PDA

View Full Version : Did the requirments for "salvation" change when Jesus came?



Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 05:56 PM
Spin off from another thread.

Prior to Jesus, in order to attain salvation all one had to do was have faith in God.

After Jesus's crucifixion, one had to have faith in God and accept that Jesus died for their sins.

Yes? No?

the rookie
Mar 1st 2011, 06:35 PM
Spin off from another thread.

Prior to Jesus, in order to attain salvation all one had to do was have faith in God.

After Jesus's crucifixion, one had to have faith in God and accept that Jesus died for their sins.

Yes? No?

It would help if you would define what "faith in God" means as you understand it...?

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 06:47 PM
Whatever "faith in God" meant prior to Jesus's arrival, it could not involve the concept of god incarnate dying for man's sins, since that had not yet happened.

the rookie
Mar 1st 2011, 06:58 PM
Whatever "faith in God" meant prior to Jesus's arrival, it could not involve the concept of god incarnate dying for man's sins, since that had not yet happened.

Sorry, I'll be more clear. According to the writer of Hebrews, "faith in God" means confidence in His promises that produces obedience; or, to put it slightly differently, confidence in God to bring His promises to pass. To me, the New Covenant is a mechanism to bring His promises to pass, a means to an end. The dynamics of faith don't change looking back at the means to bring His promises to pass. It's all part of the package of "faith in God".

I think of the covenants like this: God's declaration to save Israel (Abrahamic) from sin (Mosaic) into an everlasting kingdom (Davidic) through the death and resurrection of Jesus (New); the nations are greatly blessed during the implementation of this plan (grafted in) and completely blessed in the fullness of this plan (fullness of the Gentiles / fullness of Israel). In other words, my faith has substance (not empty hope) and evidence (the hand of God at work historically, corporately, and individually).

threebigrocks
Mar 1st 2011, 07:00 PM
Way I see it, to have faith meant to believe. Abraham had his faith counted to him as righteousness, and Jesus hadn't showed up yet in the flesh.

So really - it's a whole faith, bigger than we often make it. Complete package deal, that God's plan to redeem us will play out, having faith that it will. Jesus was in God's plan. Faith isn't something to get than you got it, all is good. Moses lost faith, so did Abraham. So have many others. Peter and Thomas pop to mind as well.

Faith is big, and narrows down from there.

Fenris, you say that faith was enough before the time of Christ. But then what of all the rituals, festivals, sacrifices? If faith was enough, then why were those things necessary? (Tried to not load this question too much, but think I failed...)

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 07:01 PM
Sorry, I'll be more clear. According to the writer of Hebrews, "faith in God" means confidence in His promises that produces obedience; or, to put it slightly differently, confidence in God to bring His promises to pass.
Right. So that's forward looking. "God will fulfill His promises". But Christians now look backward, to the crucifixion. That seems like a pretty big change.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 07:02 PM
Way I see it, to have faith meant to believe. Abraham had his faith counted to him as righteousness, and Jesus hadn't showed up yet in the flesh.OK, so Abraham believed something different than you do. yes? No?



Fenris, you say that faith was enough before the time of Christ. But then what of all the rituals, festivals, sacrifices? If faith was enough, then why were those things necessary? (Tried to not load this question too much, but think I failed...)
I'm speaking from the Christian perspective, not my own. Everyone here tells me that faith is enough.

the rookie
Mar 1st 2011, 07:18 PM
Right. So that's forward looking. "God will fulfill His promises". But Christians now look backward, to the crucifixion. That seems like a pretty big change.

I wouldn't say it like that. Looking "backwards" provides the substance or evidence of my faith - I do not hope in vain, and my confidence is not misplaced. There is a Judge who has been ordained to judge the world in righteousness on the appointed day. I'm still looking forward to the fulfillment of His promises, and the "evidence" of the resurrection gives me confidence in my own resurrection, for example. I live with an assurance about the future that informs my choices in obedience today. Abraham did the same thing - God said things about his future that informed and changed his choices, and he obeyed based on future promises, not present realities. That's faith in God - it has action to it.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 07:22 PM
I wouldn't say it like that. Looking "backwards" provides the substance or evidence of my faith - I do not hope in vain, and my confidence is not misplaced. There is a Judge who has been ordained to judge the world in righteousness on the appointed day. I'm still looking forward to the fulfillment of His promises, and the "evidence" of the resurrection gives me confidence in my own resurrection, for example. I live with an assurance about the future that informs my choices in obedience today. Abraham did the same thing - God said things about his future that informed and changed his choices, and he obeyed based on future promises, not present realities. That's faith in God - it has action to it.

You're saying a lot of things but not addressing the point. Apparently, people prior to Jesus had faith in God that He would fulfill His promises through some unspecified means. People after Jesus had faith that god died for man's sins.

That means that people who lived after Jesus were/are beleiving in something different than people who lived before Jesus.

threebigrocks
Mar 1st 2011, 07:24 PM
OK, so Abraham believed something different than you do. yes? No?

No, he still believed in the same God we do today, from his point of looking forward. So did Moses. The difference is that we now have no obstacle to salvation, looking back. For Abraham, the Way had not yet come. As faith is not something that knows the difference between life and death (although you need to have it before death to have it continue afterwards) as it's placed in something that doesn't originate in this world nor can be seen, felt or heard. Abraham had faith in the same God, it's the Way to eternal life that opened up after the cross that made that faith eternal.

So it's not that it was only faith and now faith plus Christ. Christ is the way by that same faith to eternal life; all are destined to die once. It's the going on after that where Christ came in.


I'm speaking from the Christian perspective, not my own. Everyone here tells me that faith is enough.

It is enough. A true faith is evidenced through the testimony we give of our own character.

the rookie
Mar 1st 2011, 07:28 PM
You're saying a lot of things but not addressing the point. Apparently, people prior to Jesus had faith in God that He would fulfill His promises through some unspecified means. People after Jesus had faith that god died for man's sins.

That means that people who lived after Jesus were/are beleiving in something different than people who lived before Jesus.

Not according to Jesus ("Abraham saw my day and was glad...") or the writer of Hebrews. Faith in God had continuity as it relates to the people of God that have related to Him throughout the ages. God has continuity - He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He speaks, moves, and acts with one mind, one heart, one continuous unfolding plan and brings His people into it by faith.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 07:30 PM
No, he still believed in the same God we do today, from his point of looking forward.
I don't see how you can say this. It is apparently a requirement to believe that Jesus died for man's sins. How could Abraham believe this? It hadn't happened yet and he wasn't told that it was going to.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 07:30 PM
Not according to Jesus ("Abraham saw my day and was glad...") or the writer of Hebrews. Faith in God had continuity as it relates to the people of God that have related to Him throughout the ages. God has continuity - He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He speaks, moves, and acts with one mind, one heart, one continuous unfolding plan and brings His people into it by faith.

You're still not addressing my point. What's more, you're raising even more issues. "God is the same" yet "God came down to earth and was sacrificed".

keck553
Mar 1st 2011, 07:34 PM
I don't see how you can say this. It is apparently a requirement to believe that Jesus died for man's sins. How could Abraham believe this? It hadn't happened yet and he wasn't told that it was going to.

Our Master says both David and Abraham looked forward to His day. for me, that's sufficient.

Consider also that God's revelation to you at Sinai added (or at least revealed) a lot of requirements also. How is that before/after Sinai revelation differ?

Sinai doesn't mean God 'changed.'

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 07:39 PM
Our Master says both David and Abraham looked forward to His day. for me, that's sufficient.Ah. A shame they didn't communicate to the rest of us to expect it, then.


Consider also that God's revelation to you at Sinai added (or at least revealed) a lot of requirements also. That doesn't mean God 'changed.'One can hardly compare that to god incarnate being sacrificed.

threebigrocks
Mar 1st 2011, 07:42 PM
I don't see how you can say this. It is apparently a requirement to believe that Jesus died for man's sins. How could Abraham believe this? It hadn't happened yet and he wasn't told that it was going to.

I think we can both agree that God can't lie. Also, that for the faithful He isn't going to leave them high and dry.

