Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>This verse suggests, at least to me, that the Savior serves as Savior even of
>those who are not believers.

Exactly what the constant teaching of the Church has been.

Salvation is only lost by rejection of it.

/john

re .0

Richard,

The cross reference in the NWT for "all sorts of men" which you state in 
the NJB "whole human race" is to Galations 3:28 and 1 Timothy 2:4, so this
would indicate that those of the Gentile nations though at this time many 
were unbelievers would become so if they accepted the good news about the 
Christ, that was preached by Jesus' disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). Which 
reminds me of Romans 10:12-15, so through the preaching of the "good news" 
Jesus would become a saviour to the unbelievers and those yet to be born, 
that is if they became favourably disposed to this message. This way Jesus
would become a saviour to the whole human race, for without hearing the
"good news" message who would be saved?.

BTW there is a belief among Jehovah Witnesses that Jesus promised not just to
resurrect the "righteous" that is the believers but also the "unrighteous"
the unbelievers, John 5:28,29. The "unbelievers" would most probabally entail 
those who have died without being able to have the opportunity to take in 
knowledge of Jehovah God or Jesus Christ (John 17:3). However during the 
millenial rule they will be given the chance to come to know God under the 
right conditions, for Satan & his demons will be abyssed and will have no
influence. Those resurrected will then be able to choose life or death, a 
choice they previously may not have had.

Paul also showed that there would be a resurrection of the just and unjust
Acts 24:15.

So those who died ignorant (due to a lack of knowledge being available) will
have a chance to become believers, and thus gain everlasting life. For John 17:3
NWT reads "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the
only true God, and of the one you sent forth, Jesus Christ." Jesus indicates
that knowledge is a pre-requisite for eternal life.

Phil.

Note 584.1

>            -< God doesn't force people who hate him into heaven >-

I don't know, but I suspect you're right.

I suspect that God forces no one into heaven, but that God might welcome
the unsanctified, the unbaptized, and even the unbeliever.

Richard

PS  I know of no one who hates God.  I do know people who hate the image of
what some people think God is.

>I suspect that God forces no one into heaven, but that God might welcome
>the unsanctified, the unbaptized, and even the unbeliever.
    
    This seems unlikely to me. If He was willing to take in the unbeliever
    Jesus died in vain.
    
    			Alfred

>I suspect that God forces no one into heaven, but that God might welcome
>the unsanctified, the unbaptized, and even the unbeliever.

I doubt the unbeliever remains there if he remains an unbeliever...

Note 584.4

>    If He was willing to take in the unbeliever
>    Jesus died in vain.

Alfred,

	How do you arrive at this conclusion?  I'm not saying that it's not
legitimate, just that I would like to better understand it.

Richard

>	How do you arrive at this conclusion?  I'm not saying that it's not
>legitimate, just that I would like to better understand it.

	Jesus died so that through believing in Him we could be saved. If
	there are other ways, than the death of Jesus, to be saved then He
	died in vain.

			Alfred

John 12.24-25

   "Unless a grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains just a
   grain.  But if it dies it bears much fruit."

Words attributed to Jesus.  Of course, Jesus wasn't talking about the
production of wheat at all.

But there is a certain unconditional quality about this metaphor, is there not?

Richard

    This is a recurring straw man.  Richard is daring everyone to describe
    how someone is not saved.

    All have been saved by atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    No person earns salvation, it is a gift from God and freely given to
    all.

    Those who are not saved are those who have rejected God's love.
    Those who have rejected God's love have sinned.
    Sin is disobedience to God's will.
    God's will is is made known to people by their conscience.
    Conscience is formed by teaching and experience.
    
    God alone is the judge, but God has revealed his will to us.

    Define who the unsanctified, the unbaptized, and the unbeliever are.
    Certainly this is no a point we're going to agree on either.

    .9  Well, excuse me for having disturbed you, Patrick.  I apologize
    for my apparent redundancy and for seeming to have issued a dare.
    
    Anyone else care to comment?
    
    Richard
    

    Interesting discusion Richard. I don't know the answer, but I would
    like to read more replies of a discusion nature.....
    
    Marc H.

OK, let's discuss.  First, a summary of various positions:

Alfred says that Jesus's Passion was all for naught if a pagan is also
saved without any requirement that s/he become a believer (before death?).

