I asked Jesus what must i do to go into heaven

[Guest 1sheep]

27 minutes ago, PinkBelt said:

Since the discussion has devolved to ad hominems, clearly it's over.

In this case it is important to remember the group you are "part of" . I 'improved'the knowledge of all looking on!! 

The red letter movement is not one of sound doctrine but is quite the opposite!!

[Guest shiloh357]

10 minutes ago, Badjao33 said:

Yes I do, because I believe baptism for repentance is a work. 

It was never a work.   That is just one more reason why it is clear that you don't know what you're talking about.  

[Guest shiloh357]

.

[Blood Bought 1953]

 

I thought the following article was interesting. It made sense to me.what do you guys think?

 

 

Question: "What is progressive revelation as it relates to salvation?"

Answer: The term “progressive revelation” refers to the idea and teaching that God revealed various aspects of His will and overall plan for humanity over different periods of time, which have been referred to as “dispensations” by some theologians. To dispensationalists, a dispensation is a distinguishable economy (i.e., an ordered condition of things) in the outworking of God’s purpose. Whereas dispensationalists debate the number of dispensations that have occurred through history, all believe that God revealed only certain aspects of Himself and His plan of salvation in each dispensation, with each new dispensation building upon the prior one. 

While dispensationalists believe in progressive revelation, it is important to note that one does not have to be a dispensationalist to embrace progressive revelation. Nearly all students of the Bible recognize the fact that certain truths contained in Scripture were not fully revealed by God to prior generations. Anyone today who does not bring an animal sacrifice with him when he wishes to approach God or who worships on the first day of the week rather than the last understands that such distinctions in practice and knowledge have been progressively revealed and applied throughout history. 

In addition, there are weightier matters concerning the concept of progressive revelation. One example is the birth and composition of the Church, which Paul speaks of: “I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:1-6).

Paul states nearly the same thing in Romans: “Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God” (Romans 16:25-26). 

In discussions of progressive revelation, one of the first questions people have is how it applies to salvation. Were those living before the first advent of Christ saved in a different way than people are saved today? In the New Testament era, people are told to place their faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ and believe that God raised Him from the dead, and they will be saved (Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31). Yet Old Testament expert Allen Ross notes, “It is most improbable that everyone who believed unto salvation [in the Old Testament] consciously believed in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” John Feinberg adds, “The people of the Old Testament era did not know that Jesus was the Messiah, that Jesus would die, and that His death would be the basis of salvation.” If Ross and Feinberg are correct, then what exactly did God reveal to those who lived before Christ, and how were the Old Testament saints saved? What, if anything, changed in the salvation of the Old Testament to the salvation of the New Testament?

Progressive Revelation - Two Ways or One Way of Salvation?
Some charge that those holding to progressive revelation espouse two different methods of salvation—one that was in place before the first coming of Christ, and another that came after His death and resurrection. Such a claim is refuted by L. S. Chafer who writes, “Are there two ways by which one may be saved? In reply to this question it may be stated that salvation of whatever specific character is always the work of God in behalf of man and never a work of man in behalf of God. . . . There is, therefore, but one way to be saved and that is by the power of God made possible through the sacrifice of Christ.” 

If this is true, then how can the revelations in the Old and New Testaments concerning salvation be reconciled? Charles Ryrie sums up the matter succinctly in this way: “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various ages.” In other words, no matter when a person has lived, their salvation is ultimately dependent on the work of Christ and a faith placed in God, but the amount of knowledge a person had concerning the specifics of God’s plan has increased through the ages via God’s progressive revelation. 

Regarding the Old Testament saints, Norman Geisler offers the following: “In short, it appears that at most, the normative Old Testament salvific requirements (in terms of explicit belief) were (1) faith in God’s unity, (2) acknowledgment of human sinfulness, (3) acceptance of God’s necessary grace, and possibly (4) understanding that there would be a coming Messiah.” 

Is there evidence in Scripture to support Geisler’s claim? Consider this passage, which contains the first three requirements, in Luke’s Gospel: 

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:10-14).

