Why the Religious Will Perish with the Unbelievers

[God's Truth]

Jesus dying for us while we were still UNGODLY is about Jesus dying for the GENTILES who were UNGODLY, they were without God and did not come into His Covenant which circumcision in the flesh was a sign.

Jesus saved the ungodly Gentiles means that Jesus did not make anyone get circumcised like the Jews before he would save them.


Ephesians 2:12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,


Jesus did not make the enemies get circumcised first and do what the Jews always did before he would save them. They just had to believe and obey Jesus and repent of their sins.


Read these scriptures:

Ephesians 2:11 Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.


Did you read that?

They were ENEMIES because they did not obey and come into the covenant with God by getting circumcised in the flesh.

 

[God's Truth]

No one is reconciled to God while they still hate God and don't believe Him.

 

[God's Truth]

You have to add works to believing which cancels out faith and believing. You do terrible harm to the Gospel and justification by faith when you add obedience. The Bible does not do that, but you insist upon twisting God's word with your words. You will not escape his judgment.

I have faith. I have great faith. I have great faith in all of Jesus' words. I don't tell people as you do that they are condemned for obeying.

 

[Robert Pate]

I have faith. I have great faith. I have great faith in all of Jesus' words. I don't tell people as you do that they are condemned for obeying.

What you have faith in is your ability to keep the commandments, which is worth 0.

If you had faith in Christ to save you, you would not place so much emphasis on your obedience.

 

[God's Truth]

What you have faith in is your ability to keep the commandments, which is worth 0.

If you had faith in Christ to save you, you would not place so much emphasis on your obedience.

I obey Jesus' directions because I could not find the Father any other way.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have faith. I have great faith.

Sigh.

For every look at yourself, take ten looks at Christ.

AMR

 

[jamie]

What you have faith in is your ability to keep the commandments, which is worth 0.

Did Jesus keep the commandments when he was human?

 

[Robert Pate]

I obey Jesus' directions because I could not find the Father any other way.

You believe that salvation is by keeping the commandments. "Jesus directions" If that were true Jesus lived and died in vain. Jesus didn't come into the world to show us the way. He came into the world to be the way. Did he not say, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man can come to the Father but by me" John 14:6. Was it not Jesus that fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law? Was it not Jesus that atoned for our sins and the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

This is why Paul could say, "YOU ARE COMPLETE IN HIM" Colossians 2:10.

 

[Stuu]

Your first point is an argument about probability. Which, if you utilize probability, should point to there being at least some kind of higher deity, since there are a higher number of cases (religions) which adhere to some form of theistic structure.

So all I have to do is invent 50,000 atheistic cults, and the deity disappears.

Your second point argues two different forms of need. Food/water/shelter/etc are basic natural necessities for survival and fitness. Knowledge of history is never labeled as necessary for survival/fitness.

We are adapted to have memory of what happened in the past. We have a strong instinct for passing down oral histories and we have the extended phenotype of the technology of writing historical records. The fitness advantage of all of that is pretty obvious. But your argument is a strawman because I didn't say anything about knowledge of history, I was very specific:

2. If you were to make a list of basic human needs, you might start with oxygen, water, food, warmth, shelter, human companionship, and so forth. Where in that list would you write that you need to know a man was nailed to a tree 2000 years ago because you were born with a need to be fixed, in the opinion of an invisible being? It's not a credible human need.

Your third point argues biological and natural laws as being without exception.

You have the burden of proof, not me. It is a well-established principle of biology that being successfully executed means you will not walk again. The number of eye-witness accounts of this actually happening is zero.

Stuart

 

[jsanford108]

So all I have to do is invent 50,000 atheistic cults, and the deity disappears.


