Pre-Christianity, all people went to Hell.

[7StringedBeast]

Ok so this is an interesting thing I just thought of.  If Jesus didn't show up till a certain time to start Christianity.  And if the Bible didn't exist until a certain time, I guess everyone who was born and died before then just automatically went to hell because the only way to heaven is through Jesus?  Can anyone religious comment on this?  How does the Bible account for all the people who existed before the time of the bible.  Were they just screwed over from the beginning?

[yeshaberto]

good question.  the covenant of Jesus refers to his redeeming blood and how "in his forebearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (rom 3:23-24). 
in other words, since the messiah was promised from the time of the very first sin (adam and eve), God overlooked the sins of man in anticipation of the time when his own blood would provide atonement
hope that helps

[bosk1]

Ok so this is an interesting thing I just thought of.  If Jesus didn't show up till a certain time to start Christianity.  And if the Bible didn't exist until a certain time, I guess everyone who was born and died before then just automatically went to hell because the only way to heaven is through Jesus?  Can anyone religious comment on this?  How does the Bible account for all the people who existed before the time of the bible.  Were they just screwed over from the beginning?

No.  From another thread:

Before answering the question directly, a few notes on hell in general.  The context of what few Biblical descriptions there are seem to be symbolic rather than literal descriptions, best I can tell.  I personally don't believe there is a literal description, so I don't believe we can truly know what it is like.  But the universal theme is that it is a place of eternal torment for all who have sinned (including Satan; the image of Satan being in control in hell is not Biblical at all; he is to be punished there as well).  There is no joy or happiness there whatsoever.  

The short version of who is going there and who isn't is this:  God set out the rules for mankind from the beginning.  Those who follow the rules perfectly are not subject to eternal punishment.  But the penalty for sinning is eternal punishment.  God being completely just must enforce this punishment.  It is not a punishment because mankind is inherently evil, as was suggested in a post above, but because each of us has in fact sinned.  

The flip side of that is that while God is 100% just, he is also 100% merciful and offers the free gift of salvation from that punishment for any who accept that Jesus paid the price that anyone who sins must pay (prior to Jesus paying that price, part of the faith that people were asked to have is that God had already set in place the plan where sins would eventually be paid for; as the saying goes, once Jesus paid the price, it was not only for those who would believe in the future, but also for those who had believed in the past--but that's a subject for another thread if people want to dig deeper into this idea).  It is a free gift that is given for all, and all we must do is accept the gift.

Moving on to answer the question (again, this is the short version), as Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the father except through me."  (John 14:6)  In other words, Jesus is the only way to be saved from Hell.  As far as what we must do to accept that salvation, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."  (Mark 16:16)  

Again, that's the short version and is presented to be informative, not persuasive.  But, EJ, you can read that and draw your own conclusions.  My personal wish is that everyone I come into contact with choose to avoid Hell.  But I am under no delusion that everyone will.  We're all free to make our own choices in that regard, so that's fine.

EDIT:  ninja'd by Yesh! 

[7StringedBeast]

good question.  the covenant of Jesus refers to his redeeming blood and how "in his forebearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (rom 3:23-24). 
in other words, since the messiah was promised from the time of the very first sin (adam and eve), God overlooked the sins of man in anticipation of the time when his own blood would provide atonement
hope that helps

Yeah that pretty much answers my question.

My reaction on that is "big time cover up" though lol.  But that's just my own personal opinion on the bible.

[rumborak]

I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.

rumborak

[Adami]

I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.

rumborak

I think it was the gods plurality being used in "made man in our image" and the whole spirit of god brushing over the waters. That's it as far as I know.

[yeshaberto]

big time cover up for sure...  (especially me)

I would add, though, that it is easy to see God from a false perspective.  for many, God is tyrannical judge who can't wait to cast as many as possible into hell.

