#Exegetical study on Matthew 16:18

[mindfulldsliving]

Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail: A Proper Exegetical Commentary and Analysis of Matthew 16:18

The Grave Has No Victory When Jesus declared in Matthew 16:18, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, He made one of the most powerful statements in scripture about the endurance of His church. This promise isn’t just about survival—it’s a declaration of victory over death, evil, and apostasy. For Christians, and particularly Latter-day Saints, this verse affirms divine authority, the…

[markcovertononline]

Matthew 18:23–35 recounts one of Jesus’s well-known parables in which a servant, after being forgiven an impossibly huge debt by the king, refuses to forgive the tiny debt a fellow servant owed him. The parable ends with this forgiven—yet unforgiving—servant punished by the king for his lack of grace. Although the word grace never actually appears in the story, this parable is a lesson about grace for us who have received far greater grace from our heavenly Lord, Jesus. Here we see how grace is a gift of undeserved kindness and forgiveness and also how God’s great grace should transform us.

The Greek word χάρις (charis) is most often rendered “grace,” but also “benefit,” “thanks,” “credit,” or “favor.” Paul is the most focused on grace of all the New Testament writers. Of the 155 times the word χάρις occurs in the New Testament, 100 appear in Paul’s epistles. In fact, he gives special emphasis to grace by opening every letter with “grace and peace to you” (e.g., Romans 1:6; Philippians 1:2; Titus 1:4), and often closing his letters with “grace” (e.g., Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 16:23; 2 Corinthians 13:13; Galatians 6:18).

We may find ourselves having difficulty accepting grace or giving it to others, but we must learn from Jesus and Paul. Paul sees himself as completely unqualified to be an apostle (1 Corinthians 15:9; Ephesians 3:8) and the greatest of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), therefore, undeserving of God’s grace. In fact, we are all sinners (Romans 5:8–12) in need of God’s grace. And grace is the very fabric of the gospel God has given Paul to preach. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, apart from any human works (Ephesians 2:8–9). We believers in Jesus now find ourselves in God’s favor because of “this grace in which we now stand” (Romans 5:2 NIV). God’s grace and kindness flow into every area of life for us now and into our eternal future with him (Romans 5:17).

Like Jesus, the Apostle Paul underscores and amplifies the connection between God’s grace to us and our forgiveness of others:

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Ephesians 4:32 NIV)

The Greek verb translated “forgiving” and “forgave” in v.32 is χαρίζομαι (charizomai), which is the verb form of our noun χάρις (charis).

While χαρίζομαι is often translated forgive, the meaning of the word is much broader. God’s grace to us includes His forgiving our sins and His giving overabundant kindness in “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 8:9; cf. Ephesians 1:3–6; 3:20–21; 1 Corinthians 2:9; Isaiah 64:4). This is the very attitude that Paul asks us to imitate in our relationships with each other (Ephesians 5:1).

So, another way to read “forgiving each other” (Ephesians 4:32) is “being gracious to one another.”1 When we fully understand the enormous debt we have been forgiven, we should be eager to emulate our King and offer others the same overflowing grace. Perhaps this is why Paul’s favorite greeting to the churches is “grace to you.”

by J. William Johnston, PhD

1 Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 639–40.

Dr. J. William Johnston serves as Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Before Dr. Johnston was a believer, he doubted the accuracy of Scripture translations and, therefore, the integrity of the Bible. He came to faith and decided that the only way to find out whether the translations were reliable was to learn the original languages. After majoring in the classics at the University of Texas, he came to DTS and discovered that teaching was his passion. His research interests are Greek grammar, syntax, and Johannine studies.

dallas-theological-seminary-logo

[graceandpeacejoanne]

The Virgin Mary

The Virgin Mary In each succeeding story, a picture emerges of a woman of great faith, spiritual wisdom, a scriptural scholar in her own right, one who believed in the power, provision, and promise of Almighty God.

We return to Matthew’s gospel for the final woman listed in his genealogy—that of the Virgin Mary, within whom was conceived God the Son by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. We find this out—according to Matthew—through Gabriel’s reassurance to Joseph in a dream. The Virgin Mary Virgin Mary Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.Matthew 1:16…

[morganh1066-blog]

why the historicity of the jesus character is poor

did the jesus character really exist?

keep in mind that i'm not saying that this character 100% didn't exist. i'm saying that it's extremely unlikely due to the lack of credible evidence. it is fallacious to say that because something is possible that it is therefore probable. i'll answer this in multiple posts, and they will be a bit long, but give it some patience, and i'll describe it in as much depth as i can.

historically the question on the historicity isn't anything new, there have been a number of people who have doubted the credibility of the proposed data. the scholarly research into the idea that the jesus character wasn't real goes back to the 1700s with Volney and Dupuis. There's also Bauer, Remsberg, W.B. Smith, Arthur Drews, Couchoud, Bolland, Allegro, GA Wells, Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Thomas Brodie, and Doherty

the main point is that *there is absolutely no direct evidence or primary sources for the character. * it never wrote anything, no one who met the character wrote anything about it, thus all of the proposed evidence is secondary at best and hearsay.

the people i have communicated with have brought up a number of people's writing as "proof." in particular:

Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Clement of Rome, 2 Clement4, Ignatius, Josephus  (Jewish historian), Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas,  Shepherd of Hermas,  Fragments of Papias,  Tacitus (Roman historian),  Lucian  (Greek satirist), Justin Martyr,  Aristides,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus of Antioch,  Quadratus,  Aristo of Pella, Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistula Apostolorum, Celsus  (Roman philosopher), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise, Suetonius, Thallus, gospels: Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the reference to tiberius

first off, the gospels themselves are not valid forms of biography.

_"Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published under his name; and it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the canonical books ascribed to them."_ -- Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College (Bible Review, June 1994)

_"The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts."_ -- Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels

_"Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing."_ -- Jeffery L. Sheler, “Who Wrote the Bible,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars– from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or traveled with Jesus."_ -- Jeffery L. Sheler, “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"The bottom line is we really don’t know for sure who wrote the Gospels."_ -- Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that 'we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus.' "_ -- Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926

_"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They’re not biographies."_ -- Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)

_"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts."_ -- Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

the other very important fact is that there is no contemporaneous historical account of the jesus character. there are first century historians that never mention the jesus character at all:

*seneca*: 4bce-65ce *pliny the elder*: 23-79 *quintilian*: 39-96 *epictetus*: 55-135 *martial*: 38-103 *juvenal*: 55-127 *plutarch*: 46-119 *philo-judaeus*: 15bce-50ce

some of the dead sea scrolls were contemporaneous and they don't mention the character either.

next i’ll discuss the books of the new testament.

================================

here is the list of the books in the new testament:

_*writer       book*_ *matt*       matt *mark*      mark *luke*       luke                   acts *john*       john                   I john                   II john                   III john                   revelation *peter*     I peter                   II peter *james*    james *jude*       jude *paul*       romans                   philipians                   I timothy                   II timothy                   I corinthians                   II corinthians                   colossians                   titus                   I thessalonians                   II thessalonians                   philemon                   galatians                   ephesians *undetermined*    hebrews

note that paul appears to have written pretty much half of these books and according to *galatians 1:11-12* he clearly states that he didn't get this information from a man, but rather from revelation.

