The Simplicity Of The Christian Message

[ironhorse]

IH, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

Yes, Christ was and is human. He is the visible image of the invisible God.

 

If yes, you believe the virgin birth is central to Christ being the "son of God"?

 

I believe that is what the scriptures say, but I will admit I could be wrong. New Testament William Barclay wrote was not central.

I also do not believe a belief the virgin birth, as I have heard some say, is necessary for salvation.

 

If yes, the Virgin birth hinges on a single prophesy in Isaiah. Do you believe the prophesy accurately foretells Jesus birth?

I have read both sides of this subject and I agree with others who say the only way to reconcile these two different viewpoints to This prophecy is a “double-reference” prophecy” with a dual fulfillment—a partial fulfillment for that present time and a complete fulfillment 750 years in the future. 

 

If yes, how do you solve the issue of the prophesy, when read in context, being to King Ahaz regarding the troubles at the time, and the fact Jesus was not named Immanuel?

 

A non-issue with me. "God is with us" is the meaning of the name. Matthew used it to tell the reader who it was being born. Jesus is described by many names in the NT.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, ironhorse said:

IH, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

Yes, Christ was and is human. He is the visible image of the invisible God.

 

 

IH have you ever seen Christ? Can you show him to us?

 

4 hours ago, ironhorse said:

If yes, you believe the virgin birth is central to Christ being the "son of God"?

 

I believe that is what the scriptures say, but I will admit I could be wrong. New Testament William Barclay wrote was not central.

I also do not believe a belief the virgin birth, as I have heard some say, is necessary for salvation.

 

If yes, the Virgin birth hinges on a single prophesy in Isaiah. Do you believe the prophesy accurately foretells Jesus birth?

I have read both sides of this subject and I agree with others who say the only way to reconcile these two different viewpoints to This prophecy is a “double-reference” prophecy” with a dual fulfillment—a partial fulfillment for that present time and a complete fulfillment 750 years in the future.

 

 

Ironshorse, isn't this a case of having a belief, then having to make up reasons to support your belief? There is nothing in Isaiah to support the concept of a dual fulfilment. This is made up theology by Christians who realised that Isaiah chapter 7 doesn't actually support the concept of Jesus being the saviour without ad hoc interpretations. Explain how this all fits into your message of simplicity.  

 

4 hours ago, ironhorse said:

If yes, how do you solve the issue of the prophesy, when read in context, being to King Ahaz regarding the troubles at the time, and the fact Jesus was not named Immanuel?

A non-issue with me. "God is with us" is the meaning of the name. Matthew used it to tell the reader who it was being born. Jesus is described by many names in the NT.

 

IH, a proper reading of Isaiah in the original Hebrew reveals that much of the language is past tense - he is not saying a Saviour is coming - as you point out he is saying God is with us, a child IS (already) born.

 

Again is it not the case that you have a belief, then you simply look for reasons to support that belief, and where necessary use ad hoc explanations? 

[sdelsolray]

LF,

 

Ironhorse does not think for himself.  His aged brain atrophied decades ago.  He pretends to think.  He pretends to know.  He avoids inquiries and occasionally lies.  He latches onto certain Christian Apologetics that comport with his preconceived and narrow beliefs.  He peddles them.  He gets satisfaction from that.  It really doesn't go any farther, at least for Ironhorse.  His presentation is that shallow.

[LogicalFallacy]

17 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

LF,

 

Ironhorse does not think for himself.  His aged brain atrophied decades ago.  He pretends to think.  He pretends to know.  He avoids inquiries and occasionally lies.  He latches onto certain Christian Apologetics that comport with his preconceived and narrow beliefs.  He peddles them.  He gets satisfaction from that.  It really doesn't go any farther, at least for Ironhorse.  His presentation is that shallow.

 

Hmm, yes. You should see his reply to the other thread - I queried his gifts of the spirit assertion using Mark 16:17-18.... "oh, that's an interpolation he said"

 

Well great! Maybe we should go through the entire bible and show how rubbish its reliability is if he wants to go down that path lol.

