• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Believe?

nazz

Doubting Thomas
Paul says that even he doesn't know if he's saved, so I do believe you're taking the idea of saved by faith out of context. To me, the only thing that makes sense of tying these various verses together is that what Paul and the others as saying is that you must have faith in Jesus, which involves following what Jesus is telling you to do and not just think. There's simply way too many verses that deal with what to do or not do for the issue of just believing about Jesus and not in him.

You are understanding correctly, IMO. Except it would be a mistake to conclude from that this requires self effort on our part to do what is right and refrain from doing what is wrong. What is required is a commitment to being transformed into a person who naturally does what is right.

Obviously, I don't agree with that since Torah and Tanakh state that God can and will forgive us through us asking for His forgiveness plus attempting to correct our wrongs. If you doubt that and have a concordance, look up "forgive" and its variations for confirmation.

When it says "the nations", this is a reference to the people found within since the actions being cited involve personal actions (nations don't visit the sick, for example). Again, even if you don't like that interpretation, what I posted still stands: actions are expected and will be involved in the final judgement, but not as the sole criterion.

What the NT really teaches is that we are saved by grace but judged by our works.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Sorry for the later response as I just got back from Canada for a couple of days visiting.

[FONT=&quot]No problem, I hope you had a good trip.[/FONT]
Paul says that even he doesn't know if he's saved, so I do believe you're taking the idea of saved by faith out of context. To me, the only thing that makes sense of tying these various verses together is that what Paul and the others as saying is that you must have faith in Jesus, which involves following what Jesus is telling you to do and not just think. There's simply way too many verses that deal with what to do or not do for the issue of just believing about Jesus and not in him.
I don’t see through my reading of the scriptures that Paul had any doubt about his salvation on the contrary he was confident that he belonged to the Lord, was saved, and would be with the Lord when he died.


There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:1


For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:4-8

I do agree with you that Paul often taught about what a believer should look like, but it was always in the context of following the spirit, rather than keeping the law by the effort of the flesh. His faith was a living faith which he demonstrated by his daily actions and he encouraged other believers to do likewise...

Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Romans 6:12-15


Obviously, I don't agree with that since Torah and Tanakh state that God can and will forgive us through us asking for His forgiveness plus attempting to correct our wrongs. If you doubt that and have a concordance, look up "forgive" and its variations for confirmation.
[FONT=&quot] I think the theme of believing God, seeking His forgiveness and repenting from sin is consistent throughout all scripture. In the NT it is also stated that God will forgive when one seeks forgiveness. Whether Torah, Tanakh, or NT it is still belief or faith in God which must come first.... before any other actions. [/FONT]


When it says "the nations", this is a reference to the people found within since the actions being cited involve personal actions (nations don't visit the sick, for example). Again, even if you don't like that interpretation, what I posted still stands: actions are expected and will be involved in the final judgement, but not as the sole criterion.
[/quote]

Yes, nations are made up of people and each person will be judged individually for their actions. As I have said, I’m not discounting the importance of actions. Yet, this passage in Matthew 25 shows that it is the Son of Man (Jesus) who will be judging the nations and separating His sheep from the goats. I believe all the more reason for an individual to put their faith in Christ as their Savior, become a new creation so as to accomplish the good works God has prepared.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What the NT really teaches is that we are saved by grace but judged by our works.

Not really, and the church never believed that faith alone was the key to salvation until Luther started cherry picking the verses. I do believe Paul's references as such are being taken badly out of context and make little sense if taken literally. Essentially what I believe he's saying is that one must have faith in Jesus and not just about him.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don’t see through my reading of the scriptures that Paul had any doubt about his salvation on the contrary he was confident that he belonged to the Lord, was saved, and would be with the Lord when he died.

Paul said he could not judge himself because of the innermost thoughts in his mind. I don't know where the verse is where he says that, but maybe you can recall.

Yes, nations are made up of people and each person will be judged individually for their actions. As I have said, I’m not discounting the importance of actions. Yet, this passage in Matthew 25 shows that it is the Son of Man (Jesus) who will be judging the nations and separating His sheep from the goats. I believe all the more reason for an individual to put their faith in Christ as their Savior, become a new creation so as to accomplish the good works God has prepared

Obviously, I don't see it the same way, but that's OK.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Paul said he could not judge himself because of the innermost thoughts in his mind. I don't know where the verse is where he says that, but maybe you can recall.



Obviously, I don't see it the same way, but that's OK.

The Big Book of Multiple Choice - it has something for everyone.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
Not really

Yeah, really. God is like 911. If you call 911 they will send help. They don't requie you to pass any moral test first.

and the church never believed that faith alone was the key to salvation until Luther started cherry picking the verses.
Yes they did. But they also recognized that faith without works was dead. But no one taught that you had to merit salvation through your works.