Just because (to point out the painfully obvious) Abraham and Jesus weren't contemporaries doesn't mean that all those who were in Abraham's bosom (meaning all those of faith in this life) waited for God the Father's plan to play out.

Ephesians 4
1Therefore I,the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,

2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,

3being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;

5one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.

8Therefore it says,
"WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH,
HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES,
AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."

9(Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?

10He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)

Those of faith weren't just told "too bad so sad" when they died before the cross. They were held, so that when Christ came to them in His death they could say yes to the Son of God and enter by grace - something they couldn't earn by any man method - and continue eternally with Christ in life. That was the Father's plan, of which Jesus was obedient to every jot and tittle.

Sometimes we forget that the goal is to get to the Father. Jesus, the Christ, is just the means that the Father has given us to be with Him forever. So we look back, AND look forward. We aren't done yet!

keck553
Mar 1st 2011, 07:45 PM
Ah. A shame they didn't communicate to the rest of us to expect it, then.

As Solomon concluded: "Life ain't fair under the sun."



One can hardly compare that to god incarnate being sacrificed.
"sacrifice" is not the entire Gospel message. It's like talking about the burning bush and leaving out the Sinai experience.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 07:46 PM
I think we can both agree that God can't lie. Also, that for the faithful He isn't going to leave them high and dry.

Just because (to point out the painfully obvious) Abraham and Jesus weren't contemporaries doesn't mean that all those who were in Abraham's bosom (meaning all those of faith in this life) waited for God the Father's plan to play out.


My point remains unaddressed.

I am told that post-Jesus, faith in God is insufficient. One must also believe that Jesus died for man's sins.

Pre-Jesus, it was impossible to believe that because it hadn't happened yet, nor was it expected.

That means that the requirements for salvation have changed.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 07:47 PM
As Solomon concluded: "Life ain't fair under the sun."

Must be in the Book of Armaments.

keck553
Mar 1st 2011, 07:52 PM
Must be in the Book of Armaments.

I'll have to read that one on the next Sukkot.

LookingUp
Mar 1st 2011, 08:06 PM
Spin off from another thread.

Prior to Jesus, in order to attain salvation all one had to do was have faith in God.Faith in God is still the only way to eternal life. If a man has never set eyes on the Bible before, but recognizes and embraces God revealed to him in creation and embraces “the law written on his heart,” his life will reflect what he believes. This faith will save him. If God eventually reveals Himself to this man through the Hebrew Scriptures, he will be responsible for that. If God reveals Himself through Christ to this man, he will be responsible for that. In all cases, it is faith in God that saves.


After Jesus's crucifixion, one had to have faith in God and accept that Jesus died for their sins.

Yes? No?To the degree God reveals Himself to an individual he is responsible for how he responds to it. If the man always believed in the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, but rejects Christ, he has rejected the fullest and most complete revelation of God to mankind. In other words, when one rejects Christ, one rejects God.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 08:09 PM
Faith in God is still the only way to eternal life....

To the degree God reveals Himself to an individual he is responsible for how he responds to it. If the man always believed in the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, but rejects Christ, he has rejected the fullest and most complete revelation of God to mankind. In other words, when one rejects Christ, one rejects God.You're only proving my point.To speak of the "fullest and most complete revelation of God to mankind" means that prior to this event, people did not know of it. So they believed in something else. Then came this revelation, and people's beliefs changed. The requirements for salvation changed.

keck553
Mar 1st 2011, 08:13 PM
To the degree God reveals Himself to an individual he is responsible for how he responds to it. If the man always believed in the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, but rejects Christ, he has rejected the fullest and most complete revelation of God to mankind. In other words, when one rejects Christ, one rejects God.

Do you think that could be compared to those who rejected the revelation of God at Sinai? I mean to a degree God revealed Himself at Sinai, so wouldn't the consequences be simular for those who rejected God's revelation at Sinai and continued in the knowledge and faith they had before Sinai? Sinai was a fuller revelation of God, so couldn't we agree that those who rejected God's revelation at Sinai also rejected God.

If Sinai instituted, as Fenris might say, the way to Tikkum Olam, then how much more the fuller revelation of God through His Son?

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 08:19 PM
Do you think that could be compared to those who rejected the revelation of God at Sinai?
Ah. Thie difference is, I believe that God's requirements of man did change at Sinai. But you're continuing to insist that God's requirements of man didn't change after the crucifixion.

keck553
Mar 1st 2011, 08:28 PM
Ah. Thie difference is, I believe that God's requirements of man did change at Sinai. But you're continuing to insist that God's requirements of man didn't change after the crucifixion.

I was addressing faith as stand-alone, not 'faith in...'

Yes, I do believe God's requirements for "Christians" have tightened frim Sinai. But I also believe your prophets have much to say about this before the event. Perhaps those are the Messianic expectations that should have been focused on and pursued more diligently than only the physical restoration of the kingdom of Israel.

LookingUp
Mar 1st 2011, 08:31 PM
You're only proving my point.To speak of the "fullest and most complete revelation of God to mankind" means that prior to this event, people did not know of it.Adam didn’t know what Noah knew and Noah didn’t know what Moses knew and Moses didn’t know what the Apostle John knew. Each one was responsible for what was revealed to them. Faith is not just passive, mental assent (“I believe God exists”). Our lives reflect what we believe.


So they believed in something else. Then came this revelation, and people's beliefs changed. The requirements for salvation changed.It’s the same God but more revealed about Him. There are those who knew God only through His revelation of Himself through creation until coming upon the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, those Gentiles living in OT days who rejected this revelation of God were rejecting God Himself.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 08:31 PM
I was addressing faith as stand-alone, not 'faith in...'

Yes, I do believe God's requirements for "Christians" have tightened.
Ah, finally.

So believers prior to Jesus only had to believe in God, but believers after Jesus are also required to believe that Jesus died for man's sins.

Fair enough.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 08:32 PM
Adam didn’t know what Noah knew and Noah didn’t know what Moses knew and Moses didn’t know what the Apostle John knew. Each one was responsible for what was revealed to them. Faith is not just passive, mental assent (“I believe God exists”). Our lives reflect what we believe.

It’s the same God but more revealed about Him. There are those who knew God only through His revelation of Himself through creation until coming upon the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, those Gentiles living in OT days who rejected this revelation of God were rejecting God Himself.

OK, so you're ok with my statement above?

So believers prior to Jesus only had to believe in God, but believers after Jesus are also required to believe that Jesus died for man's sins.

LookingUp
Mar 1st 2011, 08:35 PM
Do you think that could be compared to those who rejected the revelation of God at Sinai? I mean to a degree God revealed Himself at Sinai, so wouldn't the consequences be simular for those who rejected God's revelation at Sinai and continued in the knowledge and faith they had before Sinai? Sinai was a fuller revelation of God, so couldn't we agree that those who rejected God's revelation at Sinai also rejected God.Yes.


If Sinai instituted, as Fenris might say, the way to Tikkum Olam, then how much more the fuller revelation of God through His Son?I don't know what "Tikkum Olam" is but I think it sounds like we're on the same page. :)

keck553
Mar 1st 2011, 08:36 PM
OK, so you're ok with my statement above?

So believers prior to Jesus only had to believe in God, but believers after Jesus are also required to believe that Jesus died for man's sins.

We also have to genuinely repent, believe His sin offering is sufficient for atonement, and also that He was raised by God and sits at the right hand of God.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 08:39 PM
If Sinai instituted, as Fenris might say, the way to Tikkum Olam, then how much more the fuller revelation of God through His Son?
Actually to go back and re-read this sentence, I have to disagree most vehemently. "Tikkum Olam", "rectification of the world" is understood by all Jews (even the essentially non-religious ones) as something done with our actions. Whether that is by observance of the Law (for religious Jews) or via "social justice" (for secular Jews), it is still by our own hands. No Jew would ever say that "faith" would suffice to repair our world.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 08:41 PM
We also have to genuinely repent, believe His sin offering is sufficient for atonement, and also that He was raised by God and sits at the right hand of God.
OK. We agree that God's requirement of man changed.

episkopos
Mar 1st 2011, 08:43 PM
Spin off from another thread.

Prior to Jesus, in order to attain salvation all one had to do was have faith in God.