*matt*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s_. (ehrman, lost christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew [oup2003], p235) no original manuscripts are in existence. could not have been an eyewitness as written far after the supposed death (einar thomassen, " 'forgery' in the new testament," in the invention of sacred tradition, ed. james r lewis and olav hammer [cambridge: cambridge university press, 2007], p141)

*mark*: not able to confirm author. _written 70-75._  no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference

*luke, acts*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference

*john, I john, II john, III john, revelation*: not able to confirm author. however it is the only gospel that gives a clue that the actual author could have been john (john 21:20-24). _written in the 90s._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

*I peter, II peter*: not able to confirm author. _written about 80-90_ [Stanton, Graham. Eerdmans Commentary of the Bible. Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003.]  considered to be "wisdom literature."  Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author. (Achtemeier, Paul. Peter 1 Hermeneia. Fortress Press. 1996)  authorship of 1 Peter remains contested. (Travis B. Williams (1 November 2012). Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering. BRILL. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-90-04-24189-3. Retrieved 1 April 2013.)

*james*: not able to confirm author, considered to be pseudonymous. considered to be written in the last 1st and first 2nd century ("Epistle of James". Early Christian Writings. Retrieved 16 May 2012.) _The earliest extant manuscripts of James usually date to the mid-to-late third century._ (McCartney, Dan G (2009). Robert W Yarbrough and Robert H Stein, ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: James. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.)

*jude*: _written at the end of the 1st century_. Although some scholars consider the letter a pseudonymous work written between the end of the 1st century and the first quarter of the 2nd century, arguing from the references to the apostles (jude 17&18), and tradition (jude 3). and the book's competent Greek style, conservative scholars date it between 66 to 90 (Norman Perrin, (1974) The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 260 and Bauckham,RJ (1986), Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.50, Word (UK) Ltd. p.16-17)

*attributed to paul*: romans, philipians,  I timothy,  II timothy, I corinthians, II corinthians, colossians, titus, I thessalonians, II thessalonians, philemon, galatians, ephesians. thessalonians is usually dated to 49 ce, but later ones are mid 60s. paul, by his own witness was not an eye-witness of the jesus character as stated in galatians 1:11-12. no originals are in existence. the earliest are some from 200 (Ehrman, Bart (2005) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper SanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. page 60)

*hebrews*: author unknown. _written around 80_. no original manuscript is in existence.

bruze metzger wrote: *"none of the original documents is extant, and the existing copies differ from one another."* (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 1992) the earliest manuscripts date back to 125 to 400, and none of those are originals.

incidentally, bart ehrman considers that  11 or more books out of the 27 books of the new testament were written as forgeries and that the "New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate." the article continues to say that ehrman believes that _"Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds."_ (*"Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says".* CNN. 2011. retrieved 1 25 14)

ehrman continues to say that these are the forged books: Acts of the Apostles, First Epistle of Peter, Second Epistle of Peter, Epistle of James, Epistle of Jude, First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Epistle of Paul to Titus, Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, and the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians.

thus from this information, with no original documents in existence, none of the manuscripts is a primary source for the sole purpose of evaluating the historicity of the jesus character.

next, i'll show the "proofs" outside of the bible

==========================

now regarding the "proofs" outside of the bible that people have frequently presented to me:

1    Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution) 2    Clement of Rome 3    2 Clement4 4    Ignatius 5    Josephus  (Jewish historian) 6    Polycarp 7    Martyrdom of Polycarp 8    Didache 9    Barnabas 10    Shepherd of Hermas 11    Fragments of Papias 12    Tacitus (Roman historian) 13    Lucian  (Greek satirist) 14    Justin Martyr 15    Aristides 16    Athenagoras 17    Theophilus of Antioch 18    Quadratus 19    Aristo of Pella 20    Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories) 21    Melito of Sardis 22    Diognetus 23    Gospel of Peter 24    Apocalypse of Peter 25    Epistula Apostolorum 26    Celsus  (Roman philosopher) 27    Pliny the Younger (Roman politician) 28    Gospel of Thomas 29    Gospel of Truth 30    Apocryphon of John 31    Treatise. 32    Suetonius 33    Thallus

gospels: 34    Matt 35    Mark 36    Luke 37    John 38    Paul

39    reference to tiberius

what's also important is to not fall into the fallacy of mistaking *quantity over quality.* this is akin to two wrongs making a right. it needs to be *quality over quantity.*

so let's start with #39, tiberius:

that someone says another person lived during the time of the supposed character but that the person never wrote about the character is not proof. you have to have the writing about the character for there to actually be contemporaneous evidence. until then it's just claimed contemporaneous _*existence.*_  NOT evidence.

and let's go to 34-38. the gospels. and paul.

These are a few of the quotes regarding the gospels as non-historical accounts like i had mentioned before:

_"The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts."_ -- Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels

_"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They’re not biographies."_ -- Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)

_"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts."_ -- Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

_"the gospels are very peculiar types of literature. they're not biographies. I mean, there are all sorts of details about jesus that they're simply not interested in giving us. they are a kind of religious advertisement. what they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the christian message through the device of using jesus of nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists's position"_ -- religious scholar and historian (paula fredriksen, pbs, "paula fredriksen: religious advertisements," accessed 2/4/12)

gospel "proof":

#34: *matt*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s_. (ehrman, lost christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew [oup2003], p235) no original manuscripts are in existence. could not have been an eyewitness as written far after the supposed death (einar thomassen, " 'forgery' in the new testament," in the invention of sacred tradition, ed. james r lewis and olav hammer [cambridge: cambridge university press, 2007], p141)

#35: *mark*: not able to confirm author. _written 70-75._  no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference

#36: *luke, acts*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference

#37: *john, I john, II john, III john, revelation*: not able to confirm author. however it is the only gospel that gives a clue that the actual author could have been john (john 21:20-24). _written in the 90s._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

#38: *attributed to paul*: romans, philipians,  I timothy,  II timothy, I corinthians, II corinthians, colossians, titus, I thessalonians, II thessalonians, philemon, galatians, ephesians. thessalonians is usually dated to 49 ce, but later ones are mid 60s. paul, by his own witness was not an eye-witness of the jesus character as stated in galatians 1:11-12. no originals are in existence. the earliest are some from 200 (Ehrman, Bart (2005) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper SanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. page 60)

the gospels make no mention that the name of the gospel was written by that person. these are written far after the death of the jesus character, and thus is hearsay. none of these people ever met the jesus character.

hearsay is not credible evidence.

and now on to #1-#33 non-biblical "proofs:"

*#1:* Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution).  the reference to the "crucifixion" was written 73 AD does not show direct evidence but just proves that people talked about it. he could have been talking about santa claus, but that doesn't mean it would be true.

*#2:* Clement of Rome. his papacy was between 92-99. he never met the character.

*#3:* 2 Clement4. this character is in the new testament. modern scholars believe 2 clement is written around 95-140 by an anonymous author.

*#4:* Ignatius. never met the jesus character. (from 98 to 117)

*#5:* Josephus  (Jewish historian). born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this only confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay

*#6:* Polycarp. was a 2nd-century Christian bishop of Smyrna. never met the character.

*#7:* Martyrdom of Polycarp. from 155-160. this is well outside the life of the supposed jesus character. it just proves that christians existed.

*#8:* Didache.  late first and early 2nd century.

*#9:* Barnabas. never anywhere does it say that barnabas met the jesus character. and amusingly, there's another book called, the "gospel of barnabas" which is a post-medieval manuscript that says that the jesus character wasn't even the son of god and that it never died on the cross. dating on it is disputed, but it's post-medieval

*#10:* Shepherd of Hermas.  first or second century. in the document it never states that the character ever met the jesus character.

*#11:* Fragments of Papias. who died in AD 155. never met the jesus character.

*#12:* Tacitus (Roman historian) 56-133. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this only again confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay. rafael lataster writes, _"it is interesting that the name 'jesus', 'jesus son of joseph' or 'jesus of nazareth' is never used, and that this is tacitus' only supposed reference to jesus."_  he continues, _"though 'Annals' covers the period of rome's history from around 14ce to 66ce no other mention is made of 'jesus christ'."_ ehrman references this as well in "did jesus exist, p54. lataster, p61.