I do believe Paul's references as such are being taken badly out of context and make little sense if taken literally. Essentially what I believe he's saying is that one must have faith in Jesus and not just about him.
Well sure. One must place one's faith in him as Savior. If you are trapped in a burning building and a fireman shows up and tells you to follow him to safety you must place your faith in him to do so.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well sure. One must place one's faith in him as Savior. If you are trapped in a burning building and a fireman shows up and tells you to follow him to safety you must place your faith in him to do so.

But this is where you actually come around to realizing what I'm saying and agreeing, because one cannot believe in Jesus and then ignore what he told you to do. Matthew 25 and the Sermon on the Mount are clearly calls to follow Jesus and not just have nice politically-correct thoughts about him.

As far as judging is concerned, I suggest leaving that to God.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
But this is where you actually come around to realizing what I'm saying and agreeing, because one cannot believe in Jesus and then ignore what he told you to do. Matthew 25 and the Sermon on the Mount are clearly calls to follow Jesus and not just have nice politically-correct thoughts about him.

Yes, of course

As far as judging is concerned, I suggest leaving that to God.

I do :)
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
I always wondered if Jesus was just talking directly to the disciples when he said all these things. Like "i'll come back for you" and words like that, how much more likely is it that he was talking about the world and not just the disciples.

Also who was Simon the Zealot?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Paul said he could not judge himself because of the innermost thoughts in his mind. I don't know where the verse is where he says that, but maybe you can recall.


Is the passage below the one you were thinking of? If so, then I don't think Paul was referring to a lack of confidence in his salvation, but rather his deeds as a servant/ leader of Christ in the church. According to the scriptures all believers in Christ will stand before the judgment seat of Christ (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10), but this a judgment of the deeds of those who are already saved, not a judgment about eternal destiny.

Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God. 1 Corinthians 4;1-5


Obviously, I don't see it the same way, but that's OK.
[/quote]

I understand you don't see it the same way and yeah, that's okay.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
Is the passage below the one you were thinking of? If so, then I don't think Paul was referring to a lack of confidence in his salvation, but rather his deeds as a servant/ leader of Christ in the church. According to the scriptures all believers in Christ will stand before the judgment seat of Christ (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10), but this a judgment of the deeds of those who are already saved, not a judgment about eternal destiny.

Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God. 1 Corinthians 4;1-5

or perhaps this?

Phl 3:10-12

that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
or perhaps this?

Phl 3:10-12

that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.


Of course, no believer attains resurrection from the dead or a perfect glorified body until after they die.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I always wondered if Jesus was just talking directly to the disciples when he said all these things. Like "i'll come back for you" and words like that, how much more likely is it that he was talking about the world and not just the disciples.

Also who was Simon the Zealot?

Oops, I just remembered that you had asked that before but I never got back with you, so here:

The apostle called Simon Zelotes, Simon the Zealot, in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13; and Simon Kananaios or Simon Cananeus ("Simon" signifying שמעון "hearkening; listening", Standard Hebrew Šimʿon, Tiberian Hebrew Šimʿôn, "Shim'on"), was one of the most obscure among the apostles of Jesus. Little is recorded of him aside from his name. A few pseudepigraphical writings were connected to him, and Jerome does not include him in De viris illustribus...

To distinguish him from Simon Peter, he is called Kananaios, or Kananites (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18), and in the list of apostles in Luke 6:15, repeated in Acts 1:13, Zelotes, the "Zealot". Both titles derive from the Hebrew word qana, meaning The Zealous, though Jerome and others mistook the word to signify the apostle was from the town of Cana, in which case his epithet would have been "Kanaios" or even from the region of Canaan. As such, the translation of the word as "the Cananite" or "the Canaanite" is traditional and without contemporary extra-canonic parallel.
-- Simon the Zealot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Is the passage below the one you were thinking of? If so, then I don't think Paul was referring to a lack of confidence in his salvation, but rather his deeds as a servant/ leader of Christ in the church. According to the scriptures all believers in Christ will stand before the judgment seat of Christ (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10), but this a judgment of the deeds of those who are already saved, not a judgment about eternal destiny.

Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God. 1 Corinthians 4;1-5

Yep, that's the one, so thanks. However, I do believe he believes he's probably going to be "saved" ("I have run the good race..."), however it appears that he's not willing to make that judgment since he realizes that it's not for him to decide such matters, which fits into Jesus' "Judge ye not..." statement.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Just a reminder that in Matthew 25, the "goats" believe about Jesus but not in him as the "sheep" did, and I would suggest that it is this latter model that Jesus himself set. We see this being reinforced elsewhere:

Jas. 2 [14] What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
[15] If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
[16] and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
[17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
[18] But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.


