"What must I do to be saved", what did Jesus mean?
- Thread starter MasterYourLife
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
All of us were blessed because we were born in a period where Scripture is complete, we can read both the OT and the NT together and truly understand how the grand plan of God is fulfilled.
But those who were living in the era of the 4 Gospels and Acts only had the OT, and thus, if I am a Jew living then, I would also have found Paul very difficult to understand and may even find him offensive. I grew up with the Law of Moses and have memorized the Torah front back and center.
Think of Acts as a transitional period where 2 messages of good news were valid at the same time, one for the Jews, another for the Gentiles.
Let me put myself in the shoes of a typical Judaizer, one of those who oppose Paul in Acts 15 and Galatians 1 and 2, to try to understand their objections to Paul:
The Jerusalem leaders are the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ. Paul has no comparable authority: any commission he exercises was derived by him from the Jerusalem leaders, and if he differs from them on the content or implications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily.
James was the brother of Jesus and lived with Jesus since he was a boy. The original 12 apostles were the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ when he was walking on Earth.
Thus, James was certainly correct when he was writing his book of James. He was taught by Jesus in the flesh, who said to keep the Law of Moses (Matt 5:19-20), to a young man who asked Jesus what must he do to gain eternal life, James may have overheard Jesus replying to "keep all the commandments" (Matt 19:17), and "sell all you have and give to the poor" (Matt 19:21).
Thus, we have to understand the book of James from that perspective. The book of James is like a throwback to the Sermon of the Mount.
Paul has no comparable authority. He claimed he got his gospel thru revelation from the ascended Christ in Gal 1
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
He further claimed that he spent 3 years in Arabia where he probably got those revelations directed from the ascended Christ himself.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
The Jerusalem leaders practiced circumcision and observed the law and the customs, but Paul struck on a line of his own, omitting circumcision and other ancient observances from the message he preached, and thus he betrayed his ancestral heritage. This law-free gospel has no authority but its own; he certainly did not receive it from the apostles, who disapprove of his course of action. Their disapproval was publicly shown on one occasion at Antioch, when there was a direct confrontation between Peter and him on the necessity of maintaining the Jewish food-laws.
Those are Paul's claims and no one else could verify the authenticity of his gospel. Why should I, as a Judaizer, believe him over the words of James and the original 12 apostles? As far as I know if Paul differs from them on the content or implications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily.
Now he is trying to preach that one can be saved without obeying the Law of Moses and that the Jews need not follow them. How dare he! (Acts 15 and Acts 21)
But those who were living in the era of the 4 Gospels and Acts only had the OT, and thus, if I am a Jew living then, I would also have found Paul very difficult to understand and may even find him offensive. I grew up with the Law of Moses and have memorized the Torah front back and center.
Think of Acts as a transitional period where 2 messages of good news were valid at the same time, one for the Jews, another for the Gentiles.
Let me put myself in the shoes of a typical Judaizer, one of those who oppose Paul in Acts 15 and Galatians 1 and 2, to try to understand their objections to Paul:
The Jerusalem leaders are the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ. Paul has no comparable authority: any commission he exercises was derived by him from the Jerusalem leaders, and if he differs from them on the content or implications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily.
James was the brother of Jesus and lived with Jesus since he was a boy. The original 12 apostles were the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ when he was walking on Earth.
Thus, James was certainly correct when he was writing his book of James. He was taught by Jesus in the flesh, who said to keep the Law of Moses (Matt 5:19-20), to a young man who asked Jesus what must he do to gain eternal life, James may have overheard Jesus replying to "keep all the commandments" (Matt 19:17), and "sell all you have and give to the poor" (Matt 19:21).
Thus, we have to understand the book of James from that perspective. The book of James is like a throwback to the Sermon of the Mount.
