Raf

Its one thing to go backward to look for the progression. It's another to go backward and wedge knowledge into the past based on the future. My opinion.

Ethan Allen. Falcon, Hawke.

G-D it, Daddy!

WordWolf, wrong Allen. Ethan Hawke

He is a clever hint to the actuse answer

"I'm trying to speak but no matter what I do, I just can't seem to make any sound. And then [title]. Oh it must have been while you were kissing me."

Allen Falcon!

I didn't know that was Eric Clapner!

Don't know the artist. Educated guess on the title. After Midnight

Good. I didn't want this one to sit for long. Next clues would have made obvious references to Chris Evans and Jessica Alba.

Three different versions of this story have been filmed, all with the same title. The first one was so bad it's never been released. But that was the intent of the producers all along: they had to shoot a movie to keep the rights to the story. But they didn't have to release it. The actors were not aware that they were wasting their time. The second was not great, but performed well enough to spawn a sequel. It was later decided to reboot the story again. The reboot (third try) premiered 10 years after the second version of the story.

Character 1: "Hey guys, you ever see that really old movie, Empire Strikes Back?" Character 2: "Jesus, Tony, how old is this guy?" Character 3: "I don't know, I didn't carbon date him. He's on the young side."

Trying not to rush my answers here, but let me be clear about my take on this thread. We're asking whether the gospel whereby a man is saved has changed. In my opinion, in order to determine the answer to that question, we need to look at a few things. First, when does the Bible first talk about being "saved"? I assume by the term that we're talking about some promise of an afterlife. That's why my initial question was about when that belief is actually first seen in the Bible. Chronologically, we appear to have an answer in Job, who makes an explicit reference to his expectation that he will be alive after he dies (whether it's immediate or later is not really germane to the discussion, so we ignore that). Only after we determine the answer to that question do we get to the next one, logically, which is, "what must I do to be saved?" In other words, we can't really talk about the gospel whereby a man is saved until we've addressed the idea of salvation in the first place. They can happen at the same time, but you can't have a gospel of salvation without salvation. So to say "what I am looking for has changed" is a little short-sighted. There's a natural progression to the questions I'm asking that relate directly to the topic of this thread. As it stands, I see a clear reference to the general concept of salvation in Job, and a reasonably inferred "gospel of salvation" in Psalms. That gospel, I think, is not clearly outlined (Romans 10:9-10 is clearly outlined, for example). But I would be nitpicking beyond acceptable measure if I were to say it's not there in Psalm 49. Clearly, up to this point, we have both salvation and a gospel whereby a man is saved: but the most I would be comfortable saying is that salvation in the Old Testament came about by trusting in the Lord (Yahweh). Trusting what? Entirely? Or a specific promise? What if you trusted one thing but doubted another? I don't know. There's no clarity on that, at least in that particular Psalm. Can the answer be found elsewhere? I'm sure, but I don't know it. Do you? See? As one question is answered, new questions evolve. It's expected. It's part of the conversation. Chockfull, I'm going to pass on Enoch because I don't know that I can say with clarity what exactly happened in Gen. 5:24. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the traditional interpretation of that verse. If someone knows the original language and can add clarity about what it really means, I'll be enlightened. Until then, I remain agnostic on what that particular verse is even talking about. Is it salvation? I don't know. What happened? No clue. I'm not saying the verse makes no sense. I'm saying that it makes no sense TO ME, and that's on me. I'm no longer inclined to harmonize every verse that puzzles me, so I won't go looking for the answer. We definitely agree on one point, though: There's no "gospel" there. With Hebrews 11, we get to the issue we mentioned earlier, which is that, depending on how you approach this information, we may not be able to say with certainty that the people living at the time of the events of Genesis knew the information that was recorded in Hebrews. Maybe. But believing that with certainty is a leap of faith, and I no longer take that leap. Not that I get to be the arbiter of truth. I'm only the arbiter of answers I find satisfying. You may find other answers satisfying. I won't judge. I'll just explain myself and see if we can find some common ground, at least when it comes to what the Bible actually says (and when it first said it). Hebrews 11:10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. Is there a reference in Genesis that articulates the same thing. In Hebrews it looks like an ultimate salvation reference. If there's an equivalent verse in Genesis, we're in good shape... again, about the existence of salvation but not a "gospel." Same goes for the remainder of Hebrews 11, where the idea of something amazing in the future is arguably there, with no indication that the people of the OT knew there was a distinct "gospel of salvation." So back to the thread topic: Has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed? I don't know. But I do know this: The concept of salvation and the gospel of salvation most certainly became more clear over time. We went from "there is/will be a life after this one" in Job to "the Lord will raise us from death to be with Him" in Psalms to "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe God raised him from the dead and you will be saved" in Romans. By the time of the church epistles (which were written before the gospels), salvation and eternal life were already interlocked, so no need to make sure they're talking about the same thing. They are. The common denominator, as I see it, is that the gospel whereby a man is saved has always been "trust in the Lord (Yahweh)." In the OT, that meant one thing. Heck, in different parts of the OT, it probably meant different things. In the NT, it all ties in to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Trusting Jesus IS trusting Yahweh (whether you believe Jesus is God or not). So the answer to "has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed?" is "Yes, it has changed in its specifics, but not in its generality. The gospel has always been Trust God and Be Saved. But what it meant to 'trust God' may have had a different answer at different points in time." In my opinion. So thank you both for addressing my questions and allowing me to nitpick my way here.

