Jesus claimed exclusivity

[JoshebB]

At this point we can agree that God has preached the gospel to all men at all times. Do we agree on this in principle?

I agree with the principle, but not with your definition of "the gospel."

If God has preached the gospel to all men at all times, then God must have kept that message consistent in essence, since God cannot contradict Himself. As you have said, God is extra-rational but not irrational.

Yep.

Therefore, if we in principle admit to the idea that both Moses and Jesus were right... that both spoke what God ordered them to speak, then the Message of both, the eternal gospel, should be one in essence. Anything that we find different, is not the essence of such Message.

Either forget that dross about "essence," or acknowledge the essence of the gospel is Jesus crucifies and resurrected as the only means of coming to God. As you say, anything other than Jesus crucified and resurrected is not the essence of the "message," but you cannot play fast and loose with words and not expose your posts to correction. The word "gospel" and the word "message" are not identical, especially not in the context of the gospel of Jesus. You commit fallacies of false equivalence, ambiguity, and construction when you change words in the middle of a case.

It is not rational.

It is, therefore, also not godly.

I am NOT trying to sound judgmental, but I do want you to look at the contents of your own posts because I assume you do not want to be making ungodly, irrational arguments, and I assume that if and when you recognize them, you'll immediate feel the "pinch" of those errors and seek to correct your own errors. You cannot presume to act as a religiously or spiritually enlightened and informed individual and post fallacy. None of us can.

You ask anyone here who's traded posts with me before and they will ALL tell you this is one of the most inconvenient and frustrating aspects of trading posts with me. I can be exacting in a forensic analysis and none of us like it if and when our own faults are revealed. The spiritual man corrects his mistakes. The fleshly man defends the errors.


Therefore, anytime you appeal to "the gospel," and that gospel is anything other than Jesus crucified and resurrected, then you are NOT talking about the same gospel. On every single occasion where that occurs either the fallacy of false equivalence or the fallacy of ambiguity has been committed.


Galatians 1:6-9
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Paul wrote those words because many people tried to lay claim to the term "gospel" but were teaching teachings contrary to Jesus being the only way to God. Paul had harsh words for that condition. He said those people were to be accursed. Now we do not curse people in internet discussion boards. We try to reason through the scriptures with them, politely and respectfully . In his letter to the Christians living in Galatia Paul was primarily addressing the problem of Gnosticism. Gnosticism, as you probably know, is the idea that knowledge, special knowledge, is what saves a person special knowledge is how a person comes to God. The "gospel" of Gnosticism is not the gospel of Christ.

 

[JoshebB]

I think I mentioned this before, but I'll post it here in case I didn't. All religions in the world, from the beginning of religion until today, ALL of them can be relegated to one of two categories: They are either some form of harvest religion or they are some form of gnosticism. the harvest religions follow the seasonal cycles and are ritualized, built on the premise works can get a person to whatever the goal or destination in that religion might be (salvation, God, perfection, etc.). The Gnostic religions, alternatively, all teach that some form of special or "spiritual" knowledge is what gets a person to the ultimate destination. There are a few religions with overlaps. Similarly, all the religions of the world can be divided into gods that are either finite and personal, or infinite and impersonal. I believe I already attended to the finite and personal side of that equation. Zeus has eyes, ears, nose, and a mouth and he thinks and feels and acts volitionally. He is, therefore "personal." He is not, however, infinite. All those gods are constantly beating each other up one way or another. None of them are almighty or in any other way infinite. All the western religions (and mythologies) are that way. One the other side we have "gods" that are infinite, but not personal. In non-theistic Buddhism, for example, the universe operates on certain principles and the better a person aligns themselves with those principles the more likely they are to reach enlightenment or fulfillment, nirvana, or shangra la. The universe does not have feelings, though. It has not will, not volitional agency. A lot of humans throughout the centuries have claimed to be God, or a god, but every single one of them proved to be finite. Their finiteness proved them not to be truth or God.

The God of the Bible alone is both Personal and Infinite. Remember: Jesus claimed to be God, and he claimed to be the only way to God. Christianity is the only religion that teaches salvation is by grace, not by works.

Moses prescribe death by stoning to adulterous people, without demanding sinless executers. Jesus prescribed to execute that order only if someone was free of sin. This is a difference, right?

It is a difference, but neither example was rendered correctly. Capital punishment in the promised land was a form or type of purification, and that historic was allegorically analogous to the need to be sinless when not a single person anywhere at any time after Genesis 3:6-7 was, is, or ever can be sinless apart from Jesus. All the cleansing rites and rituals of the Bible should be understood that way. Jeus is not saying "If you are free of sin....," he is saying "because no one is free of sin....." they cannot kill her unjustly (none of the individuals wanting to test Jesus had acted according to the law).

The larger, global fact of both examples is this: God will kill you, if you are not found in Christ. That same Jesus who did not condemn that prostitute that day will, reportedly, one day come back and violently kill every prostitute in order to rid creation of sin.

And we are all prostitutes in one way or another.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the only way. If Jesus is correct, then any religion that denies Jesus is wrong. If Jesus' claim of exclusivity is correct, then any religion that accepts Jesus but either changes or adds to his exclusivity is wrong. If Jesus is wrong then the way, the truth, the life may be found in someone else, but they cannot be found in any religion that espouses works as the means of coming to God because the finite efforts of finite creatures cannot ever reach an infinite God. All of those religions would, therefore, also be wrong. There is no truth in teaching finite works can reach the Infinite.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Either forget that dross about "essence," or acknowledge the essence of the gospel is Jesus crucifies and resurrected as the only means of coming to God.