After Jesus's crucifixion, one had to have faith in God and accept that Jesus died for their sins.



Yes? No?

The standard of salvation is to obey the commandments.

These can be summed up as

1.Love God with all you are and have.

2.Love your neighbour as yourself.


Now that the Son of God is come, we are to believe in Him. This fulfills the first commandment. They who do not recognize the Son do not know the Father and therefore do not love Him.

Jesus Christ gives grace to those who come to Him. This grace is in fulfillment of the promise of a new and living covenant. This is through the Holy Spirit. We are empowered by a new life force within us to obey and surpass (deeply satisfy) the requirements of God. We enter into His righteousness in this way so as to love AS HE LOVES.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 08:46 PM
Now that the Son of God is come, we are to believe in Him.
Ok, so another weighing in that "Yes, God's requirements did change".

LookingUp
Mar 1st 2011, 08:47 PM
OK, so you're ok with my statement above?

So believers prior to Jesus only had to believe in God, but believers after Jesus are also required to believe that Jesus died for man's sins.When you write that they “only” had to believe in God, it sounds like you’re saying that all they needed to do was have passive, mental assent to His existence. Saving faith is active and responds to what God has revealed to the one living in faith. Our lives reflect what we believe. So, no, I am not OK with your statement above as I understand it.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 08:49 PM
When you write that they “only” had to believe in God, it sounds like you’re saying that all they needed to do was have passive, mental assent to His existence. Saving faith is active and responds to what God has revealed to the one living in faith. Our lives reflect what we believe. So, no, I am not OK with your statement above as I understand it.

Whatever believers had to do/know/believe prior to Jesus, did they have to do/know/believe something additional after the crucifixion? Yes or no?

keck553
Mar 1st 2011, 08:50 PM
OK. We agree that God's requirement of man changed.

We depend on His active help to fulfill those changes.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 08:51 PM
We depend on His active help to fulfill those changes.
Regardless. We agree.

episkopos
Mar 1st 2011, 09:02 PM
Ok, so another weighing in that "Yes, God's requirements did change".

The standard has changed, yes! But God doesn't change. Basic righteousness is still the same. Good works are still good works.

The standard we go after now is perfect works...not just good works. It is not just what men can do but what God can do through men.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 09:05 PM
The standard has changed, yes!
OK, that's what I said.

LookingUp
Mar 1st 2011, 09:26 PM
Whatever believers had to do/know/believe prior to Jesus, did they have to do/know/believe something additional after the crucifixion? Yes or no?No, a believer in God does not have to do anything additional that has not be revealed to him. Saving faith has always been the same—it is responding in faith to what God has revealed to you. Adam didn’t have to do what Noah did. Noah didn’t have to do what Moses did. A believer in God who dies before learning about the Christ is not required to believe in “something additional.” But, yes, a believer who has been given this revelation is obviously obligated to believe in something additional, which is whatever God has revealed to him. This would be true prior to the cross as well. What is asked of us has not changed—respond in faith to God’s revelation.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 09:32 PM
No, a believer in God does not have to do anything additional that has not be revealed to him. Saving faith has always been the same—it is responding in faith to what God has revealed to you. Adam didn’t have to do what Noah did. Noah didn’t have to do what Moses did. A believer in God who dies before learning about the Christ is not required to believe in “something additional.” But, yes, a believer who has been given this revelation is obviously obligated to believe in something additional, which is whatever God has revealed to him. This would be true prior to the cross as well. What is asked of us has not changed—respond in faith to God’s revelation.
So it's yes and no. But really it's yes. OK.

Bandit
Mar 1st 2011, 09:42 PM
Spin off from another thread.

Prior to Jesus, in order to attain salvation all one had to do was have faith in God.

After Jesus's crucifixion, one had to have faith in God and accept that Jesus died for their sins.

Yes? No?


My point remains unaddressed.

I am told that post-Jesus, faith in God is insufficient. One must also believe that Jesus died for man's sins.

Pre-Jesus, it was impossible to believe that because it hadn't happened yet, nor was it expected.

That means that the requirements for salvation have changed.


Hello Fenris,

May I cut in?

First, I would say that salvation has always been by faith. (See Habakuk 2:4, which is referenced in the New Testament in Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11 and Hebrews 10:38. This is actually a notable number of references to the same Old Testament saying.)

Second, I would say that the requirement for salvation has never changed - it, again, has always been by faith. God only asks that man have faith and be faithful. What has changed is God's revelation of Himself, but God has always and only asked one thing of man - that man live by faith.

Third, did not God say through Moses,

"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear." [Deut. 18:15].

Both Peter in The Book of Acts chapter 3 and Stephen in Acts chapter 7 reference this prophet.

For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. ‘And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days. [Acts 3:22-24]

This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear.’ [Acts 7:37]

We Christians believe that Jesus is that prophet: to reject Him is to rejects God's prophet.

"I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him." [Deut. 18:18-19]

Again, the requirements for salvation have never changed.

LookingUp
Mar 1st 2011, 09:44 PM
So it's yes and no. But really it's yes. OK.It's yes if your question is meant for a believer to whom the revelation has been given. That should be obvious to you, I would think. Do you suppose a believer in God should NOT believe what He has revealed or should NOT do what He has requested?

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 09:51 PM
Hello Fenris,

May I cut in?

First, I would say that salvation has always been by faith. ...


Again, the requirements for salvation have never changed.Faith in what, though? You have faith that Jesus died for man's sins. That is actually the cornerstone of Christianity. It's also a point of faith that one could not have prior to the year 33 (or so).

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 09:52 PM
It's yes if your question is meant for a believer to whom the revelation has been given. That should be obvious to you, I would think. Do you suppose a believer in God should NOT believe what He has revealed or should NOT do what He has requested?
I'm not passing judgement on this phenomena. I'm simply stating that according to Christianity, it seems that God's requirement for salvation changed.

episkopos
Mar 1st 2011, 09:57 PM
I'm not passing judgement on this phenomena. I'm simply stating that according to Christianity, it seems that God's requirement for salvation changed.

As I said the standard is higher. The requirement for salvation in the individual depends on what the person has been given. To whom much is given, more is required.

But if one rejects salvation (Jesus means salvation) then that person is below the required standard.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 10:00 PM
As I said the standard is higher.
OK, that's what wanted to know.

LookingUp
Mar 1st 2011, 10:04 PM
I'm not passing judgement on this phenomena. I'm simply stating that according to Christianity, it seems that God's requirement for salvation changed.But you're wrong. The requirement for salvation has not changed. Since Adam, it has been and always will be responding in faith to what God has revealed.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 10:06 PM
But you're wrong. The requirement for salvation has not changed. Since Adam, it has been and always will be responding in faith to what God has revealed.

But as God revealed more, people were responsible to believe in more. The point seems perfectly logical, I don't see why you're expending so much energy fighting it.

Bandit
Mar 1st 2011, 10:08 PM
Faith in what, though? You have faith that Jesus died for man's sins. That is actually the cornerstone of Christianity. It's also a point of faith that one could not have prior to the year 33 (or so).

Men can have faith in God and in what he says. Did He not say to your people that He would one day send a prophet and that He would require them to hear Him, or did the Israelites at the time refuse to believe that God would actually do this? If they believed God when He said that such a prophet would come - that is faith. If when that prophet came, or even afterwards - to believe that prophet's words would be the same kind of faith that those had who previously could only look forward to His day.

All a man can do is place his faith in what the LORD has revealed to him... and that is all that the LORD requires of him.

Bandit
Mar 1st 2011, 10:11 PM
I'm not passing judgement on this phenomena. I'm simply stating that according to Christianity, it seems that God's requirement for salvation changed.

Please count me as an exception to this 'changing requirement for salvation' notion.

Bandit
Mar 1st 2011, 10:14 PM
But as God revealed more, people were responsible to believe in more. The point seems perfectly logical, I don't see why you're expending so much energy fighting it.

God asked Noah to build a HUGE boat on dry land. Talk about a step of faith, that is about as huge as it gets.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 10:15 PM
Please count me as an exception to this 'changing requirement for salvation' notion.