We are adapted to have memory of what happened in the past. We have a strong instinct for passing down oral histories and we have the extended phenotype of the technology of writing historical records. The fitness advantage of all of that is pretty obvious. But your argument is a strawman because I didn't say anything about knowledge of history, I was very specific:

2. If you were to make a list of basic human needs, you might start with oxygen, water, food, warmth, shelter, human companionship, and so forth. Where in that list would you write that you need to know a man was nailed to a tree 2000 years ago because you were born with a need to be fixed, in the opinion of an invisible being? It's not a credible human need.

You have the burden of proof, not me. It is a well-established principle of biology that being successfully executed means you will not walk again. The number of eye-witness accounts of this actually happening is zero.

Stuart

I assume you would like a discussion, since you gave the reply that you did. Careful not to be dismissive or arrogant. For that makes you no different than the zealots or the Bible-thumpers who refuse to listen to logic.

So all I have to do is invent 50,000 atheistic cults, and the deity disappears.

Your first point was a point of probability. So, either you wish to utilize mathematical probability as a logical point, or not. If not, then don't use the statement of "there are numerous religions that don't agree" as a base of debunking a higher deity. Do all these various religions agree? No. But they all do agree on a God or Almighty Power. Thus, your first point is against logic.

But your argument is a strawman because I didn't say anything about knowledge of history

False. I was not creating a straw man; I was highlighting the inconsistency within your second point. Let us review it: "If you were to make a list of basic human needs, you might start with oxygen (physical), water (physical), food (physical), warmth (physical), shelter (physical), human companionship (mental), and so forth. Where in that list would you write that you need to know a man was nailed to a tree 2000 years ago because you were born with a need to be fixed (historical knowledge bearing on emotional need), in the opinion of an invisible being (jumping to a conclusion here; it is better to first prove or disprove "God" before going into Christ, a man who claimed to be "God")? It's not a credible human need (which kind of need? You have listed physical, mental, and randomly threw in a supposedly historically-weighted emotional need)." See how you created a false equivalence between "needs?" You went down a very biological and mental list, then switched to a more emotional appeal (Improper Transposition).

You have the burden of proof, not me. It is a well-established principle of biology that being successfully executed means you will not walk again. The number of eye-witness accounts of this actually happening is zero.

Two errors. Shifting the burden of proof is a very unsound tactic. It is a dishonest attempt at not having to support one's claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Notice that an error/fallacy in shifting the burden of proof is "It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false (theism) or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true (atheism)." Atheism is a negative claim, whereas theism is the positive claim. To say, "the burden lies with the positive" is false, because negatives can be proven in science, mathematics, etc.

As for the number of eye-witnesses, you are wrong there. There are over 500 who claimed to see Christ post-crucifixion. Granted, these records are mainly contained in the Bible. However, there are numerous secular sources that attest to the same numbers and accounts as those found in the Bible. So, my job there would be to prove the Bible as a historico-critical source (which many Christians fail to do, even among themselves). As I always tell fellow Christians, the only way to prove or even believe in what the Bible says is to first prove it as a historical and accurate source; otherwise, the logic that supports it is no better than any other religious source.

If I may, I will make a point in rebuttal against your ten point listed earlier. Except for the first three, as we have begun to address them here.

 

[Stuu]

Careful not to be dismissive or arrogant.

By all means, tell me when you think I am sounding arrogant. And then maybe you could tell me I need a saviour. That always sounds humble.

For that makes you no different than the zealots or the Bible-thumpers who refuse to listen to logic.

Christianity is perfectly logical, but is based on absurd premises. Knowledge quality improves dramatically if you can combine empirical evidence with logic, and try to minimise the number of assumptions. That is where christianity really starts to fall to pieces, on the quality of the knowledge that supports the crazy ideas it encourages in its followers.

Your first point was a point of probability. So, either you wish to utilize mathematical probability as a logical point, or not. If not, then don't use the statement of "there are numerous religions that don't agree" as a base of debunking a higher deity. Do all these various religions agree? No. But they all do agree on a God or Almighty Power. Thus, your first point is against logic.