 

I'm hoping that some Christian will read all this and have an eureka moment... I'm not trying to convince IH.

[sdelsolray]

16 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Hmm, yes. You should see his reply to the other thread - I queried his gifts of the spirit assertion using Mark 16:17-18.... "oh, that's an interpolation he said"

 

Well great! Maybe we should go through the entire bible and show how rubbish its reliability is if he wants to go down that path lol.

 

I'm hoping that some Christian will read all this and have an eureka moment... I'm not trying to convince IH.

Ironhorse is simply not worth any time.  His world view is a dime a dozen...empty, myopic, drenched with religious indoctrination and infantile.  To his credit, he doesn't seem to chase money or attention with his protestations, like so many others do.  Good for him.

[Jeff]

I think IH comes here because he is likely treated better here than he would be at a christian site due to his ‘understanding’ of how christianity really should be.  They would shred him worse. 

 

That, and all the heavenly reward for being persecuted here... or something. Whatever. 

[duderonomy]

On 11/20/2017 at 11:48 AM, ironhorse said:

 

If yes, you believe the virgin birth is central to Christ being the "son of God"?

 

I believe that is what the scriptures say, but I will admit I could be wrong. New Testament William Barclay wrote was not central.

I also do not believe a belief the virgin birth, as I have heard some say, is necessary for salvation.

  

 

Ouch! If Jesus wasn't born of God and a sinless virgin, then he has a sin nature (Catholic). If Jesus was born from a human virgin that was a sinner, but God knocked her up he then Jesus has no sin nature. (the rest of Christianity).

But if Jesus was born from a human father and mother, he was no different than you and me.

 

IH, are you putting your faith in what William Barclay says, or what the Bible says? You know it doesn't make any sense either way, but you really should choose a side. What man says or what the Bible says. You are flipping and flopping like a flag on a pole, and you know what Scripture says about that.

 

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;..."  Ephesians 4:14

 

You need to figure this out for yourself before you preach it, don't you think?

[ironhorse]

14 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Ouch! If Jesus wasn't born of God and a sinless virgin, then he has a sin nature (Catholic). If Jesus was born from a human virgin that was a sinner, but God knocked her up he then Jesus has no sin nature. (the rest of Christianity).

But if Jesus was born from a human father and mother, he was no different than you and me.

 

IH, are you putting your faith in what William Barclay says, or what the Bible says? You know it doesn't make any sense either way, but you really should choose a side. What man says or what the Bible says. You are flipping and flopping like a flag on a pole, and you know what Scripture says about that.

 

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;..."  Ephesians 4:14

 

You need to figure this out for yourself before you preach it, don't you think?

 

 

I believe that is what the scriptures say, but I will admit I could be wrong.

On second thought, I can see the last part of the sentence is very wrongly worded. I apologize.

My edit:

I believe that is what scriptures teach, there are some believers whom disagree, and I won’t squabble with them over this issue.

In no passage of the NT does it say that anyone “has” to believe in the Virgin Birth.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎25‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 5:54 AM, ironhorse said:

In no passage of the NT does it say that anyone “has” to believe in the Virgin Birth.

 

@ironhorse You have refused previously to tell me what denomination you are with - would you mind telling me as the above quote seems very strange in light of mainstream doctrines.

 

Essentially the idea of a virgin birth is to bring a sinless being into the world, one not corrupted by humans, in order take sin away from the world. Also without the virgin birth, Jesus is not the son of God. He's the bastard son of Mary and some unnamed man. Clearly Joseph didn't think the child was his.

 

The 'scriptures'  clearly state that the birth was virgin. "How can this be since I know no man? That which is conceived of you is of the holy ghost".

 

So if you don't believe this then why believe anything in the bible?

[bornagainathiest]

https://robinhl.com/2011/11/06/jesus-son-of-pantera/

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

[ironhorse]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 4:33 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

@ironhorse You have refused previously to tell me what denomination you are with - would you mind telling me as the above quote seems very strange in light of mainstream doctrines.

