The Necessity of Jesus' Death?

[jimmyjimmy]

I really do not like any commentaries, since they are all written by dead people

Paul is dead; Luke is dead; Mark is dead. . .Is there something wrong with the writings of dead people?

The Holy Spirit is who I really try to follow and do follow

That's what they all say. . .

My ideas are my ideas and I can defend them.

Most admit to not having an original thought since we all learn from someone, so I'm glad to hear that you don't credit anyone who's gone before, and that your "ideas are your ideas".

 

[bling]

Paul is dead; Luke is dead; Mark is dead. . .Is there something wrong with the writings of dead people?

Do you not know the difference between an inspirited writing and an un-inspirited writing?

All the Bible was protected, preserved and inspirited by the Holy Spirit, but any other person's writing is suspect.

If the person is "dead" I cannot question his assumptions in coming to his conclusions that he does not record for me.

Besides, I have multiple translations of scripture, concordances, lexicons, and the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide me, so why waste time see what a person, I am not in discussion with might think.

That's what they all say. . .

The Holy Spirit is totally consistent so if we come up with different conclusions one or both of us are quenching the Spirit.

Most admit to not having an original thought since we all learn from someone, so I'm glad to hear that you don't credit anyone who's gone before, and that your "ideas are your ideas".

God had the first thought. I am trying to get back to the what the inspirited writer was trying to communicate to the audience he was addressing. In studying the New Testament that often means trying to understand the way the first century Christians in that particular place would have best understood the letter in the context of that letter.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Do you not know the difference between an inspirited writing and an un-inspirited writing?

All the Bible was protected, preserved and inspirited by the Holy Spirit, but any other person's writing is suspect.

If the person is "dead" I cannot question his assumptions in coming to his conclusions that he does not record for me.

Besides, I have multiple translations of scripture, concordances, lexicons, and the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide me, so why waste time see what a person, I am not in discussion with might think.


The Holy Spirit is totally consistent so if we come up with different conclusions one or both of us are quenching the Spirit.


God had the first thought. I am trying to get back to the what the inspirited writer was trying to communicate to the audience he was addressing. In studying the New Testament that often means trying to understand the way the first century Christians in that particular place would have best understood the letter in the context of that letter.

You really should have posted in my, Me, Jesus & My Bible thread.

 

[Extraneous]

Do you not know the difference between an inspirited writing and an un-inspirited writing?

All the Bible was protected, preserved and inspirited by the Holy Spirit, but any other person's writing is suspect.

If the person is "dead" I cannot question his assumptions in coming to his conclusions that he does not record for me.

Besides, I have multiple translations of scripture, concordances, lexicons, and the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide me, so why waste time see what a person, I am not in discussion with might think.


The Holy Spirit is totally consistent so if we come up with different conclusions one or both of us are quenching the Spirit.


God had the first thought. I am trying to get back to the what the inspirited writer was trying to communicate to the audience he was addressing. In studying the New Testament that often means trying to understand the way the first century Christians in that particular place would have best understood the letter in the context of that letter.

I use commentaries occasionally but i dont think they are infallible. Just like denominations, men are fallible. I use them to a degree but dont follow them. I believe that a person who sincerely wants to find the truth with all their heart will find it, but those who only want to seek a denomination with all their heart will only find errors that they think are truth. They will also find bad examples to follow, and no teacher to guide them away from those examples. Its only be following scripture and the spirit within our self that we will be following the shepherd, who is our Lord.

 

[bling]

I use commentaries occasionally but i dont think they are infallible. Just like denominations, men are fallible. I use them to a degree but dont follow them. I believe that a person who sincerely wants to find the truth with all their heart will find it, but those who only want to seek a denomination with all their heart will only find errors that they think are truth. They will also find bad examples to follow, and no teacher to guide them away from those examples. Its only be following scripture and the spirit within our self that we will be following the shepherd, who is our Lord.

agree

 

[AFrazier]

Hello all, I am curious if anyone could help me answer a question I have regarding salvation and Jesus' death.

From the New Testament, it seems that Jesus' death was necessary for eternal life. However, it also seems clear that some who lived before Jesus will/do have eternal life (such as Abraham). I am having some trouble reconciling the two.

If Jesus' death is necessary for salvation, than eternal life would not be possible before his death. Therefore, logically, everyone who died before Jesus payed for our sins (including David, Abraham, and so on) would have gone to hell. However, if these individuals will be in heaven (as it seems clear they will be from several Biblical passage), than Jesus death would not seem necessary to go to heaven. The OT saints could not have believed on the name of one who was yet to come, right? Basically, the question is this: if people who died before Jesus came to earth could be granted eternal life, how was His death necessary?

Any thoughts?

Thanks much,
Kelly

From Romans 5, if you read carefully, you'll see that death reigned during the period from Adam to Moses, though Paul is particular in noting that sin is not imputed where there is no law. Sin entered that the offense might abound. And so you have a period where sin existed, but wasn't imputed, and yet, the sin was punished all the same, by which it can be inferred that the consequences of the law in terms of condemnation and the legal precedent to impute sin had a retroactive effect.

Christ's death abolished the law (or more specifically, our oath to it). And just as the law created a ripple effect that rendered the world guilty by its accusations, the removal of the law rendered the world un-accused, if you will, putting us back into a state of limbo-ish guilt that God is not obligated to punish, whereas under the law, God swore an oath to punish us if we didn't keep the whole law.

It's really a much deeper topic than can be readily explained on a forum. Just remember that salvation is by faith. To believe in God as your savior is not far different from believing in Jesus as your savior. Lacking the Messiah's actual presence, or knowledge of his past actions or existence, people like Abraham believed in the promise of the Messiah yet to come.