Is Salvation by Jesus alone the only way to heaven?

You do not concur that the scripture says what I think it does, because you are conferring with the wrong version of the bible and other writings of men's interpretations.

We do not have the autographs of holy writ. Therefore, it may be said that all Bibles are the writings of men's translations.
That is no pardon to claim the faith OF Christ saves.
The KJV says this? But the Greek , when the New Testament was originally written in Greek, does not.

There is another factor that simply defeats that claim that the faith OF Jesus saves us. However, that is based on one condition first.
If you believe Jesus is God and therefore omniscient, you cannot believe that Jesus , God, has faith.

Was not Jesus "faithful" to God in submitting himself to the cross, even though he ask God to let this cup pass from me? Did not Jesus make the people Just by his death on the cross?

what does "through Jesus" mean? how do you know Muslims are not "through Jesus"?

if Muslims go to hell, what exactly are they being punished for?

Now you are conflating two different points.
Jesus was Omniscient God.

Muslims or any other belief system do not accept Christ as the Son of God.. Salvation comes only "through Jesus", so when a person rejects Christ as the only begotten Son of God, they also rejects his sacrifice, and there is no remission of sin except through Christ. Therefore, Muslims go to hell because they are guilty of sin.

I think you are avoiding my questions. I hope it is not intentional.

Now you are conflating two different points.
Jesus was Omniscient God.

Wait, wait, hold on. Jesus gave that omniscience up when He took on flesh.
Heb. 2:16, 17 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

But now He has gotten it back.

1 Peter 3:22 "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."

Maybe this will help. What one member is arguing concerning the phrase, pistis.
4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.


The debate concerning this unique phrase found in the Saint Apostle Paul's Galatians 2 text believe it or not has raged for centuries between scholars and laity alike. Is it then any wonder we've been led to argue this all these many pages and to no avail of one side conceding to the other?
Some believe this was an error in the transcribers part converting Paul's Greek textual letter to the church in Galatia into English.
I would agree in that when our Lord Christ was God Almighty, who is eternally knowing, God would not at all have faith in Himself. Because God predestined all things to occur in the Salvation principle according to His divine will by the free gift of His grace upon the world.

Pistis christou then is what is referred to in the grammatical frame of the passage the Objective Genitive meaning.
The objective genitive means Pistis, (faith) with Christou, is to be understood as faith in Jesus Christ.

Consider the question here:
The question
Response

I own a print copy of the First Beta edition of the NET Bible. The interpretative notes in the NET Bible at this point are undoubtedly the work of NT Professor Daniel Wallace. His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics takes precisely the same view, and indeed with precisely the same wording much of the time.


The Greek word at issue is pistis, a noun, which occurs more than 200 times in the Greek NT. Depending on the context and how it is used, it can mean “faith” or “faithfulness” (for example, in the list of the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 6, is it “faith” or “faithfulness”? A case can be made for either meaning there).


After considering Wallace’s arguments, and examining every passage where pistis is used in the Greek NT, I must strongly disagree with the NET and Wallace’s interpretation at this point and rather side with the most widespread understanding of all these passages among grammatically-minded commentators—namely, that the use of the genitive in these passages is what grammarians call an “objective genitive.” The objective genitive means it is faith in Jesus Christ.


Faith in Christ, with Him as faith’s object, is presented as the effective means of securing salvation throughout the NT, and is taught beyond question in numerous NT passages which do not involve the issue of the force and meaning of the genitive case. For example: John 3:16; Acts 16:31, 20:21, 24:24, etc., and especially Galatians 3:26, which is in the same general context as Galatians 2:16 (see also Eph. 1:15). In Galatians 3:26 pistis is in the dative case where no other interpretation but “faith in Jesus Christ” is possible.


I cannot recall any place in Scripture where it is unambiguously stated that we are saved because of Christ’s faithfulness to us; the emphasis is always on our faith in/directed toward Him. The alternate view Wallace champions, a so-called subjective genitive (“the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”), is more novel than convincing. This view is rejected by such notable NT scholars as F. F. Bruce in his commentary on Galatians at 2:16 (I could heap up quotations and citations from grammarians and commentators who agree with Bruce, but let me simply say, it is a very strong majority). Christ is the object of our faith, and it is our faith-in/commitment-to Him that is the means of securing salvation.


