Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

It is pernicious lie that saying Christ is King is taking the Lord's name in vain unless you're saying it sarcastically.

If you mean it, then its VERY CORRECT to use it to expose those who do not believe it.

---

So a terrorist who yells "Christ is King" before murdering innocents has not taken the Lord's name in vain? He means it, it's not sarcastic. Yet he's using the phrase as justification for evil. By your logic, that's not wrong because he's not being sarcastic.

This is not difficult. Context matters when you say things.

---

LOL yes that would be just about the only other exception. Congratulations. That's not even close to what is happening here.

---

No, it would not be the only exception. It's just an easy illustration as to why your premise that it's never wrong to use the phrase is patently ridiculous. You're wrong, as was just proven.

You can admit that Christ is King and that the phrase can be used in vain. It'll be ok.

---

I already did, if its used in a disingenuous way. I already said that earlier in the thread too. If you don't mean it or you're actively doing evil in the name of God while saying that exact phrase.

She means it. She wasn't doing anything evil.

It's an pernicious stretch, to somehow conflate what Candace did to violating a commandment that cannot be forgiven.

All in an attempt to get Christians to stop saying Christ is King to those who we disagree with politically. It is a very appropriate use of the phrase to use it to expose those who deny the deity of Christ.

---

Nobody is trying to stop Christians from witnessing to others. The DailyWire employs Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Andrew Klavan who all speak about their Christianity on a daily basis. Jeremy Boering is a Christian, and he's the one with the hiring/firing duties.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're missing context here and that there is ample reason to believe that Candace is being disingenuous when using the phrase Christ is King in a public political spat. She's not witnessing to Shapiro in a meaningful way. There was no prompt for the phrase. She is using the Lord's name as a means to a political end. That is inappropriate in every sense of the word.

It's really not difficult to understand. You don't need to reflexively defend everyone that says a phrase you like, especially not for Candace Owens.

---

I explicitly agree with the way she used it.

She was exposing him for denying Christ. I agree with her doing that. I find Shapiro to be a massive hypocrite on this issue.

---

Exactly. The context in which she used it was fine. They are just angry she wasn't groveling at his feet like most Dispensationalists merely for being Jewish.

---

What are you going to do when you find out your replacement theology is wrong?

---

I don't believe in replacement theology. I lean Reformed. The Gentiles were grafted in and did not replace anyone. The Bible is very clear that the only way to go to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Are you saying Jews can go to Heaven without doing this? That they are not condemned to Hell for rejecting him? Because if that's your view then you're an apostate and directly contradicting the Word of God.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

It is pernicious lie that saying Christ is King is taking the Lord's name in vain unless you're saying it sarcastically.

If you mean it, then its VERY CORRECT to use it to expose those who do not believe it.

---

So a terrorist who yells "Christ is King" before murdering innocents has not taken the Lord's name in vain? He means it, it's not sarcastic. Yet he's using the phrase as justification for evil. By your logic, that's not wrong because he's not being sarcastic.

This is not difficult. Context matters when you say things.

---

LOL yes that would be just about the only other exception. Congratulations. That's not even close to what is happening here.

---

No, it would not be the only exception. It's just an easy illustration as to why your premise that it's never wrong to use the phrase is patently ridiculous. You're wrong, as was just proven.

You can admit that Christ is King and that the phrase can be used in vain. It'll be ok.

---

I already did, if its used in a disingenuous way. I already said that earlier in the thread too. If you don't mean it or you're actively doing evil in the name of God while saying that exact phrase.

She means it. She wasn't doing anything evil.

It's an pernicious stretch, to somehow conflate what Candace did to violating a commandment that cannot be forgiven.

All in an attempt to get Christians to stop saying Christ is King to those who we disagree with politically. It is a very appropriate use of the phrase to use it to expose those who deny the deity of Christ.

---

Nobody is trying to stop Christians from witnessing to others. The DailyWire employs Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Andrew Klavan who all speak about their Christianity on a daily basis. Jeremy Boering is a Christian, and he's the one with the hiring/firing duties.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're missing context here and that there is ample reason to believe that Candace is being disingenuous when using the phrase Christ is King in a public political spat. She's not witnessing to Shapiro in a meaningful way. There was no prompt for the phrase. She is using the Lord's name as a means to a political end. That is inappropriate in every sense of the word.

It's really not difficult to understand. You don't need to reflexively defend everyone that says a phrase you like, especially not for Candace Owens.

---

I explicitly agree with the way she used it.

She was exposing him for denying Christ. I agree with her doing that. I find Shapiro to be a massive hypocrite on this issue.

---

Exactly. The context in which she used it was fine. They are just angry she wasn't groveling at his feet like most Dispensationalists merely for being Jewish.

---

What are you going to do when you find out your replacement theology is wrong?

---

I don't believe in replacement theology. I lean Reformed. The Gentiles were grafted in and did not replace anyone. The Bible is very clear that the only way to go to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Are you saying Jews can go to Heaven without doing this? That they are not condemned to Hell for rejecting him? Because if that's your view then you're an apostate and directly contradicting the Word of God.

---

I never said anything of the sort, and you're sure quick to want to call people apostates. There's just a distinct theology that is sympathetic to anti-Jewish sentiment that believes that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people.

The point I was making goes back to earlier in the thread when people were railing against Klavan's theology. What is the percentage of theology that you must get exactly correct to be accepted into heaven? Do you have to get eschatology exactly correct, or do you just have to put your faith in Jesus and live in a manner that glorifies him? Does one go to hell for believing in a pre-tribulation rapture as opposed to a post-tribulation rapture?

You're sure quick to self-righteously condemn, so you'd better hope what you're preaching is 100% correct lest you be an apostate yourself by your own logic.

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

It is pernicious lie that saying Christ is King is taking the Lord's name in vain unless you're saying it sarcastically.

