ebionite Christianity which had established itself solidly in Western Arabia by the 6th century. Waraqah ibn Nawfal a cousin of Mohamed's wife Khalijah was a learned Ebionite Christian monk who regularly discussed religious issues with Mohamed.

The Ebionites looked to the Jewish Christianity of James the brother of Jesus for leadership. As such they acknowledged Jesus as a great holy man but objected to his deification, particularly in the Trinity which the Ebionites regarded as nonsense. The Ebionites revered Jesus for his humanity and as a great prophet and teacher. The Ebionites also objected to any divine aspect of Mary though she was revered as being 'an ideal' for women.

Then they weren't real Christians in the first place if they rejected His deity. James wrote the book of James and affirms His faith in Christ, so they either didn't believe James, or James never taught them anything. The Phrase, Our Lord, is only given to God Himself. Either way they are not Christians. The Trinity is also throughout Scriptures. I would agree that Mary isn't divine, but that she is a great woman, but a sinner nonetheless.

Jas 2:1 ¶ My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.


The Ebionites only used one gospel, that of Matthew though they seem to have acquired it before the initial two chapters were added (the nativity story)

The first two chapters were not added later to the Book of Matthew. That is false. the oldest manuscripts have it in there.

The Ebionites were especially hostile to Paul of Tarsus, who they saw as perverting the original teachings of Jesus to conform with Hellenistic philosophy.

Of course they would be hostile to Paul, he was actually preaching the truth and they were not.

However, after the destruction of the second temple in AD70 and the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, the Ebionites became a religious isolate. But there is no doubt that Mohamed's concept of God as one and only is almost entirely attributable to this Christian sect. The fact that he called his one God Allah, the name of the chief Arabian Pagan god was a sensiible move in the same tradition as when the Christians converted the Pagan fertility festival of Eostre into the Christian festival of Easter.

The Christians that adopted Easter were the Catholics who were catering to Pagan converts.

So I regret to say that your notion that Allah and God are different is completely incongruent with historical fact. Allah and Yaweh are one. both emanating from the Jewish tradition.

Not true. allah is not the God of the Bible, nor does he emanate from Jewish Tradition. allah is the muslim God.

Ahura Mazda is the name of God in the monotheistic religion of Zoroastrianism, sometimes called Mazdayasna. At the time of Christ Zoroastrianism was the greatest monotheistic religion in the world. It was the official religion of the Persian empire from about 540 BC until the Moslem conquests post 700 AD, 1,200 years.
Jesus would have been well aware of it because his everyday language, Aramaic was the official language of the Persian empire.

Point?

The nativity story has a strong connection with Zoroastrianism, these days the story of the three wise men from the east is often seen as a quaint relic - a story for children, but in its original context it was vitally important. The men were called Maji (the specific title of a Zoroastrian priest). Maji were the advisors and officials to the Emperor of Persia. the greatest empire of its day. The story therefore is not just a quaint tale for children but a political staement about the Emperors representitives paying homage to the new Lord (Jesus).

That is completely false. maji studied the stars. They would be like modern day Astronomers. You have no evidence that the eyewitness Biblical story is copied from Zoroastrianism. Made up.

However, the most fundamental impact of Zoroastrianism on Judaism and Christianity is much older. Zoroastrianism first came to the notice of the west in about 540 BC when Cyrus the Great of Persia released the Jews from their Babylonian captivity. Zoroastrianism had much earlier origins with the Aryan invaders who emerged from central Asia in the late second millenium BC. One wave of invaders went south into India and founded Hinduism and its early scriptures (the Vedas) from about 1700-1500 BC. Zoroaster and his predecessors stayed North through Bactria and Eastern Iran and it is here that their earliest scriptures the Gathas were proclaimed in Avestan, an extinct Old Persian language. Some of their ritual still connects the two streams, examples being the prevalence of vegetarianism and the veneration of particular animals.

Not sure what you point is here either...


Zoroaster was the first to preach the idea that Mazda had granted men 'freewill' to choose right or wrong. He was the first to preach the idea of a day of Judgement and the concept of hell, and of a future saviour (Saoshant). He also preached the equivalent of the golden rule in the mantra of "good thoughts, good words, good deeds. To this day the religion is known as the "Good religion" in India.

There are no writings that predate Christianity that mirror the Biblical accounts if that's what you are getting at.

