Salvation for Jews prior to Jesus?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This is a question to conservative evangelical Christians regarding salvation. What is the salvation status of Jews before Christ's resurrection? Devout Jews prior to Jesus, like Moses, Joshua, Job, Abraham, etc... supposedly go to heaven right? However, after Jesus's resurrection, Jews supposedly become among "the Damned" along with us atheists and agnostics since they don't accept Christ as saviour.

Therefore, a devout Jew who died 1 second before Jesus was resurrected goes to heaven. However, a devout Jew who died one second after Jesus was resurrected goes to Hell since they do not accept Christ as their saviour or messiah. Is that how it works concerning Jewish salvation?

Jason

[JerryM]

Well, I'm not a Christian so I probably shouldn't answer this. But it sounds like this is a variation on the "noble pagan" question. Can a righteous pagan, or other person, who has never heard of Jesus or the Gospels be saved? The salvation-through-faith hardliners usually evade the issue by answering that God is perfectly just and each person will receive in the afterlife exactly what he deserves. But this seems to leave open the possibility that some right-living non-believers may be saved by God's grace. And if that's so, then how can they say that faith in Jesus is the only path to salvation?

[Leah]

There (for once) all christian branches agree:

All dedicated Jews before the decipling and baptism which started with John the baptiser (he baptised Jesus, so before Jesus was 30 and became a christian, ) are trusted to reign with Jesus in heaven.

From Jesus baptism the rules of savioury (right word?) vary a bit, from one to another Christian movement/religion. But from then Jews would have to be baptised as christians or die without the knowledge of the "new way" (John and Jesus), in order to be rewarded after death (in some christian movements with a heavenly- in others with an earthy afterlife in a new world order).

(this was my general knowledge, not my conviction)

[Darth Dane]

If God is Timeless, Jesus is. Meaning when the "pre-Christ" people died, they were in front of Jesus as well.





DD - Love & Laughter

[SignOfTheCross]

Originally posted by JerryM
Well, I'm not a Christian so I probably shouldn't answer this. But it sounds like this is a variation on the "noble pagan" question. Can a righteous pagan, or other person, who has never heard of Jesus or the Gospels be saved? The salvation-through-faith hardliners usually evade the issue by answering that God is perfectly just and each person will receive in the afterlife exactly what he deserves. But this seems to leave open the possibility that some right-living non-believers may be saved by God's grace. And if that's so, then how can they say that faith in Jesus is the only path to salvation?

Jesus is the only path to salvation, however it is possible for those who live righteously but do not have faith in God to be saved, but only through Jesus Christ.

Peace,
SOTC

[WWSD]

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Jesus is the only path to salvation, however it is possible for those who live righteously but do not have faith in God to be saved, but only through Jesus Christ.

Peace,
SOTC

Your sentence makes no sense. It is possible to be saved without jesus, but you have to have jesus? What?

[Milton]

Yes, you can be saved, without accepting Jesus, only if you have not heard of him, but have lived a moral life.

You may have even heard that someone died for you, but if you were not presented with more detailed information, you probably will still be excused.

Where is the line drawn between knowing and not knowing? I don't know.

[WWSD]

Originally posted by Milton
Yes, you can be saved, without accepting Jesus, only if you have not heard of him, but have lived a moral life.

You may have even heard that someone died for you, but if you were not presented with more detailed information, you probably will still be excused.

Where is the line drawn between knowing and not knowing? I don't know.


So wouldn't it be better to just let people be and not inform them about Xtianity? Assuming that there are a great number of humans in the world who live a good life but who would still reject xtianity based upon thier birthplace etc, why tell them? Why not let them be suprised when they die?

[Leah]

Originally posted by WWSD
So wouldn't it be better to just let people be and not inform them about Xtianity? Assuming that there are a great number of humans in the world who live a good life but who would still reject xtianity based upon thier birthplace etc, why tell them? Why not let them be suprised when they die?

Cause Jesus supposedly said "go forth and make desciples and baptise them ...."
and
"This news of the Kingdom will be preached from one end of the world to another..."
(don't ask me for book and verse in the New Testament, I still haven't got a bible, ...)

[WWSD]

Originally posted by Leah
Cause Jesus supposedly said "go forth and make desciples and baptise them ...."
and
"This news of the Kingdom will be preached from one end of the world to another..."
(don't ask me for book and verse in the New Testament, I still haven't got a bible, ...)

Indeed the bible does say those things.
I wonder where then does the bible mention what happens to those poor moral souls who have lived good lives but not heard the word?

The problem here is that the policy of preaching makes no sense if ignorance can also be claimed as salvation. It seems rather counterproductive doesn't it? So IMO the idea that people can be saved or are saved by ignorance seems a bit contradictory to the core doctrine of reaching out to the unwashed masses.

