RE: Is everybody saved?

From: Alexanian, Moorad (
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 09:31:20 EDT

  • Next message: Debbie Mann: "RE: The forgotten verses"

    One who does not know Jesus does not know what loves is. A long time ago, a Rabbi indicated at a Bar Mitzvah that all that Jesus had said was already in the Old Testament---there was a large contingence of Christians present and the Rabbi looked at us as he said that. Now I know better.


    In the OT, one has “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.” Lev. 19:18.


    Contrast that to the words of Jesus "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” John 13:34.


    Christ set the example of what love is!




            -----Original Message-----
            From: Don Winterstein []
            Sent: Wed 6/4/2003 7:07 AM
            To: ASA; Dick Fischer
            Subject: Re: Is everybody saved?
            It's a mistake to assume that the law of love and compassion is the easy, watered-down way. As Jesus pointed out in his Sermon on the Mount, the law of love is much more restrictive than any set of rules and regulations, partly because it specifies that the motives are every bit as important as the acts. It also specifies that the big picture is more important than the details: Love is not love if it does not take temporal and eternal consequences into account. Love is not love without commitment and faithfulness.
            So the law of love is rigid indeed, but the things it's rigid about are sometimes different from the things specified in the written rules and regulations. Christians living under love have freedom to set priorities different from those living under the laws.
            Dick Fischer wrote in part:

                    Debbie Mann wrote:
                    It's one thing to say that some of the Bible may be allegorical or explained in terms of false scientific premises. It's something else entirely to say that no matter when it was written or who wrote it we can take the pretty parts and leave the rest alone. Some of it begs for interpretation. Other parts don't. I believe it was Jenkins who said, when you can - take it literally.
                    Where does it start Debbie? When apologists think they have to explain away parts of the Old Testament because they aren't dedicated enough to figure it out or even listen to someone who has, that establishes a pattern which can carry right into the New Testament.
                    Add that to our innate feelings of compassion for all people everywhere, and you have a watered-down gospel - acceptable to any shade of faith and all categories of unrepentant sinners.
                    I argue hard for a literal Genesis illuminated by historical evidence not because it is important in and of itself, but because that too can establish a pattern of taking the entirety of Scripture at full face value.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 09:31:37 EDT