It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How will you get yourself into heaven? On your own merit or via a scapegoat?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by o0oTOPCATo0o
 

I am not religious really at all, so maybe someone can clarify that you get into heaven "By the grace of god"
No good deed will get you in.
"Get into Heaven" is probably a shorthand way of saying that you will pass judgment and not "go to hell", which is also probably a shorthand way of saying going into some state of oblivion, meaning to cease to be a recognizable person.
What it is really talking about in the Bible is entrance into a "group of the saved", where in the Old Testament that meant being part of Israel, and in the New Testament it means the church.
We can not set up a salvation system to belong to ourselves, it took Jesus to do that, and it is his deeds that made it possible, and our not doing evil deeds that keeps us as a member of that association.
edit on 3-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 




The phrase "the curse of the law" means "the curse which belongs to the law as one of the statements found there".


Where are you getting this from? Are you "manufacturing" it as you claim I am doing? Paul says "the curse of the law" meaning the law is a curse, it's in "plain words" as you said earlier. You are creating a completely different meaning from what is written down to support your argument.



Yes exactly. It does not say "the law is a curse"


You misunderstood, the scripture that Paul quotes does not say the law is a curse, the eisegesis that Paul uses on the scripture is what says the law is a curse, hence him saying "all who rely on the law are under a curse". He intentionally misconstrued what the verse said to support his newly formed doctrine.

Since you ignored it in my last post, I will ask again: which law did Jesus fulfill? Was it the one that covered "ALL of the Law and Prophets"? If so, he fulfilled the written law, something Paul claims is a curse.
edit on 2/3/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 

I got "saved" when I was at a Baptist Church right around nine years old.
I think that this sort of teaching that you are describing is a product of bad theology which came from an incomplete understanding of the New Testament, which was a common occurrence with the availability of scripture texts with the advent of advanced printing presses.
Four hundred years later by some serious scholarship into the Bible, we have a better understanding of the intent of the original inspired writers of the Apostolic age.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Where are you getting this from?

I'm getting it from a reading of the whole passage, starting from v10.
You need to read these statements in their context. v10 quotes a curse included in the law,in Deuteronomy, v11 says that everyone who disobeys comes under that curse, v13 says we have been "redeemed from it".

Those who rely on the law are said to be "under a curse" NOT specifically because they are relying on it, but because they are ALSO (necessarily, in Paul's eyes) failing to obey it.

PS The fact that Jesus "fulfilled" the written law is precisely the reason, in Paul's thinking, why we don't need to be "fulfilling it" ourselves. It's already been done. We have been "redeemed" from it.
edit on 3-2-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I understand what you mean now, thanks for clearing that up. I can see how you could take it that way and makes sense now.

So if we do not obey the law we are no longer cursed? That's what you're saying? So we no longer have to love others and we can still be saved? If we no longer have to love others as the law dictates, why did Jesus make loving others the central point of his ministry? Why would he preach that loving others is the way if it would end up not mattering because of the sacrifice he said he did not desire?

This is how Paul rewrote Jesus' gospel and message, through deception. He undermines Jesus' words by putting forth his own doctrine in their place.

Again, for the third time: what law did Jesus fulfill?
edit on 2/3/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
 

Ask yourself two questions:

1). Was I born of my own merit or by the grace of God?

2). As flawed as we all are, what are your good deeds worth to God?
Our good deeds are worth everything to God because we are serving those who were created in God's image.

Jesus is the only begotten and sinless son of God. Only the work of Jesus is worth anything to God. Jesus may have been incarnated, but His soul was never created. Jesus' believers go to heaven on account of His credit, not our debt. Its after the righteousness of Christ is credited to us by faith that we are rewarded for good deeds in the afterlife.
Jesus did not do good in order to mint a currency for sin debt payment.
No such concept is described in the Bible.
We are not "awarded" for the good deeds of Jesus as if those make up for the lack of our own.
The is no transaction described in the Bible where Jesus' righteousness or anyone else's, is given to us to satisfy the demand for our own righteousness.
"By Faith" in Paul's letters means to keep what in the new covenant serves the role that the old written code of Moses served in the old covenant.
It is never described in the Bible as a type of righteousness that is symbolically "given" to us by just believing that there is a such thing as a gifted righteousness that is apart from our own acts.
The righteousness of Jesus is the standard of righteousness that we can attain in actuality by believing in Jesus and receiving the gift of God's spirit through him, to works of righteousness.
edit on 3-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
So if we do not obey the law we are no longer cursed? That's what you're saying? So we no longer have to love others and we can still be saved? If we no longer have to love others as the law dictates, why did Jesus make loving others the central point of his ministry? Why would he preach that loving others is the way if it would end up not mattering because of the sacrifice he said he did not desire?