 

Essentially the idea of a virgin birth is to bring a sinless being into the world, one not corrupted by humans, in order take sin away from the world. Also without the virgin birth, Jesus is not the son of God. He's the bastard son of Mary and some unnamed man. Clearly Joseph didn't think the child was his.

 

The 'scriptures'  clearly state that the birth was virgin. "How can this be since I know no man? That which is conceived of you is of the holy ghost".

 

So if you don't believe this then why believe anything in the bible?

 

 

“….the idea of a virgin birth is to bring a sinless being into the world, one not corrupted by humans, in order take sin away from the world. Also without the virgin birth, Jesus is not the son of God. He's the bastard son of Mary and some unnamed man.”

“The 'scriptures’ clearly state that the birth was virgin.”

I agree with your assessment of the necessity of the virgin birth. The squabble by some is over the word translated as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 in the KJV. They think it should to be translated as "young woman". I agree with most Biblical scholars and other believers that their view is incorrect. You are right, belief in the virgin birth is a mainstream doctrine.

Let me reword my statement you quoted; The NT does not require a person must believe in the virgin birth to be saved.

You have refused previously to tell me what denomination you are with - would you mind telling me as the above quote seems very strange in light of mainstream doctrines.

I am a member of a Baptist church.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

10 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

 

 

“….the idea of a virgin birth is to bring a sinless being into the world, one not corrupted by humans, in order take sin away from the world. Also without the virgin birth, Jesus is not the son of God. He's the bastard son of Mary and some unnamed man.”

“The 'scriptures’ clearly state that the birth was virgin.”

I agree with your assessment of the necessity of the virgin birth. The squabble by some is over the word translated as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 in the KJV. They think it should to be translated as "young woman". I agree with most Biblical scholars and other believers that their view is incorrect. You are right, belief in the virgin birth is a mainstream doctrine.

Let me reword my statement you quoted; The NT does not require a person must believe in the virgin birth to be saved.

You have refused previously to tell me what denomination you are with - would you mind telling me as the above quote seems very strange in light of mainstream doctrines.

I am a member of a Baptist church.

 

 

 

But not any longer, Ironhorse.

 

To keep your word you must now reject your Christian faith and cease to be a Baptist.

[bornagainathiest]

10 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

 

 

“….the idea of a virgin birth is to bring a sinless being into the world, one not corrupted by humans, in order take sin away from the world. Also without the virgin birth, Jesus is not the son of God. He's the bastard son of Mary and some unnamed man.”

“The 'scriptures’ clearly state that the birth was virgin.”

I agree with your assessment of the necessity of the virgin birth. The squabble by some is over the word translated as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 in the KJV. They think it should to be translated as "young woman". I agree with most Biblical scholars and other believers that their view is incorrect. You are right, belief in the virgin birth is a mainstream doctrine.

Let me reword my statement you quoted; The NT does not require a person must believe in the virgin birth to be saved.

You have refused previously to tell me what denomination you are with - would you mind telling me as the above quote seems very strange in light of mainstream doctrines.

I am a member of a Baptist church.

 

 

 

But not any longer, Ironhorse.

 

To keep your word you must now reject your Christian faith and cease to be a Baptist.

[ironhorse]

On ‎10‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 11:02 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If I misinterpret scripture as false, am I still condemned?

 

"If I misinterpret scripture as false, am I still condemned?"

Correct interpretation of every verse of scripture in the Bible is not a requirement for salvation. The thief on the cross and others have been saved without any clear knowledge of the scriptures or a total understanding all the books in the Bible. How could people who could not read be saved if they had to read John 3:16?

 The good news about Christ is about his life, death, and resurrection from the dead. This is clearly proclaimed in the scriptures and believers are told to go and tell others.

This thread is not about getting all the ducks in a row on biblical interpretation are being required to reach a full understanding, it is about the simple message of calling upon the name of Christ and placing your faith in him.

After salvation, believers follow Christ, but believers are not all at the same point in their growth as a believer.

