I asked Jesus what must i do to go into heaven

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Badjao33 said:

 

It was probably written before the Council at Jerusalem and this is probably why James would still teaching about works. 

It was written contemporaneously, around 49 AD near the time of Paul's 2nd missionary journey which means that James wrote it while Paul was preaching.  According to you James was teaching salvation by works, and Paul was teaching salvation by grace apart from works.  So you have the Holy Spirit inspiring James to write and epistle that you claim supports salvation by works and Paul preaching something contradictory at the same time.   The Holy Spirit doesn't inspire confusion.  

Quote

There were two different audiences for the gospel. One being Jews and the other gentiles. The Jews were under the law and the gentiles weren't. It shouldn't be that hard to believe that the messages given to each would be different.

But this isn't about them being different messages;  it is about them being contradictory messages.   Clearly you really don't know what you're talking about and are a very confused and deceived person.   You need to think these things out before posting them.

Quote

 

That's not where Paul got the gospel of grace from. 

The gospel I preached is not devised by man. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:12)

 

The Gospel of grace always existed and was the only gospel in existence and finds its origins in the OT.   Jesus taught Paul out of the OT and showed Him the Gospel of grace, the same Gospel he gave the other apostles.

Quote

That's impossible since it was only revealed to Paul many years after the death and resurrection of Christ. 

It was revealed to all of the apostles, not just Paul.   

Quote

This is not what I have said. I said the apostles didn't understand what Jesus was talking about and I explained in an earlier post why that was. 

Yes and as I previously responded to your beggarly explanation, it was their eschatology that was the problem. 

Quote

Peter and the original disciples were teaching baptism, circumcision, and keeping the entire law. Those are works.

No, they weren't.  We have no record of any Gospel emanating from the disciples about salvation through the baptism, circumcision, or keeping the Law. 

Quote

I am not a liar nor would I never intentionally deceive anyone. Do I have everything 100% correct probably not, is everything you share on this forum 100% correct? probably not. Does that make either one of us a liar for sharing what we believe? No it doesn't. I have defended my position the best I can with supporting scripture. That's the best I can do. I suggest no one believe anything either one of us says on this forum and search the scriptures for themselves concerning these matters. In fact, I would go even further and say that no one should rely on what anyone else tells the about the Bible. We should all be like the Bereans "these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11)

No, it is your statements that are false and untrustworthy.   Nothing I have said is either.   You are the only one spouting off false doctrines and outright heresies.   Your views are what need to be avoided and rejected by those interested in having a true and unadulterated, biblical theology.

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, Badjao33 said:

Thank you for taking the time to do this rather than just accusing me without evidence. I stand corrected, I did in fact say that Jesus taught salvation by works and I apologize for saying that I didn't.  

Since this is what I have said and after reviewing the scripture further, I will say that yes, in addition to the original disciples, Jesus also taught the Jews that works were required for salvation. The reason being:

 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;  (1 Corinthians 2:7-8)

What would have happened if Jesus would have openly started teaching that faith without the works of the law lead to salvation prior to His death and resurrection since the Old Covenant required obedience to the letter of the Law?  

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until the heaven and the earth shall pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the Law until everything has been fulfilled” (Matt. 5:17-18).

We can look back now and understand His teachings because we have knowledge and understanding that the disciples had not yet acquired. We know that it has always been about faith and not works. 

However; there's no way that the disciples would have known that salvation comes from faith alone prior to Paul exposing this mystery. As Jews they would have naturally thought that keeping the law and its required works were a condition of salvation. This is not just speculation on my part because the Bible confirms that the Jewish believers were devout followers of the law well after the death and Resurrection of Christ. While they were teaching the same saving faith as Paul, the message that the original disciples shared had baptism and the law attached to their teachings. 