If you mean it, then its VERY CORRECT to use it to expose those who do not believe it.

---

So a terrorist who yells "Christ is King" before murdering innocents has not taken the Lord's name in vain? He means it, it's not sarcastic. Yet he's using the phrase as justification for evil. By your logic, that's not wrong because he's not being sarcastic.

This is not difficult. Context matters when you say things.

---

LOL yes that would be just about the only other exception. Congratulations. That's not even close to what is happening here.

---

No, it would not be the only exception. It's just an easy illustration as to why your premise that it's never wrong to use the phrase is patently ridiculous. You're wrong, as was just proven.

You can admit that Christ is King and that the phrase can be used in vain. It'll be ok.

---

I already did, if its used in a disingenuous way. I already said that earlier in the thread too. If you don't mean it or you're actively doing evil in the name of God while saying that exact phrase.

She means it. She wasn't doing anything evil.

It's an pernicious stretch, to somehow conflate what Candace did to violating a commandment that cannot be forgiven.

All in an attempt to get Christians to stop saying Christ is King to those who we disagree with politically. It is a very appropriate use of the phrase to use it to expose those who deny the deity of Christ.

---

Nobody is trying to stop Christians from witnessing to others. The DailyWire employs Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Andrew Klavan who all speak about their Christianity on a daily basis. Jeremy Boering is a Christian, and he's the one with the hiring/firing duties.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're missing context here and that there is ample reason to believe that Candace is being disingenuous when using the phrase Christ is King in a public political spat. She's not witnessing to Shapiro in a meaningful way. There was no prompt for the phrase. She is using the Lord's name as a means to a political end. That is inappropriate in every sense of the word.

It's really not difficult to understand. You don't need to reflexively defend everyone that says a phrase you like, especially not for Candace Owens.

---

I explicitly agree with the way she used it.

She was exposing him for denying Christ. I agree with her doing that. I find Shapiro to be a massive hypocrite on this issue.

---

Exactly. The context in which she used it was fine. They are just angry she wasn't groveling at his feet like most Dispensationalists merely for being Jewish.

---

What are you going to do when you find out your replacement theology is wrong?

---

I don't believe in replacement theology. I lean Reformed. The Gentiles were grafted in and did not replace anyone. The Bible is very clear that the only way to go to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Are you saying Jews can go to Heaven without doing this? That they are not condemned to Hell for rejecting him? Because if that's your view then you're an apostate and directly contradicting the Word of God.

---

I never said anything of the sort, and you're sure quick to want to call people apostates. There's just a distinct theology that is sympathetic to anti-Jewish sentiment that believes that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people.

The point I was making goes back to earlier in the thread when people were railing against Klavan's theology. What is the percentage of theology that you must get exactly correct to be accepted into heaven? Do you have to get eschatology exactly correct, or do you just have to put your faith in Jesus and live in a manner that glorifies him? Does one go to hell for believing in a pre-tribulation rapture as opposed to a post-tribulation rapture?

You're sure quick to self-righteously condemn, so you'd better hope what you're preaching is 100% correct lest you be an apostate yourself by your own logic.

---

Ironic, because you're quick to say people are guilty of unforgivable sins. Taking the Lord's name in vain is bad.

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

It is pernicious lie that saying Christ is King is taking the Lord's name in vain unless you're saying it sarcastically.

If you mean it, then its VERY CORRECT to use it to expose those who do not believe it.

---

So a terrorist who yells "Christ is King" before murdering innocents has not taken the Lord's name in vain? He means it, it's not sarcastic. Yet he's using the phrase as justification for evil. By your logic, that's not wrong because he's not being sarcastic.

This is not difficult. Context matters when you say things.

---

LOL yes that would be just about the only other exception. Congratulations. That's not even close to what is happening here.

---

No, it would not be the only exception. It's just an easy illustration as to why your premise that it's never wrong to use the phrase is patently ridiculous. You're wrong, as was just proven.

You can admit that Christ is King and that the phrase can be used in vain. It'll be ok.

---

I already did, if its used in a disingenuous way. I already said that earlier in the thread too. If you don't mean it or you're actively doing evil in the name of God while saying that exact phrase.

She means it. She wasn't doing anything evil.

It's an pernicious stretch, to somehow conflate what Candace did to violating a commandment that cannot be forgiven.

All in an attempt to get Christians to stop saying Christ is King to those who we disagree with politically. It is a very appropriate use of the phrase to use it to expose those who deny the deity of Christ.

---

Nobody is trying to stop Christians from witnessing to others. The DailyWire employs Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Andrew Klavan who all speak about their Christianity on a daily basis. Jeremy Boering is a Christian, and he's the one with the hiring/firing duties.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're missing context here and that there is ample reason to believe that Candace is being disingenuous when using the phrase Christ is King in a public political spat. She's not witnessing to Shapiro in a meaningful way. There was no prompt for the phrase. She is using the Lord's name as a means to a political end. That is inappropriate in every sense of the word.

It's really not difficult to understand. You don't need to reflexively defend everyone that says a phrase you like, especially not for Candace Owens.

---

I explicitly agree with the way she used it.

She was exposing him for denying Christ. I agree with her doing that. I find Shapiro to be a massive hypocrite on this issue.

---

Exactly. The context in which she used it was fine. They are just angry she wasn't groveling at his feet like most Dispensationalists merely for being Jewish.

---

What are you going to do when you find out your replacement theology is wrong?

---

I don't believe in replacement theology. I lean Reformed. The Gentiles were grafted in and did not replace anyone. The Bible is very clear that the only way to go to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Are you saying Jews can go to Heaven without doing this? That they are not condemned to Hell for rejecting him? Because if that's your view then you're an apostate and directly contradicting the Word of God.