[realityrunt]

On 08/10/2016 at 10:16 AM, ironhorse said:

I love the Christian message for its simplicity.

I don’t need a priest, a guru or obey long list of man-made requirements.

I simply believe in Christ and go from there.

Not even Jesus believed in himself, he was a puppet of a bronze aged god. 

 

In a time of dissension and neighboring rivalry, he believed that he could level the playing field. If you read John the Gospel (The part he shows up at the festivities) It sounds like Robin Hood.

 

I believe in Robin Hood, and I don't need no guru or priest to tell me how to rob from the poor and give to the rich

 

 

Oh wait that's Christianity, my bad.

 

[duderonomy]

1 hour ago, ironhorse said:

This thread is not about getting all the ducks in a row on biblical interpretation are being required to reach a full understanding, it is about the simple message of calling upon the name of Christ and placing your faith in him.

 

Calling on the name of whom, again? The son of "Mary" and some unnamed guy? The fact is the "message" isn't so simple at all, and there's no credible way it can be reduced to a simple message. The Bible itself obviously puts immense emphasis on the written word, and if Jesus is just some dude then he isn't the Christ, or at least according to the written word of the Bible.

 

There are conditions attached to your idea of 'simple believing'.  You have to have a basic understanding of why you need to believe. You have to believe that Jesus is god. You have to believe that he can and will 'save' you. You have to believe that the Bible that tells of Christ is true. You have to believe that there even is a Christ. There are also enough rules and admonitions and conditions for staying saved (or being really saved to you Baptists) that it makes the laws of the O.T. look easy by comparison.

 

No, all ducks don't have to be in a row, and a complete Biblical understanding of every concept and all of the various teachings of the various denominations isn't needed for salvation according to the Bible. But your idea of a "simple belief" is hogwash. Many ducks do have to be in a row, as I just pointed out, and at least some Biblical interpretation is needed. 

 

I'm so glad I'm not stuck in that mess anymore. Maybe your way to cope with the dissonance is to reduce your faith to saying "Jesus? Yeah, sure" and then going on about your business. You and I and everyone else knows that's not what the Bible says is good enough though.

 

 

[duderonomy]

5 minutes ago, primaryzero said:

Not even Jesus believed in himself, he was a puppet of a bronze aged god. 

 

In a time of dissension and neighboring rivalry, he believed that he could level the playing field. If you read John the Gospel (The part he shows up at the festivities) It sounds like Robin Hood.

 

I believe in Robin Hood, and I don't need no guru or priest to tell me how to rob from the poor and give to the rich

 

 

Oh wait that's Christianity, my bad.

 

 

Are you talking about that part in John where Jesus said he wasn't going, and then shortly after snuck up there anyway? 

 

John chapter seven, from the King James Bible online: 

 

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

2Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.

3His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

4For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

5For neither did his brethren believe in him.

6Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.

7The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

8Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

9When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

10But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

 

Besides his lie, what's with the first verse? He wouldn't walk where the Jews sought to kill him? Whatever happened to the twenty third psalm? 

 

[realityrunt]

23 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

Are you talking about that part in John where Jesus said he wasn't going, and then shortly after snuck up there anyway? 

 

John chapter seven, from the King James Bible online: 

 

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

2Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.

3His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

4For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

5For neither did his brethren believe in him.

6Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.

7The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

8Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

9When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

10But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

 

Besides his lie, what's with the first verse? He wouldn't walk where the Jews sought to kill him? Whatever happened to the twenty third psalm? 

 

I think that might be it, I remember a verse where the public was talking about him saying "Where is Jesus"

 

Just like Robin Hood.

[ironhorse]

14 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Calling on the name of whom, again? The son of "Mary" and some unnamed guy? The fact is the "message" isn't so simple at all, and there's no credible way it can be reduced to a simple message. The Bible itself obviously puts immense emphasis on the written word, and if Jesus is just some dude then he isn't the Christ, or at least according to the written word of the Bible.