But above you said "All a man can do is place his faith in what the LORD has revealed to him." Was something new revealed as a result of the crucifixion? Yes. So people after the crucifixion had to have faith in something new- that God died for their sins.

Again, it seems so logical I don't see why you resist the point. Your own post even supports it.

notuptome
Mar 1st 2011, 10:16 PM
I'm not passing judgement on this phenomena. I'm simply stating that according to Christianity, it seems that God's requirement for salvation changed.
Would it not be more precise to say that one is saved or justified by grace rather than faith? Ps 32:2 David writes that the blessed man is the man to whom God does not impute iniquity. If we seek Gods blessing then we desire of God that He imputes not iniquity but righteousness. God imputed to Abraham righteousness because Abraham believed what God told him. Abraham acted in faith, trusting what God said, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. The law, Mosaic, cannot produce righteousness. By faith the ordinances of the temple were received but it was Gods unmerited favor that produced righteousness in the life of the beleiver.

The standard today is the same, to believe what God has said. No man can merit justification by his own efforts. He simply cannot do enough so he must depend on the mercy of God for the imputation of Gods righteousness. Jesus as Messiah is the fulfillment of Gods promise to Israel. Jesus as Messiah has fulfilled the law and is able to impute the righteousness of God to all who believe in the Father through Him.

OT looks forward to the advent of Messiah. The NT looks back at the advent of Messiah. We still look forward to the return of Messiah at the consumation of the world. All in all we still look at the same thing, Gods promised Messiah through Whom we have the end to sin.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 10:17 PM
God asked Noah to build a HUGE boat on dry land. Talk about a step of faith, that is about as huge as it gets.
God gave Noah a specific, individual mission. People who lived after Noah were not expected to build boats or believe in boats as a condition of salvation.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 10:18 PM
Would it not be more precise to say that one is saved or justified by grace rather than faith?
From what I've been told over and over again, no. No faith, no grace.

Bandit
Mar 1st 2011, 10:32 PM
God gave Noah a specific, individual mission. People who lived after Noah were not expected to build boats or believe in boats as a condition of salvation.

But all men are required to listen to God and respond to what they hear by faith. It is the willingness to listen to God and do as He says which He requires.

As Micah 6:8 says,

He has shown you, O man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you,
But to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. [Micah 6:8]

This is all God has ever required of man.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 10:34 PM
But all men are required to listen to God and respond to what they hear by faith.

Which apparently includes the purpose of the crucifixion, something that could not have been known to people who lived before it...

Bandit
Mar 1st 2011, 10:38 PM
But above you said "All a man can do is place his faith in what the LORD has revealed to him." Was something new revealed as a result of the crucifixion? Yes. So people after the crucifixion had to have faith in something new- that God died for their sins.

Again, it seems so logical I don't see why you resist the point. Your own post even supports it.

God has revealed different things to different people at different times, but His requirement of them is always the same: Believe what I say.

If a man having two sons, tells one to go to town and buy grain, while he tells the other to feed the horses, does he not expect both to do as he requested? And would not obedience for each son be the same, to simply do as the father requested?

notuptome
Mar 1st 2011, 10:41 PM
From what I've been told over and over again, no. No faith, no grace.
In the sense that no bucket, no water.

Abraham did not merit Gods blessing. Abraham was a Syrian, he was from a land of pagan worship. Why did Abraham believe God when he was told to get thee up out of thy land to a land that I will show thee? Abraham did not know where he was being sent yet somehow God enabled him to believe. God brought him out ot the Ur of the Chaldees. Abraham is quite a colorful character.

In every man is the need to believe in something. We have a bucket now we must come to the well that has the water of eternal life. Gods river that flows from His throne in heaven.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Bandit
Mar 1st 2011, 10:44 PM
Which apparently includes the purpose of the crucifixion, something that could not have been known to people who lived before it...

Well... they might not have fully understood it, but that is not to say that there are not hints in the Old Testament as to what was coming (like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53). The point really being that God expects men to respond to what He says to them. Someone living in Old Testament Israel was not expected to believe in teachings not yet revealed - but they were expected to live faithfully under those things that were revealed to them.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 10:50 PM
God has revealed different things to different people at different times, but His requirement of them is always the same: Believe what I say.

If a man having two sons, tells one to go to town and buy grain, while he tells the other to feed the horses, does he not expect both to do as he requested? And would not obedience for each son be the same, to simply do as the father requested?
All this proves is that God's requirments have changed over time, and perhaps even different people in the same time are to believe different things.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 10:50 PM
Well... they might not have fully understood it, but that is not to say that there are not hints in the Old Testament as to what was coming (like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53).
Yes but even those hints were unknown to Abraham or Moses.

Fenris
Mar 1st 2011, 10:52 PM
Ok it seems to me that people are wedded to their opinion on the topic.

Fair enough.

What would be wrong if God's requirements for salvation changed? Why is that such a bad thing, theologically speaking?

Bandit
Mar 1st 2011, 11:04 PM
All this proves is that God's requirments have changed over time, and perhaps even different people in the same time are to believe different things.

I think you and I view things a bit differently. If a man has told his son that the son will be paid a dollar each day upon the completion of whatever chore the father gives him that day, then the son knows what he needs to do each day to earn that dollar - he does whatever chore is given to him by his father that day. So whereas I see the consistency in the demand - one dollar for one chore - you see inconsistency (perhaps different chores on different days).

When God says that a man must live by faith, He is stating the fact of the general consistency of faith; what God is not doing is saying what particular thing may be demanded of that consistent faith on a day-to-day basis. I would say that I am seeing the forest while you are seeing the trees.

notuptome
Mar 1st 2011, 11:31 PM
Ok it seems to me that people are wedded to their opinion on the topic.

Fair enough.

What would be wrong if God's requirements for salvation changed? Why is that such a bad thing, theologically speaking?
Such a plan would be subject to inequitites or at least perceived inequities.

If Abraham could believe God and it was accounted to him for righteousness then you can God believe as well.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

BroRog
Mar 1st 2011, 11:50 PM
Spin off from another thread.

Prior to Jesus, in order to attain salvation all one had to do was have faith in God.

After Jesus's crucifixion, one had to have faith in God and accept that Jesus died for their sins.

Yes? No?No, God's means to salvation has always been the same since Abraham, for Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as justifiedness. Both are the same thing. If one has faith in God, he or she will accept that Jesus is the Messiah and that he died for the sins of the many.

LookingUp
Mar 2nd 2011, 12:07 AM
But as God revealed more, people were responsible to believe in more. The point seems perfectly logical, I don't see why you're expending so much energy fighting it.Because we’re not saying the same thing. What God asks of us may change, but the requirement of faith is all that is needed for salvation. Those fulfilling the requirement of faith will just so happen to be the very ones who do what God asks of them. Those who don’t do what God asks of them are not “kept out of heaven” because they didn’t do what God asked of them; they’re “kept out of heaven” because they don’t have faith in God, which is and always has been the only requirement for salvation.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 12:13 PM
Ok it seems to me that people are wedded to their opinion on the topic.

Fair enough.

What would be wrong if God's requirements for salvation changed? Why is that such a bad thing, theologically speaking?

שלום אחי

This is a great question Fenris. With regards to the above quote, we would be no better off as gentiles if the God we now worship (the True God) was capricious and whimsical it would be exhausting and pointless and harken back to the bad old days of paganism.

Going by what i have read in the Tanakh God has never acted the way men expect, i'm thinking of Gideon and the army there will be a few more examples of this, but It seems to me God seems to show of His Glory in what men see as weakness.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 01:31 PM
As a Jewish person, I would say that God's expectation of the Jews clearly changed at Sinai. God gave them a new set of rules to follow, a set of guidelines that did not exist prior.

Now naturally I believe that God expects works. Still, for one who believes that God expects faith, why can't God reveal new things to be faithful of? As I said, it seems plain to me that people post-Jesus have faith in something different than people pre-Jesus.

rejoice44
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:07 PM
As I said, it seems plain to me that people post-Jesus have faith in something different than people pre-Jesus.

Not really. Pre-Jesus they were looking for the Messiah. They had faith that the Messiah was their salvation.

Post-Jesus the Messiah had come. We have faith in the salvation of our Saviour, the Jewish Messiah.

