Is "salvation" possible under the Law?

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Salvation is via trusting God.

Let's rephrase your question: "Prior to Jesus, was anybody saved by trusting God?"

Can we end the thread then, thusly?

 

[BilliardsBall]

But it does beg the question as to whether Jesus actually said that? To me, it simply seems at odds with his general demeanor, and I think it's likely that these words were put into his mouth at a much later date since the gospels were written decades after he was crucified.

There is no reference in the entire Tanakh about the necessity of having a particular belief in a messianic figure, plus the Tanakh puts far more emphasis on behavior versus having politically-correct beliefs beyond a basic belief in God.

Instead, I believe his purpose was that of a messenger of sorts, particularly expressing the issues of compassion, justice, and authenticity (not going through the motions of religion) for all. It literally makes no sense to me that he would condemn those who believe in God and try and do their best to act morally.

1. How do you know the precise dates of gospel authorship?

2. What is your evidence that Jesus didn't say what was written by eyewitnesses who claimed to be keen on presenting accurate testimonies?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, God does not have to any thing. That is also up to us to gain His favor by obeying His Law.
God's favor is conditional to our obedience to His Law.

Who's "us"? Proposing that the Mosaic Law be pressed upon the Gentiles is one of the reasons Christ came, died, rose again.

 

[metis]

1. How do you know the precise dates of gospel authorship?

Historians and biblical scholars, but generally they bracket their dates.

2. What is your evidence that Jesus didn't say what was written by eyewitnesses who claimed to be keen on presenting accurate testimonies?

I didn't say that, nor do I assume anything one way or the other on this matter. What I am much more concerned about is what does it appear that Jesus taught, and is it useful and usable. IMO, most of it is.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I think the question I asked Reggie is a good one for you too then. So long after Jesus' time we have Jews that stayed with Judaism. They were taught about God and the Law, then "Christians" came and tried to force them to convert. It was the Inquisition. The "Christianity" of the time was not the "born-again" Protestant Christianity of today. I would imagine it didn't say much about being born-again and being saved at all. Should those Jews have converted to that "Christianity" or stayed true to their Jewish beliefs?

I did not understand what you mean above. You say, "So long after Jesus' time we have Jews that stayed with Judaism." What did you expect we should do if Jesus himself was with Judaism all his life and he did teach us to listen to "Moses" aka the Law? (Luke 16:29-31)

 

[Ben Avraham]

Who's "us"? Proposing that the Mosaic Law be pressed upon the Gentiles is one of the reasons Christ came, died, rose again.

I did not refer to the Gentiles. "Us" means the Jews and all those from the Gentiles who have decided to join God's Covenant with His People according to Halacha aka Jewish Law. (Isaiah 56:1-8) Qua Gentiles none of them is under the obligation to listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hey, I do want to be saved...



from those who want to save me.

I can save you from this. We start by having you not make posts attacking basic Christian tents at a religious forum.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Historians and biblical scholars, but generally they bracket their dates.

I didn't say that, nor do I assume anything one way or the other on this matter. What I am much more concerned about is what does it appear that Jesus taught, and is it useful and usable. IMO, most of it is.

You are cherry picking those scholars whose later dates you adhere to.

If Jesus taught only some useful things, He is a crazy heretic who also claimed salvation rested upon His person. "Liar, lunatic or LORD?" is how C.S. Lewis put it.

 

[metis]

I can save you from this. We start by having you not make posts attacking basic Christian tents at a religious forum.

"Disagreeing" is not "attacking".

 

[BilliardsBall]

I did not refer to the Gentiles. "Us" means the Jews and all those from the Gentiles who have decided to join God's Covenant with His People according to Halacha aka Jewish Law. (Isaiah 56:1-8) Qua Gentiles none of them is under the obligation to listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

But to keep Shabbat as per Isaiah, one has to rest within the Son of God's covenant.

 

[metis]

You are cherry picking those scholars whose later dates you adhere to.
.

Which is why I wrote in the post you responded to above "I didn't say that, nor do I assume anything one way or the other on this matter".

You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in, so why is it so difficult for you to grant that same privilege to me?

I am not anti-Christian, which you should be aware of since I have repeatedly said that I attend Christian services just about every weekend. But I am a scientist, now retired, who places evidence over blind faith, therefore I do a lot of questioning on all sorts of matters, including religion.