Tacitus writes in annals, book 15, chapter 44, *written 116 ad:* _“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”_

*most importantly tacitus was born 20 years after the supposed death of the character and lived 2000 miles away and wrote the passage in 116. So as for the two sentences attributed to tacitus' to be a source to without a doubt to clinch it for the jesus character to actually exist, it's not going to be with tacitus.*

notice also that it was *written 116 ad.* this is almost 100 years after the supposed death of the jesus character. We have no primary sources for Tacitus only *copies or copies* that were *written centuries later.* To suggest that these are word for word copies of the original are absurd considering the considerable christian forgeries during that time.

This passage is also not any different or a more credible source for the jesus character than for me writing in 2014 on Mormonism, "the great golden plates were delivered unto joseph smith as told by moroni" just because i went to school 23.5 miles away from palmyra new york doesn't make it any more plausible.

johannes weiss, the german theologian wrote, _*“Assuredly there were the general lines of even a purely fictitious Christian tradition already laid down about the year 100; Tacitus may therefore draw upon this tradition” *_

german theologian david strauss wrote that the earliest christian communities reworded the gospels to suit local prejudices. hegel noted that christian doctrine kept changing to suit power hierarchy. forgery in the early church was rampant and nothing new.

the contradictions are rampant with regard to the completely missing mention of christianity in book 5 chapters 8 through 10 of the annals that describe judea at the supposed time of the jesus character. *they make no mention of the crucifiction of the jesus character as described in the dubious book 15 chapter 44 two sentences.*

What's more is in the annals of chapters 8-10 makes not even a mention of christians, christianity or the jesus character at all.  and all of these references are from writings that are not primary sources as the originals are no longer extant and all we have are copies of copies.

In the tacitus' histories book 5.2-5 he rationalies the greek-roman myths by believing that zeus and kronos were kings. So we're not particularly dealing with someone who could separate fact from fiction.

and with these glaring contradictions, we can thoroughly question the credibility of the claim that the *mere two sentences* attributed to tacitus in any way corroborates anything about the life of a jesus figure's historicity.

We still have no contemporary sources for the existence of the jesus character, nothing written by the character, and especially nothing written about the tons of people that flocked to the character whether or not the character was miraculous or not.

*we want evidence; distinct, obvious, uncompromised evidence.* That is a reasonable request. we want evidence not based on hearsay accounts or ambiguous and slightly dubious sources. Evidence that is not just being argued to fit a narrative that is devoid of any contemporary evidence. then I will change my opinion. but until then, it doesn't matter at all how many times you bang the drum of an appeal to authority or populace or through abusive ad hom call those that require unabiguous evidence "delusional."

*#13:* Lucian  (Greek satirist). *lucian (Greek satirist)* -- 125-180. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this once again only confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay.

*#14:* Justin Martyr. 100 – 165 Ad. he never met the jesus character.

*#15:* Aristides. do you mean "aristides the athenian"  who was born in the 2nd century ad or do you mean aelius aristides (117-181)? neither of these people met the jesus character.

*#16:* Athenagoras.  born 133 ad in greece. never met the character.

*#17:* Theophilus of Antioch. died around 183-185. never met the jesus character.

*#18:* Quadratus. again, born way late in the first century, and died 129. never met the jesus character. *#19:* Aristo of Pella.  from 100-160, who is only known because of a mention by eusebius.

*#20:* Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories).  who lived in the 2nd century AD. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character.

*#21:* Melito of Sardis. mid 2nd century.

*#22:* Diognetus. late 2nd century.

*#23:* Gospel of Peter.  this is actually in the bible, so it's not, "outside the new testament." *I peter, II peter*: not able to confirm author. _written about 80-90_ [Stanton, Graham. Eerdmans Commentary of the Bible. Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003.]  considered to be "wisdom literature."  Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author. (Achtemeier, Paul. Peter 1 Hermeneia. Fortress Press. 1996)  authorship of 1 Peter remains contested. (Travis B. Williams (1 November 2012). Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering. BRILL. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-90-04-24189-3. Retrieved 1 April 2013.)

*#24:* Apocalypse of Peter.  this is from the 2nd century. way after the death of the supposed character. this does not corroborate anything.

*#25:* Epistula Apostolorum. also from the 2nd century.

*#26:* Celsus  (Roman philosopher). 2nd-century Greek philosopher. born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay

*#27:* Pliny the Younger (Roman politician). 61-112 born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay.

*#28:* Gospel of Thomas. Heretical Writings Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on resurrection. this is very nice, but most scholars state that thomas was written in the second century.

*#29:* Gospel of Truth. Was written in greek probably between 140 and 180 by valentinian gnostics. (Attridge, Harold W. and MacRae, George W. "The Gospel of Truth (Introduction and Translation)". The Nag Hammadi Library, James M. Robinson (ed.), pp. 38-51.)  the text puts "error" in personified form. and says that the jesus character was sent down by god to remove ignorance. error grew angry that the jesus character confounded scribes and teachers and nailed the jesus character to a tree. bit of a different story there.

*#30:* Apocryphon of John. written in 185. it was referred to by irenaeus in "adversus haereses" and stated that teachers in the 2nd century were producing an "an indescribable number of secret and illegitimate writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish people, who are ignorant of the true scriptures" (adversus haereses 1.20.1 and Pagels 2003:96)

*#31:* Treatise. not exactly sure what this is referring to. the book of acts refers to the gospel of luke as "the former treatise." if this is the case, it is not non-biblical. luke and acts do not have a confirmed author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

*#32:* Suetonius.  aside from seutonius not being a contemporary of the jesus character, only wrote, "since the jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of chrestus, he expelled them from rome." (seutonius and jc rolfe, the lives of the caesars, vol 2[london: heinemann, 1914, life of claudius 25.4]) chrestus is a greek name, meaning "the good," so does not necessarily have to refer to the jesus character. note that christians are also not specified, though many early christians were undoubtedly jews. this passage offers little to no information about the jesus of nazareth character.

*#33:* Thallus. lived in the third century. born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. it's just a reference that 9th century christian chronologer george syncellus wrote, "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the Sun in the third book of his Histories."  this is ultimately not non-christian reference as syncellus wrote it.

nothing in the dead sea scrolls, btw, which actually was contemporaneous!

and lastly the talmud which some christians reference:  there are a number of reference to various character called "jesus" (specifically from the "gemara") which may or may not reference the jesus character of nazareth. the gemara is actually from the 5th or 6th century which is 400-500 years after the death of the supposed character. there are other jesuses refered to in josephus as well, such as , "jesus ben pandira," jesus bar phabet,” and “jesus bar gamaliel." the name “jesus” was a very common name. nothing to directly connect to the jesus of nazareth character.

there is no additive truths here, that the more fractional truths add up to an actual truth. you can have a bunch of people pretending that santa claus was real and the more people saying it's true doesn't make it any more true due the the fallacy of appealing to populace.  don't mistake quantity over quality and make two wrongs make a right.

and that something must have been amazing to cause people to write so much after the fact is not evidence either. it just made it an ad hoc popular idea. and evidence from silence is still silence not evidence.

there's also a quote from historian robert wilken:

_"when christianity gained control of the roman empire it suppressed the writings of its critics and even cast them into flames."_ (robert louis wilken, the christians as the romans saw them, [new haven, ct: yale university press, 2003] p xvi)

so there's some censorship for ya of critics of christianity. what they complained about we'll never know either.

next i will discuss the problem of the jesus character not fullfilling the prophecies. these are not at all related to proofs for the historical existence of the jesus character but internal criticism (relating just within the bible itself).