The key is in the first verse of the Gospel of John. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That same word was manifested in the flesh and his name is Christ Jesus, "the anointed Saviour". That same Word was what came to Abraham in Genesis 15:1 when it says, the word came to Abraham.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:10 PM
Not really. Pre-Jesus they were looking for the Messiah. They had faith that the Messiah was their salvation. Mhm. Abraham was waiting for the messiah? Moses was waiting for the messiah?

I find that rather difficult to believe.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:18 PM
As a Jewish person, I would say that God's expectation of the Jews clearly changed at Sinai. God gave them a new set of rules to follow, a set of guidelines that did not exist prior.

Now naturally I believe that God expects works. Still, for one who believes that God expects faith, why can't God reveal new things to be faithful of? As I said, it seems plain to me that people post-Jesus have faith in something different than people pre-Jesus.

It could be argued that the Decalogue could be found in pre-siani portions of the Bible particularly Genesis, making it not so much a change but making it officail laws for Israel to follow as a new nation. I would say the laws were there before for individuals just going by the stories such as Cain & Able (murder & lying) Noah's son Ham (Sexual perversion) Joseph and Potiphars wife (Adultary) ect. So i don't think it's safe to say they did not exist.

I think the Messiah was always the hope of Israel.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:25 PM
It could be argued that the Decalogue could be found in pre-siani portions of the Bible particularly Genesis, making it not so much a change but making it officail laws for Israel to follow as a new nation. The bible contains more than just the Ten.


I think the Messiah was always the hope of Israel.Right, you and rejoice44 both. I see no evidence for it however.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:35 PM
The bible contains more than just the Ten.

Right, you and rejoice44 both. I see no evidence for it however.

yeah of course i was just addressing Sinai as that's what you quoted. You see no evidence for a Jewish hope in messiah ?

Type Moshiach into youtube and you'll see all manner of Jewish songs and prayers and the like, seems these Jewish people disagree or are mistaken ? Never thought i would site youtube as evidence lol

rejoice44
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:47 PM
Mhm. Abraham was waiting for the messiah? Moses was waiting for the messiah?

I find that rather difficult to believe.

That is what the covenant with Abraham was all about. The promised seed that would bless the world. Abraham waited a long time for Isaac. Isaac was a narrow path through which the promise of the covenant would be fulfilled. Isaac, Jacob, David, Jesus.

Moses was given a picture of the Messiah through the Rock that provided the living waters, you know, the Rock that Moses struck twice. The waters that are to flow out from the altar of the Temple.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:53 PM
yeah of course i was just addressing Sinai as that's what you quoted. You see no evidence for a Jewish hope in messiah ?

Type Moshiach into youtube and you'll see all manner of Jewish songs and prayers and the like, seems these Jewish people disagree or are mistaken ? Never thought i would site youtube as evidence lolHope for the messiah prior to the prophets? The concept isn't even mentioned in the bible before that.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:55 PM
That is what the covenant with Abraham was all about. The promised seed that would bless the world. Abraham waited a long time for Isaac. Isaac was a narrow path through which the promise of the covenant would be fulfilled. Isaac, Jacob, David, Jesus.That's a point of your faith. It isn't a fact. It certainly isn't the only way to read the bible. Jews do not see the blessings of Abraham's seed as referring to the messiah.


Moses was given a picture of the Messiah through the Rock that provided the living waters, you know, the Rock that Moses struck twice. The waters that are to flow out from the altar of the Temple.I would hardly call this evidence. It something you are using to confirm what you already believe.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:57 PM
Hope for the messiah prior to the prophets? The concept isn't even mentioned in the bible before that.

Ok so do you will agree the hope of Israel is Moshaich ?

prior to the prophets or not what does it matter ?

rejoice44
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:02 PM
That's a point of your faith. It isn't a fact. It certainly isn't the only way to read the bible. Jews do not see the blessings of Abraham's seed as referring to the messiah.

I would hardly call this evidence. It something you are using to confirm what you already believe.

Do you consider the Old Testament as evidence of anything?

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:43 PM
Do you consider the Old Testament as evidence of anything?
Picking through it to find tenuous hints to what you already believe does not constitue "evidence".

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:44 PM
Ok so do you will agree the hope of Israel is Moshaich ?

prior to the prophets or not what does it matter ?
The messiah isn't mentioned prior to the prophets.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:46 PM
The messiah isn't mentioned prior to the prophets.

This proves what ? the Messiah is not the hope of Israel ?

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:50 PM
This proves what ? the Messiah is not the hope of Israel ?
It makes it difficult to claim that people who lived prior to the prophets were "waiting for the messiah", when no such concept existed.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:51 PM
Hope for the messiah prior to the prophets? The concept isn't even mentioned in the bible before that.

Fenris...if I may have :2c: How does Gen3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. fit in here... does the seed of woman not imply a Savior already:hmm:

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:54 PM
Fenris...if I may have :2c: How does Gen3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. fit in here... does the seed of woman not imply a Savior already:hmm:
No, it doesn't. All the literal text says is that people won't like snakes, which is true.

keck553
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:56 PM
Actually to go back and re-read this sentence, I have to disagree most vehemently. "Tikkum Olam", "rectification of the world" is understood by all Jews (even the essentially non-religious ones) as something done with our actions. Whether that is by observance of the Law (for religious Jews) or via "social justice" (for secular Jews), it is still by our own hands. No Jew would ever say that "faith" would suffice to repair our world.

In no way, shape or form do I imply that we are not the means of Tikkum Olam. Sorry about that.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:00 PM
It makes it difficult to claim that people who lived prior to the prophets were "waiting for the messiah", when no such concept existed.

Ok i see your point now. I think you will agree that God has given us a progressive revelation of Himself, as can be seen in your example of Sinai. Now to me the climax and hope was for Israel was that God would be their King who would rule forever on Davids throne.

Would you agree if not can you give me your thoughts on what was the point of the OT.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:06 PM
Ok i see your point now. I think you will agree that God has given us a progressive revelation of Himself, as can be seen in your example of Sinai.
I don't agree. God made specific covenants with man that also included conditions. I don't think that is the same thing as progressive revelation.


Now to me the climax and hope was for Israel was that God would be their King who would rule forever on Davids throne. I suppose most Christians would see it this way, yes.


Would you agree if not can you give me your thoughts on what was the point of the OT.
The point of the OT was the law. God gave man a means to elevate himself and his world, to bring sprituality into the physical world via his actions.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:14 PM
I don't agree. God made specific covenants with man that also included conditions. I don't think that is the same thing as progressive revelation.

""

I suppose most Christians would see it this way, yes.

""


The point of the OT was the law. God gave man a means to elevate himself and his world, to bring sprituality into the physical world via his actions.

" "

you get insights of Gods will from the prophets for example that you didnt get from the five books of Moses, thats what i mean by preggressive revelation

perhaps but i'm asking you

So the OT could have stopped at Siani ? why the writings and the prophets ?


(sorry tried to multi quote and messed it up)

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:19 PM
you get insights of Gods will from the prophets for example that you didnt get from the five books of Moses, thats what i mean by preggressive revelationI don't think the prophets gave insight into God's will. They chastised the people for falling short and gave hints of the future. That's all.


So the OT could have stopped at Siani ? why the writings and the prophets ?If the episode with the golden calf didn't happen, the bible would have ended with Deuteronomy. There would have been no Jewish diaspora, no destruction of the temple, and no need for the messiah.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:23 PM
No, it doesn't. All the literal text says is that people won't like snakes, which is true.

:o :o :o .

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:35 PM
I don't think the prophets gave insight into God's will. They chastised the people for falling short and gave hints of the future. That's all.

If the episode with the golden calf didn't happen, the bible would have ended with Deuteronomy. There would have been no Jewish diaspora, no destruction of the temple, and no need for the messiah.

Of course they gave insight into Gods will, it was their task to disclose it to the people.

Saying it would have ended at Sinai can only be done with certainty if you share in Gods omnipotence, knowing all things possible and actual.

So the giving of the law was it the be all and end all for you ?

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:43 PM
Of course they gave insight into Gods will, it was their task to disclose it to the people. They didn't innovate. They reiterated what was already in the bible.