 

[Ben Avraham]

But to keep Shabbat as per Isaiah, one has to rest within the Son of God's covenant.

Gentiles are free to keep or not to keep or to keep only what they feel like if this answers you question above.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe I am willing to listen if you think there is another way but I know of none.

I believe this is true.

I believe you should say what you think they should be good enough for. If you meant Heaven then I do believe that good works won't get you there and really bad works without repentance will keep a person from going there.

I believe this is true.

I believe the question again is saved from what. If one means Hell I believe the answer is perhaps. I believe acceptance of God as Lord works as the equivalence to accepting Jesus in that time period but not after Jesus. I also believe in reincarnation which would give those people lives in the Jesus age to accept Him. If you mean saved from sin my belief is that people would not be saved as much.

I believe it does not matter what Judaism believes.

 

[Muffled]

So if Abraham and the others mentioned are considered "saved", then it was by faith or trust in God even though at times they "sinned". I know that somewhere Jesus says that if you love me you'll keep my commandments. So keeping rules, laws and commandments is expected, but it's the faith that makes a person saved or not saved?

So with all the talk about how the "Law" can't save you, mostly by Paul, is kind of twisting things isn't it? If, prior to Jesus, a Jew had faith in God, that Jew should be saved right?

But now what happens with the Jew that believes in God and follows the commands as best he or she can, but, because they are taught that Jesus is not the true Messiah, they don't believe in Jesus? If a Christian answers that those Jews are not saved, then what? God sends all Jews from the time of Jesus until now that didn't believe in Jesus to hell?

I don't believe so. Jesus did not say the law would save people but loving Jesus would. It seems to me loving Jesus is tantamount to accepting Him as Lord and Savior. It becomes an if then. If you love Him then you will keep His commandments. It is like saying if you go to Boston and stand on the common looking north , you will see the state house.

I believe that works to some extent for salvation from sins provided the person is able to act on his faith. Abraham did.

Can a person accept God out of one side of his mouth and reject Him out of the other side? At any rate the standard is perfection and a Jew without Jesus can't achieve that.

I believe the unsaved go to Hell.

 

[Muffled]

CG Didymus,
There is much to think about, in your question.
Let me see if I can make this whole idea clear to you.
In the first place, all the things written in the Mosaic Law Covenant was a foreshadowing of the coming of the Messiah, Christ, Hebrews 10:1, then notice that the Law could not make anyone Perfect. The reason that the ones under the Mosaic Law could not be considered perfect, was because the blood of goats and bulls that was used to ratify the Mosaic Law Covenant could not completely do away with sins, Hebrews 10:4,11. The great sacrifice of Jesus did do away with sins completely, Hebrews 7:18,19,24,25, Acts 13:37-39. Consider Romans 3:20-26, where Paul is explaining just how God was not carrying out the law completely, because He was looking forward to the time Jesus would come to earth and give his life as a sacrifice for all who would accept this great provision, and show it, by becoming a footstep follower of Jesus, 1Peter 2:21, 3:18-21.
Because of Jesus Ransom Sacrifice, all those who are not considerer evil by God will be resurrected back to earth, John 5:28,29, Acts 24:15.
There is another thing to understand. The Bible tells us that no one who lived before Jesus gave his life for us will be resurrected to go to heaven. Remember, when Jesus died, the curtain, or vail, between the Holy and the Most Holy compartments was torn from top to bottom, Matthew 27:50,51. That curtain was a symbol of Jesus body, after his death some of Jesus followers would be resurrected to be Kings and Priests, in heaven, Hebrews 6:18-20, 9:2,3,6-9. Really, you need to read the whole 9th chapter. Jesus went to heaven, as a forerunner of his co- rulers who also have the heavenly hope. The Most Holy compartment was a picture of heaven itself, where Jesus went to present his sacrifice to God, Hebrews 9:23-26, 6:19,20.
The ones that will be resurrected to heaven are explained at Matthew 11:11-13, where we are told that after John the Baptist, Jesus followers tried hard to enter the Heavenly Kingdom. Flesh and blood cannot enter the Heavenly Kingdom, 1Corinthians 15:50, but some of Jesus followers will go to heaven to be rulers over the resurrected ones here on earth and the ones who live through the Great Tribulation, meaning Armageddon, Romans 8:17, Philippians 3:19-21, Hebrews 3:1, Revelation, chapter 7, compares the number going to heaven as 144,000, with a Great Crowd that will be on earth. Also Revelation 5:6-10, 14:1-5, 20:4-6.
Since I don't know how familiar you are with the Scriptures, I don't know how much to explain. Agape!!!