=============================

this is the last post of why the evidence (or lack of evidence) suggest that the jesus character very likely didn't exist. these are not at all related to proofs for the historical existence of the jesus character but internal criticism (relating just within the bible itself).

as for if the character even fulfilled the prophecies that's another problem and let's go over that, too:

and according to the jews, the jesus character doesn't fulfill the prophecies. specifically, the bible says he will:    Build the Third Temple -- *Ezekiel 37:26-28*    Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel -- *Isaiah 43:5-6*    Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." -- *Isaiah 2:4*    Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" -- *Zechariah 14:9*

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah. none of these has been fulfilled.

and that this deity which cannot support any burden of proof of itself either sends this message of a mortal son to illiterate bronze age idiots instead of people who could actually make written testimony of it like china for example.

Sin is an imaginary disease that was invented to sell you an imaginary cure. it's the essence of marketing. and the outlandish cures are snake oil cures.

even the old testament doesn't allow for the scapegoat: Deut 24:16 states "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

Exodus 32:30-34 shows that the deity refuses to make a scapegoat of moses:  The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

ezekiel 18:1-4 shows that the deity refuses to make scapegoats, each shall take responsibility for their actions:  "guilty he word of the Lord came to me:  “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: ‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die."

and then of course there's the point that the jesus character was a total commie, " sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven." *luke 18:22, mark 10:21, matt 19:21. *

horrible family values of the jesus character: _"... i have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law and one's foes will be members of one's own household"_ -- matt 10:35-36; luke 12:52-53

more horrible family values of the jesus character: _"whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"_ -- matt 10:37

and even more bad family values of leaving one's own family: _"another said, 'i will follow you lord; but let me first say farewell to those at home.' jesus said to him 'no one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of god"_ -- luke 9:61-62

we all are a better example of this so-called savior who wants people to abandon their family.

and great forgotten teachings that no one follows: _".. anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"_ -- matt 5:32; 19:9; mark 10:11-12; luke 16:18

this immoral character is not only not likely to be real, but is an horrible example of any kind of idol one should ever follow.

and after all of that, 1 cor 15:14, _"... if christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."_

[michaellozano171]