I say that God's infinite mercy is beyond our comprehension, and that
many (all? I don't know.) may have the opportunity to accept Christ at
the last and be saved.

Richard, Pat, and I say that Jesus's Passion saved all humankind.

Pat and I say that only outright rejection of this salvation causes
its loss.

Some evangelicals confront others with the question "when were you saved",
by which they imply that one must not merely believe in Christ, but must
actually have had a conversion experience in order to be saved.  Mrs.
Urquhart (the SSEHS 7th Grade Sacred Studies teacher I've mentioned before)
told us that as Episcopalians our response to that question should be
"almost 2000 years ago, when Jesus died on the Cross."

A starting point for discussion:  Is any overt response to Christ's Passion
required from us in order to ensure our salvation?

/john

    RE: -1  
    
    
    		There is a *LOT* to support your beliefs and its one that I
    have often wondered about.  The Southern Baptists believe that though
    its a gift it must be accepted and after that it can never be rejected.
    Lately I have had some doubts about that so I appreciate the
    information your giving here and if possible I'd like to see more of
    it.  
    
    
    Dave

    RE: .12
    
    Yes...I do believe that an "overt act" is needed for salvation. Now,
    the type of act can be at different levels. For example, during my
    Catholic years, I would feel the Lord's presence very much during
    the mass. I felt that I could talk and receive anwsers. I guess
    that you could say that I had quietly excepted Christ and was on a
    good relationship. Maybe that's where /john and Pat are coming from.
    
    The other "level" that I have seen is in Baptist services where the
    person makes a public statement about just when they decided to change
    their life and follow Christ. Much more dramatic!....but...the
    end result is the same as the quiet level.
    
    By the way, I still find that I can talk to the Lord in my new,
    Congregational Church during the service.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .14 Marc,
    
    			Your "perspective" is interesting having seen
    various forms practiced in different Churches.  I wonder if its
    possible that all of them are correct and that God is seeking Humankind
    to follow the "narrow" path that is Jesus?  So at whatever point you
    accept or whatever choice of demonstration of that fact you choose are
    all correct.  Interesting.
    
    
    Dave

    RE: .15
    
    Dave,
     Yes, I do think that all are correct. I think that there is, though,
    a danger in both the "quiet" and "public" forms.
    
    When viewing a "public" form, the people listening could think that
    what they are viewing is just a "show" or a phoney demonstration
    somehow linked to the whole, sad  Jim Baker type of thing.
    
    On the other side, the people who are into a quiet method of accepting
    the Lord could be viewed as just "going through the motions" that they
    learned threw years of religious instructions.
    
    By the way, I sure would like to discuss this Person to Person. I'm
    not that skilled in writing my feelings out in notes. 
    
    
    Marc H.

    
    This string seemed to die an ealry death but it touches on some things
    that I would greatly appreciate, as a Jew, some folks clarifying.
    
    >Note 584.9          
    >SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" 
    >
    >
    >All have been saved by atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    >No person earns salvation, it is a gift from God and freely given to
    >all.
    >
    >Those who are not saved are those who have rejected God's love.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Here is a point of cosmology/theology that I would like clarified...as
    a Jew, I do not accept Jesus as my savior.  It is foreign to my
    upbringing to believe that there is a salvation that can only come
    through Jesus.  In fact, the Christian vision of a Messiah is rather
    different that the Jewish view on the subject as well: the prophecized
    Jewish Messiah was supposed to be a descendent of King David who would
    lead the Jews to true freedom.  Apocalyptic literature is not highly
    developed in the Jewish Canon (the second half of the Book of Daniel is
    an exception).
    
    Rabbinic Law states that "The Righteous of all nations will have a
    place in the Kingdom of God."  Judaism does not claim any special
    privileges except the notion that we bought tickets first ;-)
    
    Personally, I rather resigned to my own finiteness, but I am also
    willing to believe that I may be mistaken in that.  However, I do try
    to lead my life by the old Jewish credo (and as some believe, the basic
    message of Judaism): "Be a Mensch."  The tradition in which I ws raised
    teaches me that *I* am my own savior by being responsible for my own
    actions and how I affect others.
    