Therefore, anytime you appeal to "the gospel," and that gospel is anything other than Jesus crucified and resurrected, then you are NOT talking about the same gospel. On every single occasion where that occurs either the fallacy of false equivalence or the fallacy of ambiguity has been committed.

I have robust evidence to support that the gospel Jesus preached had very, very little to do with his crucifixion and resurrection. His crucifixion and resurrection made 1% of the gospel he preached. The other 99% was about repentance and becoming citizens of the Messianic kingdom, the Kingdom of God.
Revelation 14:6,7 presents the “eternal gospel” in these terms:
Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the eternal gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people. He said with a loud voice: Fear God and give Him glory, for the hour of His judgment has come. Worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.”
I am sure you can visualize Noah or Moses preaching this same “gospel”.

Yet, for the sake of the topic being discussed , I have no problem in dropping the term “gospel” and using instead “Message”.
The thesis remains unrefuted.
If the Message of Jesus and the Message of Moses came from God, then both messages were to be obeyed, and both were The Way to God… the single only Way.

Jesus admitted no competition. Moses admitted no competition. Jesus amd Moses did not compete

Gnosticism, as you probably know, is the idea that knowledge, special knowledge, is what saves a person special knowledge is how a person comes to God. The "gospel" of Gnosticism is not the gospel of Christ.

I agree.
I believe in salvation by grace, which is an undeserved gift from God, and not by our ability to believe or explain doctrinal knowledge.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I

The God of the Bible alone is both Personal and Infinite. Remember: Jesus claimed to be God, and he claimed to be the only way to God.

Jesus did not claim to be God. He claimed to be the One Sent by God.. He claimed to be God’s spokesman… and He did it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, an over. Very importantly, Jesus claimed to have a God, his God, just like us.

Furthermore, God cannot be the way to God. God cannot be the Father of God. God cannot send God. God cannot pray to God. God cannot submit his will to God. All this is absurd, if we believe in a Personal God.

Christianity is the only religion that teaches salvation is by grace, not by works.

All Abrahamic faiths rely on God’s grace. I can show it to you.
God’s Grace has always been the mechanism of God for saving.
King David was saved by grace, not by works, not by his adeherence to any doctrine about the Messiah, not by any “special knowledge”

 

[Johann]

Jesus did not claim to be God. He claimed to be the One Sent by God.. He claimed to be God’s spokesman… and He did it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, an over. Very importantly, Jesus claimed to have a God, his God, just like us.

Furthermore, God cannot be the way to God. God cannot be the Father of God. God cannot send God. God cannot pray to God. God cannot submit his will to God. All this is absurd, if we believe in a Personal God.

As I mentioned before, it’s only going to get more challenging to defend your position, @Pancho Frijoles.


The idea that Jesus only claimed to be God’s messenger, not God himself, actually misses a lot of key parts of Scripture where he clearly identifies with God in ways that go beyond what any mere prophet or spokesman would claim.

Jesus’ Own Words: In John 8:58, Jesus says, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” Here, he’s using the phrase “I am,” which his Jewish audience understood as a reference to God’s own name in Exodus 3:14—“I AM WHO I AM.” This was such a bold claim to divinity that people immediately wanted to stone him for blasphemy. So Jesus wasn’t just saying he was sent by God; he was actually identifying with God’s eternal existence.

Jesus Accepted Worship: In Jewish tradition, worship is for God alone. Yet, we see that Jesus not only accepts worship but also doesn’t correct people when they call him “God.” In John 20:28, after Jesus rises from the dead, Thomas says to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus doesn’t rebuke him; instead, he accepts this confession. This kind of reaction would make no sense if Jesus were merely a messenger.

Jesus’ Unity with the Father: In John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” This isn’t just poetic language. The people around him understood this as a claim to be equal with God and accused him of blasphemy. Jesus responds by reinforcing his unity with the Father, which shows he wasn’t trying to tone down his claim.

Jesus as the Only Way to God: When Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” he’s placing himself in a unique position. He isn’t just another prophet pointing to God; he’s saying he is the way, the truth, and the life-roles that only God could fulfill.

The Father Sending the Son: It’s true that God “sent” Jesus, but this doesn’t imply that Jesus isn’t divine. In John 1:1, it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This shows that Jesus (the “Word”) was both with God and was God from the beginning. The Father sending the Son speaks to their roles within the Trinity, not a difference in essence. So Jesus can be sent without being less than God.

Jesus’ Submission to the Father: Jesus’ submission to God doesn’t contradict his divinity. Philippians 2:6-7 explains that Jesus, though he was equal with God, “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant.” His submission shows his willingness to humble himself and become human-not a denial of his divinity but a fulfillment of his mission.

Jesus Referring to “My God”: When Jesus talks about “my God,” as he does in John 20:17, this reflects his fully human experience. Jesus was both fully God and fully man, so in his humanity, he modeled a relationship with the Father that believers could follow. This doesn’t diminish his divine nature but rather points to the mystery of the Incarnation, where he took on humanity to bring us closer to God.

Taken together, these passages reveal Jesus as more than a messenger or mere spokesman. The early Christians worshiped him as God because he showed himself to be fully divine and fully human, the Son who reveals and brings us to the Father. The Trinity shows that while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct in their roles, they are united as the one true God.

Jesus did not claim to be God. He claimed to be the One Sent by God.. He claimed to be God’s spokesman… and He did it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, an over. Very importantly, Jesus claimed to have a God, his God, just like us.