This event took place before the death and resurrection of Christ, so it clearly involves a person who has no knowledge of the New Testament gospel message as it is articulated today. In the tax collector’s simple statement (“God be merciful to me, the sinner!”) we find (1) a faith in God, (2) an acknowledgement of sin, and (3) an acceptance of mercy. Then Jesus makes a very interesting statement: He says the man went home “justified.” This is the exact term used by Paul to describe the position of a New Testament saint who has believed the gospel message and put his trust in Christ: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). 

The fourth on Geisler’s list is missing in Luke’s account—the understanding of a coming Messiah. However, other New Testament passages indicate that this may have been a common teaching. For example, in John’s account of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well, the woman says, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us” (John 4:25). However, as Geisler himself acknowledged, faith in Messiah was not a “must have” for Old Testament salvation. 

Progressive Revelation - More Evidence from Scripture
A quick search of Scripture reveals the following verses in both the Old and New Testaments that support the fact that faith in God has always been the avenue of salvation: 

   • “Then [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6)

   • “And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered” (Joel 2:32)

   • “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). 

   • “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval” (Hebrews 11:1-2).

   • And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). 

Scripture plainly states that faith is the key to salvation for all people down through history, but how could God save people without their knowing of Christ’s sacrifice for them? The answer is that God saved them based on their response to the knowledge that they did have. Their faith looked forward to something that they could not see, whereas today, believers look back on events that they can see. The following graphic depicts this understanding:



Scripture teaches that God has always given people enough revelation to exercise faith. Now that Christ’s work is accomplished, the requirement has changed; the “times of ignorance” are over:

   • “In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; and yet He did not leave Himself without witness” (Acts 14:16).

   • “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30).

   • “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over [literally “let go unpunished”] the sins previously committed” (Romans 3:25).

Prior to Christ’s coming, God was foreshadowing Jesus’ death via the sacrificial system and conditioning His people to understand that sin leads to death. The Law was given to be a tutor to lead people to the understanding that they were sinners in need of God’s grace (Galatians 3:24). But the Law did not revoke the prior Abrahamic Covenant, which was based on faith; it is Abraham’s covenant that is the pattern for salvation today (Romans 4). But as Ryrie stated above, the detailed content of our faith—the amount of revelation given—has increased through the ages so that people today have a more direct understanding of what God requires of them.

[frienduff thaylorde]

16 minutes ago, Yowm said:

I would also add that the amount of revelation concerning 'eternal subjects' has greatly increased in the New Testament in comparison to the Old and would do us a world of good to take in its eternal words.

Speaking of revelation ,  WE GOT A DATE SETTER .   yeah,   here we go again .    He is busy asking questions that I aint gonna debate .  gnostic mysticism is not for me .

But if any wants to rebuke him , GO rebuke .   I done did .  

[Guest shiloh357]

It's interesting, because for all this nonsense about Jesus presenting a works-based Gospel, it turns out that every time He actually offers salvation, it is always on the basis of faith and not works. 

In John chapter 4, for example, the woman at the well is offered salvation: 

Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. (Joh 4:10-14)

Jesus was offering her eternal life just for the asking.   She could have been saved at Jacob's well, at that very moment.  

In Luke 7: 36-50, a woman enters the house of Simon where Jesus was eating and washes his feet with her tears and hair and anoints them with ointment and the text says:

And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. (Luk 7:48-50)

In Luke 23: 33-43, the thief on the cross was saved by faith alone and Jesus told Him that they would be together in paradise. 

In John 3:16, the basis for salvation is faith.  Anyone who believes on Jesus should not perish but have eternal life.

In John 14:6, Jesus says that, among other things, He is eternal life.   Eternal life isn't a thing that could ever be earned; eternal life is a Person.  Eternal life is Jesus Himself.   You can't "earn" Jesus. 

In John 6: 44-51, it reads:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (Joh 6:44-51)

Note this statement in the above passage in v. 47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.   The sole condition is faith.   Eating and drinking his body and blood are metaphors for placing faith in Jesus. He is the bread of Heaven, the bread of eternal life and Jesus was calling on them to partake of Him.  He was not calling on them to earn eternal life.   He was claiming to be eternal life and that they could have it by believing on Him.  That's faith and Jesus doesn't qualify that, with a laundry list of works they needed to perform. 