---

I never said anything of the sort, and you're sure quick to want to call people apostates. There's just a distinct theology that is sympathetic to anti-Jewish sentiment that believes that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people.

The point I was making goes back to earlier in the thread when people were railing against Klavan's theology. What is the percentage of theology that you must get exactly correct to be accepted into heaven? Do you have to get eschatology exactly correct, or do you just have to put your faith in Jesus and live in a manner that glorifies him? Does one go to hell for believing in a pre-tribulation rapture as opposed to a post-tribulation rapture?

You're sure quick to self-righteously condemn, so you'd better hope what you're preaching is 100% correct lest you be an apostate yourself by your own logic.

---

Replacement or non-replacement theology is irrelevant to how someone gets to Heaven. 99% of Christians have absolutely no idea what these terms mean. The only requirement to get to Heaven is accepting Jesus Christ died for your sins. If you don't do this then you don't go to Heaven, end of story. This applies across the board to everyone Jew and Gentile alike.

Again, do you believe Jews can go to Heaven without accepting Jesus died for their sins?

I don't believe Candace hates the Jews either. I believe she says things to rile people up for likes/attention/money. She has an audience and knows how to keep it. Y'all going on Godly on this is in vain because she literally gives zero ****s about it

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

It is pernicious lie that saying Christ is King is taking the Lord's name in vain unless you're saying it sarcastically.

If you mean it, then its VERY CORRECT to use it to expose those who do not believe it.

---

So a terrorist who yells "Christ is King" before murdering innocents has not taken the Lord's name in vain? He means it, it's not sarcastic. Yet he's using the phrase as justification for evil. By your logic, that's not wrong because he's not being sarcastic.

This is not difficult. Context matters when you say things.

---

LOL yes that would be just about the only other exception. Congratulations. That's not even close to what is happening here.

---

No, it would not be the only exception. It's just an easy illustration as to why your premise that it's never wrong to use the phrase is patently ridiculous. You're wrong, as was just proven.

You can admit that Christ is King and that the phrase can be used in vain. It'll be ok.

---

I already did, if its used in a disingenuous way. I already said that earlier in the thread too. If you don't mean it or you're actively doing evil in the name of God while saying that exact phrase.

She means it. She wasn't doing anything evil.

It's an pernicious stretch, to somehow conflate what Candace did to violating a commandment that cannot be forgiven.

All in an attempt to get Christians to stop saying Christ is King to those who we disagree with politically. It is a very appropriate use of the phrase to use it to expose those who deny the deity of Christ.

---

Nobody is trying to stop Christians from witnessing to others. The DailyWire employs Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Andrew Klavan who all speak about their Christianity on a daily basis. Jeremy Boering is a Christian, and he's the one with the hiring/firing duties.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're missing context here and that there is ample reason to believe that Candace is being disingenuous when using the phrase Christ is King in a public political spat. She's not witnessing to Shapiro in a meaningful way. There was no prompt for the phrase. She is using the Lord's name as a means to a political end. That is inappropriate in every sense of the word.

It's really not difficult to understand. You don't need to reflexively defend everyone that says a phrase you like, especially not for Candace Owens.

---

I explicitly agree with the way she used it.

She was exposing him for denying Christ. I agree with her doing that. I find Shapiro to be a massive hypocrite on this issue.

---

Exactly. The context in which she used it was fine. They are just angry she wasn't groveling at his feet like most Dispensationalists merely for being Jewish.

---

What are you going to do when you find out your replacement theology is wrong?

---

I don't believe in replacement theology. I lean Reformed. The Gentiles were grafted in and did not replace anyone. The Bible is very clear that the only way to go to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Are you saying Jews can go to Heaven without doing this? That they are not condemned to Hell for rejecting him? Because if that's your view then you're an apostate and directly contradicting the Word of God.

---

I never said anything of the sort, and you're sure quick to want to call people apostates. There's just a distinct theology that is sympathetic to anti-Jewish sentiment that believes that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people.

The point I was making goes back to earlier in the thread when people were railing against Klavan's theology. What is the percentage of theology that you must get exactly correct to be accepted into heaven? Do you have to get eschatology exactly correct, or do you just have to put your faith in Jesus and live in a manner that glorifies him? Does one go to hell for believing in a pre-tribulation rapture as opposed to a post-tribulation rapture?

You're sure quick to self-righteously condemn, so you'd better hope what you're preaching is 100% correct lest you be an apostate yourself by your own logic.

---

Replacement or non-replacement theology is irrelevant to how someone gets to Heaven. 99% of Christians have absolutely no idea what these terms mean. The only requirement to get to Heaven is accepting Jesus Christ died for your sins. If you don't do this then you don't go to Heaven, end of story. This applies across the board to everyone Jew and Gentile alike.

Again, do you believe Jews can go to Heaven without accepting Jesus died for their sins?

---

How did people go to Heaven before Jesus?

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

It is pernicious lie that saying Christ is King is taking the Lord's name in vain unless you're saying it sarcastically.

If you mean it, then its VERY CORRECT to use it to expose those who do not believe it.

---

So a terrorist who yells "Christ is King" before murdering innocents has not taken the Lord's name in vain? He means it, it's not sarcastic. Yet he's using the phrase as justification for evil. By your logic, that's not wrong because he's not being sarcastic.

This is not difficult. Context matters when you say things.

---

LOL yes that would be just about the only other exception. Congratulations. That's not even close to what is happening here.

---

No, it would not be the only exception. It's just an easy illustration as to why your premise that it's never wrong to use the phrase is patently ridiculous. You're wrong, as was just proven.

You can admit that Christ is King and that the phrase can be used in vain. It'll be ok.

---

I already did, if its used in a disingenuous way. I already said that earlier in the thread too. If you don't mean it or you're actively doing evil in the name of God while saying that exact phrase.