    
    By not accepting Jesus as necessary for salvation, do I deny God's love?
    
   curious,
    
    Daniel

    
    Oh Daniel.  I wish I could make you see that it's intrinsic to your
    upbringing.  What would you define as this "true freedom" that the
    Messiah is supposed to bring?   Daniel, we are all trapped and die
    by the law.  You can't get to heaven unless you have lived blameless
    under the law.  Can you do that?  Barring that, salvation through 
    Christ (and I don't mean the guy in Waco) is the only way.
    
    Daniel, I'll try to make a copy of a tape I have.  It's by a guy named
    Marty Goetz.  I love his music.  Much of it is the Psalms set to music.
    But he also shows the correlation from O.T. prophesy to the fulfillment
    in Jesus Christ.  He too was brought up in Judaism but is now a
    Christian, so you might relate to him more.  You might not agree with 
    it, but I think you'd at least listen to it with an open mind.  I'll 
    make a copy and send it off.  Send me your address in mail, either 
    DEC or home.
    
    I'll look for some other info for you too.  I'll admit it's not 
    something I'm really prepared to dialogue with you about at length.  
    But God in me, I'll try.
    
    Jill

    >we are all trapped and die by the law.  You can't get to heaven unless
    >you have lived blameless under the law.  
    
    Aye, there's the rub.  Not everyone accepts that premise and what it
    implies about God.  Daniel, what did your Jewish upbringing say about
    this question?  It has struck me that this idea is much more a
    Christian one than a Jewish one.  Do Jews really get concerned about
    satisfying rigid and exact criteria for acceptance into an afterlife?
    
    -- Mike

>Note 584.18 
>CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers"    

>    Oh Daniel.  I wish I could make you see that it's intrinsic to your
>    upbringing.  What would you define as this "true freedom" that the
>    Messiah is supposed to bring?   

Well, if I'm going to get historical about it [ ;-) ], Jewish Apocalyptic
literature stems up from the Seleucid occupation which eventually led
to the Hasmonean Revolt.  It was revived in major proportions during the
height of the Roman Occupation. Messianic hopes have always renewed
in Judaism during periods of great opproession. But the requirements of a
Jewish Messiah have been traditionally corporeal. In fact, it is little 
surprise to me that Jesus is mocked on the cross by the people who watched 
him.  I suspect the general sentiment was "How the heck are you going to get
rid of the Romans while you're UP THERE?????"

My impression of the Jewish, general concept of the Messiah is one who
will bring Jews to political and religious freedom.  Since the Biblical
texts are not very explicit about the "Kingdom of God" I am unclear 
how rabbinic tradition views salvation after Messiah.



>    Daniel, we are all trapped and die
>    by the law. You can't get to heaven unless you have lived blameless
>    under the law.  Can you do that?  Barring that, salvation through 
>    Christ (and I don't mean the guy in Waco) is the only way.
 

Hmmm...I'm glad you brought this up, actually, because it touches on
another aspect of curiosity for me as a non-Christian: Original Sin.

As doctraine, it doesn't exist in Judaism.  Yes, Adam and Eve goofed
up big time, rabbinic tradition acknowledges that disobedience as a sin
for which humanity was punished, but the notion that were are "doomed"
(don't know if that's the right word or not) without salvation through
a messianic figure is very foreign to me.  Most simply put, I don't get
it.

I've studied with Rabbi Arthur Hertzog (a bit of a big wig in Conservative
Judaism) who said very bluntly regarding Original Sin that "If God
had wanted to make us perfect, He should have."  In other words, Judaism
acknowledges as truth that people are flawed but denies that being flawless
is requisite for salvation.

That's the thing that I wonder about Christianity the most: If I live
my life as the best person I can be, don't deliberately harm others,
take responsibility for my actions when I do (essentially, this is
what Judaism requires of practioners on a person to person level), am
I still denied entrance to Heaven because I didn't accept Jesus as my
savior?

It's a doctraine that fascinates me, makes me wonder...I hope this
isn't offensive to anyone, I really want to know: why isn't it enough
to be a good person?
    
>    I'll look for some other info for you too.  I'll admit it's not 
>    something I'm really prepared to dialogue with you about at length.  
>    But God in me, I'll try.
 

