Salvation. How can you know the gospel, when your grandad ate the last missionary

[Francis Drake]

Joking apart, what happens to those poor unfortunates who have never heard of Jesus. Who know nothing of his sacrifice etc.
What do you think happens to them when they die, and on what basis does it happen ie. are there other parameters at work.

[Francis Drake]

To the Pharisee, being baptised/mikveh WAS being born again, that's why Jesus hooked him on the error. I know, you know, Jesus knew, Nicodemus didn't.

The Spirit of the Lord was well known throughout the OT, long before Pentecost. Why would Jesus teach a doctrine of being born again by the Spirit, if it was not possible right there, right then. Nobody gets far teaching like that.

All the OT saints had to be born again, otherwise they had no relationship with the Father when they died.

John williams said:

You are talking about 'baptism' not a 'new birth', a new birth DOES NOT COME BY WATER, but by the Spirit. The Spirit had not been introduced until the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4). Jesus kept talking about, 'one that is to come', (meaning the Holy Ghost - 'the Ghost' (Spirit) of a Man (Jesus) gone on. Therefore He could say 'I (Personally) will be with you even IN you'.'I will come to you.' (Acts 9:5 )) (Two and two equal four, Jesus and the Holy Ghost equal Jesus Christ. Who IS Word as well, Jn.1:14;1 Pt.1:23 which brings about a new birth.) (If Baptism was the new birth, was it a 'special' kind of 'water', a 'special' kind of 'pronouncement' ? My, what a carnal mind could come up with is beyond me. Why then did Paul, (Acts 19:2) have those one who were baptized by John, get rebaptized in in order for them to receive the Holy Ghost?)
I agree with Dave Z, concerning Nicodemus, (A ruler of the Jews, who said, "We,(the learned teachers) know, that thou are a Teacher sent from God". (wonder why they did not accept His teaching)), who had no 'clue' about the 'new birth'.
How could the 'learned' men of today, be so far off in the 'left' or 'right' field when the WAY is in the middle?

Francis Drake said:

John williams, you said
New Birth, or being 'Born Again' is a New Testament doctrine, although the OT foresees its coming.......... ..........................When He spoke to Nicodemus, He was referring to an event that was to be. (Not something that could happen then,

This is actually not true. The concept, and even the words" born again" was already known and used by the pharisees. This is why Jesus used it. Every Old Testament saint HAD to be born from above, in order to be in relationship with the Heavenly Father.
John the baptist was only doing what the religious Jews had done for generations. All over Israel there are Mikveh, or baptistry pools carved into the rock. The Mikveh was used by the likes of the Pharisees when someone converted to Judaism, or maybe when someone was entering a specific stage of activity. It was also used whenever someone became unclean, say by a dead body, or a woman after menstruating. To be cleansed they have to go through ceremonial immersion. They could dip in the sea or a river, but the mikveh was a solution away from natural water.
The mikveh immersion WAS CALLED BAPTISM.
This can be seen regarding the pharisees in Mark7v4.......
"and when they come from the market-place, except they BATHE themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels." In this passage the word bathe in the Greek is "baptise".

The following is just pasted from one of many sites online.-
“The baptismal water (Mikveh) in rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. As the convert came out of these waters his status was changed and he was referred to as “a little child just born” or “a child of one day” (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b). We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as “born anew,” “new creation,” and “born from above.”

JESUS WAS NOT INTRODUCING A NEW CONCEPT WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT BEING BORN AGAIN.
Nor was he talking about the cross. At that stage of his ministry such a concept would have been nonsense, (as the disciples proved) even though the death of Jesus was an absolute necessity for anyone to be able to be born again.
An intellectual belief was NOT a requirement for new birth. A receptive heart was all that was needed when the Spirit of Christ knocked on a man's heart, in both the Old and New Testament or even pre flood.
IN ALL CASES, NEW BIRTH WAS PAID FOR BY THE SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH OF JESUS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD HEARD OF IT.

