Is "salvation" possible under the Law?

[SethZaddik]

Justin writes against Marcion and soon after we hear about Paul from Iranaeus, obviously it seems Marcions popular cult of Paul was incorporated into Catholicism but was not a part the Nazarene faith. Which may have been called Christianity in the second century but by then was anything but the religion of Jesus and James once Paul was included.

All this is from memory of the books I read from the Ante Nicene father's series, is verifiable and natural that I remember what I actually read.

Which is why I wonder why you can't name a single historian or quote to substantiate your claim.

Or rather if indeed you actually read the book to be more precise, what I think is you Googled the information you wanted to be true and stumbled upon a book claiming things you just assumed were true, tried to present it as though you knew it was true, because it agreed with the claim you made.

But I can tell you that it is not true, not one historian of the first century mentionied Christianity including Romans who should have if the claims made by the NT were historically accurate.

And that without reading the book your author is obviously using Apocrypha Epistles that are not historical documents or verifiably genuine and claiming that Polycarp (who John never mentioned) was a historian along with Ignatius and the authors of 1 Clement and Barnabas, all Apocryphal and theological, not written for the sake of preserving history.

If Geiser claims almost every verse of the NT is contained within these Epistles he is a flat out liar, plain and simple.

 

[Tarheeler]

The points you cite above are correct, except for the "shortly thereafter". It was close on a century before there was a severe enough divergence for a total break. It would be disingenuous of me to say that Christianity was considered to be anything but a Jewish sect by Romans OR Jews for quite some time after the resurrection.

May I ask, are you an observant Jewish person? Are you an agnostic? An atheist?

I ask because I'm trying to understand your zeal. We both know that over 99% of Americans consider Christianity and Judaism separate faiths. But after reading the Tanakh as an adult along with the NT, I concluded much differently.

100 years over the course of two millennium isn't a significant amount of time.
I am religious and fairly observant. Most days I am a theist. Others I am a functionally an atheist.

 

[SethZaddik]

100 years over the course of two millennium isn't a significant amount of time.
I am religious and fairly observant. Most days I am a theist. Others I am a functionally an atheist.

I don't know what you mean by insignificant amount of time, are you revising your statement and conceding like the facts conclude the first historians to mention Christos or Chrestos or Chrestiani, etc, were second century?

Pnliny, Tacitus, second century, Seutonius in the late second or early third are it for the second century outside of Christian sources, ie Justin Martyr, Iranaeus.

 

[SethZaddik]

100 years over the course of two millennium isn't a significant amount of time.
I am religious and fairly observant. Most days I am a theist. Others I am a functionally an atheist.

I am glad you you are religous if you enjoy it, so am I and I also enjoy it, I particularly like trying to unravel the mystery of the beginning of Christianity and have almost every Apocryphal and otherwise related to the early Church like the Edessan Memoirs and ancient Syriac writings as well as and that include the Homilies and Recognitions of Clement the oldest dated MS. pertaining to Christianity which has an older version in Arabic, Syriac and a surviving fourth century MS in Greek which is invaluable and under studied but appreciated by most who do. The best of Christian literature and as old as Sainaiticus.

So knew all along that nobody mentioned Christianity until the second century unless you consider Josephus genuine and few do, even book XX is probably an interpolation although it seems to have information in a concealed, coded fashion, about historical Paul in three people, Pallas, who writes epistles to the Jews of Syria to incite them, which Paul definitely did, Poleme, a convert to Judaism who got circumcised for the sake of a woman and lost her and hated Judaism and circumcision thereafter, like Paul does, calling it the mutilation and wishing they "circumcision faction" would just castrate themselves. Anyway that is the Ebionites story about the real Paul reported by the Church Fathers, and last Saul the Pharisee, all have something in common with Paul.

It's a theory and a mystery but seems obvious to me.

Have a good day.

 

[Tarheeler]

I don't know what you mean by insignificant amount of time, are you revising your statement and conceding like the facts conclude the first historians to mention Christos or Chrestos or Chrestiani, etc, were second century?

Pnliny, Tacitus, second century, Seutonius in the late second or early third are it for the second century outside of Christian sources, ie Justin Martyr, Iranaeus.

I was responding to Billards. I have no clue what you're referring to, and I haven't said anything about any historians.

Shabbat shalom.

 

[MJFlores]

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?

John 14:6 New International Version (NIV)

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

It is clear enough, isn't it? Accepting Jesus as a personal savior? Now that is weird - because my Jesus said he is the way.

John 10:7,9 New International Version (NIV)

Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture.

It is very clear that whoever ENTERS through the Lord Jesus will be saved. Contrary to just accepting Jesus Christ as the personal savior.