Furthermore, God cannot be the way to God. God cannot be the Father of God. God cannot send God. God cannot pray to God. God cannot submit his will to God. All this is absurd, if we believe in a Personal God.


All Abrahamic faiths rely on God’s grace. I can show it to you.
God’s Grace has always been the mechanism of God for saving.
King David was saved by grace, not by works, not by his adeherence to any doctrine about the Messiah, not by any “special knowledge”

While grace is central in salvation, especially in the Christian faith, it’s not entirely accurate to say that King David was saved without any adherence to faith in God's promises. David's salvation, like that of Old Testament believers, was based on his faith in God and in God's covenant promises, which included the coming Messiah. Salvation was always by grace through faith, not by works or special knowledge.

J.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

As I mentioned before, it’s only going to get more challenging to defend your position, @Pancho Frijoles.

Such challenge is a privilege when having you and @JoshebB as interlocutors.
I like you both and thank you both.

The idea that Jesus only claimed to be God’s messenger, not God himself, actually misses a lot of key parts of Scripture where he clearly identifies with God in ways that go beyond what any mere prophet or spokesman would claim.

I will be glad to discuss with you and @JoshebB all arguments on the deity of Jesus in a separate thread.
I just wanted to provide a quick reply to JoshebB who told me “Remember that Jesus claimed to be God”, because that is not my understanding, and not a shared premised to advance in the current discussion.

As I have said, the proof that the exclusivity of Jesus as Intercessor or Way to God does not depend on his deity is this:
Jehovah Witnesses and Biblical Unitarians could easily join forces with you in this debate.

Jesus Accepted Worship: In Jewish tradition, worship is for God alone. Yet, we see that Jesus not only accepts worship but also doesn’t correct people when they call him “God.” In John 20:28, after Jesus rises from the dead, Thomas says to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus doesn’t rebuke him; instead, he accepts this confession. This kind of reaction would make no sense if Jesus were merely a messenger.

The practical meaning of worshiping Jesus is another topic that I will be very glad to discuss with you and @JoshebB in a separate thread.

While grace is central in salvation, especially in the Christian faith, it’s not entirely accurate to say that King David was saved without any adherence to faith in God's promises. David's salvation, like that of Old Testament believers, was based on his faith in God and in God's covenant promises, which included the coming Messiah. Salvation was always by grace through faith, not by works or special knowledge.

King David had faith in God’s mercy, and he did not ask God forgiveness on the basis of any future Messiah.
Less so a Messiah who would be God, atone for the sins of the world and be resurrected. Please read Psalm 51. These concepts were alien to him, alien to Nathan and alien to every Israelite. There is no shred of evidence in the Bible that they sought the mercy of God on account of the blood of a future King of Israel, any God incarnated or demi-God.
Indeed, the messianic movement in Judaism started much later, in remembrance of the good old days in which Israel was a unified kingdom ruled by David.

 

[Johann]

Such challenge is a privilege when having you and @JoshebB as interlocutors.
I like you both and thank you both.



I will be glad to discuss with you and @JoshebB all arguments on the deity of Jesus in a separate thread.
I just wanted to provide a quick reply to JoshebB who told me “Remember that Jesus claimed to be God”, because that is not my understanding, and not a shared premised to advance in the current discussion.

As I have said, the proof that the exclusivity of Jesus as Intercessor or Way to God does not depend on his deity is this:
Jehovah Witnesses and Biblical Unitarians could easily join forces with you in this debate.


The practical meaning of worshiping Jesus is another topic that I will be very glad to discuss with you and @JoshebB in a separate thread.


King David had faith in God’s mercy, and he did not ask God forgiveness on the basis of any future Messiah.
Less so a Messiah who would be God, atone for the sins of the world and be resurrected. Please read Psalm 51. These concepts were alien to him, alien to Nathan and alien to every Israelite. There is no shred of evidence in the Bible that they sought the mercy of God on account of the blood of a future King of Israel, any God incarnated or demi-God.
Indeed, the messianic movement in Judaism started much later, in remembrance of the good old days in which Israel was a unified kingdom ruled by David.

Your assertion that David’s faith was entirely separate from any concept of a Messiah who would atone for the world’s sins and be resurrected overlooks the broader messianic hope present in his time and Scriptures.

Besides-

Salvation in Christianity refers to the deliverance of humanity from sin and its consequences, achieved through faith in Jesus Christ, His sacrificial death, and His resurrection. It involves the reconciliation of individuals with God, the forgiveness of sins, and the gift of eternal life. Christians believe that salvation is a free gift from God, accessible through grace, and that it transforms the believer, empowering them to live according to God's will and to participate in His eternal kingdom.

In Christianity, salvation is the process of being saved from sin and its effects, not by our own efforts but through faith in the grace of God, especially through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus, being the Son of God, offers the ultimate path to God’s forgiveness and eternal life.

While we both believe in the importance of seeking truth and spiritual growth, Christians understand salvation as specifically being united with God through Jesus, whose sacrifice restores our relationship with God and promises us eternal life.

J.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Your assertion that David’s faith was entirely separate from any concept of a Messiah who would atone for the world’s sins and be resurrected overlooks the broader messianic hope present in his time and Scriptures.

In his time?
My friend: Which Scriptures existed by the time of David, and what did those Scriptures say about the Messiah?
The faith of David was so devoid of an idea of the atonement or resurrection of a future Messiah, that we find zero references in the longest, more heartfelt prayer for forgiveness that the whole Bible presents (Psalm 51)
Zero references to Jesus. Zero. Do you agree with me, Johann?
And yet, we read in that Psalm a total trust in the God of Israel not just to cleanse his sins but to transform his heart.