Saying it would have ended at Sinai can only be done with certainty if you share in Gods omnipotence, knowing all things possible and actual. Shrug. prove me wrong.


So the giving of the law was it the be all and end all for you ?Yes. There is no other purpose for human existence.

keck553
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:49 PM
Yes. There is no other purpose for human existence.

I do not see how that has changed.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:55 PM
Fenris,,, a woman does not have 'seed'.... it is not a case of fear

:o

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:03 PM
Fenris,,, a woman does not have 'seed'.... it is not a case of fear

:o
Women don't have seed?

Genesis 16: 7. And an angel of the Lord found her by a water fountain in the desert, by the fountain on the road to Shur. 8. And he said, "Hagar, Sarai's servant, where are you coming from, and where are you going to?" And she said, "From before Sarai my mistress, I am fleeing." 9. And the angel of the Lord said to her, "Return to your mistress, and allow yourself to be afflicted under her hands." 10. And the angel of the Lord said to her, "I will greatly multiply your seed, and it will not be counted for abundance."

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:05 PM
They didn't innovate. They reiterated what was already in the bible.

They gave new revelation of what was going to happen and why. it's a side issue though.


Shrug. prove me wrong. it didnt happen ! thats good enough for me.



Yes. There is no other purpose for human existence. You have a very good point in this claim, but your missing salvation and whats the point of life without that.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:06 PM
It worked :pp:pp:pp

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:08 PM
They gave new revelation of what was going to happen and why.They told the future. They didn't reveal anything new about God.


it didnt happen ! thats good enough for me.Doesn't change my thinking on the point.



You have a very good point in this claim, but your missing salvation and whats the point of life without that."Salvation" is a Christian term. Jews do not see it as necessary.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:08 PM
It worked :pp:pp:pp

:lol:

Good work. :)

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:30 PM
They told the future. They didn't reveal anything new about God.

They revealed new information on Gods purposes and Gave us new insight into Gods attributes by thier visions, to miss this out is to miss the richness of the prophets, Isaiah gave us a terrific insight into Gods Holiness and Majesty in Chapter 6 for instance. I dont see the point in labouring this point. All i'm saying is revelation was given throughout the writing of the Bible not in one go.


"Salvation" is a Christian term. Jews do not see it as necessary.

Salvation is found in the Hebrew Bible, read the psalms and you will see a few Jews who did think it was necessary, heres a search (http://www.esvonline.org/search/salvation/Psalms/)there a not many books in the Bible were its not mentioned.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:33 PM
They revealed new information on Gods purposes and Gave us new insight into Gods attributes by thier visions, to miss this out is to miss the richness of the prophets, Isaiah gave us a terrific insight into Gods Holiness and Majesty in Chapter 6 for instance. I dont see the point in labouring this point. All i'm saying is revelation was given throughout the writing of the Bible not in one go. They reiterated what was already told and gave hints of the future.




Salvation is found in the Hebrew Bible, read the psalms and you will see a few Jews who did think it was necessary"Salvation" from one's troubles. Not "salvation" from eternal damnation.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:41 PM
They reiterated what was already told and gave hints of the future.


"Salvation" from one's troubles. Not "salvation" from eternal damnation.

Salvation form Sin.

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:47 PM
Hope for the messiah prior to the prophets? The concept isn't even mentioned in the bible before that.

That's just it fenris, and what I was trying to say yesterday before this thread exploded. :rolleyes:

God has a plan. Do you think Adam or Eve could have fathomed what would be laid on the Israelites? the plan starts with putting it in motion and ends when the plan is complete.

It's Christ's resurrection, not His death, that sets that moment as pivotal. All men that ever were have died. Yet not one of them has been physically raised up except for the Son of God - Jesus. That portion of God's plan was another step in the love and longsuffering the Father has. That hasn't changed over time, and it still hasn't. God waited until I was 32, was longsuffering with me as an individual the same as He was for 40 years after Sinai with the Israelites.

The salvation plan hasn't changed, it's unfolded to man since "Let there be light." and it will be complete when the world and man are judged and a new heaven and earth are set in place for eternity.

We are only men, and only know existence in this life on this earth. Over the millennia God has stuck to His plan for reconciling man to Himself.

It's like meeting someone new. 5 years from now you know them pretty well. After being married to someone for 25 years, you know your spouse extremely well. When we deal with an eternal God unfolding a plan to man over the course of the last 6,000 years when man only now lives to say 85 years old - we never get to live through the entire plan. We only live through a very small portion of it.

So no. Requirements for salvation haven't changed. We've only seen stages and progression of a bigger picture, a bigger plan. It's not complete yet. Don't let the cross be a stumbling block but one stone in the path.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:49 PM
Salvation form Sin.
That's the Christian definition.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:52 PM
Fenris, first time God reveals Himself as Saviour to Israel is when they leave Egypt....

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:56 PM
"Salvation" from one's troubles. Not "salvation" from eternal damnation.

We can get that perverbial rich uncle to bail us out of troubles. If we need money, he's there. If we loose our home he's got plenty of room for mom, dad, kids, the cat and dog because his home is huge. We can make just about anyone, even someone not wealthy, to save us from our troubles, our trials and tribulations. But that doesn't make the rich uncle the Savior.

Let me ask you this. Why did King David mourn, cry out with his face planted on the floor when he realized he did something that was sinful, that what he did was against God? Don't murder - there was that Bathsheeba thing. The Law was a measuring rod, and is still profitable for everyone today. How about the prophets who cried out because of the transgression of the people against God? There certainly was a very strong sense of having wronged God, acted badly, done wrong. It's far more than Lord the enemy is bearing down on me to kill me. Could you stop them and make them turn away with their swords? That would be swell, thanks.

It's about being right before God. That's what Abraham gained, righteousness. I don't recall hearing Issiac crying out "God, I'm in trouble. Could you maybe make my father put the knife down now?" as he was on that altar.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:57 PM
That's just it fenris, and what I was trying to say yesterday before this thread exploded. :rolleyes:

God has a plan. Do you think Adam or Eve could have fathomed what would be laid on the Israelites? the plan starts with putting it in motion and ends when the plan is complete.
That's peripheral to the OP of this thread though.

People who lived prior to Jesus who had "faith in God" did not have faith that God was going to die for their sins. This was a new requirement to believe. Saying that the requirements for salvation hasn't change does not change this point.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:57 PM
Fenris, first time God reveals Himself as Saviour to Israel is when they leave Egypt....

Yes, and so..............?

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:59 PM
We can get that perverbial rich uncle to bail us out of troubles. If we need money, he's there. If we loose our home he's got plenty of room for mom, dad, kids, the cat and dog because his home is huge. We can make just about anyone, even someone not wealthy, to save us from our troubles, our trials and tribulations. But that doesn't make the rich uncle the Savior.

Let me ask you this. Why did King David mourn, cry out with his face planted on the floor when he realized he did something that was sinful, that what he did was against God? Don't murder - there was that Bathsheeba thing. The Law was a measuring rod, and is still profitable for everyone today. How about the prophets who cried out because of the transgression of the people against God? There certainly was a very strong sense of having wronged God, acted badly, done wrong. It's far more than Lord the enemy is bearing down on me to kill me. Could you stop them and make them turn away with their swords? That would be swell, thanks.

It's about being right before God. That's what Abraham gained, righteousness. I don't recall hearing Issiac crying out "God, I'm in trouble. Could you maybe make my father put the knife down now?" as he was on that altar.
This is very nice post but I fail to see how it is a response to mine. So far as I can tell there are no instances in the Tanach where "salvation" refers to "salvation from eternal damnation".

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:59 PM
That's the Christian definition.

It's always been about salvation from sin. We see that throughout scripture. When someone was sorry for having gone against God they repented.

RogerW
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:00 PM
Right. So that's forward looking. "God will fulfill His promises". But Christians now look backward, to the crucifixion. That seems like a pretty big change.

But Fenris OT people of faith looked forward to Messiah coming, in the same way we NT people of faith look back to the finished work of Messiah Who has come. Abraham believed God! What did Abraham believe that was credited to him for righteousness? God preached the gospel to Abraham! Telling him all the nations of the world who are of the faith (believe God) of Abraham are blessed with Abraham.