 

There are conditions attached to your idea of 'simple believing'.  You have to have a basic understanding of why you need to believe. You have to believe that Jesus is god. You have to believe that he can and will 'save' you. You have to believe that the Bible that tells of Christ is true. You have to believe that there even is a Christ. There are also enough rules and admonitions and conditions for staying saved (or being really saved to you Baptists) that it makes the laws of the O.T. look easy by comparison.

 

No, all ducks don't have to be in a row, and a complete Biblical understanding of every concept and all of the various teachings of the various denominations isn't needed for salvation according to the Bible. But your idea of a "simple belief" is hogwash. Many ducks do have to be in a row, as I just pointed out, and at least some Biblical interpretation is needed. 

 

I'm so glad I'm not stuck in that mess anymore. Maybe your way to cope with the dissonance is to reduce your faith to saying "Jesus? Yeah, sure" and then going on about your business. You and I and everyone else knows that's not what the Bible says is good enough though.

 

 

 

"There are also enough rules and admonitions and conditions for staying saved (or being really saved to you Baptists) that it makes the laws of the O.T. look easy by comparison." 

 

There are no laws or requirements a Christian must obey to maintain or keep their salvation. This is not what the scriptures teach.

A believer’s sin, past, present, and future, are forgiven. Christ’s death on the cross took our suns on Him. He took our judgements. A believer is no longer under condemnation.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1)

Believers will be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Romans 14:10-12). Every believer will give an account of himself, and Christ will judge the decisions he made—including those concerning issues of conscience. This judgment does not determine salvation, which is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), but rather is the time when believers must give an account of their lives of how they followed Christ and his teachings. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, ironhorse said:

 

"There are also enough rules and admonitions and conditions for staying saved (or being really saved to you Baptists) that it makes the laws of the O.T. look easy by comparison." 

 

There are no laws or requirements a Christian must obey to maintain or keep their salvation. This is not what the scriptures teach.

A believer’s sin, past, present, and future, are forgiven. Christ’s death on the cross took our suns on Him. He took our judgements. A believer is no longer under condemnation.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1)

Believers will be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Romans 14:10-12). Every believer will give an account of himself, and Christ will judge the decisions he made—including those concerning issues of conscience. This judgment does not determine salvation, which is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), but rather is the time when believers must give an account of their lives of how they followed Christ and his teachings. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I just give myself to Jesus one day.

Never go to church.

Never talk to anyone about Jesus.

Never worship Jesus.

Never tithe.

Never read the bible.

Never pray. (Well, we know that Baptists don't pray anyway)

 

Then I go to heaven! Sweet. Cuz as you said there are no laws or requirements to keep your salvation. Therefore the judgment has no effect on salvation...so what is it's point?

At the pearly gates my accounting of my life is "I got baptized then continued being a heathen for the rest of my life." And Jesus says, "Alright, you're in."

 

[duderonomy]

9 hours ago, ironhorse said:

 

"There are also enough rules and admonitions and conditions for staying saved (or being really saved to you Baptists) that it makes the laws of the O.T. look easy by comparison." 

 

There are no laws or requirements a Christian must obey to maintain or keep their salvation. This is not what the scriptures teach.

A believer’s sin, past, present, and future, are forgiven. Christ’s death on the cross took our suns on Him. He took our judgements. A believer is no longer under condemnation.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1)

Believers will be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Romans 14:10-12). Every believer will give an account of himself, and Christ will judge the decisions he made—including those concerning issues of conscience. This judgment does not determine salvation, which is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), but rather is the time when believers must give an account of their lives of how they followed Christ and his teachings. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there are no laws and rules I have to obey to maintain or keep my salvation, then as an Ex-Christian that no longer believes I'm still saved because I once did? Is it true then that no man shall pluck me out of his hand? Even myself?

 

If I was once "in Christ Jesus" then I still am? I can live like I want and do what I want and say what I want and behave how I want, but I'm ok? 

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎29‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 2:24 AM, ironhorse said:

 

 

“….the idea of a virgin birth is to bring a sinless being into the world, one not corrupted by humans, in order take sin away from the world. Also without the virgin birth, Jesus is not the son of God. He's the bastard son of Mary and some unnamed man.”