Salvation

Bible Study Salvation sal - vā´shun : I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 1. General 2. Individualism 3. Faith 4. Moral Law 5. Sacrifices 6. Ritual Law II. INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE 1. General 2. The Law III. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 1. The Baptist 2. Kingdom of God 3. Present and Future 4. Individualism 5. Moral Progress 6. Forgiveness 7. Person of Christ 8. Notes IV. PAUL 1. General 2. Moral Progress 3. The Spirit 4. Mystical Union 5. Forgiveness 6. Atonement 7. Summary 8. Notes V. THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT : SUMMARY 1. John 2. Hebrews 3. Peter 4. Summary LITERATURE In English Versions of the Bible the words "salvation" "save," are not technical theological terms, but denote simply "deliverance," in almost any sense the latter word can have. In systematic theology, however, "salvation" denotes the whole process by which man is delivered from all that would prevent his attaining to the highest good that God has prepared for him. Or, by a transferred sense, "salvation" denotes the actual enjoyment of that good. So, while these technical senses are often associated with the Greek or Hebrew words translated "save," etc., yet they are still more often used in connection with other words or represented only by the general sense of a passage. And so a collection of the original terms for "save," etc., is of value only for the student doing minute detailed work, while it is the purpose of the present article to present a general view of the Biblical doctrine of salvation. I. In the Old Testament 1. General: (1) As long as revelation had not raised the veil that separates this life from the next, the Israelite thought of his highest good as long life in a prosperous Palestine, as described most typically in Deuteronomy 28:1-14 . But a definite religious idea was present also, for the "land of milk and honey," even under angelic protection, was worthless without access to God (Exodus 33:1-4 ), to know whom gives happiness (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14; Jeremiah 31:34 ). Such a concept is normal for most of the Old Testament, but there are several significant enlargements of it. That Israel should receive God's characteristic of righteousness is a part of the ideal (Isaiah 1:26; Isaiah 4:3 , Isaiah 4:4; Isaiah 32:1-8; Isaiah 33:24; Jeremiah 31:33 , Jeremiah 31:34; Ezekiel 36:25 , Ezekiel 36:26; Zec 8; Daniel 9:24; Psalms 51:10-12 ). Good was found in the extension of Israel's good to the surrounding nations (Micah 4:1-4; Isaiah 2:2-4; Isaiah 45:5 , Isaiah 45:6; Zechariah 2:11; Zechariah 8:22 , Zechariah 8:23; Isa 60; Isaiah 66:19-21; Zechariah 14:16 , Zechariah 14:17 , etc.), even to the extension of the legitimate sacrificial worship to the soil of Egypt (Isaiah 19:19-22 ). Palestine was insufficient for the enjoyment of God's gifts, and a new heaven and a new earth were to be received (Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22 ), and a share in the glories was not to be denied even to the dead (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2 ). And, among the people so glorified, God would dwell in person (Isaiah 60:19 , Isaiah 60:20; Zechariah 2:10-12 ). (2) Salvation, then, means deliverance from all that interferes with the enjoyment of these blessings. So it takes countless forms - deliverance from natural plagues, from internal dissensions, from external enemies, or from the subjugation of conquerors (the exile, particularly). As far as enemies constitute the threatening danger, the prayer for deliverance is often based on their evil character (Psalms 101:1-8 , etc.). But for the individual all these evils are summed up in the word "death," which was thought to terminate all relation to God and all possibility of enjoying His blessings (Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18 , etc.). And so "death" became established as the antinomy to "salvation," and in this sense the word has persisted, although the equation "loss of salvation = physical death" has long been transcended. But death and its attendant evils are worked by God's wrath, and so it is from this wrath that salvation is sought (Joshua 7:26 , etc.). And thus, naturally, salvation is from everything that raises that wrath, above all from sin (Ezekiel 36:25 , Ezekiel 36:26 , etc.). 2. Individualism: (1) At first the "unit of salvation" was the nation (less prominently the family), i.e. a man though righteous could lose salvation through the faults of others. A father could bring a curse on his children (2 Samuel 21:1-14 ), a king on his subjects (2 Sam 24), or an unknown sinner could bring guilt on an entire community (Deuteronomy 21:1-9 ). (On the other hand, ten righteous would have saved Sodom (Genesis 18:32 ).) And the principle of personal responsibility was grasped but slowly. It is enunciated partly in Deuteronomy 24:16 (compare Jeremiah 31:29 , Jeremiah 31:30 ), definitely in Ezekiel 14:12-20; 18; 33:1-20, and fairly consistently in the Psalms. But even Ezekiel still held that five-and-twenty could defile the whole nation (Ezekiel 8:16 ), and he had not the premises for resolving the problem - that temporal disasters need not mean the loss of salvation. (2) But even when it was realized that a man lost salvation through his own fault, the converse did not follow. Salvation came, not by the man's mere merit, but because the man belonged to a nation peculiarly chosen by God. God had made a covenant with Israel and His fidelity insured salvation: the salvation comes from God because of His promise or (in other words) because of His name. Indeed, the great failing of the people was to trust too blindly to this promise, an attitude denounced continually by the prophets throughout (from, say, Amos 3:2 to Matthew 3:9 ). And yet even the prophets admit a real truth in the attitude, for, despite Israel's sins, eventual salvation is certain. Ezekiel 20 states this baldly: there has been nothing good in Israel and there is nothing good in her at the prophet's own day, but, notwithstanding, God will give her restoration (compare Isaiah 8:17 , Isaiah 8:18; Jeremiah 32:6-15 , etc.). 3. Faith: Hence, of the human conditions, whole-hearted trust in God is the most important. ( Belief in God is, of course, never argued in the Bible.) Inconsistent with such trust are, for instance, seeking aid from other nations ( Isaiah 30:1-5 ), putting reliance in human skill (2 Chronicles 16:12 ), or forsaking Palestine through fear (Jer 42). In Isaiah 26:20 entire passivity is demanded, and in 2 Kings 13:19 lukewarmness in executing an apparently meaningless command is rebuked. 4. Moral Law: (1) Next in importance is the attainment of a moral standard, expressed normally in the various codes of the Law. But fulfillment of the letter of the commandment was by no means all that was required. For instance, the Law permitted the selling of a debtor into slavery (Deuteronomy 15:12 ), but the reckless use of the creditor's right is sharply condemned (Nehemiah 5:1-13 ). The prophets are never weary of giving short formulas that will exclude such supralegalism and reduce conduct to a pure motive: "Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate" (Amos 5:15 ); "To do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8 ). And the chief emphasis on the Law as written is found in the later books, especially Ps 119 (compare Psalms 147:20 ). (2) Certain breaches of the Law had no pardon, but were visited with death at once, even despite repentance and confession (Josh 7). But for the most part it is promised that repentance will remove the guilt of the sin if the sin be forsaken (Ezek 18) or, in the case of a sin that would not be repeated, if contrition be felt (2 Sam 12). Suffering played a part in salvation by bringing knowledge of sin to the conscience, the exile being the most important example (Ezekiel 36:31 ). But almost always it is assumed that the possibility of keeping the Law is in man's own power, Deuteronomy 30:11-14 stating this explicitly, while the Wisdom Books equate virtue with learning. Consequently, an immense advance was made when man felt the need of God's help to keep the Law, the need of the inscription of the Laws on the heart ( Jeremiah 31:31-34 ). So an outlook was opened to a future in which God would make the nation righteous (see references in 1, above). 5. Sacrifices: (1) The acceptance of repentance as expiating past sins was an act of God's mercy. And so His mercy instituted other and additional means of expiation, most notably that of the sacrifices. But a theology of sacrifice is conspicuously absent from the whole Old Testament, for Leviticus 17:11 is too incidental and too obscure to be any exception. The Christian (or very late Jewish) interpretations of the ritual laws lack all solidity of exegetical foundation, despite their one-time prevalence. Nor is the study of origins of much help for the meaning attached to the rites by the Jews in historic times. General ideas of offering, of self-denial, of propitiation of wrath, and of entering into communion with God assuredly existed. But in the advanced stages of the religion there is no evidence that sacrifices were thought to produce their effect because of any of these things, but solely because God had commanded the sacrifices. (2) Most sins required a sacrifice as part of the act of repentance, although in case of injury done the neighbor, only after reparation had been made. It is not quite true that for conscious sins no sacrifices were appointed, for in Leviticus 5:1; Leviticus 6:1-3 , sins are included that could not be committed through mere negligence. And so such rules as Numbers 15:30 , Numbers 15:31 must not be construed too rigorously. (3) Sacrifices as means of salvation are taught chiefly by Ezekiel, while at the rebuilding of the temple (Haggai, Zechariah) and the depression that followed (Malachi), they were much in the foreground, but the pre-exilic prophets have little to say about their positive value ( Jeremiah 7:22 is the nadir ). Indeed, in preexilic times the danger was the exaltation of sacrifice at the expense of morality, especially with the peace offering, which could be turned into a drunken revel (Amos 5:21-24; Isaiah 22:13; compare Proverbs 7:14 ). Attempts were made to "strengthen" the sacrifices to Yahweh by the use of ethnic rites (Hosea 4:14; Isaiah 65:1-5 ), even with the extreme of human sacrifice (Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 20:26 ). But insistence on the strict centralization of worship and increasing emphasis laid on the sin and trespass offerings did away with the worst of the abuses. And many of the Psalms, especially Ps 66 and Ps 118, give beautiful evidence of the devotion that could be nourished by the sacrificial rites. 