We come round full circle, because i just repeat the very first reply I made to you in this thread;

DISRAELI
The answer to your question is Romans ch7 v6, which expands on the verse quoted;
"We serve not under the old written code, but in the new life of the Spirit".
The obligation to love the neighbour now comes not because the written law says so, but because the Spirit says so.

See? the obligation to love others is still there, but it now comes from the Spirit, not from the Law of Moses.



Again, for the third time: what law did Jesus fulfill?

I did answer this in another late addition.
He fulfilled the written code, and that is another reason, in Paul's viewpoint, why we don't need to fulfil it ourselves. The task of fulfilling the law has already been completed, which lets us off the hook. We have been "redeemed" from it.




edit on 3-2-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


You seem to have contradicted yourself. If we are "off the hook" from the law which dictated us to love one another we are no longer obligated to love each other, we get a free pass if we believe in Jesus.

If we are "off the hook" of love, which Jesus says is the point of the law, then why did Jesus make it the central theme within his ministry? An obligation to love each other no longer exists because we were "let off the hook" from the law of love with the sacrifice that Jesus stated he had no desire for.

To put it plainly, if love fulfills the law and we are obligated to love one another then we are obligated to fulfill the law. You say that we no longer have to fulfill the law because Jesus did it for us. So basically you're saying we are obligated to fulfill the law but we also aren't obligated to fulfill the law at the same time. Where's the disconnect here? Paul's teachings.

Also, you didn't answer this question either: if the OT law was embellished, how can you be so sure the NT wasn't as well? If the OT was corrupted with embellishment, how can you consider it the word of god?
edit on 2/3/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 

So long as I get where I'm suppose to be going, and not lost in limbo...

I shall be content.

There isn't really anything more than that.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
You have contradicted yourself, if we are "off the hook" from the law which dictated us to love one another we are no longer obligated to love each other, we get a free pass if we believe in Jesus.

No, I am saying that the obligation does not come from the law. Agreed, in Paul's teaching, conducting ourselves right is no longer a condition of salvation, but that doesn't mean that it stops being something God wants us to do. Paul talks about the good deeds "which God has prepared for us to walk in". It just means that loving others follws on from salvation, instead of being a preceding condition for it.


If we are "off the hook" of love, which Jesus says is the point of the law, then why did Jesus make it the central theme within his ministry? An obligation to love each other no longer exists because we were "let off the hook" from the law of love.

Let me repeat again.
"We are NOT serving the old written code, but we ARE serving in the new life of the Spirit".
We are "off the hook" as regards the written code, we are not "off the hook" regarding what the Spirit wants us to do, and Paul's teaching (e.g. 1 Corinthians ch13) would certainly include loving others as part of what the Spirit of God wants us to do.


Also, you didn't answer this question either: if the OT law was embellished, how can you be so sure the NT wasn't as well? If the OT was corrupted with embellishment, how can you consider it the word of god?

By not understanding "word of God" in terms of verbal inerrancy.



edit on 3-2-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


It's not getting through apparently. If the law dictates us to love one another just as the spirit does, what exactly is the difference between the two?

We are not obligated to fulfill the law but we are obligated to love one another which IS to fulfill the law? How does that make sense? You're basically saying that we are obligated and aren't obligated at the same time! You are still contradicting yourself.