It'd take too long to explain all the connections but this wiki article is a decent start:-

http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Prior to the Jews exile to Babylon by Nebuchanezzor circa 587BC the Jews had been flip flopping over the establishment of monotheism from one king of Israel to the next for 500 years + ( See Kings and Judges) When Nehemiah and Ezra returned from Babylon to Israel after 539 BC they had experienced a successful monotheistic state and they set out to completely expunge the old Gods in favour of Yaweh in their own country . That experience of living in Babylon forced the issue and was clearly a necessary pre-requisite to the development of Christianity.

You mean the Bible is right? Yes the Jews worshipped idols often, which is why God punished them and brought them into captivity in the first place. There was no development of Chistianity. It started with Jesus Christ who was prophecied hundreds of years before His birth and fulfilled hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament.


That's all for now but just as a topical note: if your church has been any charitable help to the Yazidis who were victimised by ISIL recently, you have been helping some of the heirs of Zoroastrianism. Other groups include the Manicheans and the Mithraic traditions some of which even pre-date the Zoroastrians in their origins.

What is a Yazidi or a Manichean? Who cares?

My responses are in bold above and in text below:

The Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the event. The Apostles, Jesus's half brothers including James were among the writers. Paul's writings were approved by the Apostles. He is the one who was to minister the Gospel of Grace primarily to the Gentiles. The Apostles primarily witnessed to the Jews.

mohammad wasn't born until hundreds of years after the Bible was completed. his writings directly contradict the Bible and Secular history of Christ's day, therefore, he is a fraud. he took the Bible and twisted the writings up to make up his own relgion. he was illiterate as well and dictated to a scribe. It's obvious from his writings that he didn't know the Bible very well and messed up and contradicted a lot of details. he obviously didn't know Christianity very well either, since he rejected Christ for who He is and even gave the credit for dying to the one who betrayed Christ.

Christianity came out of Judaism, nothing more. Christ was prophecied to come hundreds of years before His Birth. The Biblical prophetic writings are why Herod knew Christ would be born in the first place and tried to kill Him.

There are no writings that precede the Biblical story that the Bible was copied from. They are all eyewitness testimony.
 
My two cents.... There are similarities between many gods. Definitely certain faiths are intertwined. But I don't think Allah or the others have been here from the beginning as an entity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as one and all that means. I do think gods have similarities. But they are not the same.

I've always wondered why the big push to have everybody's God be the same? Fear?

"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost -from the beginning.
" I will respond to this first.

The Trinity has become the accepted modern concept of the Godhead for most but not all Christians. In the first century after JC's death there were three main Christianizing movements:-

1. The Jewish Christians led by James in Jerusalem. They were snuffed out after AD70 by the destruction of Jerusalem and their dispersal. The only direct heirs were the Ebionites of NW Arabia, who before they were wiped out in the 7th century were a profound influence on Mohamed's understanding of God. James and the Ebionites followed the Jewish tradition of only worshipping God not Jesus.

2. The Gnostics The Gnostics had some influence in the development of mainstream christianity particularly evident in the Gospel of John and in Pauls early letters. Our knowledge of them increased greatly with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi gospels (Especially well explained by Elaine Pagels). However, their notion that believers could develop a personal understanding and relationship with God was regarded as dangerous by the increasingly powerful church which insisted on control of all aspects of that relationship.

3. The Pauline Church The winners, Paul recruited in the diaspora, initially among the fringe/gentile groups of the synagogues before gradually spreading his influence. His work was problematical in that his converts were steeped in centuries of Hellenistic culture. He and his succesors who became the early Catholic church had to make an accomodation with that culture in order to succeed. That accomodation is encapsulated in the Trinity.

There is no Biblical authority or mention of a Trinity in either the Old or New Testaments. Jesus did not preach it, neither did any of his disciples, nor the Apostle Paul. The first person to mention the word Trinity was the churchman Tertullian (160 - 220 AD). However, he only considered it a triad with the Son and HG subordinate to the Father. Tertullian was eventually thrown out of the emerging church for his heresies. It was not until the Council Nicea in 325 AD that a more complete concept of the Trinity was put forward though it was not generally accepted until after the Council of Constantinople in 381AD - 350 years after Christ's death!

The idea of the Trinity was lifted straight out of Pagan philosophy, specifically Neo-Platonism and Stoic thought. It was essential to legitimise the worship of JC as God and not Man. Thus Christianity got by without the Trinity for almost as long as America has been settled

However, Your personal understanding of the Godhead is trinitarian; it is how you perceive God and it has been the traditional perception since 381AD. Its legitimacy exists within your mind and those of your fellow believers. Its strength lies within itself and now its origins and/or lack of them, whether right or wrong, are of no current consequence. :)

Now, why all omnipotent Gods must be the same. Christians believe their God is all powerful, as do Jews, Moslems, and Sihks, good momotheists all. But if one god is omnipotent the other gods must be the same entity because omnipotence is necessarily singular - two of them is impossible.

