Evidence for God from Science

@ Gman
np man you're not the only one. i understand what you're trying to say.
@ JLay
If i remember correctly God has feelings as such regarding what is righteous and what is not. correct me if im wrong anyone but i was under the assumption that the mystery revealed was Jesus, that he was the mystery of what was written about in the OT and the mystery was that all things pointed to Him. The word revelation means unveiling and the revelation Paul received was the unveiling of the mystery surrounding the messiah and how all OT types and shadows and many things symbolically pointed to Jesus. That is how I always saw it.

Zionist wrote:If i remember correctly God has feelings as such regarding what is righteous and what is not. correct me if im wrong anyone but i was under the assumption that the mystery revealed was Jesus, that he was the mystery of what was written about in the OT and the mystery was that all things pointed to Him. The word revelation means unveiling and the revelation Paul received was the unveiling of the mystery surrounding the messiah and how all OT types and shadows and many things symbolically pointed to Jesus. That is how I always saw it.

Exactly. There is no other mystery other than Christ who was known to Israel (as the prophesied messiah) and hidden from the gentiles, until Paul and the rest of the apostles revealed the mystery to them.

Zionist wrote:@ Gman
np man you're not the only one. i understand what you're trying to say.
@ JLay
If i remember correctly God has feelings as such regarding what is righteous and what is not. correct me if im wrong anyone but i was under the assumption that the mystery revealed was Jesus, that he was the mystery of what was written about in the OT and the mystery was that all things pointed to Him. The word revelation means unveiling and the revelation Paul received was the unveiling of the mystery surrounding the messiah and how all OT types and shadows and many things symbolically pointed to Jesus. That is how I always saw it.

There is little doubt that Israel expected a messiah. So, not sure how one can reconcile that something predicted (prophecy) is a secret (mystery). That would seem contradictory. The OT predicted not only that there would be one, but exactly when He would enter the city as King. (70 weeks prophecy)
We even see Simeon and Anna who had noted such OT and were waiting for it to manifest. That is one of the main factors of this issue. Prophecy. Israel operated and was intrusted with prophecy. God revealed through prophecy to Israel. But, as the OT says, not everything was revealed. There were secret things.
Israel= prophecy, law, circumcision, earthly Kingdom
Church= mystery, grace, heavenly
For example, Jesus' message to Israel was one of repentance. Preparing to receive the Messiah and usher in the New Covenant and restore the throne. Jesus presents himself as the one who would fulfill those promises to Israel. His disciples believed it, even to the day of his ascension. "Is it now the time?..."
And keep in mind this is after He opened their understanding. (Luke 24:45)
It is important to note the distinctions in how Paul presents Christ compared to in the Gospels. I understand that many don't want to make the distinctions, and I was one of those for many years. We just tend to lump everything into one pot, stir and enjoy. and worse, we ignore or dismiss the contradictions this approach leaves us with. In Jesus' earthly minstry He said there would be a time where judgment will be based on your works. (Matt. 25) Paul speaks of justification by faith alone. And people do spiritual gymnastics trying to reconcile this when there is no distinction. Uh, sure you are saved by faith alone, but if you don't have works then you are eternally damned. And then they want to say with a straight face that there is no contradiction here.
There is a much different dynamic in how Paul presents the cross. During the eartly minsitry of christ the 12 didn't get it. And Jesus' earthly ministry focused on His message of being the Messiah and son of God. John 5:24. The few times he mentioned the cross, no one understood. Where as Paul preached Christ crucified, the willing sacrifice. (Gave himself a ransom for many) While Peter preached it (even afterwards) as Israel's rejection of the Messiah and called them murderers. He doesn't mention the atoning sacrifice. He still preaches the same message. Jesus is Israel's Messiah. repent and be baptized. Why?
"that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23 Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’So, " (Acts 3:20-23)
On one hand the cross represents Israel's rejection, but within this God was in Christ, reconciling the WORLD to Himself.

Now, obviously we have very different opinions on these matters. Particularly with the distinctions today. But I can't for the life of me figure out why someone would try to say that in the OT economy there were no distinctions between Jew and Gentile. That all gentile peoples (not just resident aliens) were under the same law as israel. If I am misunderstanding please correct me.