I appreciate any effort you can make...thank you.

regards,

Daniel

    .19
    
    Mike,
    
    Jewish views on Salvation are extremely varied, I believe mainly
    because Jewish Biblical texts hardly even mention an afterlife, and
    it is unclear if "Kingdom of God" refers to life on earth or life in
    the here after.
    
    However, since Jesus is not acknowledged as Messiah by any branch of
    Judaism, except Jews for Jesus, it is not counter-intutitive to assert
    that most Jews do not believe that one needs to accept Jesus to be
    saved.
    
    Very Orthodox and Hassidic Jews generally believe that in Heaven, you
    study Torah for eternity with the great rabbis of the Talmud.
    
    Daniel

    Hi Daniel,
    
    I'm really enjoying our discussion.
    
    So, I guess one of the questions is does political and religious
    freedom bring you true freedom?   Gee, we live in a country that
    provides that, but it's hardly provided me with true freedom.   Maybe
    you can define that better for me.
    
    >In fact, the Christian vision of a Messiah is rather different than
    >the Jewish view on the subject as well: the prophecized Jewish
    >Messiah was supposed to be a descendent of King David who would >lead
    the Jews to true freedom.
    
    So, admittedly if your definition for what true freedom is is off-base,
    you could be looking for the wrong "qualifications" for the Messiah.
    True?  When do you know that you've done enough to save yourself, to
    get down off your own cross, if you will?  Can you be a mensch all your
    life and then screw it up royally at the end?  And if so, then what
    happens?  I would imagine you could because the O.T. talks about
    David's life.  But David got right with God.  I don't see where David
    had the view that he was his own savior.
    
    >The tradition in which I ws raised teaches me that *I* am my own
    >savior by being responsible for my own actions and how I affect
    others.
    
    Hmmm...how exhausting.  Let's say you do all that you should...what
    does that get ya?   Do you know of any books that you think are good on
    this subject.  I would enjoy reading some books from a Jewish or Judaic
    perspective.  As long as they don't go into long detail about things
    like Seleucid occupation and Hasmonean Revolt.  ;^)
    
    >Very Orthodox and Hassidic Jews generally believe that in Heaven, >you
    study Torah for eternity with the great rabbis of the Talmud.
    
    What exactly is in the Torah...I thought it was the first 5 books of
    the Bible.  But my memory is failing today.  I'm too busy sinking my
    teeth into Broccoli with Garlic Sauce to think.  :-)
    
    Jill

    Jill,
    
    Solomon Schecter's "Aspects of Rabbinic Theology" is a good overview of
    Talmudic Judaism...It's been about 5 years since I've read it, so I'm
    probably overdue to re-read!
    
    I do remember it talking about Talmudic concepts of good and evil which
    were very interesting especially considering the number of variations
    on the themes found among individual Jews...it seems to go with the
    territory with a religion based upon interpretation (aaaugh! that word
    again!!!)
    
    "Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses, the Pentatuech in  Greek.
    
    I'm out of the office tomorrow, but I promise to try to answer some of
    your questions on Thursday!
    
    cheers,
    
    Daniel

    Old Rabbinic Story:
    
    Rabbi Shamai and Rabbi Hillel are the two major philosophical camps in
    the Talmud.
    
    One day, a Gentile went to Rabbi Shamai andsaid that he would convert
    to Judaism if the Rabbi could explain all of Torah while the questioner
    stood on one foot.  Rabbi Shamai became very angry at this, and told
    the Gentile to leave and not bother him any more.
    
    Dismayed, the Gentile went to Rabbi Hillel and asked the same question. 
    The Rabbi looked up from his studies and said:
    
    "What is hateful unto you, do not do unto your neighbor.  All the rest
    is commentary."
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    
    Perhaps Rabii Hillel forgot the part about "Love the Lord your God
    with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind."
    
    Jill ;^)

    "What is hateful to you, do not do unto your neighbor" is found in the
    book of Tobit.  It is the reverse form of the Golden Rule that was
    later expressed by Jesus (or perhaps I should say that Jesus expressed
    the reverse form of the Golden Rule that was mentioned in Tobit.)
    
    -- Mike

    All are saved by God, but knowledge of God or Jesus is not a
    requirement of salvation.

    God helps those who don't know of him live lives in accord with his
    will.