6. Ritual Law: Of the other means of salvation the ritual law (not always sharply distinguishable from the moral law) bulks rather large in the legislation, but is not prominent in the prophets. Requisite to salvation was the abstention from certain acts, articles of food, etc., such abstinence seeming to lie at the background of the term "holiness." But a ritual breach was often a matter of moral duty (burying the dead, etc.), and, for such breaches, ritual means of purification are provided and the matter dropped. Evidently such things lay rather on the circumference of the religion, even to Ezekiel, with his anxious zeal against the least defilement. The highest ritual point is touched by Zechariah 14:20 , Zechariah 14:21 , where all of Jerusalem is so holy that not a pot would be unfit to use in the temple (compare Jeremiah 31:38-40 ). Yet, even with this perfect holiness, sacrifices would still have a place as a means by which the holiness could be increased. Indeed, this more "positive" view of sacrifices was doubtless present from the first. II. Intermediate Literature. 1. General: (1) The great change, compared with the earlier period, is that the idea of God had become more transcendent. But this did not necessarily mean an increase in religious value, for there was a corresponding tendency to take God out of relation to the world by an intellectualizing process. This, when combined with the persistence of the older concept of salvation in this life only, resulted in an emptying of the religious instinct and in indifferentism. This tendency is well represented in Ecclesiastes, more acutely in Sirach, and in New Testament times it dominated the thought of the Sadducees. On the other hand the expansion of the idea of salvation to correspond with the higher conception of God broke through the limitations of this life and created the new literary form of apocalyptics, represented in the Old Testament especially by Zechariah 9 through 14; Isaiah 24 through 27, and above all by Daniel. And in the intermediate literature all shades of thought between the two extremes are represented. But too much emphasis can hardly be laid on the fact that this intermediate teaching is in many regards simply faithful to the Old Testament. Almost anything that can be found in the Old Testament - with the important exception of the note of joyousness of Deuteronomy, etc. - can be found again here. (2) Of the conceptions of the highest good the lowest is the Epicureanism of Sirach. The highest is probably that of 2 Esdras 7:91-98 Revised Version: "To behold the face of him whom in their lifetime they served" the last touch of materialism being eliminated. Indeed, real materialism is notably absent in the period, even Enoch 10:17-19 being less exuberant than the fancies of such early Christian writers as Papias. Individualism is generally taken for granted, but that the opposite opinion was by no means dormant, even at a late period, is shown by Matthew 3:9 . The idea of a special privilege of Israel, however, of course pervades all the literature, Sibylline Oracles 5 and Jubilees being the most exclusive books and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the most broad-hearted. In place of national privilege, though, is sometimes found the still less edifying feature of party privilege (Ps Sol; Enoch 94-105), the most offensive case being the assertion of Enoch 90:6-9 that the (inactive) Israel will be saved by the exertions of the "little lamb" Pharisees, before whom every knee shall bow in the Messianic kingdom. 2. The Law: (1) The conceptions of the moral demands for salvation at times reach a very high level, especially in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (making every allowance for Christian interpolations). "The spirit of love worketh together with the law of God in long-suffering unto the salvation of men" (Test. Gad Matthew 4:7 ) is hardly unworthy of Paul, and even Jubilees can say, "Let each love his brother in mercy and justice, and let none wish the other evil" (Jub 36:8). But the great tendency is to view God's law merely as a series of written statutes, making no demands except those gained from a rigid construing of the letter. In Luke 10:29 , "Who is my neighbor?" is a real question - if he is not my neighbor I need not love him! So duties not literally commanded were settled by utilitarian motives, as outside the domain of religion, and the unhealthy phenomenon of works of supererogation made its appearance ( Luke 17:10 ). The writer of Wisdom can feel smugly assured of salvation, because idolatry had been abstained from (Wisd 15:4; contrast Paul's polemic in Rom 2). And discussions about "greatest commandments" caused character in its relation to religion to be forgotten. (2) As God's commands were viewed as statutes the distinction between the moral and the ritual was lost, and the ritual law attained enormous and familiar proportions. The beautiful story of Judith is designed chiefly to teach abstinence from ritually unclean food. And the most extreme case is in Jubilees 6:34-38 - all of Israel's woes come from keeping the feasts by the actual moon instead of by a correct (theoretical) moon (!). (3) Where self-complacency ceased and a strong moral sense was present, despair makes its appearance with extraordinary frequency. The period is the period of penitential prayers, with an undercurrent of doubt as to how far mercy can be expected (Song of Three Children verses 3-22; Pr Man; Baruch 3:1-8, etc.). "What profit is it unto us, if there be promised us an immortal time, whereas we have done the works that bring death?" (2 Esdras 7:119 the Revised Version (British and American)). The vast majority of men are lost (2 Esdras 9:16) and must be forgotten (2 Esdras 8:55), and Ezra can trust for his own salvation only by a special revelation (7:77 the Revised Version (British and American)). So, evidently, Paul's pre-Christian experience was no unique occurrence. (4) Important for the New Testament background is the extreme lack of prominence of the sacrifices. They are never given a theological interpretation (except in Philo, where they cease to be sacrifices). Indeed, in Sirach 35 they are explicitly said to be devotions for the righteous only, apparently prized only as an inheritance from the past and "because of the commandment" (Sirach 35:5; yet compare 38:11). When the temple was destroyed and the sacrifices ceased, Judaism went on its way almost unaffected, showing that the sacrifices meant nothing essential to the people. And, even in earlier times, the Essenes rejected sacrifices altogether, without losing thereby their recognition as Jews. III. The Teaching of Christ. 1. The Baptist: The Baptist proclaimed authoritatively the near advent of the kingdom of God, preceded by a Messianic judgment that would bring fire for the wicked and the Holy Spirit for the righteous. Simple but incisive moral teaching and warning against trusting in national privileges, with baptism as an outward token of repentance, were to prepare men to face this judgment securely. But we have no data to determine how much farther (if any) the Baptist conceived his teaching to lead. 2. Kingdom of God: It was in the full heat of this eschatological revival that the Baptist had fanned, that Christ began to teach, and He also began with the eschatological phrase, "The kingdom of God is at hand." Consequently, His teaching must have been taken at once in an eschatological sense, and it is rather futile to attempt to limit such implications to passages where modern eschatological phrases are used unambiguously. "The kingdom of God is at hand" had the inseparable connotation "Judgment is at hand," and in this context, "Repent ye" (Mark 1:15 ) must mean "lest ye be judged." Hence, our Lord's teaching about salvation had primarily a future content: positively, admission into the kingdom of God, and negatively, deliverance from the preceding judgment. So the kingdom of God is the "highest good" of Christ's teaching but, with His usual reserve, He has little to say about its externals. Man's nature is to be perfectly adapted to his spiritual environment (see RESURRECTION ), and man is to be with Christ (Luke 22:30 ) and the patriarchs (Matthew 8:11 ). But otherwise - and again as usual - the current descriptions are used without comment, even when they rest on rather materialistic imagery (Luke 22:16 , Luke 22:30 ). Whatever the kingdom is, however, its meaning is most certainly not exhausted by a mere reformation of the present order of material things. 3. Present and Future: But the fate of man at judgment depends on what man is before judgment, so that the practical problem is salvation from the conditions that will bring judgment; i.e. present and future salvation are inseparably connected, and any attempt to make rigid distinctions between the two results in logomachies. Occasionally even Christ speaks of the kingdom of God as present, in the sense that citizens of the future kingdom are living already on this earth (Matthew 11:11; Luke 17:21 (?); the meaning of the latter verse is very dubious). Such men are "saved" already (Luke 19:9; Luke 7:50 (?)), i.e. such men were delivered from the bad moral condition that was so extended that Satan could be said to hold sway over the world (Luke 10:18; Luke 11:21 ). 