Christians believe that salvation is a free gift from God, accessible through grace, and that it transforms the believer, empowering them to live according to God's will and to participate in His eternal kingdom.

Amen. I believe that 100%… and I am Baha’i.
In contrast, some Evangelicals brothers speak as if salvation were not a free gift from God, but the result of

• a trade of blood
• an intellectual achievement

In salvation based on trade of blood, God demands blood. So Jesus pays God with blood, and God gives salvation to men.
In salvation based on intellectual achievement, men earn their salvation by answering correctly a quiz on theology, that includes questions such as: Was Jesus God? Was Jesus born without the intervention of man? Did Jesus pay your ransom with his blood? Is Calvinism a heresy? Did Jesus resurrected with a physical body? Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is the Bible the only source of doctrinal authority?

 

[Studyman]

Two errors are contained in that sentence. The first is the argument from silence. Jesus never said Moses was correct, either.

I can no longer remain silent in this exchange. Your assertion that Jesus and Moses bought a different message from God their Father is foolishness. Jesus said:

Luke 16: 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; "let them hear them". 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they "hear not" Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

And HE directed the Multitudes and His Disciples to hear Moses being read each Sabbath and instructed them to live by the Words of God that HE chose Moses to give the people. Jesus said that not one of these Words would pass as long as this world, and the stars above it remain. It is an undeniable truth that this is the same earth Jesus walked, and the heavens have not changed even a little since God first created them, or since Jesus walked under them.

Matt. 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If Jesus doesn't return, my Faith is in vain. Clearly His return has yet to be fulfilled, therefore, "ALL" has not yet been fulfilled..


The teaching that Jesus taught a different Gospel than Moses and the Prophets is a popular religious philosophy of this world's religions, but is not grounded in biblical Truth. Jesus ushered in a New Ministry, with a New Priesthood Covenant making God's Priesthood Covenant with Levi, and the sacrificial "Works of the Law" required therein for the remission of sins obsolete. But Moses and the Prophets said this was going to happen.

Psalms 40: 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, 8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

Heb. 10: 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, (Ministry/Priesthood) that he may establish the second.(Ministry/Priesthood) God's instruction in righteousness, His definition of sins, were not prophesied to become obsolete in this new covenant, rather, they are written on the hearts of His people.

Jesus walked in the Law of Moses, which Paul said was the Gospel of Christ wherein it is written "The Just shall live by Faith".

Thankfully Pancho has not been indoctrinated by these questionable religious philosophies. One has only to read Luke 1&2 to see how Moses and the Prophets led the Faithful believers, Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, to the Lord's Christ, even before HE was born. That the Pharisees persecuted the Church of God even before the Christ arrived is proof positive that the Gospel was believed on by men even before Jesus came.

My refuge is in the Christ "of the bible", so I will not be seeking another Priest to guide my footsteps. Nevertheless, what Pancho is saying about the Gospel of the Christ "of the Bible" is true. And you guys would do good to engage in an honest discussion as opposed to constantly telling him he is wrong simply because he didn't adopt the specific religious sect or business of this world you adopted, and is not promoting their religious philosophies.

Jesus never said Moses was the way to God, either. Jesus never said Moses danced on an ancient version of the pogo stick to pick frunja berries off the moon, either. The second error is Jesus did, in fact, teach Moses erred, and if Moses errored, then Moses cannot be the way.

Matthew 19:8
He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

In point of fact, most of what Jesus did is correct errors in either Moses' teaching or the misuses and abuses of the Pentateuch Moses wrote (according to tradition). Every single occasion when we read Jesus saying, "You have heard it said, '________________________ ," but I tell you, ' (and then he corrects what they'd heard said) ,'" that is an example of Jesus correcting an error of either Moses himself or some misuse of Moses. Nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the Tanakh. Most of what Jesus taught was not new, it was restored.

First off, Jesus and Moses taught the exact same thing concerning divorce.

Duet. 24: 1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Matt. 5: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, "saving for the cause of fornication", (Clearly uncleanness) causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

And God also lived by the same instruction.

Jer. 3: 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel "committed adultery" I had put her away, "and given her a bill of divorce"; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Will you now say that God is in error as well, given HIS teaching and yours are not aligned with each other?

So yes, it wasn't supposed to be this way in the beginning. God and man were to be ONE, even as a husband and wife was to be One. Being Faithful one to another. But God isn't going to live with a harlot. Isn't that the whole point.

You are wrong here my friend. Jesus isn't talking about God's Instructions here when HE says "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time". He is speaking about the Pharisees and their fathers who led his people astray.

Jer. 50: 6 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace.

In every instance in Matt. 5, God's actual Law and Jesus' Words align perfectly.

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Duet. 23: 21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. 22 But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Prov. 6: 24 To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. 25 Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Lev. 19: 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Pancho understands these truths, and he knows Jesus and Moses promoted the same Gospel message "Repent and turn to God". And he is right in pointing this out. The question you should be asking yourself, is how he knows these truths, not being a "Christian" by this world's religious standards but you don't, even though you call Jesus Lord, Lord.

 

[Studyman]

I agree with the principle, but not with your definition of "the gospel."

Yep.