Paul has no comparable authority. He claimed he got his gospel thru revelation from the ascended Christ in Gal 1
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
He further claimed that he spent 3 years in Arabia where he probably got those revelations directed from the ascended Christ himself.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
The Jerusalem leaders practiced circumcision and observed the law and the customs, but Paul struck on a line of his own, omitting circumcision and other ancient observances from the message he preached, and thus he betrayed his ancestral heritage. This law-free gospel has no authority but its own; he certainly did not receive it from the apostles, who disapprove of his course of action. Their disapproval was publicly shown on one occasion at Antioch, when there was a direct confrontation between Peter and him on the necessity of maintaining the Jewish food-laws.
Those are Paul's claims and no one else could verify the authenticity of his gospel. Why should I, as a Judaizer, believe him over the words of James and the original 12 apostles? As far as I know if Paul differs from them on the content or implications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily.
Now he is trying to preach that one can be saved without obeying the Law of Moses and that the Jews need not follow them. How dare he! (Acts 15 and Acts 21)
All of us were blessed because we were born in a period where Scripture is complete, we can read both the OT and the NT together and truly understand how the grand plan of God is fulfilled.
But those who were living in the era of the 4 Gospels and Acts only had the OT, and thus, if I am a Jew living then, I would also have found Paul very difficult to understand and may even find him offensive. I grew up with the Law of Moses and have memorized the Torah front back and center.
Think of Acts as a transitional period where 2 messages of good news were valid at the same time, one for the Jews, another for the Gentiles.
Let me put myself in the shoes of a typical Judaizer, one of those who oppose Paul in Acts 15 and Galatians 1 and 2, to try to understand their objections to Paul:
The Jerusalem leaders are the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ. Paul has no comparable authority: any commission he exercises was derived by him from the Jerusalem leaders, and if he differs from them on the content or implications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily.
James was the brother of Jesus and lived with Jesus since he was a boy. The original 12 apostles were the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ when he was walking on Earth.
Thus, James was certainly correct when he was writing his book of James. He was taught by Jesus in the flesh, who said to keep the Law of Moses (Matt 5:19-20), to a young man who asked Jesus what must he do to gain eternal life, James may have overheard Jesus replying to "keep all the commandments" (Matt 19:17), and "sell all you have and give to the poor" (Matt 19:21).
Thus, we have to understand the book of James from that perspective. The book of James is like a throwback to the Sermon of the Mount.
Paul has no comparable authority. He claimed he got his gospel thru revelation from the ascended Christ in Gal 1
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
He further claimed that he spent 3 years in Arabia where he probably got those revelations directed from the ascended Christ himself.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
The Jerusalem leaders practiced circumcision and observed the law and the customs, but Paul struck on a line of his own, omitting circumcision and other ancient observances from the message he preached, and thus he betrayed his ancestral heritage. This law-free gospel has no authority but its own; he certainly did not receive it from the apostles, who disapprove of his course of action. Their disapproval was publicly shown on one occasion at Antioch, when there was a direct confrontation between Peter and him on the necessity of maintaining the Jewish food-laws.
Those are Paul's claims and no one else could verify the authenticity of his gospel. Why should I, as a Judaizer, believe him over the words of James and the original 12 apostles? As far as I know if Paul differs from them on the content or implications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily.
Now he is trying to preach that one can be saved without obeying the Law of Moses and that the Jews need not follow them. How dare he! (Acts 15 and Acts 21)
But those who were living in the era of the 4 Gospels and Acts only had the OT, and thus, if I am a Jew living then, I would also have found Paul very difficult to understand and may even find him offensive. I grew up with the Law of Moses and have memorized the Torah front back and center.
Think of Acts as a transitional period where 2 messages of good news were valid at the same time, one for the Jews, another for the Gentiles.
Let me put myself in the shoes of a typical Judaizer, one of those who oppose Paul in Acts 15 and Galatians 1 and 2, to try to understand their objections to Paul:
The Jerusalem leaders are the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ. Paul has no comparable authority: any commission he exercises was derived by him from the Jerusalem leaders, and if he differs from them on the content or implications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily.
