Bobinius

Of course, those saviors are not recognized by the christians.

But the good question is : why is Jesus the true savior and the others are not?

Decypher

So its "emotional" to believe that a supposedly good God would not behave that way? I don't think so. I think its an obvious truth that a "good" Deity would not behave in that way.

mdarus

Bob, let's go back to the beginning to take one thing at a time. Logic works if the premises are valid. Logic fails when the premises are invalid. I dispute your first premise. It is flawed by at least two fallacies: (1) Fallacy of Accident (2) Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent . All else is irrelevant if the first premise fails.

As you know, a fallacy of accident occurs when a general rule is misapplied to a particular situation. In this situation the general rule becomes a sweeping generalization. If we fill in the implicit suggestion, the fallacy becomes clear.

The construct that reveals the implicit suggestion behind the fallacy of the premise is
When the premise is read, the reader who would agree that the statement approximates a proper description of Christianity if it includes "NOW" as the time period since Christ lived. When evaluating for a fallacy of accident, it is necessary to ask where or to who a rule is supposed to apply. To extend the rule to those who lived before Christ, is to misapply the rule. Therefore the premise is flawed by the fallacy of accident.

Another fallacy in this premise is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The construct of the implicit meaning that reveals this fallacy is:
This construct of the premise better conforms to the direction of your argument. It again reveals the obvious impossibility of anyone living before Christ to respond to the message. It also reveals the implicit assumption that the only way to be saved is to believe that Jesus is God incarnate and to believe in his atoning death on the cross. This is certainly a great way to be saved, but not the only way for all people at all times. Jesus affirmed that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are full participants in the kingdom of heaven.

This is a clear indication that Jesus did not insist that salvation for all people at all times required the content of his own divinity and his substitutionary atonement. The spiritual position of the Old Testament “saints� is a significant theme in Pauline and other New Testament books. The writer of Hebrews summarizes it nicely in chapter 11 where he recounts the major Old Testament figures and their anticipatory faith in the Messiah. This is nicely summarized in verses 39 and 40.
Their faith in the promise of Christ found its completion in Christ and their inclusion with those who believed the gospel.
The content of faith varies according to the information available. Therefore, because there is also other faith content consistent with Jesus being the way to the Father, the premise is flawed by the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Volker

If you say that

this is the same as:

[1'] It was not always necessary that one believed in Jesus Christ ...

Or, to state it in another way, christianity was not always (at all times) true. Or that the "christian truth" is time dependant. There was a time before Christ when you could be saved without believing in Jesus. And that situation changed.

And because most Jews found that unacceptable, they didn't start to believe in Jesus. That is, they could be saved when sticking to their laws (or believing in god, doing good works etc. without believing in Jesus) before Christ arrived. And now they are unsaved, even if they do the same now that their anchestors did to be saved. The rules have been changed by an unchanging god.

Or you can believe that even today Jews could be saved - that is, it was never necessary to believe in Jesus to be saved. Not before Jesus, not after him. But you cannot believe that an unchanging god changed the rules for salvation at some time in the past.

Now you are left with two contradictions:

(1) An unchanging god changed the rules.
(2) Christianity was true for all times, but it was not true before Jesus appeared on earth.

And even after Jesus appeared on earth, there were people who couldn't believe in him, because they didn't know a thing about him. Either, they are unsaved because of circumstances that they are not responsible for. Or, they can be saved by doing good works, living a good live etc. In this case, what you are saying is:

(3) It is not necessary for all people to believe in Jesus to be saved.

Otherwise, you're left with yet another contradiction:

(4) It is necessary to believe in Jesus even if it is impossible to know anything about Jesus.
(5) Go is just.
-----------------------
(6) Gods justice means, that you're saved if you believe something that is impossible to believe.

And this leads to:

(3) It is not necessary for all people to believe in Jesus to be saved.
(7) If christianity is true, it is necessary for all people to believe in Jesus to be saved.

This contradiction can only be solved if you conclude:

(8) Christianity cannot be true.

Volker

Or, as I stated: Christianity (believing in Jesus is necessary to be saved) was not true at all times and is not true for all people. Or:

(1) It is necessary for all people to believe in Jesus to be saved.
(2) It is not necessary for all people to believe in Jesus to be saved.

Or, Jesus is not at all times and for all people the way and the truth and somebody could come to his father even without him. But that is not what Jesus said, quite the opposite. So, in saying that Jesus is the truth and the way and nobody could come to his father without him, Jesus didnd't tell the truth! The "nobody" in that sentence is false and misleading.

Bobinius

Volker formulated the issues pretty well, but i'll add a thing or two.

For start, let me inform you that propositions or premises are not valid or invalid. They are true or false. It is the argument or its form that is valid or invalid.

Secondly, you seem to have no clue what the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent is. You did not demonstrate any formal mistake of affirming the consequent. And you are actually arguing that the first premise is false, not that the argument is valid. So, clear up your confusions and start again.

My argument could be formulated in propositional logic like this.

IF 'people are saved', THEN 'they have faith in Jesus Christ and his message'.

'The people that lived before Jesus Christ did not have faith in Jesus Christ and his message'.
-----------------

'The people that lived before Jesus Christ were not saved'

This is valid. It is Modus Tollens.

If A then B

~B
-----------
~A

In my case:

A = people are saved
B = they have faith in Jesus Christ and his message

B is the consequent and it is also called in logic 'necessary condition' for A, the antecedent.

Affirming the Consequent looks like this:

If A then B
B
----------
A

IF 'people are saved', THEN 'they have faith in Jesus Christ and his message'.

'People that lived before Jesus Christ had faith in Jesus Christ and his message'
--------

'People that lived before Jesus Christ are saved.'