    Rather it is the requirement of God upon his followers to make
    disciples of all nations, baptize them, and teach them.

    
    Then there's 'An it harm none, do what ye will...'

    re 28:
    
    I agree
    
    An it harm none, do what ye will...

     re: Note 584.27   SICVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York"     
    
    > All are saved by God, but knowledge of God or Jesus is not a
    >requirement of salvation.

    >God helps those who don't know of him live lives in accord with his
    >will.

    >Rather it is the requirement of God upon his followers to make
    >disciples of all nations, baptize them, and teach them.
    
     Pat, a question in return to your statements. How can you feel knowledge
    of God is not a requirement for salvation yet say it's a requirement of
    God to make deciples, teach them etc. How can one individual teach
    another if they don't have the knowledge on the subjects (in this case
    God, Jesus' ransom sacrifice etc.);subjects neccessary to do the 
    instructing with?
    
     BTW.. I don't disagree completely with what you've said. I agree with
    your last statement, the second to some extent but have to pass on the
    1st.
    
         robin

    My paraphrase of the conclusion of the Gospel according to St. Matthew
    can be improved upon by reading it directly.
    
    The task of proclaiming the Gospel falls on all Christians.  The triple
    prerequisite of this task is know, love, and serve God.
    
    Ordination, annointing, or perfection isn't required before starting.

    "...do what ye will..." 
    
    Since that's isn't the perspective of Christ as Christ is described in
    the New Testament, whose perspective is it anyway?

    
    .32, 'An it harm none, do what ye will' ...
    
    Witches say it; it's sometimes called the witches' creed.
    
    Dorian

    "Through all your days, my son, keep the Lord in mind and suppress
    every desire to sin or to break his commandments.  Perform good works
    all the days of your life and do not tread the paths of wrong-doing."
    
    Tobit 4:5

    
    
    		Tobit???  Never heard of it.
    
    
    Dave

re Note 584.36 by DPDMAI::DAWSON:

>     		Tobit???  Never heard of it.
  
        From what Protestants call the "Apocrypha" and Catholics call
        the "deuterocanonical books".

        Bob

    "And what you hate, do not do to anyone."
    
    	Tobit 4:15

    
    RE:  .33
    
    Dorian, are you serious or joking?  I can't tell.
    
    >.32, 'An it harm none, do what ye will' ...
    >
    >Witches say it; it's sometimes called the witches' creed.
    
    Jill

    
    .38
    
    Serious? Me? I wouldn't go *that* far... ;-)
    
    But seriously. That's what the expression is -- I looked it up this
    morning! Of course, I didn't bring in the name of the book, but I can
    try to remember tomorrow...I've seen it in several works.
    
    Dorian

    
    Boy, I am naive...I didn't realize we had a witch contigent 
    here (or do we.)  I'm not sure which bothers me more people 
    who out and out deny God or people who don't yet twist the 
    Scriptures.  This file has been very disturbing to me today.  
    Which should come as no surprise since I was praying for us 
    this morning...there's always a counter-attack.
    
    Jill

    RE:  .20
    
    >    I'll look for some other info for you too.  I'll admit it's not >   
    something I'm really prepared to dialogue with you about at length. >   
    But God in me, I'll try.
    
    >>>I appreciate any effort you can make...thank you.
    
    Well Daniel, what an awesome God we serve.  I really had no idea where
    to start looking for information for us.  I went home and as is my
    custom I looked over my mail.  In it was an envelope from Zion's Hope
    Inc.  Coincidence, I don't think so.  It contained info about a
    magazine called "Zion's Fire" which has a Jewish-Christian perspective
    to teaching the Bible in its historical setting and rich cultural
    background.  A one year subscription of 6 issues is $15.  There's a
    special offer where you by the book "The Sign" about Bible prophecy for
    $10.95 and get the one year subscription free.  Orders go to Zion's
    Hope Inc, P.O. Box 690909, Orlando, FL  32869.
    