4. Individualism: That the individual was the unit in this deliverance needs no emphasis: Still, the divine privilege of the Jews was a reality and Christ's normal work was limited to them (Matthew 10:5; Matthew 15:26 , etc.). He admitted even that the position of the Jewish religious leaders rested on a real basis (Matthew 23:3 ). But the "good tidings" were so framed that their extension to all men would have been inevitable, even had there not been an explicit command of Christ in this regard. On the other hand, while the message involved in every case strict individual choice, yet the individual who accepted it entered into social relations with the others who had so chosen. So salvation involved admission to a community of service (Mark 9:35 , etc.). And in the latter part of Christ's ministry, He withdrew from the bulk of His disciples to devote Himself to the training of an inner circle of Twelve, an act explicable only on the assumption that these were to be the leaders of the others after He was taken away. Such passages as Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17 merely corroborate this. 5. Moral Progress: Of the conditions for the individual, the primary (belief in God being taken for granted) was a correct moral ideal. Exclusion from salvation came from the Pharisaic casuistry which had invented limits to righteousness. Exodus 20:13 had never contemplated permitting angry thoughts if actual murder was avoided, and so on. In contrast is set the idea of character, of the single eye ( Matthew 6:22 ), of the pure heart (Matthew 5:8 ). Only so can the spiritual house be built on a rock foundation. But the mere ideal is not enough; persistent effort toward it and a certain amount of progress are demanded imperatively. Only those who have learned to forgive can ask for forgiveness (Matthew 6:12; Matthew 18:35 ). They who omit natural works of mercy have no share in the kingdom (Mt 25:31-46), for even idle words will be taken into account (Matthew 12:36 ), and the most precious possession that interferes with moral progress is to be sacrificed ruthlessly (Matthew 18:8 , Matthew 18:9 , etc.). Men are known by their fruits (Matthew 7:20 ); it is he that doeth the will of the Father that shall enter into the kingdom (Matthew 7:21 ), and the final ideal - which is likewise the goal - is becoming a son of the Father in moral likeness (Matthew 5:45 ). That this progress is due to God's aid is so intimately a part of Christ's teaching on the entire dependence of the soul on God that it receives little explicit mention, but Christ refers even His own miracles to the Father's power (Luke 11:20 ). 6. Forgiveness: Moral effort, through God's aid, is an indispensable condition for salvation. But complete success in the moral struggle is not at all a condition, in the sense that moral perfection is required. For Christ's disciples, to whom the kingdom is promised (Luke 12:32 ), the palsied man who receives remission of sins (Mark 2:5 ), Zaccheus who is said to have received salvation (Luke 19:9 ), were far from being models of sinlessness. The element in the character that Christ teaches as making up for the lack of moral perfection is becoming "as a little child" (compare Mark 10:15 ). Now the point here is not credulousness (for belief is not under discussion), nor is it meekness (for children are notoriously not meek). And it most certainly is not the pure passivity of the newly born infant, for it is gratuitous to assume that only such infants were meant even in Luke 18:15 , while in Matthew 18:2 (where the child comes in answer to a call) this interpretation is excluded. Now, in the wider teaching of Christ the meaning is made clear enough. Salvation is for the poor in spirit, for those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for the prodigal knowing his wretchedness. It is for the penitent publican, while the self-satisfied Pharisee is rejected. A sense of need and a desire that God will give are the characteristics. A child does not argue that it has earned its father's benefits but looks to him in a feeling of dependence, with a readiness to do his bidding. So it is the soul that desires all of righteousness, strives toward it, knows that it falls short, and trusts in its Father for the rest, that is the savable soul. 7. Person of Christ: Christ speaks of the pardon of the publican (Luke 18:9 ff) and of the prodigal welcomed by the Father ( Luke 15:20 ), both without intermediary. And it is perhaps not necessary to assume that all of those finding the strait gate (Matthew 7:14 ) were explicitly among Christ's disciples. But would Christ have admitted that anyone who had come to know Him and refused to obey Him would have been saved? To ask this question is to answer it in the negative (Mark 9:40 is irrelevant). Real knowledge of the Father is possible only through the unique knowledge of the Son ( Luke 10:21 , Luke 10:22 ), and lack of faith in the Son forfeits all blessings (Mark 6:5 , Mark 6:6; Mark 9:23 ). Faith in Him brings instant forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5 ), and love directed to Him is an indisputable sign that forgiveness has taken place (Luke 7:47 ). But Christ thought of Himself as Messiah and, if the term "Messiah" is not to be emptied of its meaning, this made Him judge of the world (such verses as Mark 8:38 are hardly needed for direct evidence). And, since for Christ's consciousness an earthly judgeship is unthinkable, a transcendental judgeship is the sole alternative, corroborated by the use of the title Son of Man. But passage from simple humanity to the transcendental glory of the Son-of-Man Messiah involved a change hardly expressible except by death and resurrection. And the expectation of death was in Christ's mind from the first, as is seen by Mark 2:18 , Mark 2:19 (even without Mark 2:20 ). That He could have viewed His death as void of significance for human salvation is simply inconceivable, and the ascription of Mark 10:45 to Pauline influence is in defiance of the facts. Nor is it credible that Christ conceived that in the interval between His death and His Parousia He would be out of relation to His own. To Him the unseen world was in the closest relation to the visible world, and His passage into glory would strengthen, not weaken, His power. So there is a complete justification of Mark 14:22-25 : to Christ His death had a significance that could be paralleled only by the death of the Covenant victim in Exodus 24:6-8 , for by it an entirely new relation was established between God and man. 8. Notes: (1) Salvation from physical evil was a very real part, however subordinate, of Christ's teaching ( Mark 1:34 , etc.). (2) Ascetic practices as a necessary element in salvation can hardly claim Christ's authority. It is too often forgotten that the Twelve were not Christ's only disciples. Certainly not all of the hundred and twenty of Acts 1:15 (compare Acts 1:21 ), nor of the five hundred of 1 Corinthians 15:6 , were converted after the Passion. And they all certainly could not have left their homes to travel with Christ. So the demands made in the special case of the Twelve (still less in such an extremely special case as Mark 10:21 ) in no way represent Christ's normal practice, whatever readiness for self-sacrifice may have been asked of all. So the representations of Christ as ruthlessly exacting all from everyone are quite unwarranted by the facts. And it is well to remember that it is Matthew 11:19 that contains the term of reproach that His adversaries gave Him. IV. Paul. Instead of laying primal stress on Paul's peculiar contributions to soteriology, it will be preferable to start from such Pauline passages as simply continue the explicit teaching of Christ. For it is largely due to the common reversal of this method that the present acute "Jesus-Paulus" controversy exists. 1. General: That Paul expected the near advent of the kingdom of God with a judgment preceding, and that salvation meant to him primarily deliverance from this judgment, need not be argued. And, accordingly, emphasis is thrown sometimes on the future deliverance and sometimes on the present conditions for the deliverance (contrast Romans 5:9 and Romans 8:24 ), but the practical problem is the latter. More explicitly than in Christ's recorded teaching the nature and the blessings of the kingdom are described (see KINGDOM OF GOD ), but the additional matter is without particular religious import. A certain privilege of the Jews appears (Romans 3:1-8; 9-11), but the practical content of the privilege seems to be eschatological only (Romans 11:26 ). Individual conversion is of course taken for granted, but the life after that becomes highly corporate. See CHURCH . 2. Moral Progress: (1) The moral ideal is distinctly that of character. Paul, indeed, is frequently obliged to give directions as to details, but the detailed directions are referred constantly to the underlying principle, Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 being excellent examples of this, while "love is the fulfillment of the law" ( Romans 13:10 ) is the summary. (2) Persistent moral effort is indispensable, and the new life absolutely must bring forth fruit to God (Romans 6:4; Romans 13:12; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 2:3; Ephesians 4:17 , Ephesians 4:22-32; Titus 2:11-14 ). Only by good conduct can one please God (1 Thessalonians 4:1 ), and the works of even Christians are to be subjected to a searching test (1 Corinthians 3:13; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10 ) in a judgment not to be faced without the most earnest striving (1 Corinthians 10:12; Philippians 2:12 ), not even by Paul himself (1 Corinthians 9:27; Philippians 3:12-14 ). And the possibility of condemnation because of a lack of moral attainment must not be permitted to leave the mind (1 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:21; compare Romans 8:12 , Romans 8:13; Romans 11:20; 1 Corinthians 10:12; Galatians 6:7-9 ). Consequently, growth in actual righteousness is as vital in Paul's soteriology as it is in that teaching of Christ: Christians have "put off the old man with his doings" ( Colossians 3:9 ). 3. The Spirit: That this growth is God's work is, however, a point where Paul has expanded Christ's quiet assumption rather elaborately. In particular, what Christ had made the source of His own supernatural power - the Holy Spirit - is specified as the source of the power of the Christian's ordinary life, as well as of the more special endowments (see SPIRITUAL GIFTS ). In the Spirit the Christian has received the blessing promised to Abraham (Galatians 3:14 ); by it the deeds of the body can be put to death and all virtues flow into the soul (Galatians 5:16-26 ), if a man walks according to it (1 Corinthians 6:19 , 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Thessalonians 4:8 ). The palmary passage is Romans 7 through 8. In Romans 7 Paul looks back with a shudder on his pre-Christian helplessness (it is naturally the extreme of exegetical perversity to argue that he dreaded not the sin itself but only God's penalty on sin). But the Spirit gives strength to put to death the deeds of the body (Romans 8:13 ), to disregard the things of the flesh (Romans 8:5 ), and to fulfill the ordinance of the Law (Romans 8:4 ). Such moral power is the test of Christianity: as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God (Romans 8:14 ). 