Hopefully you understood what Affirming the Consequent looks like, and also observed that I am not making that mistake and also, you were arguing like that (fallaciously) with your ad-hoc and anachronistic anticipatory faith.

I am really puzzled (or not? ) that you did not adress my logical formulation of the problem, where I showed how the premises are supported. You keep coming with something else, modifying the argument as you see fit.I wonder why.

The 'particular' situation covers all the people the lived before Jesus. Quite particular. I would say that when Jesus preached, Judaism was the generalization and him and his team was the 'particular' situation.

You must have pretty good reasons for contradicting Jesus and transforming all these people in cases where he is no longer necessary for them to come to the Father. Let's see what you got:

1. You realize that now you are attacking another argument, you are making a Straw man. But what the heck, you don't have a case anyway.

2. On what do you base this premise? I am basing my premise on Jesus' words.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

a. Jesus never said now. Jesus never said when the rules have changed. Jesus clearly said that no man comes to the father, but by him. This is exclusive. He is necessary.

b. But you have to clarify when does this 'now' start. When Jesus was born from a virgin? When he started preaching? When John preached? When He healed people? When he was crucified and died? When he rose? He was accusing the apostles that they don't believe when he was not yet crucified. So it must have started already.

This ad-hoc strategy is not only unjustified and contradicts what Jesus said, it is also bankrupt.

• It means that Christianity was not true before Jesus came on Earth.
• This means that while Jesus Christ exists eternally and existed before he was sent to Earth (he is God), faith in him became necessary for salvation only at an arbitrary moment in time. This is absurd. Or was God not Trinitary before Jesus? He changed?
• This condemns eternally all the people that died after the 'now' moment when the rules changed, but before the message about Jesus could reach them. God deliberately deceived them and changed the rules when it was impossible for them to find out. God sent them all to hell.

Your ad-hoc modification looks even worse than before. It is quite absurd.

c. You have to explain how come it was possible to be saved without Jesus before him, but not after. That makes Jesus unnecessary for salvation.

There is no assumption: only the WORDS of Jesus. You should read them again and again.

Is it possible for someone that lived before an event to believe the event already happened? Prove it. The premise is as clear as daylight.

There is no sign of Affirming the Consequent. You don't know what you are talking about.

Of course, this makes Jesus' message incoherent. Another case against Christianity. You need to bring a very good reason why a jew that lived BC could be saved without Jesus, and one that lived after is damned eternally.

I already told you that this is a post-factum anachronistic interpretation. You seem to ignore those passages. Also see that you are making the fallacy of ... Affirming the Consequent. see above.

There is no fallacy. Only your ignorance of what that fallacy is. You are making an unjustified assumption, attacking a straw man, and only made a worse case for Christianity.

Jesus becomes an un-necessary step for salvation that God decide to make.

People were already capable of being saved, but God sent his Son because he loved his people so much and wanted them to be saved. It is logically contradictory. Either God is an incoherent idiot, or your premise is wrong.

Bobinius

It is emotional to think that the argument is 'sick'. The conclusion follows from the premises. It is a contradiction. Based on the fact that a good God should not behave like that.

Bobinius

If people were saved before Jesus was sent on Earth, how is it possible that God sent his Son to save us?

John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

It seems that God was bored and sent his son just for fun.

John A. Broussard

(You evidently missed this post, so I'm posting it again)

mdarus

Sorry, John. I was having too much fun exploring the world of logical fallacies.

I am also not sure if I can meet your request for Bible verses that state "unequivocally" why it was necessary for Jesus to die for sin without the requirement that all people at all time believe in Jesus’ deity (incarnation) and death on the cross (atonement). The “unequivocal� may be a higher standard of proof than I can manage. But let’s try.

It seems it would be sufficient to show
1) Before Jesus died there were those whose faith secured their salvation (OT believers)
2) These OT believers were not required to believe in
a) Jesus (who had not yet become flesh)
b) Jesus who had not yet become incarnate was divine
c) Jesus who had not yet died on the cross died for their sins
3) Jesus death was necessary for those OT believers.
4) The faith that OT believers had in temple sacrifices or the promise of a Messiah or the promise that someday the world would be blessed by their descendents can be understood as a implicit faith in the future coming of Jesus. This would link their faith to Jesus’ incarnation and death.

Also, let me admit that the question of WHY Jesus had to die is not settled in Christianity. There are several theories of why the atonement was necessary. These include a ransom theory, a moral influence theory, a penal substitutionary theory among others. All have Bible verses that support them. Each explore some aspect of the purpose or benefits of Jesus’ death.

The complete answer to your question may need to address the following issues:

Are there any verses that substantiate that Jesus recognized anyone who had saving faith before he lived? If there are, this would substantiate that Jesus affirmed that the content of this successful saving faith did not require belief in his deity and death on the cross.

Are their verses that identify alternative faith content required? In other words, is it true that the requirements are for belief in both the incarnation and the atonement or does faith in something else that points to Christ’s atonement sufficient?

Then, if these (before Christ) believers exist, are there then any verses that suggest that they were depending on Jesus to die on the cross to complete the requirements of their salvation? If these verses exist, then it would substantiate the need for Jesus to die for people who did not have knowledge of his incarnation or atonement.

I hate long posts and this one is already too long. I have access to the verses that build the concept of atonement, but let’s start with a couple. Let me suggest the following verses:

I1) The prophets are considered as participants in the message of salvation and grace. The Spirit of Christ was within them.
2) The prophets had an incomplete knowledge of the messiah (Christ) yet their faith was sufficient.
3) The prophets looked forward to a suffering Messiah who would provide salvation benefits both to themselves and those who were to experience its full effect.