She means it. She wasn't doing anything evil.

It's an pernicious stretch, to somehow conflate what Candace did to violating a commandment that cannot be forgiven.

All in an attempt to get Christians to stop saying Christ is King to those who we disagree with politically. It is a very appropriate use of the phrase to use it to expose those who deny the deity of Christ.

---

Nobody is trying to stop Christians from witnessing to others. The DailyWire employs Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Andrew Klavan who all speak about their Christianity on a daily basis. Jeremy Boering is a Christian, and he's the one with the hiring/firing duties.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're missing context here and that there is ample reason to believe that Candace is being disingenuous when using the phrase Christ is King in a public political spat. She's not witnessing to Shapiro in a meaningful way. There was no prompt for the phrase. She is using the Lord's name as a means to a political end. That is inappropriate in every sense of the word.

It's really not difficult to understand. You don't need to reflexively defend everyone that says a phrase you like, especially not for Candace Owens.

---

I explicitly agree with the way she used it.

She was exposing him for denying Christ. I agree with her doing that. I find Shapiro to be a massive hypocrite on this issue.

---

Exactly. The context in which she used it was fine. They are just angry she wasn't groveling at his feet like most Dispensationalists merely for being Jewish.

---

What are you going to do when you find out your replacement theology is wrong?

---

I don't believe in replacement theology. I lean Reformed. The Gentiles were grafted in and did not replace anyone. The Bible is very clear that the only way to go to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Are you saying Jews can go to Heaven without doing this? That they are not condemned to Hell for rejecting him? Because if that's your view then you're an apostate and directly contradicting the Word of God.

---

I never said anything of the sort, and you're sure quick to want to call people apostates. There's just a distinct theology that is sympathetic to anti-Jewish sentiment that believes that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people.

The point I was making goes back to earlier in the thread when people were railing against Klavan's theology. What is the percentage of theology that you must get exactly correct to be accepted into heaven? Do you have to get eschatology exactly correct, or do you just have to put your faith in Jesus and live in a manner that glorifies him? Does one go to hell for believing in a pre-tribulation rapture as opposed to a post-tribulation rapture?

You're sure quick to self-righteously condemn, so you'd better hope what you're preaching is 100% correct lest you be an apostate yourself by your own logic.

---

Replacement or non-replacement theology is irrelevant to how someone gets to Heaven. 99% of Christians have absolutely no idea what these terms mean. The only requirement to get to Heaven is accepting Jesus Christ died for your sins. If you don't do this then you don't go to Heaven, end of story. This applies across the board to everyone Jew and Gentile alike.

Again, do you believe Jews can go to Heaven without accepting Jesus died for their sins?

---

How did people go to Heaven before Jesus?

---

That's irrelevant now. Jesus came, died for our sins, and now that is the requirement. What happened prior doesn't matter at all anymore. Jews do not get special rules.

They didn't

The righteous went to a place in hell called "The Bosom of Abraham"

Christ opened Heaven after it was closed by the sins of Adam and Eve

Nanomachines son said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

It is pernicious lie that saying Christ is King is taking the Lord's name in vain unless you're saying it sarcastically.

If you mean it, then its VERY CORRECT to use it to expose those who do not believe it.

---

So a terrorist who yells "Christ is King" before murdering innocents has not taken the Lord's name in vain? He means it, it's not sarcastic. Yet he's using the phrase as justification for evil. By your logic, that's not wrong because he's not being sarcastic.

This is not difficult. Context matters when you say things.

---

LOL yes that would be just about the only other exception. Congratulations. That's not even close to what is happening here.

---

No, it would not be the only exception. It's just an easy illustration as to why your premise that it's never wrong to use the phrase is patently ridiculous. You're wrong, as was just proven.

You can admit that Christ is King and that the phrase can be used in vain. It'll be ok.

---

I already did, if its used in a disingenuous way. I already said that earlier in the thread too. If you don't mean it or you're actively doing evil in the name of God while saying that exact phrase.

She means it. She wasn't doing anything evil.

It's an pernicious stretch, to somehow conflate what Candace did to violating a commandment that cannot be forgiven.

All in an attempt to get Christians to stop saying Christ is King to those who we disagree with politically. It is a very appropriate use of the phrase to use it to expose those who deny the deity of Christ.

---

Nobody is trying to stop Christians from witnessing to others. The DailyWire employs Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Andrew Klavan who all speak about their Christianity on a daily basis. Jeremy Boering is a Christian, and he's the one with the hiring/firing duties.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're missing context here and that there is ample reason to believe that Candace is being disingenuous when using the phrase Christ is King in a public political spat. She's not witnessing to Shapiro in a meaningful way. There was no prompt for the phrase. She is using the Lord's name as a means to a political end. That is inappropriate in every sense of the word.

It's really not difficult to understand. You don't need to reflexively defend everyone that says a phrase you like, especially not for Candace Owens.

---

I explicitly agree with the way she used it.

She was exposing him for denying Christ. I agree with her doing that. I find Shapiro to be a massive hypocrite on this issue.

---

Exactly. The context in which she used it was fine. They are just angry she wasn't groveling at his feet like most Dispensationalists merely for being Jewish.

---

What are you going to do when you find out your replacement theology is wrong?

---

I don't believe in replacement theology. I lean Reformed. The Gentiles were grafted in and did not replace anyone. The Bible is very clear that the only way to go to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Are you saying Jews can go to Heaven without doing this? That they are not condemned to Hell for rejecting him? Because if that's your view then you're an apostate and directly contradicting the Word of God.

---

I never said anything of the sort, and you're sure quick to want to call people apostates. There's just a distinct theology that is sympathetic to anti-Jewish sentiment that believes that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people.