John 10:14-15 New International Version (NIV)

“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

The Lord Jesus knows his sheep and his sheep knows him. He offered his life for his sheep. Will the sheep inherit the kingdom of heaven?

Luke 12:32

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.

What symbolizes his sheep or flock?

Acts 20:28

Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.

NOW FOR THE MAIN QUESTION - Whew!
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?

There are those "saved" under the old Covenant law. And we could read this in:

Revelation 7:4-8 New International Version (NIV)

Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,

from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,

from the tribe of Gad 12,000,

from the tribe of Asher 12,000,

from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,

from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,

from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,

from the tribe of Levi 12,000,

from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,

from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,

from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,

from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

Now can the old Covenant save? The Law could it save, now?

Hebrews 8:6-13 New International Version (NIV)

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

 

[CG Didymus]

John 14:6 New International Version (NIV)

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

It is clear enough, isn't it? Accepting Jesus as a personal savior? Now that is weird - because my Jesus said he is the way.

John 10:7,9 New International Version (NIV)

Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture.

It is very clear that whoever ENTERS through the Lord Jesus will be saved. Contrary to just accepting Jesus Christ as the personal savior.

John 10:14-15 New International Version (NIV)

“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

The Lord Jesus knows his sheep and his sheep knows him. He offered his life for his sheep. Will the sheep inherit the kingdom of heaven?

Luke 12:32

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.

What symbolizes his sheep or flock?

Acts 20:28

Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.

NOW FOR THE MAIN QUESTION - Whew!
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?

There are those "saved" under the old Covenant law. And we could read this in:

Revelation 7:4-8 New International Version (NIV)

Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,

from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,

from the tribe of Gad 12,000,

from the tribe of Asher 12,000,

from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,

from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,

from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,

from the tribe of Levi 12,000,

from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,

from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,

from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,

from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

Now can the old Covenant save? The Law could it save, now?

Hebrews 8:6-13 New International Version (NIV)

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Explanations in the different religions varies so much. Words like "salvation" seems different in Judaism. My question is that I presume you believe the Bible is the Word of God. Prior to Jesus, I think even prior to Jews having a concept the "Messiah", they were given rules to abide by. If they fell short, they could repent and do a sacrifice for forgiveness. Did God forgive them? I'd have to say yes. So were they right with God and when they died did they go to what Christians call "Heaven"?

Now we have Jesus. To get your sins forgiven a person has to believe in him for salvation. So now, a Jew repents. He doesn't have a Temple to do an animal sacrifice, but did God ever really need the blood of bulls and rams. But anyway, what does God do with that Jew? Does He forgive him? Or, when that person dies does God cast him into hell, even though he repented, because he never accepted Jesus.

But we have the opposite problem. A "Christian", and since no one is perfect, this is probably every Christian, doesn't repent. They know what their sins are. They know it wrong to act or think that way, but they continue. They put on an act in Church and get along fine. They might even try and repent, but they keep falling back into that same sin. They finally die. What does God do with them? Does He call them "lukewarm" and spits them out? Does He say "Oh, good enough. You tried the best you could" and let's them into heaven? What do you think?

 

[MJFlores]

Explanations in the different religions varies so much. Words like "salvation" seems different in Judaism. My question is that I presume you believe the Bible is the Word of God. Prior to Jesus, I think even prior to Jews having a concept the "Messiah", they were given rules to abide by. If they fell short, they could repent and do a sacrifice for forgiveness. Did God forgive them? I'd have to say yes. So were they right with God and when they died did they go to what Christians call "Heaven"?

Now we have Jesus. To get your sins forgiven a person has to believe in him for salvation. So now, a Jew repents. He doesn't have a Temple to do an animal sacrifice, but did God ever really need the blood of bulls and rams. But anyway, what does God do with that Jew? Does He forgive him? Or, when that person dies does God cast him into hell, even though he repented, because he never accepted Jesus.

But we have the opposite problem. A "Christian", and since no one is perfect, this is probably every Christian, doesn't repent. They know what their sins are. They know it wrong to act or think that way, but they continue. They put on an act in Church and get along fine. They might even try and repent, but they keep falling back into that same sin. They finally die. What does God do with them? Does He call them "lukewarm" and spits them out? Does He say "Oh, good enough. You tried the best you could" and let's them into heaven? What do you think?

Partly true but the "Ok, good enough thing" is kinda runs against:

Revelation 21:22-27 New International Version (NIV)

I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

But I have to agree with you that people keep on sinning and no one is righteous on earth - so Houston we got a problem!

Romans 3:10-12 New International Version (NIV)

As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

So we have to put ourselves right with God

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Clear line of ascent to John"?

"Nearly every verse"??

Those are some wild assertions!!!