 

The mystery wasn't salvation by grace apart from works.   That was not what was hidden.  What was hidden and what was the mystery was the eternal plan of God regarding whole world, namely the inclusion of the Gentiles.  The "mystery" was ultimately the Church.  There are no prophecies of the Church age in the Old Testament.   The Old Testament skips the church age.   It speaks to the first coming of Jesus and then skips to the end of the age.  It's why the disciples thought that Jesus would establish the Kingdom after his resurrection.   That's was how their eschatology worked. The hard thing for the disciples wasn't' the nature of the Gospel, but how uncircumcised Gentiles qualified to enter the Kingdom of God.   There was no works-based Gospel, that is just ridiculous and no one believes that but you and maybe some other equally poor, misled sods.   But no one with any competence in Scripture would ever posit the notion of a works-based Gospel taught by Jesus.  It is simply not anywhere in the Bible.

Salvation for the Jews was NEVER through the Law, but always through grace apart from works.   Paul made it clear that there had NEVER been any justification for anyone through the Law.  The Law can't justify, can't save.  It wasn't designed to save.   All the Law can do is condemn; it can only tell you what is wrong with you; it has no salvific value whatsoever.  You could keep every commandment perfectly your whole life and still go to Hell because the problem is the sinful condition of man at birth, not what He does.    Our best deeds on our best days are filthy rags and no one could EVER at any time in history ever be saved by works.   No one was ever good enough to be saved by works.  

For Jesus to have one plan of salvation by works for the Jews and a different for everyone else is just not something contained in the Bible and it doesn't pan out when we look at the woman at the well, the rich young ruler, the thief on the cross, the woman who washed Jesus' feet, the metaphor of the shepherd who  gives eternal life, the promise of eternal life from Jesus solely based upon faith in Him.   The Gospel message in the four gospels is salvation by grace through faith in Christ, period.

[Guest shiloh357]

21 minutes ago, Badjao33 said:

Since James was writing this to Israel, it makes sense that his letter would include the works of the law.

James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. (James 1:1) 

 

But James didn't teach salvation  through the law in his epistle.  
 

Quote

 

Why would God have the same message for the Jews and the Gentiles? Yes, the same faith saves them both by God's grace, but the Jews were under the law and the gentiles weren't. Another question that must be asked is why did the original disciples only teach among the Jews? If it were the same message, why not go to the gentiles in the region?

 

Why would God have the same message to Jews and Gentiles?  Because God is not the author of confusion.   God didn't have contradictory messages out there.

The problem is that the law can't save.  No one in history was ever saved by keeping the law.   Salvation was never accomplished by living within the framework of the law. 

 

Quote

 

If the original disciples knew the mystery that faith alone leads to salvation, why was peter saying things like this? 

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:3

 

Because that wasn't works-based message.   Those who are sophisticated and competent in their understanding of the Bible know that baptism isn't work.

Quote

 

Why wasn't the teaching of circumcision rebuked at the Counsel at Jerusalem? 

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.” (Acts 15:1)

 

It was.  The results of that counsel was not a win for the Judaizers who taught that  Gentiles had to be circumcised (convert to the Jewish religion) to be saved. They lost that argument.

Quote

 

And why were restrictions placed on the gentiles?

Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from [j]things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.  (Acts 15:19-20)

All of these teachings would be rejected today. 

 

Wow, for someone who preaches to others about understanding the cultural context of the text, you sure don't seem to follow through on your own advice.  

Those restrictions had nothing to do with salvation for the Gentiles.  They were the baseline requirements for table fellowship with the Jews.   Avoiding fornication and contamination from idols is to be expected. I don't see any Christians who would have a problem with those first two requirements, and the other two were simply dietary restrictions that one would be expected to respect in the presence of a Jew, meaning that Gentile believers would not serve that kind of food to a Jew invited to their home.

Quote

So you feel you are 100% correct and without error? 

On this matter, yes.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Badjao33 said:

I agree with this with the exception that Jesus taught Israel that they had to keep the law and be baptized. While not a requirement for salvation, those hearing this message would have not known this. 

 

According to you, Jesus taught salvation by works.   So Jesus would have re-enforced a false Gospel.