God's feelings...? No, God never get's angry or shows love.... What is it that you worship? A robot?

G, I have no problem with a question, and am glad to give an answer. but as a moderator, do you really need to make a comment such as, "what is that you worship?"
classical theism is pretty well founded on the immutability of God, and the fact that He isn't contingent. Feelings are very much a human condition, and God doesn't GET angry. if God gets anyway, then that means he changed from one state of being to another, which means He is contingent not the same from everlasting to everlasting. God's love, anger, etc. are all real, but not feelings.

No Jlay... I never said that anyone has to do ANYTHING under the Law... You don't "HAVE TO" baptize yourself... You don't "HAVE TO" wear the tallit... You don't "HAVE TO" participate in the festivals... You don't "HAVE TO" obey Torah. You don't have to do any of that to get saved.... What am I saying then? These are simply DEVOTIONALS as cheezerox beautifully explained to us. They are invites to a way to tickle G-d's heart. Look, I didn't write the Bible but this appears what He wants us to do ..

You do understand that supposed to, and have to are different. G, I even prefaced it by saying, (not required to.) Did you miss that?
Based on what you've stated in this thread, according to you, if we love God are we supposed to follow the torah?

jlay wrote: Now, obviously we have very different opinions on these matters. Particularly with the distinctions today. But I can't for the life of me figure out why someone would try to say that in the OT economy there were no distinctions between Jew and Gentile. That all gentile peoples (not just resident aliens) were under the same law as israel. If I am misunderstanding please correct me.

You simply morph into Israel. But it does not erase distinction.. You are still either a Jew or Gentile just like you are still either a man or woman. We are all under Christ and the body of Israel, His bride. Gal 3:27-28.

jlay wrote:G, I have no problem with a question, and am glad to give an answer. but as a moderator, do you really need to make a comment such as, "what is that you worship?"
classical theism is pretty well founded on the immutability of God, and the fact that He isn't contingent. Feelings are very much a human condition, and God doesn't GET angry. if God gets anyway, then that means he changed from one state of being to another, which means He is contingent not the same from everlasting to everlasting. God's love, anger, etc. are all real, but not feelings.

Ok, sorry about that. But I would say you are wrong.. God has a righteous anger and a righteous love.. And that doesn't change who it is... Who are we to say that God doesn't have any feelings?

You do understand that supposed to, and have to are different. G, I even prefaced it by saying, (not required to.) Did you miss that?
Based on what you've stated in this thread, according to you, if we love God are we supposed to follow the torah?

No.. Not even suppose to. But it would be kind of weird if we didn't obey Torah, IMO.. Or make fun of or ridiculed someone who did (like the Jews). If we claim we love Him then naturally we would obey His commandments to the best of our ability. Obviously we can't do all the ones in the Torah, just the ones that we can apply.

But no... According to the Bible, you are not commanded to do anything for salvation. So just sit back on your couch and wait for the rapture...

so we are not supposed to follow the Torah. Got it. Glad we could finally clear that up.

jlay wrote:so we are not supposed to follow the Torah. Got it. Glad we could finally clear that up.

If we claim to love Him, then we should obey.. It's that simple. It needs to be out of love, not legalism.

/*edit: please note edit at bottom of the post before responding*/

Obviously if we love Christ we should obey Him. But that goes back to the earlier part of the thread and K's line of questioning: what commandments are we to obey? G, you assume that Christ's commandments to Israel are intended for us as well. But that's obviously not true. Acts 15 states bluntly that Gentiles are not under the Law. If we are to obey the Torah, then Acts 15 is wrong. You have created a contradiction in Scripture.