Not to be rude but there is no line, clear or otherwise, that legitimately connects ANY Roman Christian with John, TertullIAN founded the Latin Church and Polycarp may be a figment of the imagination of a later author, John doesn't mention him or Ignatius or Clement of Rome and "his"anonymous Epistle.

And last, not nearly every verse was quoted by first century Church writers who may not have even existed anyway, let us consider the epistles attributed to the first century as genuine for a moment.

That statement remains as absurd as if we didn't, and just plain untrue. I happen to have read Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement and Barnabas and...not the case, RARELY do they quote the Gospels or NT period.

Baloney.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You won't because you can't and know if you do I will correct you, prove myself to be right and you wrong.

Not because you just don't want to, how hard is it to name a historian and a quote if it exists?

I know I didn't ask for a page, never mind pages, just a name and the quote. And I am not trivializing anything by being accurate. Truth is never trivial and Christianity did not do what you say it did, it was a violent persecutory religion that declared that even the Nazarenes were heretics for remaining loyal to Judaism and exterminated all "heresies" after Constantine.

Not hard at all. If it doesn't and you are relying upon faulty information it would be impossible to verify, the reason you can't quote or name one historian is because you don't know of one.

Because they don't exist. Your claims are outrageous.

I don't have a copy of the book in front of me. I gave my last copy away.

The main issue is we HAVE one dozen descriptive eyewitness writers about Jesus in the NT. But they get "special consideration" from you as invalid.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you are going to make claims that rely upon others books you should be ready to substantiate the claims with gusto.

You simply heard that someone claimed something, took it as fact without researching if it actually was and are stuck with the false claims of a dishonest author because you didn't check.

Now you don't want to go any further because I will just expose the fallacies you are claiming are facts.

Understandable in a way but also avoidable by learning yourself the truth and not relying on dishonest authors with a religous bias(I imagine, why else write a book of lies?).

Wait--let's cut to the chase. Kindly provide all your textual and historical evidence that the Bible writers were liars (skepticism regarding the miraculous is no proof, by the way, we even have NT writers who claim no miracles . . . ):

Evidence 1 proving the lies of the Bible writers:

Evidence 2 proving the lies of the Bible writers:

Evidence 3 proving the lies of the Bible writers:

 

[BilliardsBall]

100 years over the course of two millennium isn't a significant amount of time.
I am religious and fairly observant. Most days I am a theist. Others I am a functionally an atheist.

Saying 100 years in the light of 2,000 is insignificant is different than saying the authentic, original Christianity was Jewish. I can use your argument (in error) to say we should discard constitutionality after the antebellum period because America tried to follow its constitution for a century and then didn't.

 

[SethZaddik]

Wait--let's cut to the chase. Kindly provide all your textual and historical evidence that the Bible writers were liars (skepticism regarding the miraculous is no proof, by the way, we even have NT writers who claim no miracles . . . ):

Evidence 1 proving the lies of the Bible writers:

Evidence 2 proving the lies of the Bible writers:

Evidence 3 proving the lies of the Bible writers:

Why would I have already proven you wrong, you can't support the claims you made and can't prove I am wrong because I am not.

That satisfies me. Have a good day.

 

[metis]

Justin writes against Marcion and soon after we hear about Paul from Iranaeus, obviously it seems Marcions popular cult of Paul was incorporated into Catholicism but was not a part the Nazarene faith. Which may have been called Christianity in the second century but by then was anything but the religion of Jesus and James once Paul was included.

If I can jump in here and just say that I simply cannot buy the above for especially one main reason, and that is that if Paul was so far our of the loop, why did the Twelve have anything to do with him, especially with his past actions?

OTOH, I do believe that Paul went well beyond what Jesus likely taught, but I don't see where that intrinsically went against what we read.

We also have to remember that Paul's letters (although some we do believe were not written personally by him), were in wide circulation amongst the local churches in "the Way", which later were called by different titles, including "Christian", "catholic", and "orthodox", with "Catholic" becoming more formalized as we get into the 3rd century.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why would I have already proven you wrong, you can't support the claims you made and can't prove I am wrong because I am not.

That satisfies me. Have a good day.

So you are assuming the Bible writers are liars because that matches your comfort zone, but you hold no evidence that they lied? Do I have that right?

There were FORTY Bible writers. Do you see the magnitude of the problem we have here?

 

[Tarheeler]

Saying 100 years in the light of 2,000 is insignificant is different than saying the authentic, original Christianity was Jewish. I can use your argument (in error) to say we should discard constitutionality after the antebellum period because America tried to follow its constitution for a century and then didn't.

I've never claimed that the movement that became Christianity started out as something other than Jewish.
What I said was that it did not remain that way for long.

 

[metis]

There were FORTY Bible writers. Do you see the magnitude of the problem we have here?

There was likely many more than that.