Quote

I'm pretty sure it was the gospel of grace that faith alone saves that was the mystery. Paul says that His ministry that He received was to testify the gospel of grace. 

That was not the mystery.   The hard thing to understand was how the Gospel related to the Gentiles and their entrance into the Kingdom of God, as Gentiles.  Romans 9, 10 and 11 are dedicated to that discussion.

 

Quote

 

Here Paul refers to the mystery being faith. 

Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine cor fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. (1 Timothy 3:8–9)

 

That is not the same mystery as spoken of in I Cor. 2.

 

Quote

The original disciples would have never said anything like this below, because they remained committed to the law. 

And yet, we have no record of them teaching salvation by works.  You keep assigning that value to them, but you are really just wrong.

 

Quote

If the original disciples knew that "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Romans 10:4), why were they still teaching the law?

Actually the word for "end" is telos and as used in that context means "goal," or "focus."   Jesus is not the termination of the Law. 

Quote

There were many mysteries that were revealed to Paul other than faith alone saves. Not only the mystery of the Church that you mentioned, but also of the Resurrections which the original disciples never taught. 

 

They never taught salvation through the law, either.  

 

Quote

It's also important to remember that the Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah were not looking for spiritual redemption, they were looking for a redemption of Israel and an earthly king that they expected to reign in their lifetime. 

But Jesus only ever taught a spiritual redemption. They were not looking for a Savior, but someone to overthrow Rome.  But that is beside the point.  The fact is that Jesus came to be a Savior, the first time, and will fulfill the role of King/Messiah when at His bodily return.

 

Quote

The original disciples reasons for wanting Israel to repent, be seen as righteous in God's eyes, and have their sins forgiven was not to go to Heaven, but to usher in God's Kingdom on earth. They weren't concerned about what was going to happen to them after they die, they were expecting to reign with Christ in their lifetime. This is also why the message being shared with the Jews by the original disciples was so much different than the message Paul shared with the gentiles. 

And Yet we don't find THAT teaching in any of their epistles in the NT.  Again, that is just you making up a lot of bogus garbage. 

1 hour ago, Badjao33 said:

I don't see anything confusing and the people living in the first century wouldn't either.

That's because you don't have a very firm grasp of the material, particularly the text of Scripture.   You don't see two gospels that offer contradictory messages confusing.   That only shows that you really don't think these things through.   Peter encountered Gentiles at Cornelius' home.  What did they have to do to be saved?  They didn't have Paul on hand to preach to them.  All they had was Peter.

Quote

It was always known that Israel was a special nation to God and that He had a covenant with them. It wouldn't be confusing at that time if certain restrictions were placed on Jews who were under the law and the gentiles who weren't. In fact it would make perfect sense as to why that would be. 

That is not how salvation worked in the OT and that is not how it was taught by Jesus or the disciples.   Salvation was the same for everyone and it was always by grace through faith.  That would amount to ways of salvation and that is anathema to anyone competent in scripture. 

 

Quote

Anything that requires effort on out part is what I would consider a work. Keeping the law or baptism is something that the Jews had to put effort into to achieve. 

Well, I go by the Bible's approach to works, not your carnal misunderstanding.    We are not saved by works, meaning we are not saved by any meritorious act.  The Bible uses works to describe our thinking and conduct before God. When it says we are not saved by works, that means there is nothing meritorious, sacramental, no good work (which is not the same as "good deeds"), that we can do to earn God's favor.  Nothing that is pleasing to God that we can perform is efficacious for salvation.  Baptism isn't work because baptism isn't sacramental.  It is a sign, not a work.   Baptism follows faith, not the other way around.

Quote

Then why was this practice allowed to continue? Rather than saying that it's the same saving faith that brings salvation to both the Jew and the gentile, why was there no mention that circumcision was not required?

 

 

Does it need to spelled out to you?   It's pretty clear that circumcision crowd lost. 

