Cail wrote:Rus, put simply (really simply, I know I'm leaving a lot of nuance on the table), all religion is about salvation. Whether we're talking Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Judaism, or whatever. And every religion has a set of guidelines (if you will) on how to achieve salvation.
Christ's Passion and death did occur in 30 AD-ish, and I feel that the historical record is strong enough to support that. I'll even accept the idea that on another plane of existence, it happened "outside of time". That doesn't change the fact that for the mortals here on Earth, it happened in 30AD-ish. Ali's right, the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah to show up. They don't accept that Christ was the guy. Then there are all the people who existed prior to Christ's time that weren't aware of the Biblical story; those who lived outside of the Middle East.
If your answer is, "I don't know what their fate is", that's cool. But what I'm seeing is an avoidance of the question, and (quite frankly) a really condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn't accept your flavor of religion.
That's not the Christianity I was taught, and that's also certainly not a way to convince people to be open minded to your beliefs.
On 'the answer', I don't know the fate of most - who could? - but the Jewish forefathers (Adam, Abraham, Isaac, etc) are honored and equal to the Christian saints, so we believe that they have been/are being saved, and can pray to them (talk to them, ask them to pray for us) like other saints. Regarding others, of course we don't know. That's the whole point. God is the judge, not we. But we do believe that everyone has had opportunity for salvation, however that looks like and however God judges it.
I wonder if by condescending you are referring to the inevitability that anyone who claims to have found the true faith that really is the most accurate understanding of the universe and our place in it would conflict with modern pluralistic views that seek to accommodate all by saying that it really doesn't matter what you believe. You seem to be among the latter, as I am among the former, and it is clear that both of our views cannot be true. Thus, whether anyone is right, someone must definitely not be right. That cannot fail to offend somebody, but is by no means inconsistent with Christianity. The martyrs attest to the offense which their truth brought to others, although it is only offense in the way that anyone who learns must err, and be offended in the discovery of the error (or the assertion of error).
I find that the knowledge of many here of the depths of the Christian faith to be quite shallow. If I attempt to communicate some of that depth, I may seem condescending, although I do not wish to do so. One can be right, and have no personal pride in the fact, but still firmly assert their rightness. Still, I apologize for any seeming condescension.
On a personal level, I hold no superiority to others in any moral sense, and readily concede that others here are doubtless my superiors. When in the Communion prayer, I say that I am the chief of sinners, that is not a mere empty expression. I believe there is a unique way in which I really am the worst.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
in here:
) that they have no real connection with Christianity or the early Christians, and are a Judaic collection. So I certainly wouldn't call them a non-biblical corroboration of the existence, let alone divinity, of Jesus.