If you say for example, that the Moslem God is different to the Christian God you acknowledge that another God exists so that option is out.

So your only option is to say your God is the only omnipotent God - But if you disbelieve the other guy's god, your God, in order to remain omnipotent must be his God too. The fact that the other guy worships his notion of God differently is beside the point - omnipotence cannot be shared.

God must always the same Tryharder, it is the people that worship that are different and seek security in emphasising those differences from other systems of worship.
 
Claiming to worship the God of Abraham isn't the same as actually doing it. The muslims also think that Ischmael is the chosen son and not Isaac. They believe that Jesus didn't really die on the cross. They give the credit to the one who betrayed Jesus, Judas Iscariot. They don't worship the God of the Bible.
Moses claimed to worship the God of Abraham. Are you saying that he actually didn't?
 
My responses are in bold above and in text below:

The Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the event. The Apostles, Jesus's half brothers including James were among the writers. Paul's writings were approved by the Apostles. He is the one who was to minister the Gospel of Grace primarily to the Gentiles. The Apostles primarily witnessed to the Jews.

mohammad wasn't born until hundreds of years after the Bible was completed. his writings directly contradict the Bible and Secular history of Christ's day, therefore, he is a fraud. he took the Bible and twisted the writings up to make up his own relgion. he was illiterate as well and dictated to a scribe. It's obvious from his writings that he didn't know the Bible very well and messed up and contradicted a lot of details. he obviously didn't know Christianity very well either, since he rejected Christ for who He is and even gave the credit for dying to the one who betrayed Christ.

Christianity came out of Judaism, nothing more. Christ was prophecied to come hundreds of years before His Birth. The Biblical prophetic writings are why Herod knew Christ would be born in the first place and tried to kill Him.

There are no writings that precede the Biblical story that the Bible was copied from. They are all eyewitness testimony.
Who were the eyewitnesses for the temptation of Jesus by Satan? There are three accounts in the bible. Two of them say that Satan took Jesus to see Jerusalem. Did the witnesses go along on that trip?

Who were the eyewitnesses at Gethsemane? Jesus went away from everyone else to pray, and the group all fell asleep. But someone wrote down the words of his prayer. Jesus was arrested, tried and crucified shortly afterwards, so it's not likely that he told anyone.
 

"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost -from the beginning.
" I will respond to this first.

The Trinity has become the accepted modern concept of the Godhead for most but not all Christians. In the first century after JC's death there were three main Christianizing movements:-

1. The Jewish Christians led by James in Jerusalem. They were snuffed out after AD70 by the destruction of Jerusalem and their dispersal. The only direct heirs were the Ebionites of NW Arabia, who before they were wiped out in the 7th century were a profound influence on Mohamed's understanding of God. James and the Ebionites followed the Jewish tradition of only worshipping God not Jesus.

Then they were wrong. It's quite clear from the Biblical writings, which were written by the Apostles, Paul, the half brothers of Jesus and other eyewitnesses to the events.

2. The Gnostics The Gnostics had some influence in the development of mainstream christianity particularly evident in the Gospel of John and in Pauls early letters. Our knowledge of them increased greatly with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi gospels (Especially well explained by Elaine Pagels). However, their notion that believers could develop a personal understanding and relationship with God was regarded as dangerous by the increasingly powerful church which insisted on control of all aspects of that relationship.

The Bible was given to the writers by inspiration from God Himself, not earlier sects, religions, people, places, history, ect. If you see any similarity between them then that's what God wanted to put in their. The New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament. You don't seen to understand that my faith and the faith of those who I congregate with are based of the Scriptures themselves. I don't care what some group of people believed 2,000 years ago. They were obviously ignorant of the Scriptures if their beliefs contradict the Scriptures.

3. The Pauline Church The winners, Paul recruited in the diaspora, initially among the fringe/gentile groups of the synagogues before gradually spreading his influence. His work was problematical in that his converts were steeped in centuries of Hellenistic culture. He and his succesors who became the early Catholic church had to make an accomodation with that culture in order to succeed. That accomodation is encapsulated in the Trinity.

Paul's church did not become the Catholic Church. Maybe some of them did, but not the ones who continued the teachings that Paul gave. The Catholic Church began with Constantine. It's a mixture of Paganism and Christianity. Those who refused to believe the false teachings were tortured and or killed. The true Church went underground for many centuries and were persecuted. Millions were killed for their faith.