If nothing passes from the law until heaven and Earth disappear as Jesus says, why have Christians been given a free pass from the law? Again, you are contradicting yourself and Jesus.
edit on 2/3/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Jesus was THE scapegoat, and accepting him as such is the only way.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Romans 10
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


There is an obvious discrepancy between what Jesus taught and what Christians believe. Jesus says that you are your own salvation through forgiveness of others, Christianity says Jesus' death and believing he alone is Lord is salvation.
I don't think that was what Paul is saying there.
The big thing that Paul was constantly fighting was the Judaizers who went around telling gentile converts to Christianity that they needed to be circumcised to be a "real" Christian.
I think that what Paul was doing here was comparing body parts, here using the heart and mouth as examples, how they have more importance to your salvation than that other alluded to body part.
I realize that some misguided Christians will use that verse to make a point that you just have to say the name Jesus at some point in your life to be saved but they don't know what they are talking about and are just repeating slogans picked up at their cult meetings.

edit on 3-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
It's not getting through apparently. If the law dictates us to love one another just as the spirit does, what exactly is the difference between the two?

The difference is that the written law has a lot of things besides "love one another", and says we are under a curse if we don't do all of them.
The Spirit is more focussed on what God really wants, and doesn't offer a curse for disobedience.


We are not obligated to fulfill the law but we are obligated to love one another which IS to fulfill the law? How does that make sense? You're basically saying that we are obligated and aren't obligated at the same time!

I am saying they are different kinds of obligation.
The first is "Do these things if you want to be on good terms with God".
The second is, "You are on good terms with God, now go and do these things".


If nothing passes from the law until heaven and Earth disappear as Jesus says, why have Christians been given a free pass from the law?

Jesus can't have meant every single detail of the written law, beause he himself disagreed with the permission to divorce, which was one of them. So perhaps he, too, was thinking more of the "spirit" embedded in the laws, the basic principles.
edit on 3-2-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I don't think so, you're connecting two completely unrelated topics. Read the passage within context and you'll see how ridiculous that theory sounds.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


So you can be on good terms with god without loving others as yourself? If so, why is it an obligation? If someone doesn't love others as themselves and still believes are they saved? If so, love is not an obligation only a suggestion.

So Jesus contradicted himself? You are doing some mighty impressive mental gymnastics here.
edit on 2/3/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
 

Jesus was the Lamb of God, He came to sacrifice Himself for us. Faith in that sacrifice gives us salvation and a starting point for our good deeds to mean something.

Jesus willingly went to the cross with all of mankind in His heart. He understood that He was the Lamb for the slaughter.
Where does it say in the Bible that we need to have faith in Jesus' sacrifice?"

When the Bible talks about Jesus being a lamb, it is rather a reference to Isaiah 53 where the suffering servant is compared to a sheep dumb to the sheerer.

There is one reference to Jesus being our Passover, and that is saying that we need to have respect for him.
The body of the Passover lamb was by law treated with respect.
We should hold his death in a certain degree of reverence, and that is a must-do if you are to be considered a Christian.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

I don't think so, you're connecting two completely unrelated topics. Read the passage within context and you'll see how ridiculous that theory sounds.
If you think the "context" means two or three verses before and after the verse in question, then maybe.
I'm talking about a larger context, thank you very much.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Paul's teaching is that the being on good terms with God comes first in order of time.
As I said, there are different kinds of obligation.
Paul talked of "service", but some kinds of service can be under threat of punishment, and some just out of willingness to obey.
"Love towards God" can provide a kind of obligation, and so can "gratitude".
However, I don't need to stick on the word "obligation" if you're going to quibble with it.
My point, as it has been since the beginning of my involvement in this thread, is that Paul would say that the Holy Spirit wants us to love our neighbours.
If you don't like the word "obligation" for this, I'll be content with another one.





edit on 3-2-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
 

It was common knowledge that the Lamb of God was slaughtered for atonement.
Really?
And how do you know that?
What atonement and how do you make a direct correlation to Jesus?

If you look at the Greek words there in John where the Baptist says that, you will find out a couple things, one, that the word there translated as "lamb" means sheep and is the word used in the Septuagint for the sheep dumb before its sheerer in Isaiah 53.
Second, the word translated as "take away" actually means to raise up, which is what the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 does, to lift up sin, by being sin himself but going to heaven to be honored.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join