Moreover, I think you are mistaken about the message of Galatians. Paul is not just saying that we aren't justified by works. Yes, that was Luther's interpretation, but he missed the bigger picture. Paul was talking to believers. They were already justified. The error he was freaking out about was their desire to be perfected (that is, sanctified) by following the law. So he says:

• You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? (Gal 3:1-3, NIV)

The Galatians were trying to finish "by means of the flesh," that is, by following the Law. Note the placement of the verse in the book. This is the very first thing Paul says in the doctrinal portion of the epistle. This statement sets the context for all the coming discussion about the Law. A further analysis of Galatians reveals just what Paul really did think about the Law. Consider the five word pictures Paul uses to discuss the Law:

• 1) For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law. (Gal 3:10, NIV)
  
  2) Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. (Gal 3:23, NIV)
  
  3) So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Gal 3:24-25, NIV)
  
  4) What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. (Gal. 4:1-5, NIV)
  
  5)Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. . . . But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” (Gal. 4:21-23, 30, NIV)

Now look at what each of these pictures of the law. In (1), the Law is pictured as a curse. In (2), the Law is pictured as a jailor. In (3), the Law is pictured as a pedagogue. Now, the NIV renders this "guardian." The NASB renders it "tutor." The Greek word is paidogogos a literally means "child-leader." In Greek culture, the paidagogos was the person who was in charge of the children, sort of like a Mary Poppins type figure. He would train and discipline the children until the day the child became an adult (usually thirteen), at which time the child was released from the paidogogos and then raised by the father himself. In (4) the Law is pictured similarly as a house manager who runs the affairs of the house until the child is old enough to run it himself. And in (5), the Law is pictured allegorically as Hagar and Ishmael, and Paul says explicitly they were to be thrown out!

I'd take a moment to point out in particular that 4:21 is particularly applicable to you, since you have professed your desire to be under the Law. Paul explicitly says that you are making yourself a child of Hagar--a child of the slave woman and a child of bondage--rather than a child of freedom.

Now, what all of these word pictures have something in common: they are good in and of themselves, but not something you want to be under permanently. Curses are pronounced on the wicked, and are good insofar as they punish evil. But you being under a curse is bad. You look forward to the day you are released from it. Jailors are good, insofar as they punish evildoers. But you don't want to be locked up by one. You look forward to the day of your release. Pedagogues are good, insofar as they train children. But you don't want to be under one forever. You look forward to the day you can relate directly to your father. House managers are good, insofar as they run affairs while you are incapable of doing so. But you look forward to the day that you are capable of living your own life. And well . . . there's nothing good about being a descendent of a slave woman rather than being a child of a free woman. Paul explicitly says to "get rid of" the slave woman and her children, that is, to get rid of the Law and those under it!

You may want to be under the Law, but Paul says you are bewitched, under a curse, in prison, stuck as child, not able to run your own affairs, and the descendent of the slave woman rather than the free woman (the woman of promise!). He says you are trying to perfect by the works of the flesh what can only be done by the promise, which is received through faith.

We are not under the Law. To say we are is to fall into the Galatian Heresy. Jlay is right, of course, that dispensationalism proves that we are free from the Law. But exegetical theology proves it just as, if not more, clearly in Galatians. I encourage you to submit to Christ and obey His commands, Gman. Cast aside the Law as He has commanded you to do. Live by faith, and not by the Law. Become the mature believer that He died so you can become. Anything less, and you are following a false gospel, which Paul says in Gal 1:8-9 makes you anathema (not "eternally condemned" as per the NIV, but under the curse, as the rest of the book demonstrates).

Be free. Faith alone, my friend. Faith alone. No Law.

edit: Gman, if you would, take a few minutes and read this paper before replying to the above. It's written by a good friend of mine and covers all of the above material in great detail. He wrote it as part of his PhD studies in Linguistics. It's one of the most powerful presentations I've ever read on this subject. Let me know what you think.

A good site for looking into ancient hebrew and its translation is http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ They are providing new translations of the hebrew into english and showing how they are doing it. there is even a free ebook of Genesis. http://www.mechanical-translation.org/ebook.html
I have found that the AHRC site is quite interesting and huge with lots of info on various topics. here is a sample from the ebook A Mechanical translation of the book of genesis by Jeff Brenner;

Genesis 1:1 In the summit "Elohiym [Powers]" fattened the sky and the land,
Genesis 1:2 and the land had existed in confusion and was unfilled and darkness was upon the face of the deep sea and the wind of "Elohiym [Powers]" was much fluttering upon the face of the water,
Genesis 1:3 and "Elohiym [Powers]" said, light exist and light existed.
.....