[Milton]

Originally posted by WWSD
Indeed the bible does say those things.
I wonder where then does the bible mention what happens to those poor moral souls who have lived good lives but not heard the word?

The problem here is that the policy of preaching makes no sense if ignorance can also be claimed as salvation. It seems rather counterproductive doesn't it? So IMO the idea that people can be saved or are saved by ignorance seems a bit contradictory to the core doctrine of reaching out to the unwashed masses.

Paul makes comments on it in the epistle to the Romans.

The Gospel brings more than just the idea that you will go to heaven. We preach to reveal the One True God to the people. There is this whole theme where God wants to reconcile all these people to Himself, removing the veil of ignorance that existed before. These people had developed images and idols, though some had continued being moral in some aspect, they had no real knowledge of the Law of God, and of God himself.

Also, if we don't spread the knowledge of God, and His requirements, then how do you expect people to be moral? Some people could be moral, but that does not mean that their morality was directly prescribed by their society or religion. So by spreading the moral standards of God, we are giving more people a chance avoid falling into immorality--or come out of immorality.

As it was practiced by the Greeks, drinking of blood was a great sin. That is why the Apostles sent the letter to the new Greek converts advising of this. Sexual immorality (homosexual, orgies, etc.) too was common among the Greeks, where it was more like a religious practice, than merely something limited to a few people.

That is the reason why we must preach the Gospel.

[WWSD]

Originally posted by Milton

The Gospel brings more than just the idea that you will go to heaven. We preach to reveal the One True God to the people.

And how can you be sure that the one true god isn't Allah? Or Brahma? I would say that this is an issue that is up in the air.


There is this whole theme where God wants to reconcile all these people to Himself, removing the veil of ignorance that existed before. These people had developed images and idols, though some had continued being moral in some aspect, they had no real knowledge of the Law of God, and of God himself.

But if these people remained ignorant of your religion, and they were still moral, would they go the heaven or hell. That's the core issue here.


Also, if we don't spread the knowledge of God, and His requirements, then how do you expect people to be moral?

Xtianity's morality isn't much more than common sense IMO. I didn't need to read the bible to know that I probably shouldn't kill someone or steal thier car. Besides, I think that a lot of our morals are products of evolution as social animals.


Some people could be moral, but that does not mean that their morality was directly prescribed by their society or religion. So by spreading the moral standards of God, we are giving more people a chance avoid falling into immorality--or come out of immorality.


And the core issue remains. What happens to someone who is moral, by your standards, but has never heard of xtianity? And why tell them if it is only going t odecrease thier chances of salvation. If I tell a Buddhist monk, who has led a moral life, about your religion, and he disbelieves it becasue it sounds silly to him, does he not go to hell when he dies?


Sexual immorality (homosexual, orgies, etc.) too was common among the Greeks, where it was more like a religious practice, than merely something limited to a few people.

Why is homosexuality immoral? Because the bible says so? Oh this one's going to start a firestorm.


That is the reason why we must preach the Gospel.

It still doesn't make sense. If someone is completely moral by your standards, and you preach to them, and they disbelieve it, they go to hell. If you hadn't preached to them, they would have salvation by ignorance right?

Basically, by preaching to them, you may have ruined thier chances of ever making it to heaven. So the core issue is still whether preaching ot a moral but ignorant person is hte right thing to do.

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Milton
Yes, you can be saved, without accepting Jesus, only if you have not heard of him, but have lived a moral life.

You may have even heard that someone died for you, but if you were not presented with more detailed information, you probably will still be excused.

Where is the line drawn between knowing and not knowing? I don't know.

This is by far one of the more humorous posts I've read.

According to your first statement, those who live a moral life on their own accord, but don't know of Jesus, (thus they can't accept him) are afforded heaven.

The next sentence claims that lack of adequate or complete information will afford you heaven as well. Well I'm claiming not to be fully informed! :) Since you wouldn't know the line between knowing and not knowing, we all can potentially reach heaven then, correct?

Seriously, my main issues with these claims is:

1) There is no scriptural basis for these assertions (to my knowledge)

2) The premier crux of your whole argument (knowing and not knowing) seems to be the very issue you're not able to give an opinion on. The proberbial "line" would be the only relevant issue.

[Leah]

Originally posted by Milton

That is the reason why we must preach the Gospel.

Milton,
I'm waiting for your reply on this.
Come on, this is THE chance to preach the gospel to us. How about singing it, actually ? :D

[Milton]

Oops!

I have not been around for while...

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Milton
Oops!

I have not been around for while...

Now that you're back, there were a few comments about your posts...mine is one of them if you care to address them.

Regards,

Invictus