The point I was making goes back to earlier in the thread when people were railing against Klavan's theology. What is the percentage of theology that you must get exactly correct to be accepted into heaven? Do you have to get eschatology exactly correct, or do you just have to put your faith in Jesus and live in a manner that glorifies him? Does one go to hell for believing in a pre-tribulation rapture as opposed to a post-tribulation rapture?

You're sure quick to self-righteously condemn, so you'd better hope what you're preaching is 100% correct lest you be an apostate yourself by your own logic.

---

Replacement or non-replacement theology is irrelevant to how someone gets to Heaven. 99% of Christians have absolutely no idea what these terms mean. The only requirement to get to Heaven is accepting Jesus Christ died for your sins. If you don't do this then you don't go to Heaven, end of story. This applies across the board to everyone Jew and Gentile alike.

Again, do you believe Jews can go to Heaven without accepting Jesus died for their sins?

---

How did people go to Heaven before Jesus?

---

That's irrelevant now. Jesus came, died for our sins, and now that is the requirement. What happened prior doesn't matter at all anymore. Jews do not get special rules.

---

So, what exactly counts as "accepting Jesus"?

Like, do you have to know his name? "Jesus" wasn't it; that's the product of a chain of translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. The original was probably "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua". Is "Jesus" close enough? Is "Joshua"? "Joseph"? "James"? "Jethro"?

Do you have to believe that he was born in Bethlehem? Is Jerusalem close enough? Nazareth? Cairo? Damascus?

Do you have to believe that he was born during the reign of Augustus? Is it wrong to believe that he was a contemporary of Constantine? Charlemagne? Genesis Khan? Shakespeare? Napoleon?

Do you have to believe that Jesus was crucified? What if a Christian is mislead into thinking that he was hanged? Or that a soldier beheaded him with a sword? Or that he was stoned to death? Burned? Guillotined? Shot? Electrocuted? Poisoned?

Putting it together, if a person believes that his savior was a man named Max who was murdered in a Nazi gas chamber in 1943, would he punished with eternal hell for getting so many details wrong? And if so, where exactly was the line crossed?

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

How did people go to Heaven before Jesus?

---

That's irrelevant now. Jesus came, died for our sins, and now that is the requirement. What happened prior doesn't matter at all anymore. Jews do not get special rules.

---

So, what exactly counts as "accepting Jesus"?

Like, do you have to know his name? "Jesus" wasn't it; that's the product of a chain of translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. The original was probably "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua". Is "Jesus" close enough? Is "Joshua"? "Joseph"? "James"? "Jethro"?

Do you have to believe that he was born in Bethlehem? Is Jerusalem close enough? Nazareth? Cairo? Damascus?

Do you have to believe that he was born during the reign of Augustus? Is it wrong to believe that he was a contemporary of Constantine? Charlemagne? Genesis Khan? Shakespeare? Napoleon?

Do you have to believe that Jesus was crucified? What if a Christian is mislead into thinking that he was hanged? Or that a soldier beheaded him with a sword? Or that he was stoned to death? Burned? Guillotined? Shot? Electrocuted? Poisoned?

Putting it together, if a person believes that his savior was a man named Max who was murdered in a Nazi gas chamber in 1943, would he punished with eternal hell for getting so many details wrong? And if so, where exactly was the line crossed?

---

What a mess of a post.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

It is pernicious lie that saying Christ is King is taking the Lord's name in vain unless you're saying it sarcastically.

If you mean it, then its VERY CORRECT to use it to expose those who do not believe it.

---

So a terrorist who yells "Christ is King" before murdering innocents has not taken the Lord's name in vain? He means it, it's not sarcastic. Yet he's using the phrase as justification for evil. By your logic, that's not wrong because he's not being sarcastic.

This is not difficult. Context matters when you say things.

---

LOL yes that would be just about the only other exception. Congratulations. That's not even close to what is happening here.

---

No, it would not be the only exception. It's just an easy illustration as to why your premise that it's never wrong to use the phrase is patently ridiculous. You're wrong, as was just proven.

You can admit that Christ is King and that the phrase can be used in vain. It'll be ok.

---

I already did, if its used in a disingenuous way. I already said that earlier in the thread too. If you don't mean it or you're actively doing evil in the name of God while saying that exact phrase.

She means it. She wasn't doing anything evil.

It's an pernicious stretch, to somehow conflate what Candace did to violating a commandment that cannot be forgiven.

All in an attempt to get Christians to stop saying Christ is King to those who we disagree with politically. It is a very appropriate use of the phrase to use it to expose those who deny the deity of Christ.

---

Nobody is trying to stop Christians from witnessing to others. The DailyWire employs Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Andrew Klavan who all speak about their Christianity on a daily basis. Jeremy Boering is a Christian, and he's the one with the hiring/firing duties.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're missing context here and that there is ample reason to believe that Candace is being disingenuous when using the phrase Christ is King in a public political spat. She's not witnessing to Shapiro in a meaningful way. There was no prompt for the phrase. She is using the Lord's name as a means to a political end. That is inappropriate in every sense of the word.

It's really not difficult to understand. You don't need to reflexively defend everyone that says a phrase you like, especially not for Candace Owens.

---

I explicitly agree with the way she used it.

She was exposing him for denying Christ. I agree with her doing that. I find Shapiro to be a massive hypocrite on this issue.

---

Exactly. The context in which she used it was fine. They are just angry she wasn't groveling at his feet like most Dispensationalists merely for being Jewish.

---

What are you going to do when you find out your replacement theology is wrong?

---

I don't believe in replacement theology. I lean Reformed. The Gentiles were grafted in and did not replace anyone. The Bible is very clear that the only way to go to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Are you saying Jews can go to Heaven without doing this? That they are not condemned to Hell for rejecting him? Because if that's your view then you're an apostate and directly contradicting the Word of God.