There is no Biblical authority or mention of a Trinity in either the Old or New Testaments. Jesus did not preach it, neither did any of his disciples, nor the Apostle Paul. The first person to mention the word Trinity was the churchman Tertullian (160 - 220 AD). However, he only considered it a triad with the Son and HG subordinate to the Father. Tertullian was eventually thrown out of the emerging church for his heresies. It was not until the Council Nicea in 325 AD that a more complete concept of the Trinity was put forward though it was not generally accepted until after the Council of Constantinople in 381AD - 350 years after Christ's death!

The Trinity is a concept that is found throughout the Holy Scriptures. There is plenty of Biblical Authority to show that God is a Trinity. I will just list a few, but these should make my point.

The Trinity:

Ge 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

The Trinity:

Ga 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

The Trinity:

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The Trinity:

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

The Trinity:

Mt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.



The idea of the Trinity was lifted straight out of Pagan philosophy, specifically Neo-Platonism and Stoic thought. It was essential to legitimise the worship of JC as God and not Man. Thus Christianity got by without the Trinity for almost as long as America has been settled

Bull. This is non sense.

However, Your personal understanding of the Godhead is trinitarian; it is how you perceive God and it has been the traditional perception since 381AD. Its legitimacy exists within your mind and those of your fellow believers. Its strength lies within itself and now its origins and/or lack of them, whether right or wrong, are of no current consequence. :)

My understanding is trinitarian because that's what the Bible says. I don't believe that it originated in 381 AD. The Bible was written long before then.

Now, why all omnipotent Gods must be the same. Christians believe their God is all powerful, as do Jews, Moslems, and Sihks, good momotheists all. But if one god is omnipotent the other gods must be the same entity because omnipotence is necessarily singular - two of them is impossible.

False. Only 1 is possible. They all contradict each other, therefore, only 1 can be true, or none of them is true.

If you say for example, that the Moslem God is different to the Christian God you acknowledge that another God exists so that option is out.

No, what I admit is that the muslims really worship satan and there is only one true God who created all things and is in control of all things.

So your only option is to say your God is the only omnipotent God - But if you disbelieve the other guy's god, your God, in order to remain omnipotent must be his God too. The fact that the other guy worships his notion of God differently is beside the point - omnipotence cannot be shared.

Not true. Any other God besides the God of the Bible is a false god and truthfully is demonic at it's core. If you want to believe that satan and his demons are gods, which you call anything a god. My tv could be a god to me, it doesn't make it the God of the Universe and it certainly doesn't make it the same God as the God of the Bible.

God must always the same Tryharder, it is the people that worship that are different and seek security in emphasising those differences from other systems of worship.

This statement needs to be rephrased. It makes no sense.

My responses are in bold above
 


God must always the same Tryharder, it is the people that worship that are different and seek security in emphasising those differences from other systems of worship.


I don't agree. There is one true God. I think people are trying to seek security by emphasizing that every system is the correct way so they don't have to choose.

As to the Trinity, that word is not in the bible but the concept is there. Like baptizing in the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit. There are many more examples.:cool:
 
Hi xfrodo, I'll get back to you in a few days with a response, but in the meantime maybe you might consider your overall strategy. Mebbe your position could be stronger if you argued your case based on facts rather than on a process of assertion/denial based on sincere but unsupported convictions.

Now I'm off to Japan for a few days. Mebbe I'll give you the Shinto/Zen version when I get back!;)
 
Hi xfrodo, I'll get back to you in a few days with a response, but in the meantime maybe you might consider your overall strategy. Mebbe your position could be stronger if you argued your case based on facts rather than on a process of assertion/denial based on sincere but unsupported convictions.

Now I'm off to Japan for a few days. Mebbe I'll give you the Shinto/Zen version when I get back!;)

I find the intertwining of religious disiplines interesting and affirming to the idea that faith in something outside of self is pretty universally desired by humans.
 
Hi xfrodo, I'll get back to you in a few days with a response, but in the meantime maybe you might consider your overall strategy. Mebbe your position could be stronger if you argued your case based on facts rather than on a process of assertion/denial based on sincere but unsupported convictions.

Now I'm off to Japan for a few days. Mebbe I'll give you the Shinto/Zen version when I get back!;)

I am going to argue my points from a Biblical standpoint. You seem to be trying to argue yours from a secular historical standpoint, whether it's completely accurate or not is questionable. If you want to argue doctrine with me, it needs to be within the context of scripture, not what some secluded tribe believed 2,000 years ago. I care what the eyewitness writings from the Apostles, Jesus half brothers and those who were actually there says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top