Either forget that dross about "essence," or acknowledge the essence of the gospel is Jesus crucifies and resurrected as the only means of coming to God. As you say, anything other than Jesus crucified and resurrected is not the essence of the "message," but you cannot play fast and loose with words and not expose your posts to correction. The word "gospel" and the word "message" are not identical, especially not in the context of the gospel of Jesus. You commit fallacies of false equivalence, ambiguity, and construction when you change words in the middle of a case.

It is not rational.

It is, therefore, also not godly.

I am NOT trying to sound judgmental, but I do want you to look at the contents of your own posts because I assume you do not want to be making ungodly, irrational arguments, and I assume that if and when you recognize them, you'll immediate feel the "pinch" of those errors and seek to correct your own errors. You cannot presume to act as a religiously or spiritually enlightened and informed individual and post fallacy. None of us can.

You ask anyone here who's traded posts with me before and they will ALL tell you this is one of the most inconvenient and frustrating aspects of trading posts with me. I can be exacting in a forensic analysis and none of us like it if and when our own faults are revealed. The spiritual man corrects his mistakes. The fleshly man defends the errors.


Therefore, anytime you appeal to "the gospel," and that gospel is anything other than Jesus crucified and resurrected, then you are NOT talking about the same gospel. On every single occasion where that occurs either the fallacy of false equivalence or the fallacy of ambiguity has been committed.


Galatians 1:6-9
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Paul wrote those words because many people tried to lay claim to the term "gospel" but were teaching teachings contrary to Jesus being the only way to God. Paul had harsh words for that condition. He said those people were to be accursed. Now we do not curse people in internet discussion boards. We try to reason through the scriptures with them, politely and respectfully . In his letter to the Christians living in Galatia Paul was primarily addressing the problem of Gnosticism. Gnosticism, as you probably know, is the idea that knowledge, special knowledge, is what saves a person special knowledge is how a person comes to God. The "gospel" of Gnosticism is not the gospel of Christ.

Jesus said over and over, Paul said, and the Law and Prophets said over and over that the Pharisees and rebellious Jews were not promoting the Church of God via the Gospel of Christ. One of the most insidious falsehoods promoted by this world's religions, is the false teaching that the Pharisees were trying to "Earn Salvation" by obeying God's Laws. That the disobedient Jews were trying to convert the Galatians to a life obedient to God and His instruction in Righteousness. This leaven, once imbedded in one's heart, infects the entire body as it is written.

I implore you to read Isaiah chapter 1, so that you might understand those who were bewitching the Galatians, and indoctrinating the Gentile converts in Acts 15 and Romans 1-3.

If you do, you will find the Pharisees religion which lived and promoted the rejection of God's Laws and Judgments in order to promote their own religious traditions, but then each week would come to their manmade shrines of worship with the blood of an innocent being, as per the Law, to justify their religion. That is not the Gospel of Christ they were taught by Moses and later by Jesus. Please hear what the Spirit of God inspired for our admonition.

Is. 1: 3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the *** his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. 4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

This is Jesus' description of the Pharisees, Yes? What does God tell them?

10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

What does the Gospel of Christ they were given supposed to teach them?

16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

How is this not the same thing Jesus teaches?

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

And what is the goal? To call Jesus Lord, Lord? To preach in His Name? To "Transform ourselves" into Apostles of Christ? Not according to Scriptures.

Eph. 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ; 21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Isn't this the goal, purpose of the Gospel of Christ?

Phil. 3: 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God (Perfection which is) in Christ Jesus.

15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

Jesus once said to identify the beam in our own eyes, and then cast it out. This is because, in my understanding, that just admitting we have the beam is not sufficient to see clearly to correct others. It is the actual "Beam" that causes the blindness.

 

[synergy]

In his time?
My friend: Which Scriptures existed by the time of David, and what did those Scriptures say about the Messiah?
The faith of David was so devoid of an idea of the atonement or resurrection of a future Messiah, that we find zero references in the longest, more heartfelt prayer for forgiveness that the whole Bible presents (Psalm 51)
Zero references to Jesus. Zero. Do you agree with me, Johann?
And yet, we read in that Psalm a total trust in the God of Israel not just to cleanse his sins but to transform his heart.


Amen. I believe that 100%… and I am Baha’i.
In contrast, some Evangelicals brothers speak as if salvation were not a free gift from God, but the result of

• a trade of blood
• an intellectual achievement

In salvation based on trade of blood, God demands blood. So Jesus pays God with blood, and God gives salvation to men.
In salvation based on intellectual achievement, men earn their salvation by answering correctly a quiz on theology, that includes questions such as: Was Jesus God? Was Jesus born without the intervention of man? Did Jesus pay your ransom with his blood? Is Calvinism a heresy? Did Jesus resurrected with a physical body? Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is the Bible the only source of doctrinal authority?

Your Islamic-influenced view ignores the entire Redemptive History of God. In Christianity, it’s the transformative restoration of the relationship between humanity and God, achieved through Christ's Incarnation, Sacrifice, Resurrection, and Ascension that is the basis of our forgiveness.

Of course, we don't need to know all the facts of that redemptive history to be saved but that does not mean that we can possess a naive simplistic view of reality as do Muslims.

You're a Doctor. Let's take a medical case to understand this. A vaccination doesn't just happen. It has a history of development. Now does a recipient of that vaccination need to know everything behind its development in order to be healed? No, but one cannot just toss out all the work that went into developing it (although Robert F Kennedy Jr. might try to do that).

Therefore, your Islamic-influenced view of Redemption fails miserably to account for reality.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Jesus and Moses promoted the same Gospel message "Repent and turn to God".