The Blair Witch Project

Timecop

Welcome, Lanikaiga. I was a Bronx believer for a while, but WordWolf and I did spend some time at a fellowship in Manhattan whose coordinator ditched our TWI offshoot and made a beeline for the NYCoC. Good to have you around.

You don't need confirmation to proceed on this thread

So "salvation" was my word, using it in the context of this conversation, not the Psalmist's.

I can tell you didn't look up the verse.

Slight addendum: Psalm 49:15, in context, strongly implies trusting in the Lord (Yahweh) for salvation. It doesn't say it explicitly, but it is implicit enough as to be undeniable (it says people who trust in wealth, themselves or others will perish. The implication that trusting in the Lord will "redeem me from the realm of the dead" is inescapable).

Psalm 49:15, for example, is explicit when it comes to salvation, but not about how. Leviticus is explicit about animal sacrifices for atonement, but the promise of eternal salvation is not explicitly attached to it. It doesn't take much mental gymnastics to tie the two concepts together. But an animal sacrifice is not a gospel. It's a deed. It's works, by the most obvious definition of the word. My search continues.

"Concealed" is the key word in your proposal there, seeing as I asked, multiple times, for something unambiguous. Genesis 3:15 contains no promise of an afterlife. Nor does it say anyone who believes that promise will be saved. Genesis 3:20 discloses nothing about Adam believing something resulting in salvation. He believed Eve would have children. Ok. But that does not address my question in the slightest, in my personal opinion. [My mission in this thread, by the way, is not to cast doubt on what the Bible teaches, but merely to ascertain it objectively. Whether I believe what the Bible teaches is irrelevant. I'm just trying to see what the Bible teaches on this subject in the first place].

We've been over this. Job lays out a belief in the afterlife with no explanation whatsoever of a "gospel" whereby a man is "saved." So while we can say that he believed himself to be saved, we cannot say why. My question is not a difficult one. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Chronologically speaking, when is the first biblical reference to "salvation" by means of "believing" or "obeying" or "conforming to" or whatever the appropriate word is, accepting a "gospel"? If you want to go with Titus, be my guest. But I don't consider that a satisfying answer. I can write a book tomorrow saying that Abraham knew I would become an unbeliever. That doesn't prove Abraham knew any such thing. Now if Moses wrote that Abraham knew I would become an unbeliever, we'd be in business. Accepting something as a matter of faith is not the same thing as being able to demonstrate it objectively. I see "salvation" in Job in practical terms, but not articulated as such, and I see no "gospel whereby a man is saved." When does that pop up? Genesis? Where? Exodus? You can't use later documents to prove what earlier documents were hiding. Well, you CAN. But why? Whatever.

That is, again, an observation made in retrospect. Is there any indication that this "foreshadowing" is what it meant to the people who were living through it?

Pride of the Yankees "Ain't gonna be no rematch." "Don't want one."