How was Jesus Christ justified?

[redleghunter]

It sure did make Judaism angry. The teaching that ALL men and women of the earth are in fact children of a Loving God really upset the authors of the arrogant "chosen people" delusion!

Considering ALL of Jesus' direct disciples were Jews....

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, it's a stumbling block to a lot of people, because that's not the Gospel of Jesus. That's the Gospel of Paul.

Not correct as pointed out several times to you in previous discussions and as pointed out here again:

How was Jesus Christ justified?

 

[redleghunter]

The thing is, that if you reject Paul, you are saying the Bible is unreliable; as he wrote a lot of the NT. So if you believe Scripture to be unreliable, how can we accept it when you tell us that something is in Scripture?

Either Scripture's reliable, inspired and true, or it isn't; you can't say, "that is true and from God, but that bit isn't." That would leave it up to us to decide which bits we were going to accept.

Indeed as the same alleged 'misguided' apostles wrote the 4 Gospel accounts.

 

[redleghunter]

The Jews failed to accept the Son of God and his religion. Jesus didn't fail, they did. Jesus wasn't on trial before the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin was on trial before Jesus.

* Jesus was/is a savior. His religion was the original gospel.

* Jesus did come to save the lost, those who were already saved were all the more enlightened.

* Jesus did serve and give his life, he came down from heaven and dedicated his life revealing the Father. Jesus NEVER said 'I give my body as a human sacrifice.' "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

* "Take away the sin" means teach the gospel of repentance and faith.

* Indeed Jesus predicted his death, he had already said tht he would pro his authority to teach by resurrecting himself from the dead.

* Paul had his own Gospel interpretation.

Ok, now how can you prove you are right and the apostles were wrong? Note, you can't use their writings----the 4 canon Gospel accounts---as you state they preached a different gospel.

So where do you draw your truth claims from? Another extra-biblical document(s)?

 

[redleghunter]

The Gospels were written after the influence of Paul's gospel dominated the recollection of Jesus.

Prove this.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Jesus, who was/is a preexisting divine being that incarnate as a human, lived and died for his flock. Neither was to atone for sin. Both were a requirement by the Father for achieving sovereignty of his creation. It was Gods will for the Son to experience all that man is called to experience.

Is that from the book of Coulter chapter 16:1-4?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

No, it's actually in the Bible books. You should question what you are told to think as thoughtfully as you do me.

Matthew 28:18-20New International Version (NIV)
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Are you certain that Jesus said that?

 

[redleghunter]

Dates of the New Testiment books and letters.

Wikipedia sole sources.

Here's a page set up by theologians:

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

The gospels were written a lot earlier than the liberal skeptics claim. The external evidence have the very early church fathers such as Polycarp and Ignatius quoting all 4 gospels in their epistles.

Gospel of Mark ~AD 61
Gospel of Matthew~AD 65
Gospel of Luke~AD 66
Gospel of John~AD 86

Those gospel accounts have Jesus trying to teach his religion to the Jews, they rejected it. Paul has Jesus being rejected as being the religion of Jesus.

Those gospel accounts were written by the very apostles who you claim preached the wrong gospel.

Your argument is a self inflicted wound.

 

[redleghunter]

True! Common laymen for the most part, they became followers of Jesus and his gospel teachings. It's ubserd to claim Jesus and his apostles went around teaching people that the "good news" was that Jesus was going to become a human sacrifice for them.

Yet the gospel commanded be preached of Christ's atonement for us is seen in Luke 24. And the many more passages from the 4 Gospels quoted by me and @Strong in Him .

Which you have not addressed.

At least address the following:

For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28)

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus, who was/is a preexisting divine being that incarnate as a human, lived and died for his flock. Neither was to atone for sin.

So why did he say,
"this is my blood, shed for the forgiveness of sins"?, Matthew 26:28.

Both were a requirement by the Father for achieving sovereignty of his creation. It was Gods will for the Son to experience all that man is called to experience. For us death is a part of Life.

So why did he say,
"the Son of Man came to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many"?, Mark 10:45
"I am the Good Shepherd ................... I lay down my life for the sheep"?, John 10:15

Death is a part of life; being crucified, isn't. He could have lived for several decades, even several hundred decades, healed thousands of people, travelled and taught many many more people about God; yet he didn't.

17The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again.
What sign can You show us to prove Your authority to do these things?”

19Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”

Forgive me, but it's a little hard to accept when you quote from Scripture when, a) you do so only when you want to back up your points, b) you have stated that the Scriptures are just a bunch of books, which apparently contain mistakes, because Paul's letters are in there, and c) you refuse to address the many verses that have been quoted which challenge the things you say,

If you want a Scriptural debate, you need to address some of these verses; if you don't trust Scripture, and regard it as man made, you should stop quoting it when you find verses that suit what you are saying.

 

[Strong in Him]

No, it's actually in the Bible books. You should question what you are told to think as thoughtfully as you do me.

Again, you are making an argument from Scripture, and urging someone to read that Scripture; even though you have previously implied that Scripture is man made and we can't trust it.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

We are justified by faith in Christ. But how was Jesus Christ justified?