Instead, the picture of the verse I quoted (where he is referred to as "just and the justifier") is of a court scene where a father is the judge and his son has committed a crime.  as much as he wants to overlook the son's sin, it would not be just and people would come out of the woodwork opposing the judge as partial and unfair.  the judge's deepest desire is to forgive the son for his crime, but justice does not allow it.  However, if the judge (not realistic, of course in our courts) decides to serve the son's sentence himself, he can still be just and be the justifier and his son can escape the deserved punishment of his crime.

this is a more accurate picture of God in relation to his creation

[El Barto]

I raised a similar question in a philosophy class many years ago, and never did get a reasonable answer.  What about the Indians (native Americans)?  They existed after Christ, yet had no conceivable means of knowing the rules. Is there a loophole for them as well?

[yeshaberto]

I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.

rumborak

I think it was the gods plurality being used in "made man in our image" and the whole spirit of god brushing over the waters. That's it as far as I know.

no, I was thinking specifically of Gen 3:15.  it is a messianic passage, so it doesn't refer to Jesus unless Jesus is the messiah (which of course I believe he is).  

[7StringedBeast]

I raised a similar question in a philosophy class many years ago, and never did get a reasonable answer.  What about the Indians (native Americans)?  They existed after Christ, yet had no conceivable means of knowing the rules. Is there a loophole for them as well?

This is a good point as well.  Bothers me.  I guess if I believed in heaven, I would have to believe in many paths to get there.  Christianity is way too close minded for me.

[ehra]

As far as I can remember, the only (or, well, the best. You've got some BS answers like the Left Behind books that say "everyone has been exposed to God's way somehow, they just chose not to follow) answer I've really seen for that question is "God is Just and will judge them fairly."

I don't think it's ever answered directly in the Bible. It's one of those "if you believe X, then Y makes sense" things.

[yeshaberto]

I raised a similar question in a philosophy class many years ago, and never did get a reasonable answer.  What about the Indians (native Americans)?  They existed after Christ, yet had no conceivable means of knowing the rules. Is there a loophole for them as well?

the bible does not refer to any "loopholes," but it does consistently refer to "judgment day."  It doesn't take much in this metaphor to recognize that the judge will make judgments on that day.  In other words, he will take into consideration all circumstances.  no matter what one thinks on this issue, the bottom line is that whatever he chooses to do will be right and just.

[7StringedBeast]

I raised a similar question in a philosophy class many years ago, and never did get a reasonable answer.  What about the Indians (native Americans)?  They existed after Christ, yet had no conceivable means of knowing the rules. Is there a loophole for them as well?

the bible does not refer to any "loopholes," but it does consistently refer to "judgment day."  It doesn't take much in this metaphor to recognize that the judge will make judgments on that day.  In other words, he will take into consideration all circumstances.  no matter what one thinks on this issue, the bottom line is that whatever he chooses to do will be right and just.

But Judgement day has never come.  They all died before Judgement day.  I dunno, I'm not buying it, personally.

[rumborak]

I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.

rumborak

I think it was the gods plurality being used in "made man in our image" and the whole spirit of god brushing over the waters. That's it as far as I know.

no, I was thinking specifically of Gen 3:15.  it is a messianic passage, so it doesn't refer to Jesus unless Jesus is the messiah (which of course I believe he is).  

Even that I don't see really.

And I will put enmity
       between you and the woman,
       and between your offspring and hers;
       he will crush your head,
       and you will strike his heel."

How is that messianic? Doesn't that verse just plain say "you will love this woman as much as you will hate her, and your in-laws will be a cause of strife"?
And the whole chapter is about cursing Adam and Eve for their downfall. I really don't see how that relates to a Messiah. At all.

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

he is actually cursing the serpent in that reference rather than adam and eve

[ehra]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing what that has to to with Jesus. Isn't it basically saying "humans and snakes don't get along now"?

[hefdaddy42]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing what that has to to with Jesus. Isn't it basically saying "humans and snakes don't get along now"?

This.  No one ever thought of this verse as Messianic until Christians started saying it was.  There is nothing there.

[bosk1]

No one ever thought of this verse as Messianic until Christians started saying it was.  

Well, of course.  That was true of a lot of prophecy.  A good many Jews didn't get Isaiah 53 at all, for example, and had no idea what it referred to.  If the messiah was a king and had all these majestic characteristics, what is this random passage about a suffering servant and what do they have to do with anything?  It wasn't until Jesus fullfilled the prophecies that they made sense and the lightbulb went off making people go, "Oh, that's what that means!"