In the NT, when “faithfulness” is spoken of with reference to Divine Persons, it seems to regularly refer to God the Father: “but God is faithful, who will not let you be tempted” (I Cor. 10:13), “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and justice to forgive” (I John 1:9). See also Romans 3:3 and 2 Corinthians 1:18 and others. Here, the Greek word translated “faithful” is pistos, an adjective related to the noun pistis. In Revelation 1:5 and 3:14, Jesus is called “the faithful witness,” specifying that the realm of His faithfulness there under consideration is as a witness. His soteriological work is not directly in view.


I find in checking just now, Mark 11:22, where “have faith,” literally, “of God” must be an objective genitive—“faith in God.” It would be absurd to speak of “having God’s faithfulness” in this context. Likewise, in Revelation 14:12 the term must be understood as “faith in Jesus Christ” (objective genitive).


While Christ is, of course, perfectly faithful to us, that is not the topic under consideration in the passages noted in NET. Having just now examined every verse in the NT where pistis (faith) and pistos (faithful) occur, I think the “faithfulness” interpretation put forth by Wallace and the NET Bible is without any justification at all.


Doug Kutilek is the editor of www.kjvonly.org, a website dedicated to exposing and refuting the many errors of KJVOism and has been researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. He has a BA in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, MO), an MA in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College (Cincinnati; and completed all requirements for a PhD except the dissertation); and a ThM in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). His writings have appeared in numerous publications including The Biblical Evangelist, The Baptist Bible Tribune, The Baptist Preacher’s Journal, Frontline, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and The Wichita Eagle. The father of four grown children and four granddaughters, he resides with his wife Naomi near Wichita, Kansas.



Maybe now we can move forward in this discussion. We know it is folly to try to change each other's mind as to what we hold in faith, right?
God does not hold faith in us. He created us as an Omniscient Father Creator.
God is the object of Faith. Not the Object that holds faith in Himself. That would be silly. I'm God and I believe in me. And you should too. Here, meet me as Jesus and believe in me because I do too.


See how odd that sounds if we boil that centuries old argument over the Greek Pistis Christou into terms we can understand?

Maybe this will help. What one member is arguing concerning the phrase, pistis.
4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.


The debate concerning this unique phrase found in the Saint Apostle Paul's Galatians 2 text believe it or not has raged for centuries between scholars and laity alike. Is it then any wonder we've been led to argue this all these many pages and to no avail of one side conceding to the other?
Some believe this was an error in the transcribers part converting Paul's Greek textual letter to the church in Galatia into English.
I would agree in that when our Lord Christ was God Almighty, who is eternally knowing, God would not at all have faith in Himself. Because God predestined all things to occur in the Salvation principle according to His divine will by the free gift of His grace upon the world.

Pistis christou then is what is referred to in the grammatical frame of the passage the Objective Genitive meaning.
The objective genitive means Pistis, (faith) with Christou, is to be understood as faith in Jesus Christ.

Consider the question here:
The question
Response

I own a print copy of the First Beta edition of the NET Bible. The interpretative notes in the NET Bible at this point are undoubtedly the work of NT Professor Daniel Wallace. His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics takes precisely the same view, and indeed with precisely the same wording much of the time.


The Greek word at issue is pistis, a noun, which occurs more than 200 times in the Greek NT. Depending on the context and how it is used, it can mean “faith” or “faithfulness” (for example, in the list of the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 6, is it “faith” or “faithfulness”? A case can be made for either meaning there).


After considering Wallace’s arguments, and examining every passage where pistis is used in the Greek NT, I must strongly disagree with the NET and Wallace’s interpretation at this point and rather side with the most widespread understanding of all these passages among grammatically-minded commentators—namely, that the use of the genitive in these passages is what grammarians call an “objective genitive.” The objective genitive means it is faith in Jesus Christ.


Faith in Christ, with Him as faith’s object, is presented as the effective means of securing salvation throughout the NT, and is taught beyond question in numerous NT passages which do not involve the issue of the force and meaning of the genitive case. For example: John 3:16; Acts 16:31, 20:21, 24:24, etc., and especially Galatians 3:26, which is in the same general context as Galatians 2:16 (see also Eph. 1:15). In Galatians 3:26 pistis is in the dative case where no other interpretation but “faith in Jesus Christ” is possible.


I cannot recall any place in Scripture where it is unambiguously stated that we are saved because of Christ’s faithfulness to us; the emphasis is always on our faith in/directed toward Him. The alternate view Wallace champions, a so-called subjective genitive (“the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”), is more novel than convincing. This view is rejected by such notable NT scholars as F. F. Bruce in his commentary on Galatians at 2:16 (I could heap up quotations and citations from grammarians and commentators who agree with Bruce, but let me simply say, it is a very strong majority). Christ is the object of our faith, and it is our faith-in/commitment-to Him that is the means of securing salvation.