“The 'scriptures’ clearly state that the birth was virgin.”

I agree with your assessment of the necessity of the virgin birth. The squabble by some is over the word translated as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 in the KJV. They think it should to be translated as "young woman". I agree with most Biblical scholars and other believers that their view is incorrect. You are right, belief in the virgin birth is a mainstream doctrine.

 

You are trusting the opinion of Christian bible scholars and Christian believers on the translation of a word that basically underlines Christian doctrine?

 

May I suggest you read some Hebrew Scholars and see what they say about it?

 

https://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/

 

The writer points out where most scholars and Christian pastors go wrong in saying that the word does mean virgin.

 

This little snippet is particularly damming for the "virgin" case:

 

"In fact, although Isaiah used the Hebrew word almah only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5)."

 

Thus there is a word in Hebrew that means virgin (betulah) Thus if Isiah, a Hebrew speaking Israelite, wanted to use the word virgin then he had one. This in itself is a damning piece of evidence and shows the writer of Matthew mistranslated the word in order to support his virgin born case.

 

I have studied this further and I hope to find the source I looked at some time ago. It went into depth showing that what people have tried to make it mean, it doesn't mean! Much of the language, when you understand Hebrew, is past tense. For example, when read properly it states that the young woman has already conceived - thus its not a prophesy for some far of future, but of what is happening there, at that time.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

If there are no laws, then by what standard will I be judged?  And who is christ that he should judge me?  Is he not the fulfillment of the law?  And if he did, in fact, fulfill it, then the law is no longer applicable.  So again, I ask, by what standard will I be judged?

 

If the measure of righteousness is an idle god who sits by why children are raped, then I should easily surpass that standard in both ethic and morality.  If the measure of righteousness is a god who condones slavery, rape, and genocide, then I do not recognize the authority of the court to judge me; nor will I allow myself to submit to its ruling.

 

But the point here is that without law, there can be no judgement.

[ironhorse]

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 9:27 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If there are no laws, then by what standard will I be judged?  And who is christ that he should judge me?  Is he not the fulfillment of the law?  And if he did, in fact, fulfill it, then the law is no longer applicable.  So again, I ask, by what standard will I be judged?

 

If the measure of righteousness is an idle god who sits by why children are raped, then I should easily surpass that standard in both ethic and morality.  If the measure of righteousness is a god who condones slavery, rape, and genocide, then I do not recognize the authority of the court to judge me; nor will I allow myself to submit to its ruling.

 

But the point here is that without law, there can be no judgement.

 

 

 

 

The standard is God’s Law.

The big problem is as humans we cannot perfectly keep the law. We all fall short. 

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. ~ James 2:10 (NIV)

God knew in that the Jews (including all humans) wouldn’t be able to keep the law perfectly. The law was to them teach what He already knew: that they were born sinners who had natures of sin and needed forgiveness of sin.

 

The law was never about producing salvation for the Jews; it was about proving their need of a Messiah who could offer it to them. That Messiah would be Jesus.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. ~ Galatians 3:24 (KJV)

 

Jesus, being both man and God, kept the law perfectly.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."

~ Matthew 5:17 (KJV)

 

Christians are free from the “law of sin and death,” which means, although they will commit sin, the Law no longer has the power to condemn them. We are not under the Law’s condemnation because Jesus fulfilled (“filled-up, completed”) the expectations of the Law perfectly.

 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

~ Romans 8:3 (KJV)

 

There are two final judgements: The Judgement Seat of Christ and The Great White Throne

 

For the believer their judgement is about their works and deed as a follower of Christ, not salvation. It is where believers receive their awards. 

“Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done.” ~ Revelation 22:12 (NIV)

 

Without Christ people are judged by their sins and the light (knowledge) they had revealed to them. Their inner most feelings and conscience. 

 “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” ~ John 8:24 (NIV)

“… since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” ~ Romans 1:19 (NIV)

The "display" and "plainly" revealed is the created universe and this living world.