Quote

That's a pretty good point, I'll give you that one, but it also shows that the Jews continued to put themselves under the law. 

But not for salvation.   I fully expect Jews to live like Jews.   And Christians who were Jewish didn't see Jesus as the abolition of the Law of Moses, but rather as its capstone.   He was the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets.   But nowhere do we find that they promoted a works-based salvation anywhere  in Scripture. 

[Shadow with a shirt on]

I remember the first time I actually acknowledged the Holy Spirit advising me..I was trying to think of the "right" way to pray to the Lord about revealing a "something" I was feeling about another person.. yes..I actually was told several times that I had to pray a particular way., So my mind was goin, on and on ..... because I thought I had to figure out how to ask the Lord a thing in a particular way..

I can not explain the assurance the Holy Spirit gave me., That assurance alone separated me from HIM..I doubt myself all the time..but I lacked the capability to lack pure truth from the source of pure love..You are your heart.. your mind and body are vehicles acting out your hearts desires.. Christ payed THE ultimate price so that we may have the opportunity to give him our heart.. Christ is the "door man" to club Heaven.. and in order to gain intrance Christ, the Elect whom is the sword of truth, must recognize you..and feeling that entry is granted by an act is like presenting a fake I.D. to the source of truth... Entrance is granted by BECOMING

[Guest shiloh357]

7 hours ago, Badjao33 said:

Once again:

And this is what I believe. 

 

That doesn't excuse the heresies that you have been spreading about Jesus teaching works-based salvation.

[Guest shiloh357]

7 minutes ago, Badjao33 said:

No, it wouldn't have been re-enfocing a false gospel because the Jews He was sharing His message with had always been under the law. He was re-enforcing what they already knew was expected of them. His ministry was not to the gentiles. 

I guess if I didn't know anything about theology I would believe same thing.  Except that Jews had NEVER been saved by works.  That was never part of Old Testament Theology, no place in the Bible teaches us a thing.   None of the types of salvation  in the OT ever included works as part of salvation.   So Jesus wasn't teaching salvation by works, because that would be a false doctrine.   

Quote

How can you not think works were not involved? There are still churches 2000 years after the fact that still believe baptism is a requirement for salvation and they have the complete Bible and expanded knowledge, so there is no doubt that faith, repentance, baptism, and the law were thought to be required by the Jews in the first century to bring salvation.

Oh, so we decide what they believed and what Jesus taught based on what churches 2000 years later believe?   Churches that teach baptismal regeneration are not true Churches and they teach a false gospel.  Anyone trusting in works for salvation isn't a Christian.

Quote

While you don't classify baptism as a work, I do because it is something we must do on our own. But whether you believe baptism to be a work or not, if baptism wasn't thought to be a part of the plan of salvation by the original disciples, then why was their such an urgency to be baptized?  Why did they think they needed to be baptized immediately? 

The Bible doesn't classify it as a work.   I go by what the Bible says.   Works is used by the Bible to describe acts of meritorious value.  And baptism was never a work for salvation in the Old Testament and in the NT it is an ordinance commanded by Jesus as following salvation, not the means by which salvation is procured.    They thought it needed to be done immediately to be obedient.   It wasn't because it was needed for salvation.   Nothing in the teachings of the apostles stated that baptism is required for salvation.   Your theology is warped and you are trying to project that on to the disciples. 

Quote

Faith has always been the one thing that saves since creation, but before the gospel of grace, works were involved as part of the salvation process. A Jew during the time of David was saved by taking a sacrifice and believing that the sacrifice covered his sin.

Wrong.   Salvation was not found in the sacrifices.  The sacrifices only provided a temporary atonement over past sins.  They were not "saved" by those sacrifices. Salvation never came thorugh the law. 

Quote

 

Jesus clearly says believe AND be baptized.

And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned” (Mark 16.15-16)

 

Jesus does not say, "He that believes and is not baptized shall be condemned."  Jesus is not teaching that salvation was dependent at all on salvation.   Those who do not believe are condemned, in that verse, not those who believe but are not baptized.  It does not teach baptismal regeneration. 

