Is "salvation" possible under the Law?

[Muffled]

Which is an interpretation that is questionable, to say the least, and was one reason why the book of Revelation was not used in many early churches, plus was hotly debated during the process of selecting the canon. That interpretation is not found anywhere else in scripture nor is it found in any oral tradition that dated back to the apostles.

However, I'm not saying it's wrong-- just debatable.

I don't believe I can imagine why one would have questions about the interpretation.

I believe that is the null hypothesis. One would have to show that one could expect other disciples to prophesy about future events and that all prophecies should talk about the same thing.

 

[Muffled]

Every one, with the least of commonsense knows that the Law itself cannot save any one but, obedience to the Law is what gets one ready for salvation. And you say above that Jesus did not say the Law would save people. Let me ask you a question; what was Jesus talking about in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? He was talking about the dialogue between Abraham in Heaven and the rich man in hell. The rich man would plead with Abraham to send someone back home to warn his family and friends to change the way they were living or they would fall in the same hell. Bottom line, Jesus said that to escape hell-fire, one must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. You don't see here that Jesus implied that salvation comes through the Law! He was being entirely obvious!

I believe Jesus does intimate that He is savior in making this statement:
Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one go to them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.

I believe Jesus is saying if a person doesn't believe in keeping the law he will not repent nor will the person seek Jesus to save from sin.

I believe Isaiah says no-one can be obedient to the law.

 

[Muffled]

I know what you are talking about, Paul was either a dangerous hypocrite or trying to preach his gospel by proxy as being himself the Messiah of Christianity. (Acts 11:26) How could he declare God's Law a curse and dead when Jesus himself would teach us all to listen to "Moses" aka the Law? (Luke 16:29-31)

I believe this is not a command but part of a bigger story that points to the salvation of Jesus.

I believe this is a false accusation.

I believe this is true of every preacher endowed with the Holy Spirit. Paul is not replacing the Messiah but is speaking as Jesus just as I do.

Because I believe it is for those who do not keep it. Those who try to ignore it go about their dirty deeds with a clear conscience.

I believe when grace comes the law is not necessary. It is not the law that is alive in me but grace that lives in me.

 

[metis]

I don't believe I can imagine why one would have questions about the interpretation.

We have to remember that most of what we read was carried orally before being written, and according to the early church patriarchs, there was no known literal tradition of a "millennial reign". Now, if taken symbolically, that's a different story, therefore much more likely, imo.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thanks for admitting you were wrong in an earlier comment, as what you wrote above was my point that you disagreed with.

You bet. I make mistakes same as everyone. But the fact remains--you can no more accuse the gospels of wrongdoing because of differing details than you can succeed in court with eyewitnesses who are suspiciously, absolutely, the same.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I was just comapring the two, and it is obvious that historically that many scientists were theists, and some obviously are today.



It is you who have been throwing at me insult after insult as anyone can read in many of your previous posts on this thread alone. On top of that, disagreeing with someone is not an "insult", and I have gone out of my way so as not to insult you or anyone else here.

Goodbye.

I don't think it's insulting, but rather, honoring, to share the tough truths with those who need to hear them. Is it an insult to say, "You keep pointing to errors in the Bible that are not errors at all?" I don't think so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So if a person, prior to Jesus, trusted God, that person would be considered "saved" in the way Christians define the word? I imagine, yes. People like David, Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Elijah, Abraham and many more. But now that Jesus has come... is a Jew that trusts God and repents of his/her sins "saved"? I suppose a Christian would have to say no, but why? Has the truth about God found in the Jewish Bible become invalid? Everything God told the Jews to believe and do no longer works?

You are asking several questions.

A Christian is someone who has trusted Christ for salvation.

A Jewish Christian has trusted Christ. A Gentile Christian has trusted Christ.

The Jewish Bible is both testaments. All 66 books were written by the Jewish people. The Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament are not invalid by trusting Christ. However, the Christian has higher standards than the Jewish law. I do more than avoid adultery and murder, I love my spouse and my neighbor . . . and my enemy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Faith without obedience of the Law will get you nowhere. According to James 2:26 faith without works is akin to a body without the breath of of life. Dead, if you wanna know what he meant. If you read II Corinthians 5:7 Paul said that his followers must walk by faith, not by sight. He knew that to walk by sight is to walk with understanding. But, probably, he wanted his followers to walk in the dark and leave the understanding with him. No, thank you but no, thanks. I wanna know where I walk and where to. You need a break to read Psalms 119 to understand the meaning of righteousness through the Law. Try to use faith only and disregard the Law, and you will know where you will wake up tomorrow!