Thanks for the light you have shared in this discussion, @Studyman. I highly value each of the concepts you have bravely and clearly posted here.

The oldest of the gospels, that of Mark, in the very first chapter, summarizes in one powerful, succinct verse, what Jesus preached.

After John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the gospel.” (1:14,15)

If believing in Jesus deity, blood atonement and physical resurrection had been an unavoidable requirement for God to forgive his children, Jesus would have emphasized it repetitively, and the evangelist would have recorded that teaching consistently.

But Jesus, just as the previous Messengers, preached repentance and reconciliation with God. The differentiator in the case of Jesus, was the messianic Kingdom in response to messianic prophecies and expectations. Otherwise, He didn't preach any radically new theology. As @JoshebB has pointed out, Jesus was not preaching a new religion. The terms of salvation were exactly the same.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You're a Doctor. Let's take a medical case to understand this. A vaccination doesn't just happen. It has a history of development. Now does a recipient of that vaccination need to know everything behind its development in order to be healed? No, but one cannot just toss out all the work that went into developing it (although Robert F Kennedy Jr. might try to do that).

Good analogy. What would you think of a doctor who demands from their patients to know the science and history behing vaccine development, as a requisite to administer a vaccine that would save his life?

If your religion upholds that Jesus is God, that Jesus literally paid a ransom with his blood, or that Jesus resurrected with a physical human-shaped body able to eat... and that religion is helping you to love Jesus more and live the life of love that Christ lived, I have nothing to do or say but to congratulate you! I would tell you: Keep your religion! Keep growing in that religion!

Now, if your religion demands the sinner to believe all those things to be forgiven, or otherwise be justly tortured physically and psychologically forever, I would tell you: Quit that religion immediately! In fact, becoming atheist would be much better than keeping such religion .

Therefore, your Islamic-influenced view of Redemption fails miserably to account for reality.

Dear synergy, @JoshebB , @Johann, @Studyman

My view about forgiveness is biblical, rational, and that of all children younger than 7: Children being raised in Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Baha'i families. Those children are right. Provided we were raised by loving parents who were not sociopaths, we all were right about forgiveness when we were children. Our soteriology was just right.

Forgiveness comes from recognizing that I did wrong, understanding the pain I produced in others, feeling bad about it, confessing that to God and the people involved, repairing the damage caused as much as possible, committing to be more careful next time, and trusting God's ability to forgive me and change me.

Is this naïve and simplistic? Yes, it is... and it is true.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The God of the Bible alone is both Personal and Infinite.

If God is personal, then He has just one Mind. One Will.
There is no other way to conceive a Personal Being.
On the other hand, if God is a council, an assembly, a Directive Board, an institution, a team, a family where several minds are gathered, then by definition God is not Personal, but impersonal. A collective is not personal. The persons who make that collective are.

Scriptures present God consistently as a singular Person. Scriptures treat God as a "He". Jesus Christ treats God as a "He".

So, under the premise that our God is Personal...

If Jesus is The Way to God, by definition He is not God.
If God sent Jesus to the world, then by definition He is not God.
If Jesus prayed to God, then Jesus by definition is not God.
If Jesus intercedes for us before God, then Jesus by definition is not God.

Unless, of course, we abandon the idea of a Personal God... then we will allow ourselves to participate in the logic of God being the Way to Himself, sending Himself to the world, praying to Himself, and interceding before Himself.

 

[synergy]

Good analogy. What would you think of a doctor who demands from their patients to know the science and history behing vaccine development, as a requisite to administer a vaccine that would save his life?

No Health Professional demands that but it's incumbent and the responsibility of those in charge of administering the vaccination to know about the vaccine's development, effects, and the patient's historical records before administering the vaccine. Responsible Health Professionals do not do it naively nor blindly.

There is also the case of Patients themselves who wish to be informed. That is respected in a society that values free flow of information.

If your religion upholds that Jesus is God, that Jesus literally paid a ransom with his blood, or that Jesus resurrected with a physical human-shaped body able to eat... and that religion is helping you to love Jesus more and live the life of love that Christ lived, I have nothing to do or say but to congratulate you! I would tell you: Keep your religion! Keep growing in that religion!

Now, if your religion demands the sinner to believe all those things to be forgiven, or otherwise be justly tortured physically and psychologically forever, I would tell you: Quit that religion immediately! In fact, becoming atheist would be much better than keeping such religion .

Human Free Will is a gift from God. Don't tell a Calvinist that because he will string you up alive.

Dear synergy, @JoshebB , @Johann, @Studyman

My view about forgiveness is biblical, rational, and that of all children younger than 7: Children being raised in Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Baha'i families. Those children are right. Provided we were raised by loving parents who were not sociopaths, we all were right about forgiveness when we were children. Our soteriology was just right.

Forgiveness comes from recognizing that I did wrong, understanding the pain I produced in others, feeling bad about it, confessing that to God and the people involved, repairing the damage caused as much as possible, committing to be more careful next time, and trusting God's ability to forgive me and change me.

Is this naïve and simplistic? Yes, it is... and it is true.

A child's faith is not naive. What is naive and void of spiritual reality is the Islamic idea that the Redemptive History of God is void of the transformative restoration of the relationship between humanity and God, achieved through Christ's Incarnation, Sacrifice, Resurrection, and Ascension, that is the basis of our forgiveness.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

No Health Professional demands that but it's incumbent and the responsibility of those in charge of administering the vaccination to know about the vaccine's development, effects, and the patient's historical records before administering the vaccine. Responsible Health Professionals do not do it naively nor blindly.