KBCid wrote:A good site for looking into ancient hebrew and its translation is http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ They are providing new translations of the hebrew into english and showing how they are doing it. there is even a free ebook of Genesis. http://www.mechanical-translation.org/ebook.html
I have found that the AHRC site is quite interesting and huge with lots of info on various topics. here is a sample from the ebook A Mechanical translation of the book of genesis by Jeff Brenner;

Genesis 1:1 In the summit "Elohiym [Powers]" fattened the sky and the land,
Genesis 1:2 and the land had existed in confusion and was unfilled and darkness was upon the face of the deep sea and the wind of "Elohiym [Powers]" was much fluttering upon the face of the water,
Genesis 1:3 and "Elohiym [Powers]" said, light exist and light existed.
.....

I've actually been through every word of his site and watched all the videos, and I have to say I wasn't that impressed with Mr. Benner's work. Suffice it to say, I think he makes some rather serious methodological errors. I mean, perhaps he is right, but if he is, the entire linguistic community (both the narrower community that specializes in Semitic languages and the broader community that focuses on linguistics generally) is just wrong in their basic assumptions.

Now, science isn't done by vote or consensus. So, perhaps Mr. Benner alone is correct. I just don't happen to think so.

Jac3510 wrote:I've actually been through every word of his site and watched all the videos, and I have to say I wasn't that impressed with Mr. Benner's work. Suffice it to say, I think he makes some rather serious methodological errors. I mean, perhaps he is right, but if he is, the entire linguistic community (both the narrower community that specializes in Semitic languages and the broader community that focuses on linguistics generally) is just wrong in their basic assumptions. Now, science isn't done by vote or consensus. So, perhaps Mr. Benner alone is correct. I just don't happen to think so.

The one thing that impresses me with his work is that he shows the reader exactly how he is translating and we can research any opposing views or variations on the translation. For me this kind of openess allows me to decide what may or may not be right. As always I remain tenative on totally accepting what anyone says.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

I find it kind of ironic that you mention he alone might be correct as that has in the past been a mark of God at work. Remember Micaiah?

2 Chronicles 18:5 Therefore the king of Israel gathered together of prophets four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for God will deliver it into the king's hand.
2 Chronicles 18:6 But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might inquire of him?

The possibility that a lone voice is telling the truth or maybe have even one jem of truth is worth investigation.

Transparency is a good thing. More people should be embrace it.

As far as him alone being right, I concede(d) it only as a logical possibility. I guess Joseph Smith could have said the same thing, right?

I'll respond to you later.

Jac3510 wrote:Transparency is a good thing. More people should be embrace it. As far as him alone being right, I concede(d) it only as a logical possibility. I guess Joseph Smith could have said the same thing, right?

Absolutely correct.

I apologize for such a late reply, things've been quite hectic with Passover and personal things going on, but I'm glad to be back to discuss this now, as I'm very interested in this debate.

jlay wrote:God's feelings? Not to pick nits, but God doesn't have feelings as such. He is good and righteous, and He doesn't change. However, how God has dealt with man HAS changed over time. To deny so, is to deny the obvious. Does God deal with man the same today as in the garden? No. This isn't an issue of immutability.

Okay, theologically God may not have "feelings" as we are accustomed to them, but you would agree He has stances on what is right and wrong, correct? So when He tells us certain things are right or wrong, then those things are right or wrong, right? God deals differently with man than He did in the Garden, that's true. But He's never contradicted Himself. The way He dealt with us in the Garden doesn't go against Torah, and Torah doesn't go against the Garden. Human nature has changed since then, so there was a need for something new. The Torah was given because it's what God finds good for us to do and bad for us to do. That doesn't change.

