Do the Synoptics tell us how to be saved?

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:24 pm

What are Jesus own conditions for a person to be saved or to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Not Paul's conditions, but Jesus own criteria?

Not John's version of Jesus, but rather Matthew, Mark and Luke's version of Jesus?

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:40 pm

[Replying to post 20 by onewithhim]
So why are you hung up on the blood transfusion thing. Jesus healed people on the Sabbath in violation of the letter of the Law. So why is it wrong for people to donate and receive blood?

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:52 pm

Elijah John wrote:
onewithhim wrote:
Elijah John wrote: How bout this one:

"...... If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."
(Mt.19.17)
I believe that was said before Jesus made the Law obsolete by his death on the stake (Colossians 2.14)
So, we need Paul to interpret Jesus, as though he could not speak for himself?

Where did Jesus ever teach that the Law would be made obsolete by his death on the cross? (it was a cross, not a "stake" by the way).

As I recall, he taught just the opposite.

Yes, he summarized the Law with the Golden Rule (much as Hillel did), but he emphasize keeping the Ten Commandments and stressed the interior observance of the Law, the "weightier things of the Law" (Love and Mercy) and said quite plainly that he did not come to abolish the Law, or make it "obsolete". (Mt. 5.17-20)

But Evangelicals and JWs constantly put Paul over Jesus. While Jesus continually preached the Father, Paul preached Jesus.

Or as Thomas Paine puts it " a man is preached instead of God".

So you chose to reject everything I wrote on why the WT organization uses the term "stake"? You still feel the necessity of dismissing the information I posted? You couldn't see any sense to it at all? I am somewhat surprised. I expected a person who is fair to say, "I see your point." It wasn't unreasonable. Yet you saw no reason to explain why you totally disagree.

Matthew 5:17 is often quoted by people trying to make your argument, but you always seem to leave off the last part of the verse. Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. To destroy the Law would be tattamount to wiping it out as useless and of no account. That was not the case. It served its purpose, and now Jesus was saying that he was FULFILLING it. A definition of "fulfill" is to bring to an end; to satisfy; to develop the full potentialities of. That is what Jesus did.

He said it himself. It was because the Law had come to the point of now being satisfied, its full potential realized in him. He was "the Lamb of God" that would take away the sin of the world, which the blood of bulls and goats could not do. (John 1:36)

.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:13 pm

postroad wrote: [Replying to post 20 by onewithhim]
So why are you hung up on the blood transfusion thing. Jesus healed people on the Sabbath in violation of the letter of the Law. So why is it wrong for people to donate and receive blood?

It has been established that the law on blood never was revoked. It carried over into the Christian church, as Acts 15:20,29 clearly shows us. Jehovah continues to require abstinence from blood because it is sacred to Him; it represents the LIFE of a person or animal. He doesn't want humans to use someone else's blood for any reason. The medical community has finally seen that blood transfusions are not necessary for someone to live, and have recognized that the substitutes are even better for an individual. So how can you keep criticizing JWs for refusing blood? Our children are not dying because we refuse blood. In fact they are getting well faster, without any side effects.

.

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:19 pm

[Replying to post 23 by onewithhim] It was part of a scaled back dietary code that was given to the Gentiles in order that the Jewish converts would take less offence to their physical presence. Nothing more.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:21 pm

postroad wrote: [Replying to post 23 by onewithhim] It was part of a scaled back dietary code that was given to the Gentiles in order that the Jewish converts would take less offence to their physical presence. Nothing more.

So say you. The Apostle James and the other members of the governing body say otherwise.

.

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:43 pm

[Replying to post 25 by onewithhim]
I present that Paul was in defiance of James.

Galatians 2:11-13New International Version (NIV)

Paul Opposes Cephas

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:01 pm

postroad wrote: [Replying to post 25 by onewithhim]
I present that Paul was in defiance of James.
Galatians 2:11-13New International Version (NIV)

Paul Opposes Cephas

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

It doesn't specify in that passage just why Peter (Cephas) was afraid to be seen eating with Gentiles when the men from James came. It might all have been in Peter's imagination that they would object.

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:20 pm

[Replying to post 27 by onewithhim]
It's obvious that James sent word that the Jewish believers must still remain seperate from the Gentile believers for reasons of ritual purity. All the Jewish believers including Paul's Spirit paired friend Barnabas obeyed the order from Jerusalem. Only Paul refused to submit to the GB. Does that make him apostate?

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:24 pm

postroad wrote: [Replying to post 27 by onewithhim]
It's obvious that James sent word that the Jewish believers must still remain seperate from the Gentile believers for reasons of ritual purity. All the Jewish believers including Paul's Spirit paired friend Barnabas obeyed the order from Jerusalem. Only Paul refused to submit to the GB. Does that make him apostate?

I have to see evidence that James sent such an order.

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:41 pm

[Replying to post 29 by onewithhim] Do you think Barnabas would have deserted Paul's side on anything less than the authority of the leader of the Jerusalem Church. Do you believe Peter would have deferred to people below his authority?

Galatians 2:11-13New International Version (NIV)

Paul Opposes Cephas

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.