---

I never said anything of the sort, and you're sure quick to want to call people apostates. There's just a distinct theology that is sympathetic to anti-Jewish sentiment that believes that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people.

The point I was making goes back to earlier in the thread when people were railing against Klavan's theology. What is the percentage of theology that you must get exactly correct to be accepted into heaven? Do you have to get eschatology exactly correct, or do you just have to put your faith in Jesus and live in a manner that glorifies him? Does one go to hell for believing in a pre-tribulation rapture as opposed to a post-tribulation rapture?

You're sure quick to self-righteously condemn, so you'd better hope what you're preaching is 100% correct lest you be an apostate yourself by your own logic.

---

Replacement or non-replacement theology is irrelevant to how someone gets to Heaven. 99% of Christians have absolutely no idea what these terms mean. The only requirement to get to Heaven is accepting Jesus Christ died for your sins. If you don't do this then you don't go to Heaven, end of story. This applies across the board to everyone Jew and Gentile alike.

Again, do you believe Jews can go to Heaven without accepting Jesus died for their sins?

---

How did people go to Heaven before Jesus?

---

That's irrelevant now. Jesus came, died for our sins, and now that is the requirement. What happened prior doesn't matter at all anymore. Jews do not get special rules.

---

So, what exactly counts as "accepting Jesus"?

Like, do you have to know his name? "Jesus" wasn't it; that's the product of a chain of translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. The original was probably "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua". Is "Jesus" close enough? Is "Joshua"? "Joseph"? "James"? "Jethro"?

Do you have to believe that he was born in Bethlehem? Is Jerusalem close enough? Nazareth? Cairo? Damascus?

Do you have to believe that he was born during the reign of Augustus? Is it wrong to believe that he was a contemporary of Constantine? Charlemagne? Genesis Khan? Shakespeare? Napoleon?

Do you have to believe that Jesus was crucified? What if a Christian is mislead into thinking that he was hanged? Or that a soldier beheaded him with a sword? Or that he was stoned to death? Burned? Guillotined? Shot? Electrocuted? Poisoned?

Putting it together, if a person believes that his savior was a man named Max who was murdered in a Nazi gas chamber in 1943, would he punished with eternal hell for getting so many details wrong? And if so, where exactly was the line crossed?

---

Do you realize that there's an actual creed that was created nearly 1600+ years ago in Nicaea which succinctly states Christian belief.

I believe in one God,

the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Getting into a more in-depth doctrinal debate over how we come to Christ just divides us on this issue.

We need a generically Christian state where you are free to practice your beliefs.

Across all denominations one thing remains true. No one comes to the father except through Christ.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

It is pernicious lie that saying Christ is King is taking the Lord's name in vain unless you're saying it sarcastically.

If you mean it, then its VERY CORRECT to use it to expose those who do not believe it.

---

So a terrorist who yells "Christ is King" before murdering innocents has not taken the Lord's name in vain? He means it, it's not sarcastic. Yet he's using the phrase as justification for evil. By your logic, that's not wrong because he's not being sarcastic.

This is not difficult. Context matters when you say things.

---

LOL yes that would be just about the only other exception. Congratulations. That's not even close to what is happening here.

---

No, it would not be the only exception. It's just an easy illustration as to why your premise that it's never wrong to use the phrase is patently ridiculous. You're wrong, as was just proven.

You can admit that Christ is King and that the phrase can be used in vain. It'll be ok.

---

I already did, if its used in a disingenuous way. I already said that earlier in the thread too. If you don't mean it or you're actively doing evil in the name of God while saying that exact phrase.

She means it. She wasn't doing anything evil.

It's an pernicious stretch, to somehow conflate what Candace did to violating a commandment that cannot be forgiven.

All in an attempt to get Christians to stop saying Christ is King to those who we disagree with politically. It is a very appropriate use of the phrase to use it to expose those who deny the deity of Christ.

---

Nobody is trying to stop Christians from witnessing to others. The DailyWire employs Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Andrew Klavan who all speak about their Christianity on a daily basis. Jeremy Boering is a Christian, and he's the one with the hiring/firing duties.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're missing context here and that there is ample reason to believe that Candace is being disingenuous when using the phrase Christ is King in a public political spat. She's not witnessing to Shapiro in a meaningful way. There was no prompt for the phrase. She is using the Lord's name as a means to a political end. That is inappropriate in every sense of the word.

It's really not difficult to understand. You don't need to reflexively defend everyone that says a phrase you like, especially not for Candace Owens.

---

I explicitly agree with the way she used it.

She was exposing him for denying Christ. I agree with her doing that. I find Shapiro to be a massive hypocrite on this issue.

---

Exactly. The context in which she used it was fine. They are just angry she wasn't groveling at his feet like most Dispensationalists merely for being Jewish.

---

What are you going to do when you find out your replacement theology is wrong?

---

I don't believe in replacement theology. I lean Reformed. The Gentiles were grafted in and did not replace anyone. The Bible is very clear that the only way to go to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Are you saying Jews can go to Heaven without doing this? That they are not condemned to Hell for rejecting him? Because if that's your view then you're an apostate and directly contradicting the Word of God.

---

I never said anything of the sort, and you're sure quick to want to call people apostates. There's just a distinct theology that is sympathetic to anti-Jewish sentiment that believes that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people.

The point I was making goes back to earlier in the thread when people were railing against Klavan's theology. What is the percentage of theology that you must get exactly correct to be accepted into heaven? Do you have to get eschatology exactly correct, or do you just have to put your faith in Jesus and live in a manner that glorifies him? Does one go to hell for believing in a pre-tribulation rapture as opposed to a post-tribulation rapture?

You're sure quick to self-righteously condemn, so you'd better hope what you're preaching is 100% correct lest you be an apostate yourself by your own logic.