    Then, if that wasn't cool enough.  On one of my favorite talk shows
    yesterday, the special guest was Rabbi Epstein of Chicago.  He's a
    part of an organization called Internation Fellowship of Christians
    and Jews.  The have tapes, books, and videos to help both Christians
    and Jews understand each other.  I called them this morning and had
    them send both of us a catalog of there stuff.  Hope that's okay.
    There address and phone# for further reference is
    
            The Fellowship
            28 E. Jackson Blvd.
            Suite 1910
            Chicago, IL  60604
    
            312-554-0450
    
    Jill
    
    

    RE: .41
    
    Hi Richard,
    
    It doesn't matter that it's here, it just helps me understand where
    people's notes are coming from.  
    
    If someone out and out denies God, I don't think you'd need me
    to name names.  It would be obvious.
    
    I don't think I'd isolate Scripture-twisting to just the Wiccans. 
    I would consider this, Scripture used out of the context in which 
    it is written and in conflict with the overall truths of the Bible.
    But I realize that not all agree with this premise, but it's what
    I believe.  
    
    Richard, I'm not talking about people in this file attacking me.
    This seems to be a reoccurring thought of yours about me.  I'm 
    talking about spiritual warfare.  I prayed that the Holy Spirit 
    would move in the hearts of people here today and there seems to 
    be a counter-attack or a spirit of oppression.  It's disturbing to me.
    
    Jill

Note 584.40

>    Boy, I am naive...I didn't realize we had a witch contigent 
>    here (or do we.)

I don't know, but it doesn't matter.  All are welcome, even tax collectors
and prostitutes.  This is not a social club for saints, you know. ;-)

>    I'm not sure which bothers me more people 
>    who out and out deny God

Are you speaking of anyone specifically?

>    or people who don't yet twist the 
>    Scriptures.

You're referring to Wiccans perhaps?

>    This file has been very disturbing to me today.  
>    Which should come as no surprise since I was praying for us 
>    this morning...there's always a counter-attack.

Could you explain what you mean by a counter-attack?

Richard

    RE: .43

>    Richard, I'm not talking about people in this file attacking me.
>    This seems to be a reoccurring thought of yours about me.

Yes, I try to be sensitive to perceived attacks within this file.  Thanks.

Richard

>Note 584.22            
>CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers"  

    
>    I'm really enjoying our discussion.
 
Same here!

   
>    So, I guess one of the questions is does political and religious
>    freedom bring you true freedom?   Gee, we live in a country that
>    provides that, but it's hardly provided me with true freedom.   Maybe
>    you can define that better for me.
 

Well, I think you have to look at it in context.  Sure enough, we have
Constitutionally protected freedoms in this country, and most assuredly,
things are a long way from perfect.  But from the persepctive of the Jews
living under the late Seleucid Dynasty and Rome, political and religious
autonomy must have looked pretty Utopian.  The Seluecids, in order to pay
their tribute to Rome, demanded 15 talents of silver a year from Judea...I
don't remember the exact figure, but that is a LOT of silver.

Also, while Rome and the Seleucids were reasonably tolerant of religious
differences, the Covenant Theology made it very difficult for certain
religious factions to tolerate the presence of non-Yahweh worship in any
form, even peaceful coexistence.  As civil unrest rose, the occupying
powers turns on the proverbial thumbscrews.

So while "true freedom" may not be the utopia people hope for, actual
national autonomy was a very powerful desire.

>    So, admittedly if your definition for what true freedom is is off-base,
>    you could be looking for the wrong "qualifications" for the Messiah.
>    True?  

I'm not really certain what you mean by this question -- could you maybe
restate it?


>    When do you know that you've done enough to save yourself, to
>    get down off your own cross, if you will?  Can you be a mensch all your
>    life and then screw it up royally at the end?  And if so, then what
>    happens?  I would imagine you could because the O.T. talks about
>    David's life.  But David got right with God.  I don't see where David
>    had the view that he was his own savior.
 
I guess I need to clear this a bit -- Jewish cosmology is very, *very*
vague on "salvation."  I dare say as a concept that it really doesn't 
exist in Judaica the same way it does in Christianity.

This is my understanding of Jewish Cosmology:  There is no real mention
of an afterlife in the Hebrew Bible except for a brief reference to place
where "shades walk."  In rabbinic Judaism, there is, in fact, a cosmology
of sourts.  The rabbis in Talmud discuss the existence of Angels, naming
Michael and Gabriel, but the rest is extremely vague.  Some rabbinic
interpretation states that the angels are re-created every morning so they
can continue to be perfect, others state their existence but in no real
detail.