4. Mystical Union: This doctrine of the Spirit is simply that what Christ did on earth would be carried on with increased intensity after the Passion. That this work could be thought of out of relation to Christ, or that Christ Himself could have so thought of it (see above, III, 7) is incredible. So the exalted Christ appears as the source of moral and spiritual power (Paul speaks even more of Christ's resurrection than of the Passion), the two sources (Christ and the Spirit) being very closely combined in 2 Corinthians 3:17; Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 . Our old man has been crucified, so putting an end to the bondage of sin, and we can prevent sin from reigning in our mortal bodies, for our burial into Christ's death was to enable us to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:2-14 ). The resurrection is a source of power, and through Christ's strength all things can be done (Philippians 4:13 , Philippians 4:10 ). Christ is the real center of the believer's personality (Galatians 2:20 ); the man has become a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17; compare Colossians 2:20; Colossians 3:3 ); we were joined to another that we might bring forth fruit to God (Romans 7:4 ). And by contact with the glory of the Lord we are transformed into the same image (2 Corinthians 3:18 ), the end being conformation to the image of the Son (Romans 8:30 ). 5. Forgiveness: (1) This growth in actual holiness, then, is fundamental with Paul: "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Romans 8:9 ). And the acquisition of strength through union with Christ is vitally connected with the remission of sins. In Romans 7:1-6 (compare Colossians 2:11 , Colossians 2:12 ), the mystical union with Christ makes His death ours (compare Colossians 3:3 ) and so removes us from the Law (compare Romans 10:4; 1 Corinthians 15:56 ), which has no relation to the dead. And by the life-giving power of this union the strength of sin is broken (Romans 6:6 ). (2) The condition in man that makes forgiveness possible Paul calls "faith" - a very complicated term. Its chief use, however, is in opposition to "works" (most clearly in Rom 9:30 through 10:13). The Jews' "pursuit after righteousness" - the attempt to wring salvation from God as wages earned - was vain (Romans 10:13 ), and in contrast is the appeal to God, the conscious relinquishment of all claim (Romans 4:5 ). The soul looks trustingly for salvation to its Father, precisely the attitude of the "children" in the teaching of Christ. But no more than in the teaching of Christ is faith a purely passive virtue, for man must be "obedient" to it (Romans 1:5; Romans 10:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13 ). And for the necessary presence of love in faith compare 1 Corinthians 13:2; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 3:17 . 6. Atonement: Because of faith - specifically, faith in Christ (except Romans 4; Galatians 3:6 ) - G od does not visit the penalties of sins on believers, but treats them as if they were righteous (Romans 5:1 , etc.). But this is not because of a quality in the believer or in the faith, but because of an act that preceded any act of Christian faith, the death of Christ (not the cross, specifically, for Paul does not argue from the cross in all of Roman). Through this death God's mercy could be extended safely, while before this the exercise of that mercy had proved disastrous (Romans 3:25 , Romans 3:26 ). And this death was a sacrifice (Romans 3:25 , etc.). And it is certain that Paul conceived of this sacrifice as existing quite independently of its effect on any human being. But he has given us no data for a really complete sacrificial doctrine, a statement sufficiently proved by the hopeless variance of the interpretations that have been propounded. And that Paul ever constructed a theory of the operation of sacrifices must be doubted. There is none in the contemporary Jewish literature, there is none in the Old Testament, and there is none in the rest of the New Testament, not even in Hebrews. Apparently the rites were so familiar that sacrificial terminology was ready to hand and was used without particular reflection and without attempting to give it precise theological content. This is borne out by the ease with which in Romans 3:24 , Romans 3:25 Paul passes from a ransom (redemption) illustration to a (quite discordant) propitation illustration. For further discussion see ATONEMENT; JUSTIFICATION . Here it is enough make a juridical theory constructed from Pauline implications and illustrations central in Christianity is to do exactly what Paul did not do. 7. Summary: Summing up, there is a double line of thought in Paul: the remission of penalties through the atoning death of Christ and the destruction of the power of sin through strength flowing from Christ, the human element in both cases being faith. The question of the order of the steps is futile, for "to have faith," "to be in Christ," and "to have the Spirit" are convertible terms, i.e. in doctrinal phraseology, the beginnings of sanctification are simultaneous with justification. Attempts to unify the two lines of thought into a single theory cannot claim purely Biblical support. The "ethical" theory, which in its best form makes God's pardon depend on the fact that the sinner will be made holy (at least in the next world), introduces the fewest extraneous elements, but it says something that Paul does not say. On the other hand one may feel that considering Paul as a whole - to say nothing of the rest of the New Testament - the pure justification doctrine has bulked a little too large in our dogmatics. God's pardon for sin is an immensely important matter, but still more important is the new power of holiness. 8. Notes: (1) Baptism presents another obstacle to a strict unifying of Pauline theology. A very much stronger sacramentarianism is admitted in Paul today than would have been accepted a generation ago, and such passages as Romans 6:1-7; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12 make it certain that he regarded baptism as conferring very real spiritual powers. But that he made a mechanical distinction between the blessings given then and those given at some other time must be doubted. (2) Salvation from the flesh ( Romans 7:24 ) involves no metaphysical dualism, as "flesh" is the whole of the lower nature from which the power to holiness saves a man (Romans 8:13 ). Indeed, the body itself is an object of salvation (Romans 8:11; and see RESURRECTION ). (3) Quite in the background lies the idea of salvation from physical evil (2 Corinthians 1:10 , etc.). Such evils are real evils (1 Corinthians 11:30 ), but in God's hands they may become pure blessings (Romans 5:3; 2 Corinthians 12:7 ). (4) Salvation from sin after conversion is due to God's judging the man in terms of the acquired supernatural nature ( Romans 8:14 , etc.). Yet certain sins may destroy the union with Christ altogether (1 Corinthians 3:17 , etc.), while others bring God's chastening judgment (1 Corinthians 11:30-32 ). Or proper chastisement may be inflicted by Paul himself (1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 1 Timothy 1:20 ) or by the congregation (Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-15; 2 Corinthians 2:6 ). V. Rest of New Testament: Summary. 1. John: (1) John had the task of presenting Christ to Gentiles, who were as unfamiliar with the technical meaning of such phrases as "kingdom of God" or "Son of Man" as is the world today, and to Gentiles who had instead a series of concepts unknown in Palestine. So a "translation of spiritual values" became necessary if the gospel were to make an immediate appeal, a translation accomplished so successfully that the Fourth Gospel has always been the most popular. The Synoptists, especially the extremely literal Mark, imperatively demand a historical commentary, while John has successfully avoided this necessity. (2) The "kingdom of God," as a phrase (John 3:3 , John 3:5; compare John 18:36 ), is replaced by "eternal life." This life is given in this world to the one who accepts Christ's teaching (John 5:24; John 6:47 ), but its full realization will be in the "many mansions" of the Father's house (John 14:2 ), where the believer will be with Christ (John 17:24 ). A judgment of all men will precede the establishment of this glorified state (John 5:28 , John 5:29 ), but the believer may face the judgment with equanimity (John 5:24 ). So the believer is delivered from a state of things so bad as expressible as a world under Satan's rule (John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11 ), a world in darkness (John 3:19 ), in ignorance of God (John 17:25 ), and in sin (John 8:21 ), all expressible in the one word "death" (John 5:24 ). (3) The Jews had real privilege in the reception of Christ's message (John 1:11; John 4:22 , etc.), but the extension of the good tidings to all men was inevitable (John 12:23 , John 12:12 , etc.). Belief in Christ is wholly a personal matter, but the believers enter a community of service (John 13:14 ), with the unity of the Father and Son as their ideal (John 17:21 ). (4) The nature of the moral ideal, reduced to the single word "love" (John 13:34; John 15:12 ), is assumed as known and identified with "Christ's words" (John 5:24; John 6:63 , etc.), and the necessity of progress toward it as sharply pointed as in the Synoptists. The sinner is the servant of sin (John 8:34 ), a total change of character is needed (John 3:6 ), and the blessing is only on him who does Christ's commandments (John 13:17 ). This "doing" is the proof of love toward Christ (John 14:15 , John 14:21 ); only by bearing fruit and more fruit can discipleship be maintained (John 15:1-6; compare John 14:24 ), and, indeed, by bearing fruit men actually become Christ's disciples (John 15:8 , Gr). The knowledge of Christ and of God that is eternal life (John 17:3 ) comes only through moral effort (John 7:17 ). In John the contrasts are colored so vividly that it would almost appear as if perfection were demanded. But he does not present even the apostles as models of sanctity (John 13:38; John 16:32 ), and self-righteousness is condemned without compromise; the crowning sin is to say, "We see" (John 9:41 ). It is the Son who frees from sin (John 8:36 ), delivers from darkness (John 8:12; John 12:46 ), and gives eternal life (John 11:25 , John 11:26; compare John 3:16; John 5:24;