In Mark 10: 17-18, which Badjao  butchered to argue that Jesus was teaching a works-based salvation, it says this: 

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (Mar 10:17-18)

Jesus not only rejected this man's false flattery, but challenged his use of the term, "good."   Theologically, "good" means a lot more than it does in our every day parlance.  Jesus says that "good" is a term that is unique to God and God alone.   Jesus said that only God is good and God does not have a sliding standard on goodness, so none of us are good in any shape or form, from a biblical standpoint.   For that reason, none of us can be good enough to merit eternal life.  Eternal life must be granted, not earned, as none of us can do anything to earn or deserve eternal life.   Even this man who thought he was good, who thought he had done enough, Jesus exposed him as wholly unrighteous and imprisoned by his own wealth.  His wealth was an obstacle to following Jesus.

In John 10:  27-29 it says:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. (Joh 10:27-29)

Note that salvation is granted, not earned.  They are followers of Jesus on the grounds that they have obeyed the call of God the Father and Jesus gives them eternal life.  They do not earn it. 

In John 7: 37-39, it reads:

In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) (Joh 7:37-39)

We see here that the basis for receiving salvation, and by extension the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, is faith, i.e., believing on Jesus.  Jesus didn't include any works with that.
 

So what about John the Baptist??   Badjao claims that they taught salvation by baptism.   He did not.   Baptism for repentance was not ever for salvation.   John called people to repentance, but that was not salvation.  John the Baptist required evidence of repentance before baptism and baptism was done upon repentance.  Baptism was not sacramental in the ministry of John.   It did not confer salvation on anyone.

The same applies to Acts 2:38.   The preposition eis as used there is the same as when applied to the ministry of John the Baptist.  They were to be baptized upon, or because of the remission of sins.   Baptism did not EVER confer salvation to anyone. 

Cults that teach baptismal regeneration try to use Acts 2:38 and other such passages to teach a works-based Gospel and that the Bible teaches baptism as a requirement for salvation and they are heretics in every sense of the word.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Badjao33 said:

Wouldn't you consider keeping the Law of Moses to be a work? 

Jesus never commanded anyone to keep the law of Moses for salvation.

[Guest shiloh357]

5 minutes ago, Badjao33 said:

But the original apostles did. 

 

No, they didn't.   You don't know what you're talking about.  And fortunately, no one is buying the snake oil you peddle.  

[Guest shiloh357]

 

2 minutes ago, Badjao33 said:

This is what Moses taught.

Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us. (Deuteronomy 6:25)

This is what Jesus taught.

Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19-20)

Which is not teaching salvation through the Law of Moses.   Jesus said that one's righteousness had to exceed those who taught that salvation and eternal life came through the law.   So Jesus cannot be teaching what the Pharisees taught.  The entire sermon following Matt. 5:20 is contrast between those whose righteousness and salvation is based on the law and those whose righteous exceeds those trying to keep the law for salvation.

In Matt. 7: 13-27 of the same sermon, Jesus contrasts:

• The strait gate and the wide gate;
• The narrow road and the broad road;
• The false prophets and by implication the true prophets;
• The good tree and the corrupt tree;
• The good fruit and the evil fruit;
• The wise man and the foolish man;

The Pharisees, the ones who are taught salvation through the law of Moses are the ones entering through the wide gate, walking the broad road, and are the false prophets who are like corrupt trees producing evil fruit.   They are the ones like the foolish man who ignore the words of Jesus and who built their lives on shifting sand.

Jesus never taught salvation through the law because the Law has no salvific value.   It wasn't designed to save anyone; the Law is designed to do one thing:  Condemn.    You could not earn salvation through the law in the OT and Jesus never taught that keeping the law of Moses would bring salvation in ANY of teaching.   You bring reproach upon Jesus with this kind of false teaching.

Quote

 

This is what James taught.

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (James 2:8-9)]

For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. James 2:10-11

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. James 2:24

 

The book of James has NOTHING to do with salvation in terms of how a person  is saved.   James is a practical book about every day Christian living. James chapter two highlights the truth that genuine faith is active, it is operative in nature.   James is teaching obedience to God's commandments as a proof of salvation.