Because he is God.

That, is the shortest and simplest answer to that question. You can certainly get into this or that argument, or make many other demonstrations of this. For instance, in Revelation, Christ says He has 'the keys of death and Hell'.

Or, you could point out that calling himself the Son of God put him on equality of the Father. Something his accusers said, which was correct. They sought to disprove this claim to equality by murdering him on the cross. And he brought himself back to life. Even saying before hand, he has the authority to do exactly this. Which absolutely refuted their accusation.

He even went into this in one parable, pointing out God sent his Son to the keepers of the vineyard, thinking they would respect him. Instead, they said, "this is the heir, let us kill him and take it over for good".

One could argue Jesus is not technically "God", and I certainly do not disagree with the concept of the trinity, but there certainly is an equality there. Enough of one, that Jesus points out, again, in Revelation, "I sat on the throne of my Father".

He further well pointed out that he is the judge, a judge a popular saying these days argues, in the term of someone going to "meet their Maker".

Or, one could point out that, as Paul argued, the Law and so any manner of accusation was made invalid by the cross, by the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is the more technical way that Christians are "now apart from any condemnation". Just as a spouse is no longer married to that spouse when they die, so too did Jesus kill the accusations of the Law by taking on the curse of the Law unto his own death, destroying it in in his resurrection.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Colter what SiH is saying is that there is a God and you are not it.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Your saying that the bible can't be trusted ... try this on for size:

Faith in the reliability of the bible is comparable to someone who has a calculator who's components are said to be infallible yet they have no understanding as to why.
This is much like a simple faith in the bible as the word of God, with faith in Jesus' finished work, in His death and in His resurrection. And in knowing that gives you the confidence that is unshakable and places you at His throne of grace to supply all your needs. Your salvation is based on that. It's really all that's needed to have a fulfilling relation with Christ when it's minus all the trimmings of religion.

Compare that to the calculations of a master mathematician who understands mathematical problems in order to decifer the universe. Every question is worked out using another means (math/study) so that everything balances out, nothing is left out of the equation.

Everyone must have faith in believing the Word as to the work of God. If somehow faith is shaken then the onus is on that person to prove for themselves what has caused unbelief to creep in. Christ helps with unbelief.

Iow if you no longer have simple faith then the onus is on you, the one who was called in the first place and was given faith to believe. Somehow the Spirit has been quenched.

When verifying counterfeit money it is best to study the authentic to recognize the false. The same is true of verifying the Word. Search the scriptures to see if what is being taught is right. We're all responsible and will have to give account.

The New Testament verifies the Old Testament while bringing the shadow to the spiritual in most cases if not all. The Israelites had to learn the basics of what God's law represented, learning in the physical what the spiritual application meant to God Himself. Learning what the shadow represents in both the old and new testaments has great advantage.

Preachers today seem to lack the ability to edify with the old and the new to produce sound teaching. It seems like they think that what has proceeded before does not apply to what is or is to come. But that's wrong. Jesus taught differently.

Luke 12:42
And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?

Matthew 13:52
Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which brings forth out of his treasure things new and old.

We are all responsible so we might as well learn that now or learn it later.

I like to compare Matthew 18:21-35 the Lord taking account of His servants, compared to Luke 16:1-13 the unjust steward and see it as a good indication that some will get prayed into heaven, but probably as a part of the nations. re: Matthew 25. I think there will be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth in that area of the prelude to eternity. Specially when they have to take Law 101 all over again before given the decision to choose grace.

So much better to have simple faith in the Lord, but having confronted doubt the only thing there is to do is press on.

 

[Strong in Him]

So you don't pull your hair out, I see and acknowledge your points.

I wasn't pulling my hair out; I wanted you to comment on the various Scriptures that I posted.

These conflicts between quotes are an example of the problem that we are discussing. I approach scripture as written and rewritten by imperfect humans with various bias. I expect the errors and inconsistencies therein and am up front about it. By the same token, you claim scripture inspiration and divine consistency, yet you also choose what suits your claims and flat out ignore the larger body of what Jesus thought to have said???

Such as?
I quoted several Scriptures to answer the points you made; whereas you seem to have only quoted a couple, and ignored others which teach the opposite.

Specifically to your questions about what was to be the first celebration of a bloodless Passover.

?? In Exodus, or are you referring to the Last Supper that Jesus celebrated with his disciples?

I believe these quotes were miss-remembered by well intentioned authors long after the influence of the atonement doctrine teachings of Paul and others had been firmly established.

Well maybe you do, but that is not orthodox teaching.
So if you think that Paul cannot be trusted, and the Gospels contain errors and things which were mis-remembered; what part of Scripture do you trust?

If the Jews would have accepted Jesus' and his Gospel, The original Gospel that he labored for, they would be preaching that today from Jerusalem. Jesus would have left and returned to his rightful place.

Some did accept Jesus.
That doesn't change the fact that Jesus himself said that he had come into the world to lay down his life, give his life as a ransom for many, and that this was why his blood was being shed.
As I said, two of the apostles, Peter and John; men who were with him for 3 years, also taught that he died for the sins of the world.

