Kid dies

[Angrboda]

Again I beg to differ and appearently so does the parable and the one that told it. If you read the parable it clear points out that the 'fairness of heaven has little to do with what man believes is fair. [snip]

It still sets a redemptive standard as to who will and who will not merit heaven.  Does the parable say that those who didn't show up to work at all will also be paid?  No it does not.  The parable underscores the point that people will be redeemed "by grace, through faith."  While faith isn't a sufficient condition for salvation, it does play a role.  I've read several interpretations of the parable and in none of them was the message of the parable that Christ was unfair.  Quite the contrary, he points out that all will receive the same reward, by grace, through faith.  So faith becomes the first dividing line between those who might be redeemed and those who definitely will not be redeemed.  It is the only aspect of the sanctification process which we can control, and the only part that we can know by inspection.  That Christ taught a specific form of redemptive justice does not negate the fact that he did in fact teach such a form.  That is all that's necessary to show that heaven and hell still functioned in the people's minds as a dessert for those who are faithful, as the passage from Romans underscores.

"Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,"
John 11:25, NASB

You are so obsessed with the ways in which Christ's message differed that you fail to see the ways in which it was also the same.

 What you fail to see is that vengence was the right given under the law at the time. (An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.) there was nothing wrong with it till Christ said we must forgive as we have been forgiven.
Which again ran counter to what was right and wrong at the time. Even now one can make a case for retrbution or even reperations with all the law suits and litigation we employ in the pursuit of Justice..

Simply forgiving others is very counter intuitive to the 'right and wrong process.

Whether or not it is counter to the prevailing standards of the time is irrelevant to the question as to whether it was a system of redemptive justice or not.  Again, will those who do not have faith in the redemptive power of Christ's sacrifice be saved?  If you answer "no," then you've already set up a standard by which the "good people" -- that is, those who have faith -- will be sorted separately from those who do not.  You haven't abolished heaven and hell as cosmic equalizers, you've simply changed the entrance requirements.

Whether or not Christ taught some things that ran counter to contemporary standards of morality has fuckall to do with the main point I wrote about in my original post.  Next time you decide to sneer about my "deep thoughts," try not to be talking irrelevant bullshit at the time.

What a load of crap. You want to talk about Asgard, but ignore Thor's description of it for your own mis informed predetermined closed minded view of it. How does that work in an intellectuall honest conversation? Heaven as described by Christ is cannon and therfore trumps your BS. what do you not get about that? If Christ says or is recorded in saying Heaven is ABC then you have no authority in telling people heaven is efg... If you presist in the face of cannon with your efg claim, then know it is you who is off topic and is described some fan fiction version of Heaven.

First of all, in my original post I said that "people" are the subject of my consideration, not Christians specifically.  The fact is that ideas about heaven and hell predate the life of Christ (e.g. the book of Enoch) and post-date him (Islam).  That you personally consider Christ God and therefore privileged in his opinions on the subject means absolutely squat.  And while I used the terms heaven and hell, which technically restricts me to apocalyptic Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other faiths which followed, the idea of a divinely ordained reward for doing or believing the right things has a much greater scope, including Exilic and Post-exilic Jews and their notion of a "New Kingdom" (e.g. Isaiah), Norse mythology with its Valhalla, Grecian mythology with its Elysian fields, Hindu belief with its concentration on karma and moksha, and Buddhists with their concepts of dependent origination and nirvana.  So, no, I am not limited in the scope of my comments to the lense through which you personally view the question, that of the words of Christ. If you insist on limiting the scope of the discussion in this way, it is you who is off-topic, not me.

Regardless, my words hold true both within your "canon" and outside of it.

In what way did Jesus teach that was in line with society? Everything was different. Soceity then taught (as you do now) based on its version of morality and goodness. Christ taught atonement which throws the 'morality book' in the garbage. Soceity taught good people went on to the resurrection while bad people stayed in the grave. Jesus taught His followers would inherrit eternal life and those he did not know would be sent to Hell. Good or bad did not play into the equation.

This is getting tiresome.  The fact that Jesus taught a different standard in no way negates the fact that he taught various standards about what did or did not make a person worthy, and faith in the redemptive power of Christ's sacrifice is the card that trumps then standards of the time.

---

The Greek word in John is "Logos", which does not appear anywhere in the passage from Romans which I quoted.  The passage was originally written in Greek.  Performing a search and replace based upon the English translation of the passage simply results in garbage.   Whatever point you were trying to make here has been spoiled by the fact that you're an ignorant moron who didn't realize he was talking complete crap.  Your substitutions simply aren't valid for the original text.   Moreover, like your earlier "contributions," this has fuckall to do with the point I was making.

and in Romans 10:8 the word used is:
rhēma
a saying of any sort, as a message, a narrative: concerning some occurrence, λαλεῖν τό ῤῆμα περί τίνος, Luke 2:17; ῤῆμα τῆς πίστεως, the word of faith, i. e. concerning the necessity of putting faith in Christ, Romans 10:8; a promise, Luke 1:38; Luke 2:29; καλόν Θεοῦ ῤῆμα, God's gracious, comforting promise (of salvation), Hebrews 6:5 (see καλός, c.); καθαρίσας... ἐν ῤήματι, according to promise (properly, on the ground of his word of promise, viz. the promise of the pardon of sins; cf. Mark 16:16), Ephesians 5:26 (others take ῤήματι here as equivalent to 'the gospel,' cf. Ephesians 6:17, Romans 10:8; (see Meyer at the passage)); the word by which something is commanded, directed, enjoined

Which changes the meaning of logos ( a record of what was done) to A promise yet to be full filled (BY THE SAME GUY)

Nothing changes in my point sportress, as Christ is still the 'Word' we must have in our hearts and on our toungues in order for us to be in a place to make that simple confession. meaning (Rather than Christ Himself if you use the John 1:1 defination as I did, You with the word rhēma get the promise Christ made... is in your words, acts and faith will buy you eternal life if you simply call out to Him.

You were so quick to 'rightly divide' the word you failed to see how it all fits together.

First of all, rhēma is only equivalent to logos if one is referring to a speech act.  John was not referring to a speech act but rather to the divine personage himself, so your equivalence is a false one.  The word logos was a term of art in Hellenic philosophy and religion of the time, and it has shades of meaning far beyond those contained in the word rhēma.  So, no, you can't just substitute one for the other without drastically altering the meaning of the text, as one refers to a speech act and the other has a considerably different connotation.

Beyond your ignorant butchering of the meaning of the text, I still do not see what point you think you are making with this errant substitution.