Faith without works means "that faith" cannot save that person. "That faith" isn't a saving faith. James 2 is a horrible example of your "doctrine", Ben. If you follow it, you should:

1. Vow to sacrifice your firstborn alive, then not do so

2. Become a prostitute and tell lies, like Rahab, to be saved

Bad, bad, example. I won't adhere to your misinterpretation of either James 2 or the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[metis]

But the fact remains--you can no more accuse the gospels of wrongdoing because of differing details

I didn't accuse the gospels of "wrongdoing" but simply the obvious fact, which you disagreed with originally, that there are "variations" that simply cannot be viewed as being the same.

With these variations, it therefore brings up the question of "inerrancy" and "divine inspiration", largely because if the Bible was 100% of divine origin and absolutely inerrant, how could it then contain any errors whatsoever?

A much more sensible approach, imo, that is taken by some churches, including the RCC, is that the main teachings were divinely inspired and therefore basically inerrant, but not necessarily are the details as such.

BTW, according to the notable Anglican theologian William Barclay, there are many spelling and grammatical errors in the oldest texts that we have, with John's gospel having the most.

 

[Tarheeler]

The Jewish Bible is both testaments.

No, it's not, and making that claim only shows ignorance and dishonesty.
That the characters of the Christian Bible were Jewish is irrelevant. Your claim is like saying that because the Declaration of Independence was written by subjects of the English crown it is somehow a British document.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't accuse the gospels of "wrongdoing" but simply the obvious fact, which you disagreed with originally, that there are "variations" that simply cannot be viewed as being the same.

With these variations, it therefore brings up the question of "inerrancy" and "divine inspiration", largely because if the Bible was 100% of divine origin and absolutely inerrant, how could it then contain any errors whatsoever?

A much more sensible approach, imo, that is taken by some churches, including the RCC, is that the main teachings were divinely inspired and therefore basically inerrant, but not necessarily are the details as such.

BTW, according to the notable Anglican theologian William Barclay, there are many spelling and grammatical errors in the oldest texts that we have, with John's gospel having the most.

I don't mean to play semantics but in recent posts you seemed to confuse differences or your unwillingness to accept simple harmonies of different accounts with errors. That's the equivalent of being an attorney claiming two eyewitnesses with mostly similar accounts are lying, when jurisprudence demands that true eyewitness accounts differ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, it's not, and making that claim only shows ignorance and dishonesty.
That the characters of the Christian Bible were Jewish is irrelevant. Your claim is like saying that because the Declaration of Independence was written by subjects of the English crown it is somehow a British document.

No, I'm sure I can press my claim. I'm a Jew. All the authors of both testaments were Jews. The NT contains mostly looks at OT doctrines. Even Paul's writings (Paul being accused of starting a new faith) are around 95% echoings of OT doctrines.

Jesus was Jewish. He was born, circumcised, died and was buried per Jewish law. He said "Don't even think one accent of the OT will be done away with."

You are making a big claim. Do you have evidence or theory to back your assertions?

 

[metis]

I don't mean to play semantics but in recent posts you seemed to confuse differences or your unwillingness to accept simple harmonies of different accounts with errors.

Not really, but whatever.

 

[Tarheeler]

No, I'm sure I can press my claim. I'm a Jew. All the authors of both testaments were Jews. The NT contains mostly looks at OT doctrines. Even Paul's writings (Paul being accused of starting a new faith) are around 95% echoings of OT doctrines.

Jesus was Jewish. He was born, circumcised, died and was buried per Jewish law. He said "Don't even think one accent of the OT will be done away with."

You are making a big claim. Do you have evidence or theory to back your assertions?

As you stated in your first sentence, you're the one making the claim.
And as I've already pointed out, being written by Jews doesn't make it a "Jewish" book, and containing things based on the Tanakh doesn't make it part of the Jewish cannon.

I really don't care what you claim to be. In a previous post, you stated that anyone who "trusted" Jesus was a Christian, regardless of whether they started out as a Jew or a Gentile. And I agree with you. Based on your posts, that makes you a Christian.

The Christian Bible diverges greatly in several areas from what Judaism teaches, which is to be expected; Christianity is a separate religion from Judaism. No matter how hard to want to it be, they are not the same.

 

[SethZaddik]

Many Christians present Jesus as the "only" way to get into heaven. That everybody, without Jesus, is lost in their sin. That nothing they can do on their own is good enough. And, without accepting Jesus, God will send them to hell.

So the question for Christians is: Prior to Jesus, was anybody "saved" under the Law? For Jews, was getting "saved", as believed by Christians, a concept that was ever part of Judaism?

Jesus taught Torah observance and obedience to God's commandments and how to fulfill them.

Not how to cast them aside as useless, as Paul did, lying about the Law being ordained by angels, obviously he had little knowledge of the Torah which could not be more clear that the Law/Torah was ordained by God to Moses, no angels involved. They are called God's Laws and commandments not Michael's Law or the Law of Uriel.