Ga*3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Ga*3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Ga*3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Ga 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

The Law is NOT of faith, nor does it require faith, but it requires obedience, both external obedience and pure thought, motive and attitude. Therefore no man is justified by the Law. But Christ was made a curse for us (both OT saints & NT saints) see Isa 53:4-6. That the blessing of Abraham, which Abraham had in Christ might also come upon the Gentiles (Gen 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). Abraham was not justified by works, nor circumcision but by Christ...Abraham believed God and through the gospel by grace received faith accredited to him for righteousness. Righteousness in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is by faith in Christ because it was purchased by Christ.

Ga*3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Ga*3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Ga*3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:01 PM
Yes, and so..............?


"Salvation" is a Christian term. Jews do not see it as necessary.

:hmm:
You need a Saviour to have Salvation :yes:

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:01 PM
It's always been about salvation from sin. We see that throughout scripture.
Show me an instance where the Tanach refers to "salvation from eternal damnation".

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:01 PM
That's the Christian definition.

Well what is salvation if it's not from sin ? what are we being saved from ?

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:02 PM
:hmm:
You need a Saviour to have Salvation :yes:
Salvation from what? Bondage? Exile? The word means something completely different to a Jew.

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:02 PM
This is very nice post but I fail to see how it is a response to mine. So far as I can tell there are no instances in the Tanach where "salvation" refers to "salvation from eternal damnation".

If that's so, then why did God make the Israelites wander until all the original guys from the Exodus were dead? If God is to deliver us from circumstance, why then did God purposely set the Jews in a nasty circumstance for 40 years of horrid conditions? Why all the quail piled up when they called for meat which left them with a stinky mess? Why didn't God just take His chosen and make for them an Eden?

It was because they sinned against Him in the desert.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:04 PM
But Fenris OT people of faith looked forward to Messiah coming, in the same way we NT people of faith look back to the finished work of Messiah Who has come. Abraham believed God! What did Abraham believe that was credited to him for righteousness? God preached the gospel to Abraham! Telling him all the nations of the world who are of the faith (believe God) of Abraham are blessed with Abraham.


Yes, Abraham believed in God. Did he believe in a god incarnate who would die for the sins of mankind? No.

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:05 PM
This is very nice post but I fail to see how it is a response to mine. So far as I can tell there are no instances in the Tanach where "salvation" refers to "salvation from eternal damnation".

It's actually a dual choice of life or death and blessing or shame (honour and dishonour).

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:05 PM
Well what is salvation if it's not from sin ? what are we being saved from ?

God is capable of rescuing us from our troubles. That too is "salvation".

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:05 PM
It's actually a dual choice of life or death and blessing or shame (honour and dishonour).

Right, so you have no instances. Exactly.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:06 PM
Salvation from what? Bondage? Exile? The word means something completely different to a Jew.

What are/were the offerings in the Temple for?? Not for sin?? :hmm:

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:06 PM
Show me an instance where the Tanach refers to "salvation from eternal damnation".

Well, thought you were asking for the Christian pov my friend. ;)

Show me where when people went against God that they remained in His favor.

Progression, not single instances. That's the point of view I'm trying to get across here.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:07 PM
If that's so, then why did God make the Israelites wander until all the original guys from the Exodus were dead? If God is to deliver us from circumstance, why then did God purposely set the Jews in a nasty circumstance for 40 years of horrid conditions? Not so horrid. They didn't have to work. he fed them. He looked out for them. They just were not worthy of entering Israel. That's all.


Why all the quail piled up when they called for meat which left them with a stinky mess? Why didn't God just take His chosen and make for them an Eden?Because that's not the purpose of Creation.


It was because they sinned against Him in the desert.And they were punished. So?

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:07 PM
What are/were the offerings in the Temple for?? Not for sin?? :hmm:

That's what I was wondering too Ta-An. Maybe my thinking is off.

What say ye, fenris?

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:08 PM
What are/were the offerings in the Temple for?? Not for sin?? :hmm:

The offering in the temple have nothing to do with 'salvation". Some were for certain types of accidental sin.

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:09 PM
They just were not worthy of entering Israel. That's all.

And those who are unrepentant, who do not believe on the One that the Father sent as part of His ever-unfolding plan, is neither worthy to enter Israel, the promised land. For the Christian that's eternal life.

RogerW
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:09 PM
Yes, Abraham believed in God. Did he believe in a god incarnate who would die for the sins of mankind? No.

There is only One Gospel! What was this Gospel that God preached to Abraham, caused him to believe Him and be credited with righteousness? The Gospel of Jesus Christ...

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:09 PM
The offering in the temple have nothing to do with 'salvation". Some were for certain types of accidental sin.
They were sin-offerings.... what were the 'others' for then??

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:10 PM
The offering in the temple have nothing to do with 'salvation". Some were for certain types of accidental sin.

But they didn't sacrafice to be clean?

Nobody is born into some sort of clean state and they just have some "oops sin" once in a while.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:10 PM
And those who are unrepentant, who do not believe on the One that the Father sent as part of His ever-unfolding plan, is neither worthy to enter Israel, the promised land. For the Christian that's eternal life.

"Ever unfolding plan"? :rolleyes:

Why is it so bad to think that God's requirements changed? They obviously did.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:11 PM
There is only One Gospel! What was this Gospel that God preached to Abraham, caused him to believe Him and be credited with righteousness? The Gospel of Jesus Christ...

So Abaraham knew that God was going to sacrifice himself for sin? A shame that didn't make it into the bible.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:12 PM
They were sin-offerings.... what were the 'others' for then??


Read the bible. Most had nothing to do with sin. The ones that did were only for certain types of accidental sin.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:12 PM
There is only One Gospel! What was this Gospel that God preached to Abraham, caused him to believe Him and be credited with righteousness? The Gospel of Jesus Christ...

We also have this in the OT :) Is 59:17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:13 PM
I seem to have struck a nerve here.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:14 PM
We also have this in the OT :) Is 59:17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak.

I don't know what you're using this as evidence of.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:14 PM
God is capable of rescuing us from our troubles. That too is "salvation".


Troubles is a very vauge term. i think sin cover all trouble as you say. Would you agree ?

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:15 PM
I seem to have struck a nerve here.

my first day back and your striking nerves, nothing has changed much round here.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:15 PM
Troubles is a very vauge term. i think sin cover all trouble as you say. Would you agree ?

No, I would not agree.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:17 PM
my first day back and your striking nerves, nothing has changed much round here.

Where ya been............?

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:17 PM
Read the bible. Most had nothing to do with sin. The ones that did were only for certain types of accidental sin.

And what about Yom Kippur

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:19 PM
And what about Yom Kippur

Yom Kippur is not "a sacrifice".

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:19 PM
No, I would not agree.

what trouble are we saved from then ? and exactly how do they differ from sin described in the OT.

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:19 PM
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--
14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. 19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:20 PM
I don't know what you're using this as evidence of.

I was answering Rodger. The only way we can be righteous is through Christ.... and here we have an OT ref to that...:D

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:20 PM
Where ya been............?

lol so you missed me then.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:20 PM
Yom Kippur is not "a sacrifice".

And what about the scapegoat ?? :hmm:

The desolate wilderness to which the scapegoat (http://people.ucalgary.ca/%7Eelsegal/EliMahzor/EliMahzorGlossary.html#Scapegoat) was sent, symbolically bearing the sins of the people.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:22 PM
what trouble are we saved from then ? and exactly how do they differ from sin described in the OT.
You really don't know what "troubles" mean? You've never had something happen and asked God for help?

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:22 PM
"Ever unfolding plan"? :rolleyes:

Why is it so bad to think that God's requirements changed? They obviously did.

He's not done yet fenris.

If you build a car from nothing, you start with a frame. That's metal works. Eventually you'll get to body work, paint, electric systems, fuel systems, exhaust systems. The work before you has dramatically changed but you are still building a car.

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:23 PM
Yom Kippur is not "a sacrifice".