James 2:10-11 simply makes the point that we are all equally transgressors when we break any of God's commandments.  The one who murders or the one who commits adultery are equally guilty of transgressing God's commandments.  The overall  point of vv. 8-11 is simply about showing partiality.  Some will excuse their lustful thoughts while looking down on those who commit  murder.   James point is that all sin is equally bad and all sins regardless of how minor they may seem make us all equally guilty of transgressing the law. 

James 2:24 has nothing  to with salvation.   James in 2:14-26 has to with our works justifying our profession of faith.   James point is that since faith is operative in nature, it should be accompanied by corresponding actions.   He uses two examples of how Abraham was justified when he sacrificed Isaac.   But that was not when Abraham was saved.   Abraham was saved when he believed God and God imputed to him as righteousness, decades before Isaac was born back in Genesis 15.  Abraham was justified before God by faith alone without works 25 years before circumcision and over 430 years before the Law of Moses. James also uses the example of Rahab who was justified AFTER she placed her faith in God.

James uses "justified" in a totally different way than Paul does in Rom. 3 and 4.   James uses it in the sense of "affirm."  Abraham and Rahab's works justified or "affirmed" the authenticity of their faith and James' point is that our works should do the same thing.   They should justify or affirm our profession of faith in the sight of men.   James is not talking about our spiritual standing before God;  he is talking about our works being the fruit and demonstration of our faith in the sight of men.

 

Quote

 

This is what John taught.

“Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3-4)

“Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4)

“And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight” (1 John 3:22)

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:2-3)

“This is love, that we walk according to His commandments” (2 John 1:6)

 

Those passages have ONE big thing in common.  They were written to show the difference between true and false believers/false teachers.   By the time John had written those epistles, there was an influx of early false or pseudo-Christian cults like the Gnostics, Judaizers, Docetists, Ebionites, etc. that were infiltrating the Church and masquerading as Christians and leading people astray.   One of the big reasons that John wrote what he did was to provide markers for knowing the difference between the true and false believers. 

And it also worth noting that John isn't talking about the law of Moses, but the commandments of Jesus.  Cults like the Ebionites were keeping the law of Moses, but were infiltrating the churches and were false teachers.   It is the commandments of Jesus and the doctrines pertaining to who Jesus is, that are in view.  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (2Jn 1:9)
 

 

Quote

 

This is how we know that the apostles were teaching the law. 

After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them. (Acts 21:17-26)

If they were not teaching the Law, why were the believers in Jerusalem devout followers of the law?

 

I said they were not teaching that the Law of Moses was required for salvation.

 

Quote

If they were teaching faith alone, why weren't the new believers being told that they no longer had to follow the law? Why were they concerned that they may learn Paul was teaching that circumcision was no longer required? 

That doesn't mean that they were teaching that the law had to be observed for salvation.  What it means that the Jewish believers were still Jews.  Being believers didn't suddenly turn them into Gentiles.  They still remained kosher, Sabbath observant, observed the festivals and things like circumcision for their children.   Finding Jesus as their Messiah didn't change them ethnically any more than a Hispanic or Korean or whoever is suddenly something else ethnically.  They still continued to live as Jews and they misunderstood Paul's teachings because what Paul was teaching was misreported to them and Paul performed sacrifices for a Nazarite vow to prove that he was still Torah observant, himself, in Acts. 

Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. (Act 21:26)
 

Quote

Below we see that believers from Jerusalem were teaching that circumcision was a requirement for salvation. 

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.(Acts 15:1-2)

But those were Judaizers and heretics and Paul had already addressed their heresy in the book of Galatians.

Quote

Peter and James didn't correct those who were teaching circumcision at the Counsel at Jerusalem and decided not to burden the gentiles with the law that the Jewish brethren kept.

That was not a win for those teaching circumcision as a means of salvation.   And by the way, what they were teaching was conversion to the Jewish religion as being necessary for salvation.  "Circumcision" of Gentiles is shorthand for conversion to the Jewish religion.   There is no other reason why a Gentile would undergo circumcision.