The resurrection that takes place at the Rapture is not to earth but to the New Jerusalem and consists of those who have received Jesus as Lord and Savior. The resurrection before the Judgement Seat takes place 1000 years after Jesus begins His reign but the standard is still the same, perfection which can't be achieved without Jesus.

I don't believe there is any evidence for this.

I beieve you are in error because that is an earthly hope not a heavenly one.

I believe this interpretation is totally false.

 

[metis]

...takes place 1000 years after Jesus begins His reign...

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.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I don't believe so. Jesus did not say the law would save people but loving Jesus would. It seems to me loving Jesus is tantamount to accepting Him as Lord and Savior. It becomes an if then. If you love Him then you will keep His commandments. It is like saying if you go to Boston and stand on the common looking north , you will see the state house.

I believe that works to some extent for salvation from sins provided the person is able to act on his faith. Abraham did. Can a person accept God out of one side of his mouth and reject Him out of the other side? At any rate the standard is perfection and a Jew without Jesus can't achieve that. I believe the unsaved go to Hell.

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!

 

[Aberamentho]

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?

Salvation theology is the selfish teachings of a false prophet, Saul/Paul. The self appointed (false) apostle "Banned from preaching in Asia by the Holy Spirit" according to Acts, "This YOU KNOW, ALL those who are in Asia have turned from me." States Paul referring to the Nazarene Jews of James and Peter, John and the true Apostles.

Revelation only addressed Asia and the Ephesians were congratulated for rejecting false apostles while Paul was condemned as on who teaches the "Doctrine of Balaam" which is that eating meat sacrificed to idols was permissable as Paul certainly did saying "An idol is nothing" that you could eat idol meat as long as your "spiritually weak brothers" weren't around.

Meaning the Jerusalem/Asian faction that upheld the Law as taught by the Messiah which was to keep the commandments and that Love God, love your neighbor fulfilled the Law. Paul actually declared it unnecessary to love God saying that (the Greatest commandment) was fulfilled by the second greatest alone.

I guess two commandments were too hard.

As was the following of the decree of the Holy Spirit at the Jerusalem Council with James that idol meat was forbidden with blood and things strangled, fornication and that for Romans circumcision was not necessary.

Though Paul would still make it an issue because he was obsessed with foreskin like King Saul and a stumbling block for Israel like Balaam.

"Senseless man, do you need to be told, Faith without works is dead?"

Epistle of James. Using the same example, Abraham, as proof. An obvious response to Paul using it to prove "faith, not works of Torah/Law" leads to "salvation" and "faith alone justifies us."

Paul is the test of the false prophet from Matthew 24.

New Jerusalem has 12 of everything INCLUDING Apostles. Matthias closed the books as the last person elected while an eligible person existed and according to Acts qualifications Paul doesn't qualify to be one. Luke was not as friendly with Paul, I can't imagine, as is traditionally believed as he provides the best proofs of the deception of Paul.

Who ends his take invoking Nero, 666, the beast.

I will close with this:

Tarsus in the same Gematria that makes Nero 666 = TRSU, also 666.

 

[Aberamentho]

One should check how many times Jesus uses the word salvation, maybe 2 or 3 times and not in the sense Paul does. The 4 Gospels don't teach Soteriology or salvation they teach the Kingdom of God is on earth and in Heaven, within and without.

The Lamp is the eye of the body.

Baptism of water, Spirit and fire.

Water=forgiveness

Spirit=Wisdom

Fire=Purity ("Chaff free")

Ressurection is similar to being born again in the water but not in the water, it's a living and advanced Spiritual Awakening that is followed by Ascension, literally getting a glimpse of Heaven through mental processes.


Judas was being tested like Abraham and was ordered to go through with it so Yesha could be turned over, humiliated (loss of ego, humbling) and executed as an innocent man and ressurect then Ascend to Heaven.

 

[Aberamentho]

Meanwhile Paul taught people to be obedient slaves to Rome and killed the spirituality of the Gospels by declaring the Law of God a curse and dead, only to be replaced with his rambling letters about how he is not inferior to the "chief Apostles" and how "Before God, I lie not." Women be silent in church and submissive to your husbands, slaves treat your master as God not men and women.