I am not discussing what the health professionals know or should know. I am discussing what they require from the patient.

Human Free Will is a gift from God. Don't tell a Calvinist that because he will string you up alive.

I am not discussing free will nor Calvinism.

What is naive and void of spiritual reality is the Islamic idea that

I am not discussing Islam.

 

[synergy]

I am not discussing what the health professionals know or should know. I am discussing what they require from the patient.

Without Health Researchers and Professionals responsibly doing their job then there is no vaccination to be had, let alone any discussion to be had with Patients.

The same principles can be analogously applied to the spiritual realm of forgiveness.

I am not discussing Islam.

Like it or not, your views are very reflective of Islam.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Two errors are contained in that sentence. The first is the argument from silence. Jesus never said Moses was correct, either. Jesus never said Moses was the way to God, either. Jesus never said Moses danced on an ancient version of the pogo stick to pick frunja berries off the moon, either.

The value Jesus gave to the Hebrew Scriptures, including the Torah, proves He considered them inspired by God.
In fact, when asked by the scribe about how to have eternal life, Jesus answered by quoting the teachings of Moses.

So, if I say “Jesus never said Moses was wrong” I am not making an argument from silence.
The fallacy of an argument from silence implies that the weight of evidence is placed on silence, without consideration of all other evidences that disprove the argument.
For example: if your wife has shown you in hundreds of ways she likes to cook for you, and I am trying to convince you that she doesn’t, you can properly say “My wife has never said she hates cooking for me” and I have no right to judge your statement as a fallacy out of silence.
If, in contrast, there were evidences that your wife hates cooking for you, your statement “My wife has never said she hates cooking for me” could be considered a fallacy from silence.

The second error is Jesus did, in fact, teach Moses erred, and if Moses errored, then Moses cannot be the way.

Jesus never taught that Moses erred. Your claim is unsupported.
None of the verses you bring show Jesus indicating that Moses as wrong. Moses teachings were misused or abused, as you have said.
You affirm later on that the Law given by Moses was from God. So Moses comandments were as godly as those from Jesus.

That Jesus or his apostles changed secondary laws does not alter the veracity and divine origin of God’s revelation through Moses.
You have already made a clear and intelligent defense of this principle in the thread where you debate with jeremiah5five about the changes that allowed the Gentiles to live as Christians without keeping all aspects of the Law of Moses.

Works never save. Works never get anyone anywhere near God. The finite cannot reach the infinite.

I agree. But Jesus is not talking in the Beautitudes about the false way of self-righteousness and human merits.
Jesus is talking about the genuine fruits of the Spirit, which are inherent of The Way.

The Way starts with genuine repentance/ faith, which necessarilyand naturally imply works. Since works are inherent to genuine repentance (Mat 3:8) and to genuine faith (James 2:14,17) works are inseparable part of The Way.

Faith, repentance, fruits worthy of repentance, are all undeserved gifts of God. They are the effect of the grace of God and not the result of human merits, self-righteousness or arrogance.
So, it is proper to a good Jew, a good Muslim, a good Christian and a good Baha’i to recognize their impotence and smallness before God.
Do not think that Christianism is exclusive in this. Dear @Johann, please take note.

Islam, for example, means total submission to God. There is no place for self-righteousness or human merits in total submission to God.
Total submission is meaningless in a person who is not meek, merciful or pure of heart.

In the beatitudes, the fruits are presented in present tense, and the reward in future tense. There are six “shall” before presenting the outcome of being with God. I fully agree with you that being meek, merciful or peaceful is indication that we are already with God a paradise. This is a very baha’i view as well. But it is also indication that we are walking the Way that take us to a future destiny.

4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called the sons of God

 

[Johann]

The Way starts with genuine repentance/ faith, which necessarilyand naturally imply works. Since works are inherent to genuine repentance (Mat 3:8) and to genuine faith (James 2:14,17) works are inseparable part of The Way.

Biblically, Old Testament saints were justified by faith—a central theme in both Old and New Testament teachings that reveals a consistent principle of salvation. Several key passages show this truth, showing that while the saints in the Old Testament operated under different covenants and had varied understandings of God’s unfolding redemptive plan, their justification ultimately rested on a faith response to God’s promises. This response was marked by trust in God’s character and faithfulness, even when the object of salvation (Jesus Christ) had not yet been fully revealed.

1. The Case of Abraham: Faith Counted as Righteousness
In Genesis 15:6, we read, “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” Paul reaffirms this in Romans 4:3, emphasizing that Abraham’s belief—rather than his adherence to the Law or rituals—was the basis of his righteousness. For Abraham, justification by faith involved trusting in God’s promises, even as he awaited their fulfillment. This sets a precedent that justification by faith was present long before the Law was given, indicating a salvation framework that centers on faith rather than works.
Paul elaborates on this in Galatians 3:6-9, asserting that “those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the man of faith.” Here, Paul argues that faith has always been the core requirement for righteousness, a principle that transcends dispensational boundaries.

2. The Mosaic Law and Justification by Faith
While the Law introduced at Sinai outlined a specific covenantal structure for Israel, with various commands, sacrifices, and rituals, it was not ultimately the means by which individuals were justified. Hebrews 10:4 clarifies, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Rather, the sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant served as a “shadow” (Hebrews 10:1) pointing forward to Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. Faithful obedience to the Law did involve ritual observance, but it was the heart of faith behind these acts that mattered.
The prophets frequently reminded Israel that external observance without faith or inner devotion was insufficient. Micah 6:6-8 and Hosea
6:6 illustrate that God desires steadfast love and knowledge of Himself more than sacrifice, indicating that faith in God's mercy and righteousness underpinned the covenant’s legal system. This is consistent with a faith-based justification, where trust in God supersedes mere ritual.