[rumborak]

Sorry, Gen 3:15 really has no light bulb in sight that could go off. God is talking to a snake; there is no Messiah anywhere in there.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

I'm no biblical scholar, nor am I am I even moderately well-versed in scripture, but I have a hard time swallowing that belief in Jesus alone is what will save people on Judgment Day, if such a day will even ever come. God knows your intentions, and understands the hearts of the people, and will be able to tell the upright from the rest.

That's not to say there's no benefit in spreading the word, though.  I'd encourage even people of little faith (like myself sometimes) to continue reading the Gospel as a way of determining what God wants you to be, even if the answer doesn't seem to be very clear  most of the time. 

[hefdaddy42]

No one ever thought of this verse as Messianic until Christians started saying it was.  

Well, of course.  That was true of a lot of prophecy.  A good many Jews didn't get Isaiah 53 at all, for example, and had no idea what it referred to.  If the messiah was a king and had all these majestic characteristics, what is this random passage about a suffering servant and what do they have to do with anything?  It wasn't until Jesus fullfilled the prophecies that they made sense and the lightbulb went off making people go, "Oh, that's what that means!"

I don't think that is a messianic prophecy either.

But hey, it takes all kinds.

[yeshaberto]

No one ever thought of this verse as Messianic until Christians started saying it was.  

Well, of course.  That was true of a lot of prophecy.  A good many Jews didn't get Isaiah 53 at all, for example, and had no idea what it referred to.  If the messiah was a king and had all these majestic characteristics, what is this random passage about a suffering servant and what do they have to do with anything?  It wasn't until Jesus fullfilled the prophecies that they made sense and the lightbulb went off making people go, "Oh, that's what that means!"

I don't think that is a messianic prophecy either.

But hey, it takes all kinds.

just out of curiousity, are there any messianic prophecies that you see in scriptures?

[hefdaddy42]

No one ever thought of this verse as Messianic until Christians started saying it was.  

Well, of course.  That was true of a lot of prophecy.  A good many Jews didn't get Isaiah 53 at all, for example, and had no idea what it referred to.  If the messiah was a king and had all these majestic characteristics, what is this random passage about a suffering servant and what do they have to do with anything?  It wasn't until Jesus fullfilled the prophecies that they made sense and the lightbulb went off making people go, "Oh, that's what that means!"

I don't think that is a messianic prophecy either.

But hey, it takes all kinds.

just out of curiousity, are there any messianic prophecies that you see in scriptures?

I don't know.  There may be some legitimate ones.  But I think most of the ones that Christians hold to be pointing to Jesus aren't really.  And I don't think it was the job of the prophets to tell the future - that isn't what classical Hebrew prophecy entailed.  They spoke for God about, for, and to the people of their times, to try to head them in the right direction.  That's my opinion.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

I raised a similar question in a philosophy class many years ago, and never did get a reasonable answer.  What about the Indians (native Americans)?  They existed after Christ, yet had no conceivable means of knowing the rules. Is there a loophole for them as well?

the bible does not refer to any "loopholes," but it does consistently refer to "judgment day."  It doesn't take much in this metaphor to recognize that the judge will make judgments on that day.  In other words, he will take into consideration all circumstances.  no matter what one thinks on this issue, the bottom line is that whatever he chooses to do will be right and just.

So if under the circumstance that people never hear about Jesus in the first place, God makes them a special deal and lets them into heaven anyway?  In that case, wouldn't it be a better idea to never tell anyone about Christianity so that they get the same deal? 

I mean, obviously someone who hears about Jesus and for one reason or another doesn't get "born again" will go directly to hell.  So it might have been better for that person to never hear the message at all.

This is something that's bothered me for a while actually.

[rumborak]

It's definitely peculiar. With Christianity, you're best off not having heard of it.

rumborak

[j]

So if under the circumstance that people never hear about Jesus in the first place, God makes them a special deal and lets them into heaven anyway?  In that case, wouldn't it be a better idea to never tell anyone about Christianity so that they get the same deal? 