James was the brother of Jesus and lived with Jesus since he was a boy. The original 12 apostles were the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ when he was walking on Earth.
Thus, James was certainly correct when he was writing his book of James. He was taught by Jesus in the flesh, who said to keep the Law of Moses (Matt 5:19-20), to a young man who asked Jesus what must he do to gain eternal life, James may have overheard Jesus replying to "keep all the commandments" (Matt 19:17), and "sell all you have and give to the poor" (Matt 19:21).
Thus, we have to understand the book of James from that perspective. The book of James is like a throwback to the Sermon of the Mount.
Paul has no comparable authority. He claimed he got his gospel thru revelation from the ascended Christ in Gal 1
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
He further claimed that he spent 3 years in Arabia where he probably got those revelations directed from the ascended Christ himself.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
The Jerusalem leaders practiced circumcision and observed the law and the customs, but Paul struck on a line of his own, omitting circumcision and other ancient observances from the message he preached, and thus he betrayed his ancestral heritage. This law-free gospel has no authority but its own; he certainly did not receive it from the apostles, who disapprove of his course of action. Their disapproval was publicly shown on one occasion at Antioch, when there was a direct confrontation between Peter and him on the necessity of maintaining the Jewish food-laws.
Those are Paul's claims and no one else could verify the authenticity of his gospel. Why should I, as a Judaizer, believe him over the words of James and the original 12 apostles? As far as I know if Paul differs from them on the content or implications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily.
Now he is trying to preach that one can be saved without obeying the Law of Moses and that the Jews need not follow them. How dare he! (Acts 15 and Acts 21)
So I'll ask, what did Paul teach that Jesus did not?
I can see you have a closed mind now, that is why you use words like "destroy your doctrine". As I have said, that is understandable why you would resist it. All of us need a period of time to accept this.
To answer your question, "that we have died to the Law to marry Jesus who was raised from the dead" (Romans 7:4) would be one.
Remember what Jesus told his disciples while he was on Earth in John 16:12? Think of Paul as those "many things"
To answer your question, "that we have died to the Law to marry Jesus who was raised from the dead" (Romans 7:4) would be one.
Remember what Jesus told his disciples while he was on Earth in John 16:12? Think of Paul as those "many things"
I can see you're a cultist by nature in saying, "I can see you have a closed mind now...that is understandable why you would resist it". I can say the same to you, doesn't do any good to keep repeating it, as thought it's helping your false doctrine.
Not being under the law doesn't mean we don't keep the law. The verse is teaching that the law doesn't save, grace does.
Jesus taught to keep the law; He never taught the law saves.
Jesus taught, "Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life."
Not being under the law doesn't mean we don't keep the law. The verse is teaching that the law doesn't save, grace does.
Jesus taught to keep the law; He never taught the law saves.
Jesus taught, "Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life."
Yea, the same principle as when Jesus said, "if you don't believe me of earthly thing, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things".
Asserting that Jesus was referring to some special message, which He would only reveal to one man later on, is a ridiculous idea.
Especially when He send his disciples across the world to preach everything He taught them. And for what? Well according to your doctrine...for nothing.
Asserting that Jesus was referring to some special message, which He would only reveal to one man later on, is a ridiculous idea.
Especially when He send his disciples across the world to preach everything He taught them. And for what? Well according to your doctrine...for nothing.
You are so judgmental, I am sure that is against the Law too, but in Christ, you are forgiven
I actually recognize that embracing truth takes 3 stages
The process of acknowledging a truth is broken down into three stages:
I actually recognize that embracing truth takes 3 stages
The process of acknowledging a truth is broken down into three stages:
- The first stage is ridicule. When a new idea or concept is brought up, it’s so strange that it’s completely absurd. People cannot fathom this idea and how it fits into their lives, so they simply laugh at how impossible it seems.
- The second stage is opposition. After a new concept has made it past the first stage, people begin to worry that it’s here to stay. A few might support the concept, but most will resist because they see it as a threat to everything they’re familiar with.