[John williams]

So getting 'bathed' is the 'new birth' ? Seemingly, your statements are also suggesting, that to become a Jew is to become 'born again' as well.
If that is all it takes to become 'born again', what is the purpose of Jesus' coming as a Sacrifice? Wouldn't that be a vain effort by The Lord to be doing something that doesn't need to be done, since 'bathing would take care of the 'new birth'?
What greater POWER has a bath over the The Spirit? Also what is the purpose for sending the 'Birth Giver' if a bath is all that is needed? Baptism would be all that is need to take care of 'everything' we have need of, wouldn't it?
Why wasn't Judas given a 'new birth', after baptism as well? What is the use of 'going on to perfection' if the one is birthed at baptism?
That 'theology' is what makes the Teachings of the Bible 'useless' to the one that wants to 'live' by the Word.
That is one good reason why God does not entrust His Word to the 'tradition keepers', or to 'theologians'. But to Amos 3:7.


Francis Drake said:

To the Pharisee, being baptised/mikveh WAS being born again, that's why Jesus hooked him on the error. I know, you know, Jesus knew, Nicodemus didn't.

The Spirit of the Lord was well known throughout the OT, long before Pentecost. Why would Jesus teach a doctrine of being born again by the Spirit, if it was not possible right there, right then. Nobody gets far teaching like that.

All the OT saints had to be born again, otherwise they had no relationship with the Father when they died.

John williams said:

You are talking about 'baptism' not a 'new birth', a new birth DOES NOT COME BY WATER, but by the Spirit. The Spirit had not been introduced until the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4). Jesus kept talking about, 'one that is to come', (meaning the Holy Ghost - 'the Ghost' (Spirit) of a Man (Jesus) gone on. Therefore He could say 'I (Personally) will be with you even IN you'.'I will come to you.' (Acts 9:5 )) (Two and two equal four, Jesus and the Holy Ghost equal Jesus Christ. Who IS Word as well, Jn.1:14;1 Pt.1:23 which brings about a new birth.) (If Baptism was the new birth, was it a 'special' kind of 'water', a 'special' kind of 'pronouncement' ? My, what a carnal mind could come up with is beyond me. Why then did Paul, (Acts 19:2) have those one who were baptized by John, get rebaptized in in order for them to receive the Holy Ghost?)
I agree with Dave Z, concerning Nicodemus, (A ruler of the Jews, who said, "We,(the learned teachers) know, that thou are a Teacher sent from God". (wonder why they did not accept His teaching)), who had no 'clue' about the 'new birth'.
How could the 'learned' men of today, be so far off in the 'left' or 'right' field when the WAY is in the middle?

Francis Drake said:

John williams, you said
New Birth, or being 'Born Again' is a New Testament doctrine, although the OT foresees its coming.......... ..........................When He spoke to Nicodemus, He was referring to an event that was to be. (Not something that could happen then,

This is actually not true. The concept, and even the words" born again" was already known and used by the pharisees. This is why Jesus used it. Every Old Testament saint HAD to be born from above, in order to be in relationship with the Heavenly Father.
John the baptist was only doing what the religious Jews had done for generations. All over Israel there are Mikveh, or baptistry pools carved into the rock. The Mikveh was used by the likes of the Pharisees when someone converted to Judaism, or maybe when someone was entering a specific stage of activity. It was also used whenever someone became unclean, say by a dead body, or a woman after menstruating. To be cleansed they have to go through ceremonial immersion. They could dip in the sea or a river, but the mikveh was a solution away from natural water.
The mikveh immersion WAS CALLED BAPTISM.
This can be seen regarding the pharisees in Mark7v4.......
"and when they come from the market-place, except they BATHE themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels." In this passage the word bathe in the Greek is "baptise".

The following is just pasted from one of many sites online.-
“The baptismal water (Mikveh) in rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. As the convert came out of these waters his status was changed and he was referred to as “a little child just born” or “a child of one day” (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b). We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as “born anew,” “new creation,” and “born from above.”

JESUS WAS NOT INTRODUCING A NEW CONCEPT WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT BEING BORN AGAIN.
Nor was he talking about the cross. At that stage of his ministry such a concept would have been nonsense, (as the disciples proved) even though the death of Jesus was an absolute necessity for anyone to be able to be born again.
An intellectual belief was NOT a requirement for new birth. A receptive heart was all that was needed when the Spirit of Christ knocked on a man's heart, in both the Old and New Testament or even pre flood.
IN ALL CASES, NEW BIRTH WAS PAID FOR BY THE SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH OF JESUS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD HEARD OF IT.

[Francis Drake]

John, are you deliberately misreading me?
I have repeatedly said that baptism was NOT being born again, even if, to the Pharisees, it portrayed it. Read the following pasted from MY previous comment.

"To the Pharisee, being baptised/mikveh WAS being born again, that's why Jesus hooked him on the error. I know, you know, Jesus knew, Nicodemus didn't."
Is that clear?
Please don't put words in my mouth and then denounce them.

All the sacrifices of the OT and all the bread and wine of the NT point to one thing alone, and that is the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
Please do not tell me that I am denying the necessity of the cross.

All the faithful who have no understanding of the substitutionary death of Jesus, like ALL the OT saints, are still part of it, because of their faith in God's righteousness rather than their own righteousness.
This is why God rebuked Peter when he refused to kill and eat the animals in his vision on the roof at Joppa.
God said to him not to call that which God had cleansed, unclean. God had cleansed them through the cross!

Peter finally gets the picture at the house of Cornelius. "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness is accepted of him".
Peter realised this fact before he related to Cornelius the story of Jesus and the true purpose of the cross. Additionally, the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius before Cornelius and his friends had been given the chance to even say the "sinners" prayer!

Are we to deny what God has said?



John williams said:

So getting 'bathed' is the 'new birth' ? Seemingly, your statements are also suggesting, that to become a Jew is to become 'born again' as well.
If that is all it takes to become 'born again', what is the purpose of Jesus' coming as a Sacrifice? Wouldn't that be a vain effort by The Lord to be doing something that doesn't need to be done, since 'bathing would take care of the 'new birth'?
What greater POWER has a bath over the The Spirit? Also what is the purpose for sending the 'Birth Giver' if a bath is all that is needed? Baptism would be all that is need to take care of 'everything' we have need of, wouldn't it?
Why wasn't Judas given a 'new birth', after baptism as well? What is the use of 'going on to perfection' if the one is birthed at baptism?
That 'theology' is what makes the Teachings of the Bible 'useless' to the one that wants to 'live' by the Word.
That is one good reason why God does not entrust His Word to the 'tradition keepers', or to 'theologians'. But to Amos 3:7.


Francis Drake said:

To the Pharisee, being baptised/mikveh WAS being born again, that's why Jesus hooked him on the error. I know, you know, Jesus knew, Nicodemus didn't.

The Spirit of the Lord was well known throughout the OT, long before Pentecost. Why would Jesus teach a doctrine of being born again by the Spirit, if it was not possible right there, right then. Nobody gets far teaching like that.

All the OT saints had to be born again, otherwise they had no relationship with the Father when they died.

John williams said:

You are talking about 'baptism' not a 'new birth', a new birth DOES NOT COME BY WATER, but by the Spirit. The Spirit had not been introduced until the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4). Jesus kept talking about, 'one that is to come', (meaning the Holy Ghost - 'the Ghost' (Spirit) of a Man (Jesus) gone on. Therefore He could say 'I (Personally) will be with you even IN you'.'I will come to you.' (Acts 9:5 )) (Two and two equal four, Jesus and the Holy Ghost equal Jesus Christ. Who IS Word as well, Jn.1:14;1 Pt.1:23 which brings about a new birth.) (If Baptism was the new birth, was it a 'special' kind of 'water', a 'special' kind of 'pronouncement' ? My, what a carnal mind could come up with is beyond me. Why then did Paul, (Acts 19:2) have those one who were baptized by John, get rebaptized in in order for them to receive the Holy Ghost?)
I agree with Dave Z, concerning Nicodemus, (A ruler of the Jews, who said, "We,(the learned teachers) know, that thou are a Teacher sent from God". (wonder why they did not accept His teaching)), who had no 'clue' about the 'new birth'.
How could the 'learned' men of today, be so far off in the 'left' or 'right' field when the WAY is in the middle?

Francis Drake said:

John williams, you said
New Birth, or being 'Born Again' is a New Testament doctrine, although the OT foresees its coming.......... ..........................When He spoke to Nicodemus, He was referring to an event that was to be. (Not something that could happen then,

This is actually not true. The concept, and even the words" born again" was already known and used by the pharisees. This is why Jesus used it. Every Old Testament saint HAD to be born from above, in order to be in relationship with the Heavenly Father.
John the baptist was only doing what the religious Jews had done for generations. All over Israel there are Mikveh, or baptistry pools carved into the rock. The Mikveh was used by the likes of the Pharisees when someone converted to Judaism, or maybe when someone was entering a specific stage of activity. It was also used whenever someone became unclean, say by a dead body, or a woman after menstruating. To be cleansed they have to go through ceremonial immersion. They could dip in the sea or a river, but the mikveh was a solution away from natural water.
The mikveh immersion WAS CALLED BAPTISM.
This can be seen regarding the pharisees in Mark7v4.......
"and when they come from the market-place, except they BATHE themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels." In this passage the word bathe in the Greek is "baptise".

The following is just pasted from one of many sites online.-
“The baptismal water (Mikveh) in rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. As the convert came out of these waters his status was changed and he was referred to as “a little child just born” or “a child of one day” (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b). We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as “born anew,” “new creation,” and “born from above.”

JESUS WAS NOT INTRODUCING A NEW CONCEPT WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT BEING BORN AGAIN.
Nor was he talking about the cross. At that stage of his ministry such a concept would have been nonsense, (as the disciples proved) even though the death of Jesus was an absolute necessity for anyone to be able to be born again.
An intellectual belief was NOT a requirement for new birth. A receptive heart was all that was needed when the Spirit of Christ knocked on a man's heart, in both the Old and New Testament or even pre flood.
IN ALL CASES, NEW BIRTH WAS PAID FOR BY THE SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH OF JESUS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD HEARD OF IT.

[JRKH]

Joe Rutherford said:

We should teach that a person can only become born from above, after hearing the Truth of Jesus Christ. To teach that a lost soul can become born again without ever hearing the gospel, is a false gospel.

When Jesus died, He went to Paradise, not Heaven. Abraham and all Old Testament saints where there, in Paradise. They needed to hear the gospel to be born again, and then enter into Heaven. I will preach no other gospel!

This is interestingly put.
Let me propose a scenerio and ask your opinion.
When Christ went to "paradise" and preached to, "Abraham and all Old Testament saints", do you think that there were other souls there too? Ones that were not Hebrew? Souls from the America's and Japan, and other places that had never heard of Yaweh? Do you think that there were those in "paradise" who, upon hearing Christ, rejected him and were sent to damnation?
Next question - After Jesus rose, and ascended His Gospel began to Spread. Still there were many millions who would never hear the Gospel. The Gospel was not brought to the America's and Japan until about 1450-1500 and onwards....Do you beleive that all of these people were condemned? were they given an opportunity after death and at judgement to accept the Gospel, to be "born again", in the same way as those in Paradise?

What do you think?

Peace
James

[Francis Drake]

Joe, if your theology is so critically correct for eternal life, why don't we see Jesus using it at every opportunity, particularly when someone asks a direct question like the following?

Luke 18:18-23

[18] A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

[19] "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good -- except God alone. [20] You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

[21] "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

[22] When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

[23] When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.

[24] Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! [25] Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

[26] Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"

[27] Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."

[28] Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"

[29] "I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God [30] will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

Obviously Jesus, being full of love for this man, would also be concerned for his eternal destination. Why then did Jesus not give a clear exposition of the gospel to him? Instead Jesus just gave him the law of Moses. Why for that matter, do we not see Jesus, all through his 3 year ministry, expounding the same thing he said to Nicodemus about being born again.



Joe Rutherford said:

We should teach that a person can only become born from above, after hearing the Truth of Jesus Christ. To teach that a lost soul can become born again without ever hearing the gospel, is a false gospel.

When Jesus died, He went to Paradise, not Heaven. Abraham and all Old Testament saints where there, in Paradise. They needed to hear the gospel to be born again, and then enter into Heaven. I will preach no other gospel!

[Francis Drake]

Thank you James, thank you!
We are now beginning to examine the question I was aiming at in the beginning. Lets all put our dogmas away for a moment and consider the love and mercy of God. Lets find what biblical provision He has actually made.
1Tim2v4.If God would have ALL men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Then we must ask what means does he have for teeming masses who have been and still are out of touch?
By all evangelistic church statistics, heaven will be mainly filled with WASPS, white anglo-saxon protestants. This is because they have mainly been the ones renowned for preaching the gospel since the reformation. The rest can apparently go to hell. (oops)



JRKH said:

Joe Rutherford said:

We should teach that a person can only become born from above, after hearing the Truth of Jesus Christ. To teach that a lost soul can become born again without ever hearing the gospel, is a false gospel.

When Jesus died, He went to Paradise, not Heaven. Abraham and all Old Testament saints where there, in Paradise. They needed to hear the gospel to be born again, and then enter into Heaven. I will preach no other gospel!

This is interestingly put.
Let me propose a scenerio and ask your opinion.
When Christ went to "paradise" and preached to, "Abraham and all Old Testament saints", do you think that there were other souls there too? Ones that were not Hebrew? Souls from the America's and Japan, and other places that had never heard of Yaweh? Do you think that there were those in "paradise" who, upon hearing Christ, rejected him and were sent to damnation?
Next question - After Jesus rose, and ascended His Gospel began to Spread. Still there were many millions who would never hear the Gospel. The Gospel was not brought to the America's and Japan until about 1450-1500 and onwards....Do you beleive that all of these people were condemned? were they given an opportunity after death and at judgement to accept the Gospel, to be "born again", in the same way as those in Paradise?

What do you think?

Peace
James

[JRKH]

Joe,
In your previous post you said this:
"To teach that a lost soul can become born again without ever hearing the gospel, is a false gospel"
Now in your response to my scenerio's you say we cannot know what provisions God has made for those who have never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel....
Forgive me for saying that these two statements sound contradictory.

Peace
James


Joe Rutherford said:

James, I do not have a complete list of who was sent to Paradise. That is in the category of- God knows and we don't. Revelation from God was given or at least offered to people in ages past, according to Pauls teaching in Romans. Trying to tweek out a detailed theology for the ancients, and who went to Paradise, is not my job. But all who feared God, and all who fear Him today, God did/will save. The creation is not mine. God does with people as it pleases Him. What happen to the folks in Japan or the Americas, etc., in 1400? I don't know.

As a witness of the Lord Jesus, we should only preach the gospel for salvation. Stressing some other 'gospel' to people who are on this side of the grass and who have the opportunity to hear the gospel, is wrong.
JRKH said:

Joe Rutherford said:

We should teach that a person can only become born from above, after hearing the Truth of Jesus Christ. To teach that a lost soul can become born again without ever hearing the gospel, is a false gospel.

When Jesus died, He went to Paradise, not Heaven. Abraham and all Old Testament saints where there, in Paradise. They needed to hear the gospel to be born again, and then enter into Heaven. I will preach no other gospel!

This is interestingly put.
Let me propose a scenerio and ask your opinion.
When Christ went to "paradise" and preached to, "Abraham and all Old Testament saints", do you think that there were other souls there too? Ones that were not Hebrew? Souls from the America's and Japan, and other places that had never heard of Yaweh? Do you think that there were those in "paradise" who, upon hearing Christ, rejected him and were sent to damnation?
Next question - After Jesus rose, and ascended His Gospel began to Spread. Still there were many millions who would never hear the Gospel. The Gospel was not brought to the America's and Japan until about 1450-1500 and onwards....Do you beleive that all of these people were condemned? were they given an opportunity after death and at judgement to accept the Gospel, to be "born again", in the same way as those in Paradise?

What do you think?

Peace
James

[John williams]

James

I have no understanding as to how the RCC goes about to 'admit' one into the kingdom of heaven, nor what they 'believe' in as being the 'new birth'.(probably in taking their first communion)
Your previous post about ones that are in paradise is not thought out throughly enough to be Biblically correct. (Just an argumentative babbling) Seemingly you placed everyone that died prior to the Gospel into paradise. (Which is not correct. Since there are those that are in 'another realm', other than in paradise, that are past on as well. -Lk 16:24, in a 'holding place' (not purgatory-since there is no such a place) awaiting their day of judgment. Knowing the laws of the land, a person is NOT sentenced until they've had a hearing. Neither can these be sent to the 'lake of fire' until after the Great White Throne hearing. Also those that Jesus talked about were ones that HAD the Law and the prophets as their instructors, prior to their passing.)
So how is it that these were sent to Paradise, while the other missed being there?
If you've read the OT account of Joseph, wanting to have his bones carried to the same place where Abraham, and the rest of the Patriarchs were buried; could you ask, why it was so important to him to have his remains to be carried to that area? Why not just bury them in Egypt?
It is because, that was the place where the 'resurrection' was to take place, (Mt.27:52 notice these were 'saints', not heathen ) and not everywhere in the world. ( which will happen during the Great White Throne period)
Therefore your 'remarks' about paradise, and about the heathen is w/o foundation.

But God is Gracious, He will NOT be just to condemn anyone w/o having had a 'chance' at deciding for himself of his direction to take. (Same as what is taking place here. Either accept the Word over an established man-made 'religious' set up or not. Where ones 'treasure' (his prized possession = his faith) is that is where his heart is going to be at.
Even if Judgment will come by Jesus Christ, Who IS the Word, and it is the WORD that will be from whence one is to be judged. JRKH said:

Joe,
In your previous post you said this:
"To teach that a lost soul can become born again without ever hearing the gospel, is a false gospel"
Now in your response to my scenerio's you say we cannot know what provisions God has made for those who have never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel....
Forgive me for saying that these two statements sound contradictory.

Peace
James


Joe Rutherford said:

James, I do not have a complete list of who was sent to Paradise. That is in the category of- God knows and we don't. Revelation from God was given or at least offered to people in ages past, according to Pauls teaching in Romans. Trying to tweek out a detailed theology for the ancients, and who went to Paradise, is not my job. But all who feared God, and all who fear Him today, God did/will save. The creation is not mine. God does with people as it pleases Him. What happen to the folks in Japan or the Americas, etc., in 1400? I don't know.

As a witness of the Lord Jesus, we should only preach the gospel for salvation. Stressing some other 'gospel' to people who are on this side of the grass and who have the opportunity to hear the gospel, is wrong.
JRKH said:

Joe Rutherford said:

We should teach that a person can only become born from above, after hearing the Truth of Jesus Christ. To teach that a lost soul can become born again without ever hearing the gospel, is a false gospel.

When Jesus died, He went to Paradise, not Heaven. Abraham and all Old Testament saints where there, in Paradise. They needed to hear the gospel to be born again, and then enter into Heaven. I will preach no other gospel!

This is interestingly put.
Let me propose a scenerio and ask your opinion.
When Christ went to "paradise" and preached to, "Abraham and all Old Testament saints", do you think that there were other souls there too? Ones that were not Hebrew? Souls from the America's and Japan, and other places that had never heard of Yaweh? Do you think that there were those in "paradise" who, upon hearing Christ, rejected him and were sent to damnation?
Next question - After Jesus rose, and ascended His Gospel began to Spread. Still there were many millions who would never hear the Gospel. The Gospel was not brought to the America's and Japan until about 1450-1500 and onwards....Do you beleive that all of these people were condemned? were they given an opportunity after death and at judgement to accept the Gospel, to be "born again", in the same way as those in Paradise?

What do you think?

Peace
James