Quote from ddunbar:
I'm far from a wise sage. But thanks for the compliment.
According to Christianity as outline in the bible...
Foundationally speaking, a belief that Jesus's death on the cross atones for any and all of your sins and that without that belief, you cannot enter into eternal life.
No point in going any deeper as this is the starting point. Fail this point and the rest becomes irrelevant.
Read this: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Jesus1.html
Excerpt below.
And now I've got to take another sabbatical from this thread... the markets call. Catch you later folks.
----
We need to define what it means to believe in Jesus. How far can you be from the biblical Jesus and still be safe? Let's suppose you think Jesus died in Bethlehem. (The Bible says it was in Jerusalem.) Are you forever condemned for making this mistake in geography? Can God forgive you for this error? Okay, what if you think it happened in Damascus? In Rome? In darkest Peru? Surely God would overlook that mistake, wouldn't he? What if you thought it happened in heaven? Should a soul be tortured for countless ages because he misunderstood and thought the crucifixion happened in heaven? It seems to me that the location has nothing to do with it.
Now, suppose somebody is mistaken about the time of Jesus' death. Most scholars say the crucifixion happened around 30 AD. (Although some think it never happened.) Suppose somebody thinks it was 100 BC? Is this person in eternal danger for making this historical error? How about 1800 AD? How about 2000 BC? How close does one need to be to the actual date? Is there a cutoff date, beyond which you are forever cursed? It seems to me that it would be silly to even suggest it.
And how about the nature of his death? If we think the instrument of death was not a cross--some historians think it was actually a stake--are we doomed? Is a man a filthy heretic if he thinks Jesus was killed with a stake, a sword, or a gun? I think not.
How about the pronunciation of the name? If we pronounce the name Hay-sus or Jay-thus or X-thus are we lost? What if we spell it Jethus or Jithus or Mithus or Mithas or Mithras? Are we doomed if we commit the social error of misspelling the name? I think not. How close do we need to be?
How about the story of his life? Must we believe that Jesus walked on water? Must we believe that he told the women condemned in adultery to "Go and sin no more?" Probably not. After all, evangelical scholars now believe that this last story was inserted into the Bible many years later and does not belong there. If we need to know the exact details of his life, all are in peril. For we can never be sure exactly which stories, if any, were altered. If today's gospel texts were altered, how could we be expected to know what was in the original so we could believe it?
What about Jesus' characteristics? Must we believe that his body was made of molecules? That he was of Jewish descent? Must we have the correct understanding of the nature of the incarnation? Surely, the answer is no. Surely these things do not condemn a person.
Let's put it all together. What if somebody believes that the virgin-born son of God was named Max and was killed with a sword in Peru in 1950? Can he be saved by trusting in Max? Or is he condemned forever because he got so many details wrong? How many details can somebody have wrong without receiving condemnation? And why would it matter to God if a sincere person was mistaken on certain trivia? Would God cast a person out forever because he was mistaken on a question of history? But if you think that God could accept such a person, then it seems that your Christianity is not so exclusive after all. And it would seem that you agree that one need not believe the gospel stories to have salvation.
What if somebody mistakenly thinks that the virgin-born Son of God was named Mithras or Horus and died in the spirit world? Is that close enough? If not, then exactly where was the line crossed? On the other hand, if these beliefs are close enough, then understand that, in ancient Egypt, many believed in Horus, a savior-god who supposedly died and rose again to bring salvation.
Now did ancient Egyptians who trusted in the salvation provided by Horus truly receive salvation through Horus? Some Christians will tell me "No," that Jesus saves but Horus doesn't. But what if those Egyptians had used the name "Jesus" instead of Horus? Would they then have received salvation by accepting that "Jesus".
Many will tell me that this would not be sufficient, that this would be a different Jesus. But why is their "Jesus" not considered to be the same? Some will say he is different, for the details of the life of Horus differ with the gospels.
And yet the story of Horus is surprising close to the story of the gospels. (See sidebar.) Both are said to have had twelve disciples; both preached a Sermon on the Mount; both died of crucifixion; and both arose, according to the stories. So if the ancient Egyptians had changed the name of the dying savior from Horus to Jesus, would that have resulted in eternal salvation? Many will tell me, "No," for the real Jesus is the one from Nazareth. This Horus is from somewhere else. But is one to be condemnend forever for getting the mailing address of the Christ wrong?
The story of salvation is losing all of its plausibility. It is starting to sound like believers are saying that whoever is close to their opinions of the savior will have eternal happiness, and those who have other views will be condemned. Why would God condemn people based on trivia? On the other hand, if you allow that one could differ on the location of the savior's life; differ on the name; differ on the date; differ on certain other details, and still have salvation, you have conceded salvation to the ancient Egyptian believers in Horus. Belief in the gospel would lose its importance.
It seems to me that a loving God, if he exists, could not condemn a man who differed with God on what happened in history, provided he really wanted to be forgiven for his sins. How could God judge a man simply because he disagrees about whether a particular event is historical?