- The third stage is self-evident. There is increasing evidence that supports the idea, which goes from having a few early supporters to entering the mainstream. A majority of people support the fact and come to accept it as a given.
You are so judgmental, I am sure that is against the Law too, but in Christ, you are forgiven
I actually recognize that embracing truth takes 3 stages
The process of acknowledging a truth is broken down into three stages:
I actually recognize that embracing truth takes 3 stages
The process of acknowledging a truth is broken down into three stages:
- The first stage is ridicule. When a new idea or concept is brought up, it’s so strange that it’s completely absurd. People cannot fathom this idea and how it fits into their lives, so they simply laugh at how impossible it seems.
- The second stage is opposition. After a new concept has made it past the first stage, people begin to worry that it’s here to stay. A few might support the concept, but most will resist because they see it as a threat to everything they’re familiar with.
- The third stage is self-evident. There is increasing evidence that supports the idea, which goes from having a few early supporters to entering the mainstream. A majority of people support the fact and come to accept it as a given.
Also hypocritical to say I judge, yet you judged me saying I'm close minded.
Still waiting on what Paul taught that was different from Jesus.
You demean people who don't believe in your false doctrine.
I already explained what that verse meant and how Jesus taught the same, did you miss it?
"Not being under the law doesn't mean we don't keep the law. The verse is teaching that the law doesn't save, grace does.
Jesus taught to keep the law; He never taught the law saves.
Jesus taught, "Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life."
"Not being under the law doesn't mean we don't keep the law. The verse is teaching that the law doesn't save, grace does.
Jesus taught to keep the law; He never taught the law saves.
Jesus taught, "Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life."
And I have already replied to you in the first page, with Luke 10:25-28.
The Law will never save on its own once Jesus arrived in the flesh. The Jews needed to keep the Law AND accept Jesus as their promised Messiah, together with submitting themselves to John's baptism (Luke 7:29-30, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16).
Anyway, we now sharing our different interpretations of what Jesus actually meant so this debate will never converge. So I have answered your question, but you have a different interpretation so naturally you will reject it.
That is fine, we can agree to disagree.
The Law will never save on its own once Jesus arrived in the flesh. The Jews needed to keep the Law AND accept Jesus as their promised Messiah, together with submitting themselves to John's baptism (Luke 7:29-30, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16).
Anyway, we now sharing our different interpretations of what Jesus actually meant so this debate will never converge. So I have answered your question, but you have a different interpretation so naturally you will reject it.
That is fine, we can agree to disagree.
You just completely missed the point that Paul never taught differently from Jesus.
If you don't keep the law, you won't be saved. This is a clear confusion on your part which brings about your false doctrine.
The law doesn't save, but if you don't keep the law, you won't be saved.
By works faith was made perfect.
Or are you saying gentiles don't need to keep the law? If so, you're wrong.
Or are you saying Jesus taught that the law saves? If so, you're wrong.
I can tell by how quickly you're leaving, you know your arguments are weak.
If you don't keep the law, you won't be saved. This is a clear confusion on your part which brings about your false doctrine.
The law doesn't save, but if you don't keep the law, you won't be saved.
By works faith was made perfect.
Or are you saying gentiles don't need to keep the law? If so, you're wrong.
Or are you saying Jesus taught that the law saves? If so, you're wrong.
I can tell by how quickly you're leaving, you know your arguments are weak.
To people who oppose our beliefs, we will naturally think they are the ones having the weak argument. 🤣
Once the debate end with “oh what scripture meant is A and not B”, it becomes non convergent and all a matter how we were brought up as Christians so to me, it’s not productive to persist on that.
There are many Long threads that testify to that.
you have made your point and I have made mine.
Once the debate end with “oh what scripture meant is A and not B”, it becomes non convergent and all a matter how we were brought up as Christians so to me, it’s not productive to persist on that.
There are many Long threads that testify to that.
you have made your point and I have made mine.