---

Replacement or non-replacement theology is irrelevant to how someone gets to Heaven. 99% of Christians have absolutely no idea what these terms mean. The only requirement to get to Heaven is accepting Jesus Christ died for your sins. If you don't do this then you don't go to Heaven, end of story. This applies across the board to everyone Jew and Gentile alike.

Again, do you believe Jews can go to Heaven without accepting Jesus died for their sins?

---

How did people go to Heaven before Jesus?

---

That's irrelevant now. Jesus came, died for our sins, and now that is the requirement. What happened prior doesn't matter at all anymore. Jews do not get special rules.

---

So, what exactly counts as "accepting Jesus"?

Like, do you have to know his name? "Jesus" wasn't it; that's the product of a chain of translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. The original was probably "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua". Is "Jesus" close enough? Is "Joshua"? "Joseph"? "James"? "Jethro"?

Do you have to believe that he was born in Bethlehem? Is Jerusalem close enough? Nazareth? Cairo? Damascus?

Do you have to believe that he was born during the reign of Augustus? Is it wrong to believe that he was a contemporary of Constantine? Charlemagne? Genesis Khan? Shakespeare? Napoleon?

Do you have to believe that Jesus was crucified? What if a Christian is mislead into thinking that he was hanged? Or that a soldier beheaded him with a sword? Or that he was stoned to death? Burned? Guillotined? Shot? Electrocuted? Poisoned?

Putting it together, if a person believes that his savior was a man named Max who was murdered in a Nazi gas chamber in 1943, would he punished with eternal hell for getting so many details wrong? And if so, where exactly was the line crossed?

---

Please stop posting, you're clearly not a Christian and have never read the Bible.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Getting into a more in-depth doctrinal debate over how we come to Christ just divides us on this issue.

We need a generically Christian state where you are free to practice your beliefs.

Across all denominations one thing remains true. No one comes to the father except through Christ.

---

The key point is and always will be John 14:6. It's absolutely fundamental to Christianity. It applies to all of humanity without exception.

So…Noah? Abraham? Moses? Elijah? Where do you believe God took him since it wasn't to Himself? Or what exactly Jesus was doing with doing with a couple of them during the transfiguration? I think serious Christians can debate.

BQRyno said:

---

So…Noah? Abraham? Moses? Elijah? Where do you believe God took him since it wasn't to Himself? Or what exactly Jesus was doing with doing with a couple of them during the transfiguration? I think serious Christians can debate.

---

Previous poster already said it:

Quote:

---

They didn't

The righteous went to a place in hell hades (or the afterlife) called "The Bosom of Abraham"

Christ opened Heaven after it was closed by the sins of Adam and Eve

---

The whole Jewish religion could not forgive sins. It just pushed them off for a year. That's what the book of Hebrews is all about. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins. Only the blood of the Lamb, Christ the King. The high priest could only come into the presence of God briefly once per year. Then he had to leave immediately. Christ ended this system, and now all can draw near. That's why Christ is better.

They could have been righteous before God, and sent to paradise. They never could come into the presence of God truly, until Christ was sacrificed.

Well I mean you just blended what the previous poster said. He said they were in hell. Pretty big pivot to change hell to afterlife. Where in the Bible to we learn about an afterlife that's not heaven or hell? We don't. So you're telling me God took Elijah where exactly?

BQRyno said:

---

Well I mean you just blended what the previous poster said. He said they were in hell. Pretty big pivot to change hell to afterlife. Where in the Bible to we learn about an afterlife that's not heaven or hell? We don't. So you're telling me God took Elijah where exactly?

---

The greek word is hades. sometimes its translated hell, but its not a perfect translation. You just missed his point. It was paradise.

The greeks had a different concept of the afterlife and heaven and hell are both part of hades.

Are you saying there's not just heaven and hell as a destination for dead people? After everything you've blasted as heretical on this thread?

BQRyno said:

---

So…Noah? Abraham? Moses? Elijah? Where do you believe God took him since it wasn't to Himself? Or what exactly Jesus was doing with doing with a couple of them during the transfiguration? I think serious Christians can debate.

---

The bosom of Abraham, read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel of Luke, Lazarus and the rich man both went to hell; but Lazarus was comforted whereas the rich man was tormented.

Read about the Harrowing of Hell (or Anastasis in the east), it is especially poignant given that Good Friday is tomorrow. Christ leads the righteous out of hell into heaven after his victory over death.

Not heretical. Biblical. To deny it is though.

DeProfundis said:

---

BQRyno said:

---

So…Noah? Abraham? Moses? Elijah? Where do you believe God took him since it wasn't to Himself? Or what exactly Jesus was doing with doing with a couple of them during the transfiguration? I think serious Christians can debate.

---

The bosom of Abraham, read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel of Luke, Lazarus and the rich man both went to hell; but Lazarus was comforted whereas the rich man was tormented.

---

Your belief of the afterlife is based on one interpretation of one parable in one gospel? As other posters have said, there must be room for differing theology specifics within the faith. You folks calling people heretics for not believing every detail you believe need to introspect a bit.

BQRyno said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

BQRyno said:

---

So…Noah? Abraham? Moses? Elijah? Where do you believe God took him since it wasn't to Himself? Or what exactly Jesus was doing with doing with a couple of them during the transfiguration? I think serious Christians can debate.

---

The bosom of Abraham, read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel of Luke, Lazarus and the rich man both went to hell; but Lazarus was comforted whereas the rich man was tormented.

---

Your belief of the afterlife is based on one interpretation of one parable in one gospel? As other posters have said, there must be room for differing theology specifics within the faith. You folks calling people heretics for not believing every detail you believe need to introspect a bit.

---

No, my belief in the afterlife is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. My belief in what happened before Christ reconciled mankind with God is based on both the Gospel of Luke and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Good for you two for knowing every in and out of what happens outside of this realm with certainty even where the Bible is unclear. And you talk about gatekeeping. Unreal.