What??? In modern Judaism perhaps.....but according to the Torah...it is.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:23 PM
And what about the scapegoat ?? :hmm:

The desolate wilderness to which the scapegoat (http://people.ucalgary.ca/%7Eelsegal/EliMahzor/EliMahzorGlossary.html#Scapegoat) was sent, symbolically bearing the sins of the people.
Still not a sacrifice. It was thrown down a mountain. And it was symbolic, as you point out.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:24 PM
What??? In modern Judaism perhaps.....but according to the Torah...it is.

Ah. Another expert in Judaism.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:24 PM
You really don't know what "troubles" mean? You've never had something happen and asked God for help?

I'm looking for Biblical precedent here, i want to see what salvation from troubles looks like if sin has nothing to do with it.

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:25 PM
So Abaraham knew that God was going to sacrifice himself for sin? A shame that didn't make it into the bible.

He sent His Son, obedient to death.

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:25 PM
He's not done yet fenris.

If you build a car from nothing, you start with a frame. That's metal works. Eventually you'll get to body work, paint, electric systems, fuel systems, exhaust systems. The work before you has changed but you are still building a car.

Good analogy. The Torah is the frame. The engine is the Spirit. But the car can only be steered through the cross (think steering wheel)!

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:25 PM
He's not done yet fenris.

If you build a car from nothing, you start with a frame. That's metal works. Eventually you'll get to body work, paint, electric systems, fuel systems, exhaust systems. The work before you has changed but you are still building a car.A very clever analogy. Still doesn't apply to our situation. You have the obligation to believe in a certain thing that people before 33 or so didn't know about.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:26 PM
Still not a sacrifice. It was thrown down a mountain. And it was symbolic, as you point out.

and this:????? .
On Yom Kippur in ancient times, a lottery would be held to choose between two goats. One of which would be offered as a sacrfice. The other one was called a "scapegoat." The High Priest (Cohen Gadol) would confess the sins of the people while placing his hands on the head of the scapegoat, symbolically transferring the sins onto the goat. The scapegoat would then be sent out to perish in the wilderness, as it states in the Torah (Leviticus 16:7-8, 21-2):

And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel... And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:27 PM
I'm looking for Biblical precedent here, i want to see what salvation from troubles looks like if sin has nothing to do with it.
Did David pray to God when he was fleeing from king Saul?

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:27 PM
He sent His Son, obedient to death.

So Abraham knew that God was going to die for man's sin? Moses knew this too? King David?

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:29 PM
and this:????? .

Please dear, read what you posted. One was sacrificed, and the other one was the scapegoat.

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:29 PM
Ah. Another expert in Judaism.

Hardly....here is a readily available account of the sacrifice of yom kippur.


Lev. 16:2And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

3Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.

4He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

5And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

6And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.

7And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

8And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

9And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.

10But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:30 PM
Hardly....here is a readily available account of the sacrifice of yom kippur.

Yes, there were sacrifices on Yom Kippur.

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:32 PM
Please dear, read what you posted. One was sacrificed, and the other one was the scapegoat.

Yes....
To send something to it's death... not a sacrifice??

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:33 PM
Did David pray to God when he was fleeing from king Saul?

was King Saul sinning ? trying to take his life without cause ?

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:33 PM
Hardly....here is a readily available account of the sacrifice of yom kippur.


Lev. 16:2And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

3Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.

4He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

5And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

6And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.

7And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

8And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

9And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.

10But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Yes........................................

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:34 PM
Yes....
To send something to it's death... not a sacrifice??

I'm going to quote your article.


One of which would be offered as a sacrfice. The other one was called a "scapegoat."

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:35 PM
Yes, there were sacrifices on Yom Kippur.

And this sacrifice is offered once for all by the Son of Man.

There exists no other way to fulfill yom kippur. God has "seen" to it. Adonai yireh

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:36 PM
was King Saul sinning ? trying to take his life without cause ?
Uhhhh hoo boy.

I thought the cornerstone of Christian theology was "salvation" from the consequences of one's own sin.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:37 PM
And this sacrifice is offered once for all by the Son of Man.Right, you have to believe this to be "saved". And people before 33 didn't. My point.


There exists no other way to fulfill yom kippur. God has "seen" to it. Adonai yirehYes, yes, the hebrew words on the end makes it all true.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:38 PM
Ok guys I got to go prep for a meeting. Be back later.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:41 PM
Uhhhh hoo boy.

I thought the cornerstone of Christian theology was "salvation" from the consequences of one's own sin.

I'm not contradicting that. I'm just trying to show you sin is what we are being saved from not troubles as you call it, although troubles could can be part of sin.

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:45 PM
A very clever analogy. Still doesn't apply to our situation. You have the obligation to believe in a certain thing that people before 33 or so didn't know about.

We believe through faith that salvation is a plan of God's, that indeed has been carried out in the past, is being carried out now, and will be carried out to completion in the time to come.

annd it does apply. Let's put it this way. Adam and Eve got the directive to build a car. They say okay. So they start on the frame work. Come, say, about the time of Moses it's time to put in mechanical systems. Abraham fashions an engine. He cannot ignnore the frame work - it's necessary in the plan to build a car and he sets to fashioning an engine. Then long about David, it's time for electrical system. What's the point of a 12 volt system if it's not going to power anything? The engine cannot be ignored. And, again, the engine wouldn't be if it couldn't be attached to the frame mounts.

At the same time as David, it's time to make up the exterior. Panels are made, formed, and (me being in a state that uses lots of salt in the winter...) dipped to resist rust. Then primed. Then it hits the paint booth, and is cooked to a beautiful gloss. Then sealcoated. Now we have two totally different things going on simultaneously, yet still under one purpose - to build a car.

And so on and so forth. Each part - each step - is very different. Once the engine compartment is full and a hood is put on - can those who pop in head and tail lights fathom what Adam and Eve did for the frame? Or how all that stuff under the hood managed to come together? I couldn't. Yet there it is, coming together.

The focus has always been to build a car, yet the car as a whole didn't always begin that way. Each step had it's own portion of work for a certain length of time.

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:46 PM
And, to toss sin in there - let's say the direction say to install on the car 8 spark plugs. You think "What for???" and only put in 6, figuring it was saving you time.

It's not gonna run.

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:46 PM
Right, you have to believe this to be "saved". And people before 33 didn't. My point.
Yes, yes, the hebrew words on the end makes it all true.

Actually, the Hebrew words show an everlasting truth. It is ironic that it is for the most part the non-Hebrew speaking peoples whom God has revealed the truth to.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:49 PM
Ok guys I got to go prep for a meeting. Be back later.

Ok enjoy your meeting hope you stay clear of troubles.

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:54 PM
Ok guys I got to go prep for a meeting. Be back later.

Careful not to hit any nerves! ;)

rejoice44
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:49 PM
Picking through it to find tenuous hints to what you already believe does not constitue "evidence".

You really did not answer the question. Is the Old Testament evidence, or is it all a matter of faith?

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:58 PM
You really did not answer the question. Is the Old Testament evidence, or is it all a matter of faith?

It's faith.............

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:00 PM
OK I am satisfied to be finished with the topic. I have to ponder the very interesting reaction that this topic generated.

RollTide21
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:23 PM
Delete post. I always post in a long thread only to find that, by the time the thread gets to my reply, the conversation has shifted and my post is totally irrelevant.

:lol:

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:46 PM
OK I am satisfied to be finished with the topic. I have to ponder the very interesting reaction that this topic generated.

And give us feedback :hmm: pleazzze

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:02 PM
And give us feedback :hmm: pleazzze

I am sure it will be the subject of a new thread. :)

Ta-An
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:05 PM
I am sure it will be the subject of a new thread. :)

:hug: .

RogerW
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:39 PM
So Abaraham knew that God was going to sacrifice himself for sin? A shame that didn't make it into the bible.

I would say Abraham knew the gospel that God preached to him! That the Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord would be The Seed Who would die for His people. Just as God revealed this to Isaiah, so too He preached the gospel to Abraham...that through him shall all the nations of the earth be blessed!

Mr*15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

Isa*53:1 ¶ Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
Isa*53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa*53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa*53:4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa*53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa*53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa*53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa*53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Isa*53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isa*53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa*53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa*53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.