At one point in the history of man, circumcision meant nothing. Then God made a covenant with Abraham and suddenly it meant something significant. Circumcision versus uncircumcisision. Eating certain animals meant nothing at one point, or what kind of material clothing was made out of. Then Sinai happened, and suddenly it meant something. God's way He related to man changed. Then came Christ...... Did Gid change? No. Then Christ sent Paul. Did God change? No.

Progressive relevation does not negate previous revelation. Jesus' teachings don't go against what came before. Paul's didn't go against Jesus'. God did not change, His mysteries and plans have simply been revealed more and more. I do see your point, and I agree that over time things have changed so that things that didn't have meaning before were given meaning through God's doing, but it never went against or nullified one of His previous revelations or instructions.

You do understand what resident alien means right? your ultimate argument was that the law applies to the Gentiles as well. That was the case you were trying to build. It is a bad case. A resident alien is one who has decided on his free will to live within Israel and thus live under the theocratic law. Just as if you willingly moved to Saudi Arabia, you would be living under Sharia law, like it or not. Doesn't mean you have to become a Muslim, but it is a theocratic state.

That is true. But you misunderstand me a bit about the law applying to the Gentiles, because I haven't explained it well enough, so for that I apologize. When I say the Torah was meant for the non-Israelis as well, I don't mean the other nations. I mean the Gentiles who CONVERTED to Judaism and became a part of Israel; proselytes. Gentiles who came to believe in the God of Israel and decided to worship Him and to join His people. God's covenants and promises were to Israel as a nation, but any person outside of the physical nation who came to believe in and submit to the One True God, became a member of Israel and was regarded the same as any other natural-born Israeli. So I mean anyone who believed in God and followed Him, not just any Gentile.

Understanding Pauline dispensationalism is the key. It is obvious you do not. And that is OK, many do not, or have a distorted dispensational view. I have provided some links in this thread already.
Jews TODAY are not supposed to follow the Levitical law. Gman says they ARE supposed to, as well as Gentiles. (Notice I didn't say required to)

Okay, that's a fair point. I admit that I am not familiar with the theological position and study of Pauline dispensationalism, although I did read the link you gave in this thread. I would agree with Gman's position.

Paul used language to help us understand the 'one new man.' He however is careful to point out there is a continued distinction. No where does he say that Gentiles are Israel. You are reading in your presuppositions. Jesus very much made the distinctions. Matthew 15:24

Again, a good point. I would agree. While we are all made into one new man in Messiah, we are not changed from who we are, whether we are Jews or Gentiles. The distinctions do exist, and yes, Jesus Himself acknowledged them, as He was sent to preach first only to the Jews, for salvation is of the Jews, and they are and were God's people. But, I do not believe or profess that Gentiles become Jews when they accept Jesus. I do believe that they become members of Israel. Now, I understand how that seems identical to the former, so let me make the distinction between the two now. When I refer to Israel, I mean God's people, His Nation, the people He's chosen. God's Israel is not determined by lineage or by ancestry, but by acceptance of the Lord Yeshua. This was originally strictly for the Jewish people, and the Gentiles were "separated from Messiah, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise*," as stated in Ephesians 2. Then, notice how it continues, saying, "But now in Messiah Yeshua you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah." This is saying that they're being brought into the nation, namely the commonwealth of Israel, and this is seen as the same thing as being attatched to Jesus. So they're not changed in regards to ethnicity, social status, or culture, but in being now a citizen of God's people and kingdom (Israel) instead of that of man.

* I just want to point out that it says that FORMERLY, Gentiles were separated from Messiah and excluded from the commonwealth of Israel. Right there, Israel is associated and almost synonymous with being in Messiah. Also, it says they were strangers to the covenants of the promise. These are the covenants of Abraham, Sinai, and David. Most English translations of the verse leave out the "the," but it's there in the Greek manuscripts. This is somewhat significant as it shows that these covenants are as well associated with a singular, unified promise, namely, the promise of salvation through Messiah.

Most are relying on this verse or similar ones.
"But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2:29) And if the discourse ended there you might make that assumption. But of course it doesn't. Immediately Paul follows it up with this. Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. (Romans 3:1)
Most want to apply v.29 to everyone. But the verse is speaking of Jews. The true Jew is the one who is circumsized in their heart. This was already an OT concept. Deut. 30:6, Jer. 4:4 Meaning that there were Jews who were Jews outwardly, but did not believe. Just as there are Catholics today who follow all the ordinances, yet do not know Christ.