BQRyno said:

---

Good for you two for knowing every in and out of what happens outside of this realm with certainty even where the Bible is unclear. And you talk about gatekeeping. Unreal.

---

It comes down to a basic understanding of the new covenant, and how the old covenant was nailed to the cross.

It really is not a focus, but it become important when you have those who falsely deny the need of some to convert to Christianity.

They wouldn't be talking about it, if there wasn't a dangerous false doctrine being proclaimed that endangers the souls of Jews, who might think they don't need to convert.

Ironically, they are looking out for the Jews more than you. Your framing of gatekeeping is inaccurate. They are trying to get them into the kingdom!

Your constant refusal to actually discuss, conviction that you're 100% right despite literal saints in the Catholic Church disagreeing with you (not to mention other very serious Christian thinkers now and in the past), and moving the goalpost is too much for me. Y'all enjoy your bubble. I'm out.

BQRyno said:

---

Good for you two for knowing every in and out of what happens outside of this realm with certainty even where the Bible is unclear. And you talk about gatekeeping. Unreal.

---

One of the many issues with Sola Scriptura.

BQRyno said:

---

Your constant refusal to actually discuss, conviction that you're 100% right despite literal saints in the Catholic Church disagreeing with you (not to mention other very serious Christian thinkers now and in the past), and moving the goalpost is too much for me. Y'all enjoy your bubble. I'm out.

---

Its just a dangerous doctrine that leads some to hell so I reject it. So I feel obligated to address it.

I'm not Catholic btw. I pray that my faithful Catholic brothers make it to heaven despite our differences.

Quote:

---

1 Co 6:23. Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?

---

If God asks me, and I get any say whatsoever, I'll let everyone who claims Christ in, even those that I disagree with. I pray for those in denominations that I disagree with. That wont stop me from debating my position, but you have no idea about me. I'm far from the judgmental bigot I get labeled as.

BQRyno said:

---

Good for you two for knowing every in and out of what happens outside of this realm with certainty even where the Bible is unclear. And you talk about gatekeeping. Unreal.

---

You act like these aren't things that have been discussed ad nauseum by Christianity for the last 2000 years. There are icons and cave drawings depicting the very topic at hand from 1500 years ago. Learn your faith.

BQRyno said:

---

Your constant refusal to actually discuss, conviction that you're 100% right despite literal saints in the Catholic Church disagreeing with you (not to mention other very serious Christian thinkers now and in the past), and moving the goalpost is too much for me. Y'all enjoy your bubble. I'm out.

---

I'm Catholic, what you got? Also, I'll point out that the Magisterium ranks above whatever Saints say. Just because someone is dogmatically declared to be in heaven does not make everything they say accurate.

DeProfundis said:

---

BQRyno said:

---

Good for you two for knowing every in and out of what happens outside of this realm with certainty even where the Bible is unclear. And you talk about gatekeeping. Unreal.

---

You act like these aren't things that have been discussed ad nauseum by Christianity for the last 2000 years. There are icons and cave drawings depicting the very topic at hand from 1500 years ago. Learn your faith.

---

This is exactly my point, and you're missing it. It's been discussed ad nauseum by Christianity for 2000 precisely because it isn't clearly explained. Yet you're sure you're correct. To continue to discuss this with you is pointless.

BQRyno said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

BQRyno said:

---

Good for you two for knowing every in and out of what happens outside of this realm with certainty even where the Bible is unclear. And you talk about gatekeeping. Unreal.

---

You act like these aren't things that have been discussed ad nauseum by Christianity for the last 2000 years. There are icons and cave drawings depicting the very topic at hand from 1500 years ago. Learn your faith.

---

This is exactly my point, and you're missing it. It's been discussed ad nauseum by Christianity for 2000 precisely because it isn't clearly explained. Yet you're sure you're correct. To continue to discuss this with you is pointless.

---

Lol when people from at least 3 different traditions are all are giving you a basic uniting tenant of Christianity you should probably listen.

Every Christian must agree that all must accept Christ to be saved.

You're the one with a strange doctrine that is not biblical, and not accepted by any major denomination. Sure there are fringe groups in some denominations that hold the strange Jewish exception doctrine, but its the vast minority, and the doctrine didn't even exist until relatively recently.

Quote:

---

1 Jn 3:23-24 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given

1 Jn 5:10-13 10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

---

Every example I gave was prior to Christ. After Christ we agree. I don't believe Abraham, Moses, or Elijah got left out of heaven because they didn't accept a Messiah who hadn't been born.

BQRyno said:

---

Every example I gave was prior to Christ. After Christ we agree. I don't believe Abraham, Moses, or Elijah got left out of heaven because they didn't accept a Messiah who hadn't been. Ken.

---

Everyone here agrees with that lol.

Post Cross we are under a new covenant. Now there is no other way. They could not have believed in Christ before he was born lol.

BQRyno said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

BQRyno said:

---

Good for you two for knowing every in and out of what happens outside of this realm with certainty even where the Bible is unclear. And you talk about gatekeeping. Unreal.

---

You act like these aren't things that have been discussed ad nauseum by Christianity for the last 2000 years. There are icons and cave drawings depicting the very topic at hand from 1500 years ago. Learn your faith.

---

This is exactly my point, and you're missing it. It's been discussed ad nauseum by Christianity for 2000 precisely because it isn't clearly explained. Yet you're sure you're correct. To continue to discuss this with you is pointless.

---

There is no dissenting opinion on this within Christianity. What is it you think that Christ came to do, if not to repair the wound between God and mankind? Adam and Eve's sin ruptured the relationship between God and mankind. Heaven is being in the presence of God, Heaven was closed to mankind until the resurrection.

What part of this is argued about within Christianity?