The Law of God is obviously not something to be taken lightly, calling it inferior and ordained by lesser beings is blasphemy par excellence.

And Paul is the only one who preaches all this nonsense, get rid of his lies and it goes away.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not really, but whatever.

No, you wrote that you find irreconcilable differences with harmonizing the gospels as their disproof. Yet you're yet to respond to my point--that eyewitness testimonies are suspect of collusion if they don't differ!

I admit my mistakes where I can. "Whatever" is taking too lightly your accusations against Jesus Christ's given Word.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As you stated in your first sentence, you're the one making the claim.
And as I've already pointed out, being written by Jews doesn't make it a "Jewish" book, and containing things based on the Tanakh doesn't make it part of the Jewish cannon.

I really don't care what you claim to be. In a previous post, you stated that anyone who "trusted" Jesus was a Christian, regardless of whether they started out as a Jew or a Gentile. And I agree with you. Based on your posts, that makes you a Christian.

The Christian Bible diverges greatly in several areas from what Judaism teaches, which is to be expected; Christianity is a separate religion from Judaism. No matter how hard to want to it be, they are not the same.

Where they differ as faiths is that Judaism is waiting for the Messiah, Christianity isn't. Christianity, however, was correctly labeled a Jewish sect by Gentile historians in the 1st century. I'm not that interested in your 1) revisionism 2) disdaining my opinion as a Jew. If you're a Gentile, I'll go on a limb and say I understand what is Jewish better.

 

[Tarheeler]

Where they differ as faiths is that Judaism is waiting for the Messiah, Christianity isn't.

There are many more differences between the two than that. As someone who claims to understand both, you should know that.

Christianity, however, was correctly labeled a Jewish sect by Gentile historians in the 1st century.

And it ceased being one shortly thereafter and became a separate religion in it's own right.

I'm not that interested in your 1) revisionism 2) disdaining my opinion as a Jew. If you're a Gentile, I'll go on a limb and say I understand what is Jewish better.

I'm sorry, but you claimed that the Christian Bible was part of the Jewish cannon, something that isn't supported anywhere. You have no credibility when discussing what may or may not be Jewish.
And, since you seem in doubt, I am a Jew who practices Judaism.

As for what you see as my disdain, it isn't for your "opinion as a Jew". It is for your attempt to pass off Christianity as Judaism. And I show similar regard for anyone who does that, regardless of their ancestry or prior religion.

 

[SethZaddik]

There are many more differences between the two than that. As someone who claims to understand both, you should know that.


And it ceased being one shortly thereafter and became a separate religion in it's own right.



I'm sorry, but you claimed that the Christian Bible was part of the Jewish cannon, something that isn't supported anywhere. You have no credibility when discussing what may or may not be Jewish.
And, since you seem in doubt, I am a Jew who practices Judaism.

As for what you see as my disdain, it isn't for your "opinion as a Jew". It is for your attempt to pass off Christianity as Judaism. And I show similar regard for anyone who does that, regardless of their ancestry or prior religion.

That's what makes the world great, your opinion is irrelevant to his faith and can't judge it in any relevant way.

 

[SethZaddik]

Where they differ as faiths is that Judaism is waiting for the Messiah, Christianity isn't. Christianity, however, was correctly labeled a Jewish sect by Gentile historians in the 1st century. I'm not that interested in your 1) revisionism 2) disdaining my opinion as a Jew. If you're a Gentile, I'll go on a limb and say I understand what is Jewish better.

Unless you are of the few who regards Josephus mention of Christ as NOT an interpolation not a single first century historian even MENTIONS Christianity. The word doesn't show up until the second century in history.

Out on a limb may have been the right choice of words because if you understand Judaism that includes its history and the fact that Christianity is not mentioned in the first century, a Roman religion too, does nothing for your claim to understanding, how do you understand without all the facts?

You don't. I am not Jewish, I'm Muslim, but I would say that I at least have a better knowledge of first century Jewish history because I know that the second century is the first mention of Christianity or Paul in the historical records.

Iranaeus was first to mention Paul after they robbed Marcion of his creation and merged it with the religion of the real Apostles who actually knew Jesus PBUH.

Justin Martyr the first to mention Christianity as A religion, period, and it is based on Judaism but not Judaism at all.

Nazarenes were what Jewish disciples of Yesha were called and Ebionim/Ebionites, they were actually declared heretical even though it was Jesus PBUH religion.

Nazarenes aren't mentionied until Jerome and Epiphanius, 4th or 5th century, Ebionites in the second.

Apocrypha doesn't count, ie Ignatius or Polycarp, Clement of Rome or Barnabas as they can't be dated and were theological not historical. Both reasons are valid, Clement is anonymous and exists in a lone MS. in a fourth century Greek Bible with Barnabas and Hermas too.

Christianity is fully Greco-Roman, pagan, and at best pseudo-Judaic.