Quote

Would Abraham have been saved if he had ignored God's request to take his son to the alter?

Abraham was saved in Genesis 15 decades before Isaac was born.    And God had cut a blood covenant to Abraham that secured the promise He had made to Abraham about a son.   It was an unbreakable covenant and that was the basis of Abraham's faith, a faith that was strong enough to be willing to sacrifice Isaac.  Abraham's willingness was a demonstration of his faith, proof that his faith was genuine.  It had nothing to do with his salvation. 

Quote

Would Noah have been saved had he not built the ark?

Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord BEFORE he built the ark.  Noah was already saved and his obedience was proof of that salvation.



Quote

But they had no way of knowing that at the time and that is clearly not what they believed. 

You keep saying that but we don't find that in the Bible.   We don't any of the garbage you assign to the Bible, in the Bible.  You are unfit to tell us what they did or did not believe.

Quote

The gospel of the kingdom was about calling Israel to recognize their Messiah while the gospel of Grace is about Christ's finished work not only for Israel, but all the world.  Read the sermon on the Mount again in Mattew 5-7. Read it a dozen times.  There is no way to ever understand or come to the conclusion that Jesus died for our sins, the law is no longer a requirement, that a believer becomes part of Christ's body, etc.  It's a totally different gospel than the gospel Paul shared and meant only for a Jewish audience.

The Sermon on the Mount  actually teaches salvation apart from works over an against the religious leaders whose "salvation" was completely wrapped up in works.    You don't have a clue about the Gospel.

Quote

We have to remember when reading the Bible that it's not about we know today, but what they people being addressed didn't know at the time. 

Which is something you have failed at, miserably.

Quote

It's not confusing at all when you look at things through the eyes of someone living in the first century rather than through the eyes of someone living in 2018 with full knowledge of the history of the Church and the complete Bible in front of them. 
 

Your view doesn't reflect the NT faith of the first century, or the teachings of Jesus.   Yours is a perversion of what Jesus taught.  The lies your spreading on this board belong in the Lake of Fire, not in the thinking any Bible believing Christians.

I just thank God that no one here is buying the trash you are trying to sell.   You lost the argument a long time ago. 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Badjao33 said:

If God is gracious, did he allow them all to perish? Of course not. He had a plan of salvation for Israel prior to the cross and it came through the law.

No it didn't' come through the law.  That's just your lack of education talking  again.

Quote

So what do you think happened to all of the people of Israel before the cross?

They were saved by grace through faith looking forward to the redemption to come.  It was just like Abraham.  Their faith was credited to them as righteousness apart from the Law. 

Quote

 

Peter taught that one must repent and be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit. 

 “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

Do you believe someone is saved who has not received the Holy Spirit? 

 

Numerous people were saved prior to the coming of the Holy Spirit during the ministry of Jesus.  Peter did not teach salvation being conditioned on baptism.  

Quote

Then why did the Jews go through the motions if the law and the sacrifices it prescribed if it were pointless? 

The sacrifices were pictures of Jesus' sacrifice; they each foreshadow an aspect of Jesus sacrifice.  So they were not pointless.   You simply lack the education to understand their importance. 

Quote

I'll just let the words of Jesus speak for themselves on this one.  it's just important to remember that the audience Jesus was speaking to was Jews. 

You are perverting the words of Jesus to mean something they didn't mean.   It's important to understand that the Bible was governed by what Jews thought or didn't think.   

Quote

 

Below is what a first century Jew was taught and believed. 

God expected Israel to keep His law.

You should diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and His testimonies and His statutes which He has commanded you. (Deuteronomy 6:17)

It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes, (Deuteronomy 17:19)

Be very firm, then, to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, so that you may not turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left, (Joshua 23:6)

Keep the charge of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn, (1 Kings 2:3)

 

The people of Israel didn't find the law unreasonable and agreed to keep the law.