But on such a backward, fallen and savage world, Jesus knew it was inevitable that his gospel of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of all mankind would be rejected. He made intermittent prophetic statements to that effect. His prophetic statements aren't the gospel that was rejected.

So what evidence have you that Jesus came to preach a Gospel that did not involve his death? How do you explain how mankind could be reconciled to God without the cross?

By default the focus on the cross and the elaboration of the atonement doctrine make Jesus out to have been insincere in preaching his original gospel.

Not at all; the cross is why Jesus came.

And at the end of the day Jesus did lay down his life for us, he just didn't teach that Gods forgiveness was conditional to Jesus being killed.

The cross is the only way that we could be reconciled to God.

In the OT, men atoned for their sins by killing a perfect lamb. But people could not keep God's law perfectly; thousands of animals were being killed daily. Then God spoke through Jeremiah and said that he would make a new Covenant with people; put his word in their hearts, take away their sin and remember their wickedness no more. The angel told Joseph that Jesus would take away people's sins. John the Baptist and Peter called Jesus the Lamb of God. Jesus himself said that his blood was of the New Covenant, shed for the forgiveness of sins.
Just as in the OT, the animal killed as a sacrifice had to be spotless, so Jesus was perfect when he offered his life to God as a sacrifice/ransom; when he shed his blood for the sins of many. The writer of Hebrews explains this in detail; how the blood of animals could not remove sin, but how the blood of Jesus atoned, once for all, for the sins of many.

Yes, when Jesus was on earth he said, "your sins are forgiven"; but for those people, and future generations, to have lasting reconciliation with the Father, the cross was necessary. Back in the Garden of Eden, God prophesied that Satan would one day be crushed by one of Adam's descendants. He was - by Jesus on the cross. Peter said that Jesus was the spotless Lamb of God chosen from before the foundation of the world. Peter; a man who spent 3 years with Jesus and was personally taught by him. When he gave a sermon on the day of Pentecost, he quoted from the OT Scriptures and said how they spoke of these things. Then he told people to repent, trust in Jesus and be baptised.
On the road to Emmaus, Jesus explained to the two people how the OT Scriptures spoke of his coming, his death and resurrection.
When Philip met the Ethiopian official, he explained how Isaiah 53 spoke of Jesus, and preached the Gospel to him.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm a disciple of Jesus not Paul and not one of the competing churches and doctrines each claiming orthodoxy.

If you can't trust the Bible, and think it is just a bunch of man made manuscripts, how do you know that it's reporting Jesus' words correctly?

The after-cross Gospel "good news" is different, it's the belief that Jesus died for the cause of sin.

No, it's the same.
Jesus said his blood was of the New Covenant, shed for the forgiveness of sin. He told people to repent, Mark 1:15; he said that if people didn't repent, they would die in their sins, Luke 13. He said that unless people ate his flesh and drank his blood, they would not have eternal life, John 6.
At Pentecost, Peter - who was a disciple and personally taught by Jesus - preached the cross, and urged people to repent. In another sermon he said that no one can be saved except through Jesus, Acts 4:12. John, another disciple, said that the cross shows God's love for us, 1 John 3:16.

God is changeless, he has always been forgiving. He was forgiving before the cross and after.

If God had forgiven people when they said, "sorry", he would not have commanded animal sacrifices to be made.

Animal sacrifices are Pagan and practiced all around the world.

So it sounds like you don't trust the OT much either?
And if not, how can you really believe Jesus who quoted from the OT, told people how the Scriptures prophesied about him, and said that he had come to fulfil the law?
Read Exodus - Leviticus; GOD gave people his law, which included offering animal sacrifices to atone for their sin.

I don't see how it's possible to say that you follow - i.e believe in and trust - Jesus, and then try to discredit the OT Scriptures which Jesus held in high regard, quoted from and said pointed to him and his ministry.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Clever arrow, we use that saying in the 12 step programs, but I have never claimed I was God. If there wasn't truth in what I'm saying then it wouldn't bother people. We are born into the Pagan worlds interpretation of Jesus. A ready made religion which has a number of inconsistencies when we peal away the layers of speculation, conjecture and attempts to connect the religion of Jesus with the evolved religion of Judaism.

But you could be right, maybe Jesus was just pretending to teach a gospel to the Jews in their Synagogues when all along this God man was sent to die so a God who was powerless to forgive man before hand, could finally forgive man after an innocent God/man was killed.

What you've promoted in this thread has nothing in common with the teachings of the Church for the past 2,000 years. It doesn't align with the Nicene Creed, and it has nothing in common with what the apostles taught, so please don't flatter yourself by thinking that people object to it because it's true. We object to it because it is anything but.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Colter At best, It's a theory or idea, that I do not think think can be proven or even known for sure...

Jesus said Moses wrote about him, Jesus who was God to Moses, so... (John 5:46)...

And you'd have to throw out almost the entire gospel of John with your Idea/theory...?

God Bless!

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Jesus had come to tell the truth.

And we should follow that example.

 

[Chriliman]

We are justified by faith in Christ. But how was Jesus Christ justified?

Jesus Christ is the justice of God.