Quote

There's no doubt, at least to me anyway, that the original disciples were teaching the law. Why wouldn't they? 

That is not in dispute.  What's in dispute is your nonsensical  notion that the disciples taught that keeping the law of Moses was necessary for salvation.  One has to be pretty biblically and theologically illiterate to believe that garbage.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Badjao33 said:

The point I'm trying to get at here is that the message Jesus and the original disciples shared was not the same message Paul shared and what we share today.

I understand your point.  And your point is heretical and no solid, Bible believing Christian is going to buy into that garbage.

Quote

You are looking at things through the eyes of a Christian in 2018,

No, I am looking it through eyes of someone who theologically literate and equipped to understand what the Bible says, and can discern false, ungodly doctrines and heresies like yours.

Quote

The idea of faith alone leads to salvation, remained a mystery to those living at that time.

Nope, that was OT salvation.

Quote

 

You have to ask, is that what the Jews thought back then? 

Jesus taught "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."(Matthew 5:48)

 

What Jesus is doing is setting up a standard that cannot be met.  That's what the Law does. It only shows us what we lack, that God's standard is impossible for us to meet. 

Quote

How would a Jew in 30AD believe they need be perfect? By keeping the law because that is what they had always been taught. 

And Jesus' teachings obliterated that belief. 

Quote

 

If a Jew failed to keep a part of the law, they could have their sins forgiven by offering a sacrifice. 

Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin which he has committed, and he will be forgiven (Leviticus 4:35)

In fact, the first seven chapters of Leviticus gives instructions on how Jews can purify themselves and reconcile with God.

 

And none of that brought salvation or justification (right standing) with God.  No one was saved by sacrificial system. It only gave a very temporary covering and by temporary, I mean that if they sinned 5 minutes after the sacrifice, they were back to square one.  The sacrifices only covered sin committed previously, they didn't cover sins committed afterwards, so it was a system that didn't provide anything even close to salvation.

Quote

 

All Jews at that time knew that God would be judging their faith and their works according to the law He gave to Israel.

So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. (James 2:12)

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (James 2:24)

 

 

This is another example of you misapplying James.   James was not talking about salvation.  James is not expressing Jewish thought or theology.  He is not claiming that anyone is justified before God by works.   Here is what was said earlier:

"James 2:24 has nothing  to with salvation.   James in 2:14-26 has to with our works justifying our profession of faith.   James point is that since faith is operative in nature, it should be accompanied by corresponding actions.   He uses two examples of how Abraham was justified when he sacrificed Isaac.   But that was not when Abraham was saved.   Abraham was saved when he believed God and God imputed to him as righteousness, decades before Isaac was born back in Genesis 15.  Abraham was justified before God by faith alone without works 25 years before circumcision and over 430 years before the Law of Moses. James also uses the example of Rahab who was justified AFTER she placed her faith in God.

James uses "justified" in a totally different way than Paul does in Rom. 3 and 4.   James uses it in the sense of "affirm."  Abraham and Rahab's works justified or "affirmed" the authenticity of their faith and James' point is that our works should do the same thing.   They should justify or affirm our profession of faith in the sight of men.   James is not talking about our spiritual standing before God;  he is talking about our works being the fruit and demonstration of our faith in the sight of men."

Quote

“Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3-4)

That only applies to Jesus' commandments.  It is not referring to the Law of Moses.  

Quote

While many today may not see baptism and keeping the law as a works salvation because they had faith in Jesus, to the Jews at the time, it no doubt was because they were ignorant of concept of faith alone.

No, that's just a statement that reflects a gross theological illiteracy.

Quote

And this is how we need to read the Bible. When we read a chapter or a book, we need to know who it's addressed to and put ourselves in the audiences shoes

Sorry, but no one needs any instruction from you about how to read the Bible.   Your heresies and false doctrines disqualify you from teaching anyone about the Bible.

Quote

So when James says "a man is justified by works, and not by faith only," that's exactly what a Jew living in the first century would believe.

But James was not talking about salvation.   You cannot take what James said and assign contemporaneous Jewish theology to his words.  James was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not from Jewish theology.  Again, you really don't know what you're talking about.