In the NT, when “faithfulness” is spoken of with reference to Divine Persons, it seems to regularly refer to God the Father: “but God is faithful, who will not let you be tempted” (I Cor. 10:13), “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and justice to forgive” (I John 1:9). See also Romans 3:3 and 2 Corinthians 1:18 and others. Here, the Greek word translated “faithful” is pistos, an adjective related to the noun pistis. In Revelation 1:5 and 3:14, Jesus is called “the faithful witness,” specifying that the realm of His faithfulness there under consideration is as a witness. His soteriological work is not directly in view.


I find in checking just now, Mark 11:22, where “have faith,” literally, “of God” must be an objective genitive—“faith in God.” It would be absurd to speak of “having God’s faithfulness” in this context. Likewise, in Revelation 14:12 the term must be understood as “faith in Jesus Christ” (objective genitive).


While Christ is, of course, perfectly faithful to us, that is not the topic under consideration in the passages noted in NET. Having just now examined every verse in the NT where pistis (faith) and pistos (faithful) occur, I think the “faithfulness” interpretation put forth by Wallace and the NET Bible is without any justification at all.


Doug Kutilek is the editor of www.kjvonly.org, a website dedicated to exposing and refuting the many errors of KJVOism and has been researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. He has a BA in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, MO), an MA in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College (Cincinnati; and completed all requirements for a PhD except the dissertation); and a ThM in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). His writings have appeared in numerous publications including The Biblical Evangelist, The Baptist Bible Tribune, The Baptist Preacher’s Journal, Frontline, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and The Wichita Eagle. The father of four grown children and four granddaughters, he resides with his wife Naomi near Wichita, Kansas.



Maybe now we can move forward in this discussion. We know it is folly to try to change each other's mind as to what we hold in faith, right?
God does not hold faith in us. He created us as an Omniscient Father Creator.
God is the object of Faith. Not the Object that holds faith in Himself. That would be silly. I'm God and I believe in me. And you should too. Here, meet me as Jesus and believe in me because I do too.


See how odd that sounds if we boil that centuries old argument over the Greek Pistis Christou into terms we can understand?

I have no problem that Jesus is omniscient.

"The promised land" is not heaven, although it is a type and shadow of heaven. If you are of the understanding that those of Israel who were not allowed to go into the promised land are not going to heaven, then I think that you may have a misunderstanding of the scriptures. God changes not. I do not use commentaries. Scripture proves scripture.

I have found when comparing the KJV with other versions of the bible, to be the one that gives all credit to God and his Son for man's eternal salvation, and gives zero credit to the efforts of man obtaining eternal salvation by his own efforts. I believe the men who pinned the original Greek manuscripts were inspired by God in their writings, and that all of their writings will perfectly harmonize with each other and is the only source that we should use in searching to understand the doctrine that Jesus taught. Luke 10:21, In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes; even so, Father, for so. it seemed good in thy sight. I believe the scriptures to teach that none of us can understand the truth that is in the scriptures, until the indwelling Holy Ghost reveals them unto us, it also teaches that he will not reveal them to us until we have denied ourselves (from trusting in our own intelligence). I, personally, do not confer to other peoples interpretation of the scriptures, and that scripture proves scripture.










greek

No I do not misunderstand Scripture. I am arguing age of accountability; most say 13, or from birth, but this is Scriptural evidence at what age God holds people accountable for sin. Maybe you are misunderstand the Scriptures.?.

No I do not misunderstand Scripture. I am arguing age of accountability; most say 13, or from birth, but this is Scriptural evidence at what age God holds people accountable for sin. Maybe you are misunderstand the Scriptures.?.

Based upon John 6:38, I see the sacrifice that Jesus made different than you do. His sacrifice was an offering to God, for God's acceptance, and not to man for man's acceptance. He only died for those that God gave him, and secured them all for eternal life, according to John 6:38. We were all guilty of sin and God, by his foreknowledge, saw that none of us would seek him, so we were all just like the Muslims Psalms 53:2. before he gave us a new heart and life.

His sacrifice was to God for the remission of sin, but not his sin (he had none), but for all the sins of those who believed in him. And God through foreknowledge did not see that none would seek him, because many did and still do. Of course Muslims can convert, but my point was simply that all who reject Christ will perish in sin.

His sacrifice was to God for the remission of sin, but not his sin (he had none), but for all the sins of those who believed in him. And God through foreknowledge did not see that none would seek him, because many did and still do. Of course Muslims can convert, but my point was simply that all who reject Christ will perish in sin.