 

[CG Didymus]

Partly true but the "Ok, good enough thing" is kinda runs against:

Revelation 21:22-27 New International Version (NIV)

I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

But I have to agree with you that people keep on sinning and no one is righteous on earth - so Houston we got a problem!

Romans 3:10-12 New International Version (NIV)

As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

So we have to put ourselves right with God

Between lusts and pride and other inward sinful thoughts, I'd have to believe we all sin in our hearts. That is the problem for God. Sure a Christian's sins have been forgiven. He/she does repent, especially at the beginning, but what about later? After one year or ten years of going to Church, going to work, going through what ever life throws at them, do they keep repenting?

Catholics have to go confess to a priest and do penance before they take communion. Strange, but one Catholic friend pretty much said it was okay to do something that was definitely a sin, because the next day all she had to do was go to confession. Isn't that kind of defeating the purpose? What is weirder, I'm the one that felt that would be wrong and didn't do it.

Anyway, what about Protestants? I've been there. I went to church and Bible studies with them. Unfortunately, because I had known them for several years, I knew what their "private" lives included... and let's just say they were doing a few sinful things... repeatedly. Outwardly, great Christians. Inwardly, sometimes, they gave in to temptation. What does God do with them? Even if you say, "God knows their hearts." that might not be a good thing.

The thing is, we all sin, so even if it's just minor little sins, where does God draw the line and say, "You've gone to far. You knew you were sinning. You never really repented, because you keep doing the same sin. So be gone."? On top of that, we still have the sin of being spiritually lazy and becoming "lukewarm" go to church on Sunday and be like the world every other day. If he spits them out, aren't the others in the same boat? Haven't they really lost their "first love"? Do they really, really love God with all their heart and soul? As you know accusing Christians as being hypocrites is a favorite thing to do for non-believers, so it is quite important sort this out... How much sinning does God tolerate out of his followers?

 

[Ron Hackel]

You'll never understand scripture if you use the definitions of words made by man.

JOHN 6 : 63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The WORDS I HAVE SPOKEN to you ARE SPIRIT and they are life."

World religions have used definitions created by mankind instead of using the definitions used by the Spirit. Peter said:
2 PETER 1 : 23 "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Spirit."

Now Jesus was given the Spirit in the Jordan and sent the Spirit to his disciples after his ascension. So anything written in Scripture said by the prophets, Jesus or the disciples are Spirit. If you go through scripture you'll find that the definitions we use in the Christian church do not match up with the definitions in the Bible. Let me give you a few examples. righteousness to mankind means living a moral life. Scripture says Rahab was righteous (James 2:25). She was a career prostitute. Lot was called righteous (2 PETER2:7). He was going to throw his two virgin daughters out to a sex crazed mob to be raped. He later fathered his own grandchildren. Abraham fathered children by 5 different women. Two were wives. What is God's definition of righteous? Trust in God. All of these trusted God.

It is the same for the word "SIN". Satan has us thinking about our immoral acts the same as not being righteous. But, if you go through Scripture you'll find every use of sin is not trusting in God. Even the one Satan loves the churches to use. Breaking the Ten Commandments is sin. It is, but not in the context Satan wants you to use. God gave us the perfect way for mankind to interact (10 Commandments). If you don't trust him you'll break them. Think of what Jesus said:

MATTHEW 5 : 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Even if you don't physically do anything, you have rejected God's law of love.

What do you think a blameless life is in Scripture? Not breaking the commandments, right?

PSALM 26 : 1 "I have led a blameless life; I have trusted in the Lord without wavering."
There other verses that use a blameless life. They reflect the same definition.

When you think of a holy person you think of someone of high morals, just like the rest of the words.

Sanctify means to make holy.

JOHN 17 : 17 "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."

I have about ten pages that show all the definitions and they all reflect the same thing. Satan wants us to focus on us doing something wrong. God said he is agape love-unconditional love. There are NO conditions to be met. HE WANTS YOU TO TRUST THAT HE IS AGAPE LOVE!!!

ZECHARIAH 3 : 1&2 "Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan at his side TO ACCUSE HIM. The Lord said to Satan, 'The Lord rebuke you, Satan!"

All this law thing is about the Jews asking for a pagan god at Mount Sinai. God made a covenant with the Jews and said he'd be their god. They asked for a pagan god and he obliged them. Jesus came to show the real character of God. They were afraid of God's appearance and asked to never see him again.

DEUTERONMY 18 : 15-18 The Lord your God will raise up a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, 'Let us not hear his voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die. The Lord said to me: ' What they say is good. I will raise up a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth."

Jesus said:
JOHN 5 : 46 "If you believed in Moses, you would believe in me, for he wrote about me."
JOHN 8 : 28 "I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me"

Jesus came to show the true character of God. If you go to my post on Michael, you'll understand why.