I agree with you completely on this one. For one, that this verse does not say that believers become Jews, and that this is speaking specifically of the Jewish people.

Another thing that is very important in right division are the personal pronouns. We, you, they, us. There are places in Paul's writings were he is making these distinctions, yet many translations ignore them. For example. In Romans 7:1 "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

I also agree that this is very important as well, and could possibly significantly affect this debate. But, I must admit, I do not see how this particular verse is affected by the pronouns. Could you please explain this to me?

Yes, one of us is right and one is wrong. Or we are both wrong. Either way, I pray that God will reveal that to both of us as is the case.
I hope you do not think I have arrived at this without much study and prayer. I once stood closer to your position.

Very true. My prayers are in accordance with yours. And I believe it, I have much respect for you and admire your knowledge and honesty. The fact that you once stood closer to my side of this issue makes your current stance more intriguing and humbles me to be completely open to your side. I hope we both get some wisdom and knowledge from this, and I pray God brings us both closer to His truth. I'm glad we can debate this as brothers and not opponents.

Eph. 3:4-5 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ,
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Colossians 1:26 "the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints."
What is the mystery?
Romans 16:25 "Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,..."

When it says was not made known, I believe it. The Word Gospel means good news, or glad tidings. That is to say, just like there can be more than one baptism, (and there is) there can be more than one Gospel.
Gal. 1:6, Gal. 2:7

Okay, very well said, my friend. I believe our dispute is simply over the meaning of saying that the Gospel is revealed in the Scriptures. When I say that the Gospel is there in the Tanach, I mean to say that it can be found there when understood through Messiah and through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The truth and teaching of the Gospel can be found in it, but the clear revelation and understanding of the mystery of the Messiah was not revealed until His coming and was continued to be revealed through Paul's preaching that was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The message of the Gospel can be found in the Tanakh, but it was not fully revealed until Jesus and Paul came, and is still to this day not fully revealed until the Holy Spirit enters into the picture for those who don't accept Yeshua. I believe we can agree on this.

jlay wrote:It is important to note the distinctions in how Paul presents Christ compared to in the Gospels. I understand that many don't want to make the distinctions, and I was one of those for many years. We just tend to lump everything into one pot, stir and enjoy. and worse, we ignore or dismiss the contradictions this approach leaves us with. In Jesus' earthly minstry He said there would be a time where judgment will be based on your works. (Matt. 25) Paul speaks of justification by faith alone. And people do spiritual gymnastics trying to reconcile this when there is no distinction. Uh, sure you are saved by faith alone, but if you don't have works then you are eternally damned. And then they want to say with a straight face that there is no contradiction here.

Brother, I would have to say that you have this misunderstood. For one, even if there is a difference in the teaching of Jesus' and the teaching of Paul's, John teaches a judgement based on works as well in Revelation 20:12, and this was revealed a while after both Jesus' and Paul's ministries. I would also point out Revelation 20:15, which seems to teach salvation through faith as well, as it shows that those who were written in the book of life were saved by that alone, and were not judged.

Something that's important is to understand the Biblical concept of faith. Biblical faith is not just mental acceptance or lip profession, it is something that is truly in the heart and is naturally manifested outwardly. This is shown in that in the Hebrew and Greek, the word expressing the concept of faith also contains a verb built on the same root. We can't say in English that someone "faithed," or that someone is "faithing" in God. In the Greek, the verb "pisteuo," which means "to believe," has the corresponding noun "pistis," which can mean either "faith" or "faithful". This word, pistis, itself is significant for the fact that it can be used to mean both the inward belief of someone, as well as faithfulness in action. There is no distinction. Paul simply emphasized the need for sincere, honest faith, while Jesus at times (as well as James and John) stressed the need for disciplined and fruitful faith. I feel as though I may be misunderstanding your point, so if I am, please clarify what you meant to me.