3. The Witness of the Prophets and Faith in the Coming Messiah
Old Testament saints had varying levels of revelation about the Messiah, yet they were pointed toward a coming Redeemer. Isaiah, for example, prophesied a suffering servant (Isaiah 53) who would bear the sins of many, offering a basis for faith in God’s plan for atonement beyond the sacrificial system.

Jesus Himself references Abraham’s faith as Messianic, saying, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad” (John 8:56).

This shows that even Old Testament believers had, in some measure, faith in God’s future provision through the Messiah, as far as it had been revealed to them.

Hebrews 11 offers a comprehensive look at how faith justified the saints of old, highlighting figures from Abel, Enoch, and Noah to the prophets, showing that each was commended for their faith. Hebrews 11:13 states, “These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar,” showing that salvation by faith—anchored in trust in God’s ultimate fulfillment—was operative long before Christ’s arrival.

4. Continuity of Faith and Salvation History in the New Testament
New Testament writers emphasize that faith has always been the means of justification, a theme Paul articulates especially in Romans 3-4. In Romans 3:21-26, Paul declares that “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law… through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.”

Paul asserts that God presented Christ as a propitiation “to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Here, he highlights that God’s redemptive plan has always hinged on faith, with Jesus’ sacrificial work providing the once-for-all atonement that retroactively covers the faithful of past ages as well as those under the new covenant.

Thus, Old Testament saints were justified based on their faith in God’s promises, even without full knowledge of Christ. God, in His foreknowledge and grace, applied the merit of Christ’s atoning work to them, foreshadowed in sacrificial types and prophecies. Romans 4:23-24 explains, “The words ‘it was counted to him’ were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord.”

Ultimately, no matter how we look at it, eternal life is found in Him—the Messiah—and there is no other hodos (way) or derech (path). No amount of hypothetical arguments can alter the fact that it is in Christ alone that we have eternal life.

Shalom Achi.

J.

 

[Studyman]

Biblically, Old Testament saints were justified by faith—a central theme in both Old and New Testament teachings that reveals a consistent principle of salvation. Several key passages show this truth, showing that while the saints in the Old Testament operated under different covenants and had varied understandings of God’s unfolding redemptive plan, their justification ultimately rested on a faith response to God’s promises. This response was marked by trust in God’s character and faithfulness, even when the object of salvation (Jesus Christ) had not yet been fully revealed.

It seems God's Salvation was fully revealed to men, "The Coming of the Messiah", it just had not yet been made manifest. According to Scriptures God's salvation had been long since revealed to Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, not to mention the Wise men. Even Abraham understood.

Gen. 22: 7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

God's Salvation had just not been made manifest until the arrival of the Messiah. But the Faithful patiently waited for God's salvation, as Simon demonstrates.

Luke 2: 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

And Zacharias;

Luke 1: 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, "which have been since the world began":

1 Peter 1: 18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but "was manifest" in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

The Pharisees didn't believe God, therefore they didn't know the Messiah when HE came to them. But those faithful men and women who "Yielded themselves" to God as Paul instructs, they knew the Christ and believed on Him long before He was born.

It is true that the Priesthood Covenant was different for Zacharias than it was for Paul. But they all knew of the coming change in the Priesthood as Prophesied by Jeremiah and David. God's Laws, or as Paul calls them, "instruction in righteousness" is eternal.

1. The Case of Abraham: Faith Counted as Righteousness
In Genesis 15:6, we read, “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” Paul reaffirms this in Romans 4:3, emphasizing that Abraham’s belief—rather than his adherence to the Law or rituals—was the basis of his righteousness.

While this is a popular religious philosophy promoted by this world's religious businesses and sects, it doesn't accurately represent what the Scriptures teach, according to what is written.

Gen. 12: 1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

Abraham showed his belief by his works. This is what FAITH actually is. In each case, when God instructed Abraham, Abraham obeyed HIM. Abraham left his family, the religion of his father, his old life and followed God. The Jesus "of the bible" instructed men to do the same thing.

Matt. 16: 24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

This same instruction was given to Israel in Egypt.

This world's religions judge God's Laws as "Rituals, worthless Jewish Traditions, Yoke of bondage, Beggarly Elements" etc. There are even some wicked deceivers, who call Jesus their Lord, who preach to others that God placed 613 Laws, impossible to obey, on the Necks of Caleb and Joshua and David and others who trusted in Him, and then lied to them by telling them they could obey, then killed them by the thousands when they didn't. Moses and the Prophets God sent, along with Jesus, who God sent, along with the Apostles God gave to Jesus, all warn specifically of these "Many" who come in Christ's Name. This is why it is so important to, since we now have the Oracles of God in our own Homes, to study them in seeking the Righteousness of God as the Jesus of the Bible instructs, as opposed to adopting the ever-changing religious doctrines and traditions of this world's religions that exist in the world God placed us in..

When a man does this, HE will find out "from God", like Isaac did, why we are blessed.

Gen. 26: 2 And the LORD appeared unto him (Isaac), and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; 4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

This is how we know Abraham believed God, even to the sacrifice of his only son. According to God it is "BECAUSE" of "his adherence to the Law or rituals" and this "was the basis of his righteousness". And this gospel continues throughout the Holy Scriptures.