• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Church Reaffirms That Jews Can Achieve Salvation Without Conversion

Oh, the JOO HATERS here are going to crap their pantaloons.
 
Actually, what the Vatican claims about whether Jews can go to heaven or not is completely irrelevant to Jews.
 
The discussion of whether people can achieve salvation through works and being good instead of through faith in God and Jesus is as old as the ages and as far as I know scripture seems to indicate it is rather through faith in God and Jesus. The Vatican's opinion is largely irrelevant as they're on the path of abandoning scripture and have declared the creation story shouldn't be taken 100% literal.
 
Their assessment would be pretty meaningless to the Jewish people.
The opinion of the Vatican is irrelevant as it is written down in the tenets of their faith, which they chose to reinterpret and cherry pick somewhat at random:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Jews go to HELL in the bible. Just like muslims, atheists and anyone else.
 
The opinion of the Vatican is irrelevant as it is written down in the tenets of their faith, which they chose to reinterpret and cherry pick somewhat at random:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Jews go to HELL in the bible. Just like muslims, atheists and anyone else.
Paul, in Ephesians, is addressing Christians. The "you" in "you have been saved by faith" refers only to Christians. It does not apply to Jews, pagans, or anyone else. It is a fundamental misinterpretation of the epistle to take its meaning as making a statement about how God will choose to welcome others to Paradise. For Catholics, there is nothing new in this.
 
Paul, in Ephesians, is addressing Christians. The "you" in "you have been saved by faith" refers only to Christians. It does not apply to Jews, pagans, or anyone else.
That is what I said.

For Catholics, there is nothing new in this.
Well, it is new if the Vatican starts changing course on this clear issue.
 
The opinion of the Vatican is irrelevant as it is written down in the tenets of their faith, which they chose to reinterpret and cherry pick somewhat at random:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Jews go to HELL in the bible. Just like muslims, atheists and anyone else.

The NT is also irrelevant to Jews.
 
That is what I said. ...
No, you went on to use this scripture to state that it means "Jews go to Hell ... like muslims, atheists ..." But the text is not saying anything about people who are not Christians.
 
No, you went on to use this scripture to state that it means "Jews go to Hell ... like muslims, atheists ..." But the text is not saying anything about people who are not Christians.
Well, what would otherwise be the bloody point in being christian if you can't even go to heaven by good works but non christians can. You speak of "fundamental misinterpretation" without presenting a solid argument why. It follows quite logically actually as I explained in my first sentence.
 
To them. If the christian God does exist as per the rulebook, they might find it quite relevant when burning eternally in a lake of fire and brimstone.

To Jews, the Christian God has as much validity as the Jewish God has to Christians. Christians can worry about their God, It is of no consequence to Jews.
 
To Jews, the Christian God has as much validity as the Jewish God has to Christians. Christians can worry about their God, It is of no consequence to Jews.
It is if either one of these (versions of) Gods exists in the version that was written down (not any cherry picked personal version of God). From your statements, I can infer which one it is you believe in.
 
Well, what would otherwise be the bloody point in being christian if you can't even go to heaven by good works but non christians can. You speak of "fundamental misinterpretation" without presenting a solid argument why. It follows quite logically actually as I explained in my first sentence.
I explained to you that Paul is writing to Christians about their faith and their relationship to God, not anyone else's. You cannot extrapolate anything about others from the text.
 
It is if either one of these (versions of) Gods exists. From your statements, I can infer which one it is you believe in.

No. Christians concern themselves with the Christian God... Jews with the Jewish God. I'd hope you know the difference between the two and why one does not really apply to the other.

And why would my belief have anything to do with the discussion?
 
To them. If the christian God does exist as per the rulebook, they might find it quite relevant when burning eternally in a lake of fire and brimstone.

So, you're saying that Jews should find this part of Christian scripture relevant because if the Christian religion is right and the Jewish one wrong, the Jews will end up in a hell they don't believe in. By this logic everyone ought to find everything about every other religion relevant. :confused:

Remind me, are you still pretending to be an atheist? You sound a lot like Logicman and Tosca to me.
 
The thread title also conveniently omits (perhaps due to being too long) that the FULL original title adds "Though It's Not Sure Why That's True". I wonder why? Could it be the written rulebook says it a tad differently?
 
Remind me, are you still pretending to be an atheist? You sound a lot like Logicman and Tosca to me.
I am not pretending. Except over here I'd better pretend not to be an atheist as being critical of religion is against the rules and is dangerous (as it was in the old days of the inquisition).

So, you're saying that Jews should find this part of Christian scripture relevant because (...)
No, I am arguing against the simplification the NT is irrelevant to jews. Here is the full option list (add if I forget some):

1. There is no God (ouch): it is irrelevant to jews and everyone else
2. There is Allah: it is irrelevant to jews
3. There is Jehovah (do I get stoned?): it is irrelevant to jews
4. There is the christian God as per the bible: it is relevant due to eternal damnation in a pretty unpleasant place
5. There is the christian God as per the Vatican: it is STILL relevant as the works listed are not in the Old Testament
6. There is the christian God as per personal conviction: depends on the personal conviction
7. There is a non Abrahamic religion God: it is irrelevant to jews and everyone else
 
Last edited:
I am not pretending. Except over here I'd better pretend not to be an atheist as being critical of religion is against the rules and is dangerous (as it was in the old days of the inquisition).

Moderator's Warning:
It is unwise to comment on Forum rules, publicly.
 
It seems this post is critical of the religion of others.

Moderator's Warning:
It is unwise to play moderator in a thread. If you believe a post violates a rule, report it.
 
I don't know how to interpret the rules. It is not in scripture. Does being critical of religion mean: critical of the existence of God or Gods plural, critical of the religion of others or what? I am trying to present things as logically as possible and adhere to the rules as much as possible. I listed the option list in a fashion that attempts to be:

1. logical
2. devoid of establishing the existence or non existence of religion
3. kind of neutral as to which version of religion is real (or whether all are not real)

Please clarify exactly what is meant, it is not clear whether one is allowed to be critical of the religion of others.
 
No, I am arguing against the simplification the NT is irrelevant to jews. Here is the full option list (add if I forget some):

OK, let's take a stab at each:

1. There is no God (ouch): it is irrelevant to jews and everyone else

True.

2. There is Allah: it is irrelevant to jews

True.

3. There is Jehovah (do I get stoned?): it is irrelevant to jews

True.

4. There is the christian God as per the bible: it is relevant due to eternal damnation in a pretty unpleasant place

False. To a Jew, if the Christian bible claims eternal damnation, since the Christian God doesn't exist, this is irrelevant.

5. There is the christian God as per the Vatican: it is STILL relevant as the works listed are not in the Old Testament

False. If it is not in the Old Testament, it is irrelevant to Jews.

6. There is the christian God as per personal conviction: depends on the personal conviction

Jews would not have the personal conviction that the Christian God exists, so this is irrelevant.

7. There is a non Abrahamic religion God: it is irrelevant to jews and everyone else

True.
 
Back
Top Bottom