Rabbinic theology specifies a Heaven, but also does not detail what existence
is like in that Heaven. (As I said before, the Orthodox view of Heaven is
studying Torah for all eternity)  There is NO HELL.  Hell does not exist in
rabbinic theology.  Satan is mentioned but is not developed in a way similar
to Christianity's view of Satan.

In Judaic lore, Satan rarely has a single persona, but is often regarded
as a composite of evil.  Some rabbinic lore states that the Angel of Death
and Satan are one and the same, and that Yahweh allows Satan to exist because
it embodies *essential* aspects of the universe.  Satan is Yahweh's tool.


   
>    >The tradition in which I ws raised teaches me that *I* am my own
>    >savior by being responsible for my own actions and how I affect
>    others.
    
>    Hmmm...how exhausting.  

No kidding! ;-)  But I think that's the point.  By focussing on how
you interact with others, Judaism demands a lot of work from its followers
because each of us are supposed to take pon hands personal responsibility
for our sins against others.  If I sin against you, God can't forgive me.
I have to seek that from *you*


>    Let's say you do all that you should...what
>    does that get ya?   

Truth be told, that's pretty vague too.  Since there is no Hell in
Jewish lore, a lot of the reward is knowing you lived your life the
best way you knew how.

Rabbinic theology talks about the "Kingdom of God" and that the "Righteous
of all Nations" have their place in it.  But in terms of Messianic prophecy
that is a kingdom on earth of the living.  The role of the dead is not
clear from what I've studied.

>Note 584.25 
>CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers"   

>    Perhaps Rabii Hillel forgot the part about "Love the Lord your God
>    with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind."
 
In my understanding of the religion, love of God is *secondary* to how
you treat others. So it's interesting that you brought up the point!

>Note 584.27    
>SICVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York"   
>
>    All are saved by God, but knowledge of God or Jesus is not a
>    requirement of salvation.

That's interesting, Pat -- because it seems to be in opposition to:

>Note 584.9           
>SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York"  
>
>    All have been saved by atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
>    No person earns salvation, it is a gift from God and freely given to
>    all.

How can I be "saved" if I don't believe that salvation is going to come
through Christ?  Do you mean to say that Christianity does *not* hold
accepting Jesus as Savior to be saved?


regards,

Daniel

    Daniel,
    
    >Do you mean to say that Christianity does *not* hold accepting Jesus as
    >Savior to be saved?
    
    It really depends on which Christians you talk to.  Many Christians
    believe in the "anonymous Christian" concept, which holds that Christ's
    saving power need not be restricted to those who believe in it.  Other
    Christians believe that only Christians can be saved.
    
    -- Mike

    The traditional phrase of the Church is "invincible ignorance" to
    describe those whom the Christian community has not reached with the
    word of God.  They are saved by living good lives in accord with the
    conscience which God has given them.

    The phrase "anonymous Christian" I believe is Karl Rahner's, and
    carries with it some baggage of indifferentism, namely that salvation
    just _is_.  While the birth, life, atoning death, and resurrection of
    Jesus are only symbols of salvation and not the acts of God by which
    salvation was achieved once and for all.  This according to the Roman
    Catholic Church is heresy.

    The most famous episode of this is quite familiar to those who hate the
    Roman Catholic Church and quite unfamiliar to Roman Catholics without a
    living memory of the 1950's.  A Boston-based Jesuit, Fr. Feeney, was
    excommunicated for preaching that only those baptized by water in the
    Roman Catholic Church were saved.  This has always been a heresy as
    well.

    I thought the phrase came from C.S. Lewis, but not being very familiar
    with Lewis's work, I stand corrected if Rahner was the source.
    
    Feeney had been expressing what used to be Catholic doctrine, namely
    that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and that
    non-Catholics (including "schismatics", which would include
    Protestants) were doomed to hell.  His excommunication indicates that
    the Church has reversed itself on this question.
    
    -- Mike

    Feeney expressed his twisted expression of Catholic doctrine.  The
    Church has taught what I wrote for centuries and probably all the way
    back to apostolic times.
    
