Christians respond only: Is Moses damned to hell?

Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#1
As the thread title states. Moses (Moshe מֹשֶׁה) did not believe in Jesus, in fact Jesus wasn't born for quite some time (to make an understatement). Sure, this problem occasionally comes along but is never tackled without apologetics. The problem remains that even though Moshe claimed to talk to God, he still didn't accept Jesus as "Lord and savior", he also didn't believe in the Original Sin and other Christian doctrines. The lingering question remains, is Moshe damned to hell? and if not, what implications does this have on the nature of Christian doctrine, which is built the idea of "saved through Jesus only".
What about the Israelites who followed the Torah? are they damned to hell for not accepting Jesus? what about the Jews? what about the Samaritans? what about Abraham? what about Abraham's followers? what about Noah? history is long and vast.

The other implied question, is in what way is "salvation through Jesus only" superior to pure-monotheism? (which is "salvation directly through the one eternal God")
 





Axl888

Established
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
181
Likes
202
#3
Moses and all God's Prophets are with Him.

In fact, Moses met and believed Jesus (I AM).

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” - John 8:56-58

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ - Exodus 3:14

Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. - Matthew 17:1-3
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#4
Moses and all God's Prophets are with Him.

In fact, Moses met and believed Jesus (I AM).

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” - John 8:56-58

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ - Exodus 3:14

Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. - Matthew 17:1-3
Yes, the New Testament writers often quoted the Tanakh. Basically all four Biographies of Jesus quote the book of Isaiah in the opening verses.

The way you backtrack is indeed curious.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#6
@Infinityloop you still haven't answered my question.
Your question is too broad and unspecified. You could very well be asking "Did the Moshiach doctrine exist in the Israelite religion of Moses?" as both a historical and theological problem inasmuch as "Did Moses meet Jesus?". The former of which is intriguing to map out, the latter is based on presumptions (numerous ones, including the unquestioned idea that your doctrine is the correct interpretation to begin with)
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
315
Likes
631
#7
Your question is too broad and unspecified. You could very well be asking "Did the Moshiach doctrine exist in the Israelite religion of Moses?" as both a historical and theological problem inasmuch as "Did Moses meet Jesus?". The former of which is intriguing to map out, the latter is based on presumptions (numerous ones, including the unquestioned idea that your doctrine is the correct interpretation to begin with)
I'm asking you how you come to the conclusion that Moses did not believe in a coming Messiah. I'm asking you about YOUR posed question. It's not that broad.
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
315
Likes
631
#8
Your question is too broad and unspecified. You could very well be asking "Did the Moshiach doctrine exist in the Israelite religion of Moses?" as both a historical and theological problem inasmuch as "Did Moses meet Jesus?". The former of which is intriguing to map out, the latter is based on presumptions (numerous ones, including the unquestioned idea that your doctrine is the correct interpretation to begin with)
I am asking you to substantiate this:

"The problem remains that even though Moshe claimed to talk to God, he still didn't accept Jesus as "Lord and savior", he also didn't believe in the Original Sin and other Christian doctrines."
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#9
I'm asking you how you come to the conclusion that Moses did not believe in a coming Messiah. I'm asking you about YOUR posed question. It's not that broad.
Jesus is not mentioned in the Tanakh/Torah, there is no reason to assume that Moses knew a person who was born far after him.
What you are saying here is that we should then (as a way to dodge the logical errors of the Christian view of "progressive revelation") agree to an unfalsifiable claim that presupposes Moses actually knowing Jesus (without even textual evidence at the very least) as a way to circumvent the initial issue of Jesus-alone being the only mode of salvation in mainstream Christian doctrine (and again the logical errors replete therein).
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
315
Likes
631
#10
Jesus is not mentioned in the Tanakh/Torah, there is no reason to assume that Moses knew a person who was born far after him.
What you are saying here is that we should then (as a way to dodge the logical errors of the Christian view of "progressive revelation") agree to an unfalsifiable claim that presupposes Moses actually knowing Jesus (without even textual evidence at the very least) as a way to circumvent the initial issue of Jesus-alone being the only mode of salvation in mainstream Christian doctrine (and again the logical errors replete therein).
If you come to the understanding of Jesus's character and purpose being foreshadowed in the OT and of Jesus being the perfect fulfilment of the law given to Moses, then it doesn't really pose much of a problem.

John 5:31-47
“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. 32 There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. 35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; andthese are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
 





Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,211
Likes
3,540
#11
Interesting reading...
Luke‬ ‭16:19-31‬ ‭​
Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ 
‭‭
Edit: added the red lettering for Jesus’ words.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,036
Likes
5,042
#12
"... he also didn't believe in the Original Sin and other Christian doctrines"

And this part, above... you're basing this on assumptions, as well? I've seen no evidence from you to support it.
 





Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Messages
912
Likes
963
#13
Your question is too broad and unspecified. You could very well be asking "Did the Moshiach doctrine exist in the Israelite religion of Moses?" as both a historical and theological problem inasmuch as "Did Moses meet Jesus?". The former of which is intriguing to map out, the latter is based on presumptions (numerous ones, including the unquestioned idea that your doctrine is the correct interpretation to begin with)
Scripture declares that Abraham was a Friend of God. (2 Cron. 20:7; James 2:23) All OT conversations between the OT saint and God are with Christ before His in carnation. It was Christ that led Moses and the Israelites out of Egypt (1 Cor. 10:1-4). Your question has no merit of an answer because it is a carnal and an antichrist question.. It fits nowhere in any of the Scripture teaching and only causes disorder to the weak and ammunition to the antichrist. The First Scripture of The Christ of God is in Gen 3:15. Besides, you can not come to Christ unless the Father draws you, But if you are not looking for Him (Christ), then you will never be drawn to Him by the Father. If you are not afraid of death....you should be, and if you are, you need the peace and assurance of God in Jesus Christ.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#14
"... he also didn't believe in the Original Sin and other Christian doctrines"

And this part, above... you're basing this on assumptions, as well? I've seen no evidence from you to support it.
It's not an Old Testament doctrine, period.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#15
If you come to the understanding of Jesus's character and purpose being foreshadowed in the OT and of Jesus being the perfect fulfilment of the law given to Moses, then it doesn't really pose much of a problem.
This is circular reasoning. The problem doesn't go away.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#17
The other implied question, is in what way is "salvation through Jesus only" superior to pure-monotheism? (which is "salvation directly through the one eternal God")
Still awaiting an answer to this question too. Since everybody else (non-Christians) is too stupid to reject Jesus (an idol, an object, an item bound to time/space and most notably bound to historical chronology) as "lord and savior".
The question remains why and how pure-Monothiests, who believe in God and God only, are misguided?
And alongside this, how people who only accept God and God only are damned to hell for not accepting an object (which forms a cultural reference point and the item of doctrinal supremacy) as the only mode of salvation?
This is an important theology question because it in many ways determines the validity of one's doctrines (as well as the major polemical tool of Christianity against everyone else - historically originating with the Jews who disagreed that a man cannot be God).
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
315
Likes
631
#18
This is circular reasoning. The problem doesn't go away.
I'll put it here again:

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
Seems clear enough to me, at least to dispel some of your strong statement that Moses did not believe in Jesus. As to the question of whether Moses was in hell or not, @Axl888 answered that really well. But You just brushed it off.

Still awaiting an answer to this question too. Since everybody else (non-Christians) is too stupid to reject Jesus as "lord and savior".
Has anyone ever called you stupid for that?

(an idol, an object, an item bound to time/space and most notably bound to historical chronology)
Jesus is not an idol. His earthly ministry was bound to history but we believe that he, unlike other such historical figures, is not buried with it.

The question remains why and how pure-Monothiests, who believe in God and God only, are misguided?
And alongside this, how people who only accept God and God only are damned to hell for not accepting an object (which forms a cultural reference point and the item of doctrinal supremacy) as the only mode of salvation?
This is an important theology question because it in many ways determines the validity of one's doctrines (as well as the major polemical tool of Christianity against everyone else - historically originating with the Jews who disagreed that a man cannot be God).
This depends. Do you believe that Jesus, in claiming that he was the only way to the Father, was referring to the same God of the OT? The same God who says in Isaiah 43:10-11:

“You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
11 I, even I, am the Lord,
And besides Me there is no savior."

If you don't, then you must believe Jesus was a sham unless you can reinterpret his words in a way that doesn't require mental gymnastics. If you do . . . Well then that answers your question. As I said in the other thread, the way in which self-professed Christians choose to engage with others doesn't effect the validity of that message. I, as someone who does believe in Jesus as the only way to God, am not responsible for people who claim the same as me but are self-righteous, condescending or disrespectful in how they conduct themselves with others. I can understand if you've come into contact with majority "condemnation" Christians that you'd be sceptical or disdainful toward them. But you conflate poor behaviour with bad theology. If we go strictly by Jesus's words then he is responsible for the "polemic" against "everyone else".

John 14:6
"6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

John 3:14-15
"14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#20
Soo... you have nothing to support that statement, whatsoever. Check.
It originated with Irenaeus, it's not textual. It represents the early Church creating a polemical doctrine to combat the overflow of supposed "heresies".

It's a doctrine built around a few vague New Testament statements that are used to attempt (failingly too might I add) to legitimize the notion of Jesus dying. Christianity, with aid of Irenaeus, later reverse engineered Old Testament passages to fit the doctrine (such as the forbidden fruit, falsely implying the idea that Adam's sin is projected onto the rest of humanity....which is NOT a Jewish or Samaritan doctrine at all). The arch that is attempted to be interpreted through the "original sin" doctrine is that Jesus was sacrificed to pay off the accumulated debt of humanity from Adam, that through believing Jesus to be God that you are wiped of that accumulated debt. It's a doctrine created to set up the absurd climax of Jesus' death, which needs a validation to take place. Afterall, if Jesus died for nothing, why would you need to believe in him when the Torah provides the perfect path to salvation? hence: original sin.
 





Last edited: