The Book of Acts, IIRC, tells us there is but one name under Heaven given among men by which we might be saved.
So I'm wondering which name that might be. I mean, let's face facts: there is quite a linguisitic gulf to get "Jesus" from "YShH"
But then I'm thinking, when you die judgment would not entail St Peter saying, "OK, everyone take out your Number 2 pencils. Fill in the bubble completely, do not leave any stray marks on your answer sheet and do not write in your test booklet."
So I'm think: if pronunciation is not the factor then it must be the Ideal of the Annointed One and all that it entails vis-a-vis remission from sin.
Could the argument then be made that those who understand humanity being in pitiful shape then cry out to some moral state of being to make themselves better could be saved even if they had never had the gospel preached to them?
Now, lest anyone mistakenly accuse me of arguing against evangelism: no, because if you want to reach a broader audience then obviously it pays to advertise.
But I look at people like Socrates and think: if ever there was a pre-evangelistic ideal for a person born among pagans but truly understanding the ideal of God and humanity's moribund state, someone like Socrates would qualify.
Even in historical Christendom a person having a solid historical and theological education was more a matter of good luck rather than good measure. Case in point, stand glass windows on churches aren't there to make teh place look pretty but to compensate for the fact that 90-plus percent of the population was unlettered hence the picture images filled in those gaps in education.
So, is salvation an embracing of the Messianic Ideal or is it the proper recitation of a history lesson?