I mean, obviously someone who hears about Jesus and for one reason or another doesn't get "born again" will go directly to hell.  So it might have been better for that person to never hear the message at all.

I think what yesh and others are saying is that God is just regardless of the individual's circumstances.  So the guy who's never heard of Jesus doesn't automatically get the "special deal".  He's "judged according to his deeds", and according to his individual situation and his life.  Similarly, for example, if a guy heard about Jesus during his lifetime, but maybe he grew up in a strict, uniform Islamic society, God would take into account those cultural biases and the difficulty one would have in overcoming them.  That's what I gather from their posts, anyway.

And although the sentence I bolded is definitely a point of contention within Christianity, there is certainly a lot of stuff in the NT that suggests that once you believe, you have infinitely more "responsibility" and the consequences for losing your belief, etc., are dire.  Which kinda brings me to rumborak's conclusion.  Suddenly being born into a Christian family is sounding like more of a negative than a positive, simply because you're being started off with that belief before you have the opportunity to choose or reject it.

-J

[Adami]

Well if god is judging those people based on their deeds, that means 1 of 2 things.

1. They all go to hell anyway, because only the sinless get into heaven
2. The entire idea of christianity is moot.

[j]

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their deeds.

Rev 20:13

-J

[Adami]

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their deeds.

Rev 20:13

-J

So then unless accepting jesus is the ultimate deed...what's the point of christianity? And if accepting jesus is the deal breaker, what's the point of judging them on anything else?

[Dr. SeaWolf]

So if under the circumstance that people never hear about Jesus in the first place, God makes them a special deal and lets them into heaven anyway?  In that case, wouldn't it be a better idea to never tell anyone about Christianity so that they get the same deal? 

I mean, obviously someone who hears about Jesus and for one reason or another doesn't get "born again" will go directly to hell.  So it might have been better for that person to never hear the message at all.

I think what yesh and others are saying is that God is just regardless of the individual's circumstances.  So the guy who's never heard of Jesus doesn't automatically get the "special deal".  He's "judged according to his deeds", and according to his individual situation and his life.  Similarly, for example, if a guy heard about Jesus during his lifetime, but maybe he grew up in a strict, uniform Islamic society, God would take into account those cultural biases and the difficulty one would have in overcoming them.  That's what I gather from their posts, anyway.

But that doesn't jibe at all with the theological concept of "salvation through faith and not deeds".

[yeshaberto]

 

I have to admit I never thought of that point...it is pretty good to be honest

the reality, though, is that my suggestion about judgment day is merely that.  Scripture does not tell us what will happen to those who have not heard.  If anything, to the contrary, it presupposes a responsibility to make sure they do hear.

I am merely applying my human sense of justice to what makes sense, but as I stated before, one thing is for sure...whatever God does, it will be right

[Dr. SeaWolf]

Doesn't that seem a bit like a cop-out to you though?  I don't want to be rude, but it's not the best argument when it comes to someone's eternal soul going to heaven or hell.

[soundgarden]

whatever God does, it will be right

This, this is EXACTLY the statement that turns me away from any religious discussions.  Defenders of religion always have this card which is impossible to beat.  How can one have a logical debate if the very foundation of ones knowledge rests in a belief system which is built on one's own personal, spiritual, experiences.

Doesn't concern you yeshua, that this is the exact argument that other religions use?  In all senses of reason and logic, why does your god do right as apposed to others?  Why does your god do wrong according to others?  There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to pick your god over the others.

[yeshaberto]

Doesn't that seem a bit like a cop-out to you though?  I don't want to be rude, but it's not the best argument when it comes to someone's eternal soul going to heaven or hell.

are you talking about the line referenced by soundgarden?

I wasn't meaning it in the sense of my god over your god...I only mean it in the sense that by defintion God is God.  I know a lot of people who worry about questions like these as if their worrying is going to "help" God make the right decision.  My point is only that if God is really God, he is pretty capable of doing what is best/right without our help.  If he indeed created the vast expanse of the universe, I don't think he is incapable of understanding the problems that plague us

[orcus116]

I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.

rumborak

If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.