All the people answered together and said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do!” And Moses brought back the words of the people to the Lord. (Exodus 19:8)

Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!” (Exodus 24:3)

Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” (Exodus 24:7)

The people said to Joshua, “We will serve the Lord our God and we will obey His voice.” (Joshua 24:24)

 

  I will try to keep this simple for you.  The law was given AFTER Israel was saved.   Israel was saved by the blood of the Passover Lamb on the night of the Exodus.   That was the archetype of redemption/salvation.   The Israelites were not given the law and baptism and then told that they would be saved from bondage.   They were saved from the bondage of slavery (foreshadowing salvation from sin) and then they were introduced the law of Moes.

The Law was given  to a redeemed people who were heirs the promise made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  The Law was God's instructions regarding how to enjoy the promise.   The Law wasn't given to them for them to be saved, but rather was given to them so that they could live out the fruit of salvation they had received several days prior.   

You don't know beans about the Law or anything else you keep trying talk about.  

Quote

 

Keeping the law didn't mean that a person was perfect or had to live a sinless life, it only means that they followed the law. 

Since a sacrifice was performed by the individual who broke the law to be reconciled with God, it was a work on their part. The individual was guilty of breaking the law until the they made a sacrifice, but after the sacrifice was made he was forgiven and the individual was seen as justified in the eyes of God for keeping the law and following its ordinances.

 

That is must more theological illiteracy from the unlearned.   The sacrifices did not justify anyone.  The sacrifices only made a temporary atonement for past sins.  They did not put anyone in right standing with God.   In order to be put in right standing with God, it required the death of Jesus for all sins, past, present and future. The sacrifices didn't accomplish that. 

 

Quote

Before the work on the cross, by following the law and following it's prescribed remedies when laws were broken, the individual was recognized by God as keeping the law and in turn earned his personal salvation through the works of the law. All those under the law who died before the cross, put their faith in God, and were obedient to the law were saved, but they had to await the resurrection to be with Christ. 

That is not true, and is not in the Bible.  That was not true about the woman at the well, or the thief that was saved on the cross.  The sinner woman who washed Jesus feet was not saved on the grounds of keeping the law.   Not one person in the Bible was saved by keeping the Law.   You are speaking out of ignorance and nothing more.

 

Quote

It was by God's grace that He offered forgiveness through the law to those who were obedient.

Which is nowhere found in the Bible (but that doesn't really matter to you).

 

Quote

So for a Jew living under the law to be saved, they had to put their faith in God and follow the law which required works on the part of the individual. Faith + Works = Salvation

Which is why I am justified in claiming that your views are unmitigated heresy and a pack of lies.

 

Quote

Knowing this, when we read the following "that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24) We can understand why James being a Jew would teach this way to his Jewish audience. The book of James was not addressed to a gentile audience and certainly not to the Church in 2018. 

Except that James wasn't talking about justification for salvation before God.  James wasn't talking about be placed in legal rightstanding with God. James didn't teach that works + faith = salvation, because James wasn't a heretic.

 

Quote

Today, by God's same grace and the same saving faith we are saved, but all of the work that was required under the law has been done away with by Christ and the work that was done at the cross. Faith + 0 = Salvation

No work for salvation was ever required.

[Guest shiloh357]

25 minutes ago, Badjao33 said:

So you believe all of Israel will be saved, even those who didn't put their faith in God, rejected Christ when He arrived, and/or ignored the law completely? 

No. 

The point is that when Israel received the law, they were a redeemed community, and they were redeemed individually by faith in the power of the blood of the lamb.   They were not redeemed on the condition that they keep the law.   This is a type and shadow of redemption and is the strongest one in the OT.   Salvation preceded the giving the Law.  It always does in the Bible.

No one in the Bible was saved based upon keeping the Law.  They were saved first and then obedience was expected as a result of salvation.   It's really, really simple.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 hours ago, Badjao33 said:

What do you think Paul is trying to say here?

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:1-6)

That God has not cast off Israel.