    Anti-Catholics take comfort in opposing the Catholic Church by
    believing doctrines that are falsely attributed to it.  I want to set
    the record straight:
    
    The Church can speak to the question of who is saved, namely all are
    saved, and to the question of who is communion with the Roman Catholic
    Church.
    
    The Church cannot speak to the question of who is "doomed to hell". God
    alone is judge.

    >The Church cannot speak to the question of who is "doomed to hell". God
    >alone is judge.

    Well, the Church *did* speak to the question of who was doomed to hell. 
    The Council of Florence in 1442 specifically stated that NO ONE outside
    the Catholic church is saved, and listed specific examples of people
    who that includes:  heathens, Jews, unbelievers, and schismatic.  The
    document said that anyone from all those groups of people would be
    subject to the "everlasting fire which has been prepared for the Devil
    and his angels".  That is, unless.  Unless what?  Well, according to
    this proclamation, unless "he attaches himself" to the Catholic Church
    "before his death".

    I don't think you can get any clearer than that.  According to this,
    non-Catholics are doomed to hell unless they become Catholics before
    they die.  Feeney was simply reiterating what used to be Catholic
    doctrine, but because the Catholic Church reversed itself on this
    position, what he was teaching in the 1950s was now unacceptable. 

    This has nothing to do with "Anti-Catholics".   It is easy and
    convenient to dismiss any discussion of Catholicism by non-Catholics as
    "Catholic hating" as a way of settling any and all discussions. 
    Instead of discussing the issues themselves, it becomes an attack on
    the motivations of those who bring up the discussions, and it is simply
    a way of shuting down discussion.  In any case, it simply isn't true. I
    for one appreciate that Catholicism no longer accepts what Feeney
    taught, because it seems to show a better degree of tolerance in modern
    times than is characteristic of many strands of Protestantism.

    -- Mike

    RE: .50
    
    Just a quick note......my mother is a Southern Baptist, while the rest
    of the family grew up as Roman Catholics. When my mother and father
    married....1946, the wedding was *BANNED* from occuring in a church.
    They *HAD* to get married in the rectory.
    
    When I was growing up, I was taught that the Catholics were the only
    true church...and that Protestants could not go straight to heaven.
    Mightly confusing when you mother was not allowed to go to heaven.
    
    I'm glad that things have changed, some, Pat...but....it was
    "only yesterday".
    
    Marc H.

    In note 214.18 I quoted from a 19th century memoir of a Quaker girl, in
    which describes how an Episcopalian girl told her that the unbaptized
    are doomed to hell.  Quakers do not practice baptism, so of course the
    comment was directed right at her.
    
    Unfortunately, a lot of that kind of finger pointing has gone on in the
    history of Christianity, where people felt they had the right to tell
    others that they are going to hell.

    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    Are you familiar with the works of the Second Council of the Vatican of
    1962?  Or do regard the works of the Church after a certain time not to
    reflect what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?
    
    Pat

    This issue must not be a part of that unbroken line of tradition I keep
    hearing about.
    
    Richard
    

    Pat, I believe that the works of the Church to reflect its teachings at
    the time they are issued.
    
    -- Mike

    The Church and most secular historians regard twenty-one councils as
    ecumenical.  The seventeenth was at the cities of Basel, Ferrara,
    Florence and Rome from 1431-1445.

    I'm unfamiliar with the document you quote.  It stands in stark
    contradiction of the Bible, the Council of Trent (1545-1563), Vatican I
    (1869-1870), and Vatican II (62-1965) which taught what I wrote
    earlier.  I'm interested in finding out what the primary or secondary
    sources you used are.

    The confusion may stem from the use of the Greek "anathema" which has
    been translated as "curse" or "condemn".  The penalty that is combined
    with the judgment of anathema is excommunication (the Biblical
    references are Rom 9:3, Gal 1:9).  A Muslim or Jew cannot be
    "excommunicated" since they have never "communicated" in the first
    place.

    In commenting on the Roman Catholic Church doctrine, I have always
    maintained that the Church lacks the ability to judge with certainty
    whether anyone is in Hell.

    My understanding is that Vatican II does express something quite
    different from the doctrine espoused by the  Ecumenical Council of
    Florence in 1442.  Of course, I am not a Catholic, and in no way claim
    to be knowledgeable on the history and evolution of Catholic doctrine.
        
    -- Mike