And from Paul:

I Cor. 13 [1] If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
[2] And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
[3] If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
[4] Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
[5] it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
[6] it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.
[7] Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
[8] Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
[9] For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect;
[10] but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.
[11] When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
[12] For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
[13] So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.


Notice that "faith" doesn't take first place. Secondly, the word for "love" in Koine Greek was "agape", as many of you undoubtedly know, and there is no equivalent English word. If you talk to a scholar on this ancient form of Greek, what they'll tend to tell you is that it's an all-encompassing love that also denotes action. IOW, one doesn't just have this all-encompassing love, plus one also lives out this all-encompassing love as it's a noun that involves action and not just thought-- thus the "law of love".

This is why it's apparent to me that Jesus' "law of love" is based not just on a politically-correct belief like the "goats" had, but of actually living out the gospel as the "sheep" realized. This fits the paradigm of Judaism in that it's not possible to be an observant Jew just by occasionally going to services or having politically-correct beliefs, but that it's important to make it very much a part of our everyday lives. IOW, one doesn't just believe in Judaism-- we must live it.

And I believe the same is true about Christianity, namely one doesn't just believe about Jesus, one must live out their belief, and one's actions must reflect that belief. To do otherwise turns a person into a "goat".
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
Oops, I just remembered that you had asked that before but I never got back with you, so here:

The apostle called Simon Zelotes, Simon the Zealot, in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13; and Simon Kananaios or Simon Cananeus ("Simon" signifying שמעון "hearkening; listening", Standard Hebrew Šimʿon, Tiberian Hebrew Šimʿôn, "Shim'on"), was one of the most obscure among the apostles of Jesus. Little is recorded of him aside from his name. A few pseudepigraphical writings were connected to him, and Jerome does not include him in De viris illustribus...

To distinguish him from Simon Peter, he is called Kananaios, or Kananites (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18), and in the list of apostles in Luke 6:15, repeated in Acts 1:13, Zelotes, the "Zealot". Both titles derive from the Hebrew word qana, meaning The Zealous, though Jerome and others mistook the word to signify the apostle was from the town of Cana, in which case his epithet would have been "Kanaios" or even from the region of Canaan. As such, the translation of the word as "the Cananite" or "the Canaanite" is traditional and without contemporary extra-canonic parallel.
-- Simon the Zealot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Were the Zealots the group of Jews who were against the Roman rule?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Were the Zealots the group of Jews who were against the Roman rule?

Yes. However, it was not really as much an organized group as much as it was a general movement that was willing to use force.

BTW, I was involved back in 1999 in a dig just west of Jerusalem whereas it was a Zealot hideout (a cistern) from the Romans that eventually got filled in by the Romans, thus making it unusable. Most of the pottery we found was actually of Roman origin.
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
Yes. However, it was not really as much an organized group as much as it was a general movement that was willing to use force.

BTW, I was involved back in 1999 in a dig just west of Jerusalem whereas it was a Zealot hideout (a cistern) from the Romans that eventually got filled in by the Romans, thus making it unusable. Most of the pottery we found was actually of Roman origin.

It would become an organized group though wouldn't it? Albeit for a short while.

I just find it interesting that Jesus would have a member of one of those individuals along side him.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It would become an organized group though wouldn't it? Albeit for a short while.

I just find it interesting that Jesus would have a member of one of those individuals along side him.

I would assume that Simon the Zealot probably amended his approach because it's quite incompatible with Jesus' overall message. We gotta remember that people in that area back then didn't have last names, so to distinguish them from others with the same first names, often a descriptive term was used.

Where the Zealots may have become more organized was during the Bar Kochba Revolt, but that was long after Jesus was gone from the scene.
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
I would assume that Simon the Zealot probably amended his approach because it's quite incompatible with Jesus' overall message. We gotta remember that people in that area back then didn't have last names, so to distinguish them from others with the same first names, often a descriptive term was used.

Where the Zealots may have become more organized was during the Bar Kochba Revolt, but that was long after Jesus was gone from the scene.

I'm sure he had, but the dislike of the Romans would have been evident by those who knew of the Zealots right? And were they not active during the Jewish Roman War?

Jesus's method of execution was reserved to traitors of the state, he would have needed a much larger following than 12 people to have been executed in such a manner (although Pilate was rather brutal).

I mention it because when Stephen is killed in acts, his punishment was by stoning and handled personally by the Jewish leaders with no need for Roman intervention.
 
Top