I didn't used the argument to debunk a higher deity (how many deities are there for one to be higher?) I was responding to Robert Pate's "The unbeliever does not believe that Jesus is his savior for a variety of different reasons", and your request for a list of reasons. My answer was

1. Different religious belief systems make contradictory absolute claims. They can't all be right. Probably they are all wrong.

If we want to calculate the probability of "Jesus being my saviour", then the highest quality of information is attained from the action of logic on empirical evidence. Well, there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus, so all we have is the low-quality 'knowledge' of hearsay and 'revelation', which applies to other man-god religions too.

That means that the claims of christianity have one vote alongside all the other claims of saviours plus the claims that no saviour is applicable. Even just counting the man-god myths like Mithraism and other Mesopotamian religions to work out which saviour is the right one leaves Jesus as one equal amongst many, with his personal p→0.

I was highlighting the inconsistency within your second point. Let us review it: "If you were to make a list of basic human needs, you might start with oxygen (physical), water (physical), food (physical), warmth (physical), shelter (physical), human companionship (mental), and so forth. Where in that list would you write that you need to know a man was nailed to a tree 2000 years ago because you were born with a need to be fixed (historical knowledge bearing on emotional need), in the opinion of an invisible being (jumping to a conclusion here; it is better to first prove or disprove "God" before going into Christ, a man who claimed to be "God")? It's not a credible human need (which kind of need? You have listed physical, mental, and randomly threw in a supposedly historically-weighted emotional need)." See how you created a false equivalence between "needs?" You went down a very biological and mental list, then switched to a more emotional appeal (Improper Transposition).

What is the difference between a 'physical' need and an 'emotional' need? Try starving yourself of oxygen and see whether you feel any emotional response to that. How is human companionship not in your 'emotional' category? How is water not in your 'mental' category? Why should you inventing a system of categorisation be an impressive argument?

Stuu: You have the burden of proof, not me. It is a well-established principle of biology that being successfully executed means you will not walk again. The number of eye-witness accounts of this actually happening is zero.

Shifting the burden of proof is a very unsound tactic. It is a dishonest attempt at not having to support one's claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden...f_(philosophy)
Notice that an error/fallacy in shifting the burden of proof is "It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false (theism) or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true (atheism)." Atheism is a negative claim, whereas theism is the positive claim. To say, "the burden lies with the positive" is false, because negatives can be proven in science, mathematics, etc.

So can I take it that you believe the claim "Jesus is [Stuu's] saviour" demands that at least one man walked again after being executed? Can I further assume that you don't think this is absurd, or else you do think it is absurd but you believe that nonetheless it happened at least once, and thus the claims of christianity are credible for the purpose of assigning saviours?

Well, the claim that humans can walk again after execution has been proved false, so you have the burden of proof of your claim for an exception to that.

As for the number of eye-witnesses, you are wrong there. There are over 500 who claimed to see Christ post-crucifixion. Granted, these records are mainly contained in the Bible.

Again, that wasn't my claim. Can I recommend you read my claim again and reconsider?

However, there are numerous secular sources that attest to the same numbers and accounts as those found in the Bible. So, my job there would be to prove the Bible as a historico-critical source (which many Christians fail to do, even among themselves). As I always tell fellow Christians, the only way to prove or even believe in what the Bible says is to first prove it as a historical and accurate source; otherwise, the logic that supports it is no better than any other religious source.

So you are setting people up to commit the fallacy of composition. Historical accuracy does not give any credibility to the fantasy supernatural claims.

The Judeo-christian scriptures are obviously historical fiction. Roman-occupied ancient Palestine did really exist, but the requirement that people had to move for the purpose of a census did not. Herod really existed but there is no evidence to support the myth of the slaughter of the innocents. The fact that the reign of Herod and the time of the census of Quirinus do not overlap is good evidence that the gospel writers were transcribing fiction.

There was political and religious conflict in ancient Palestine and ancient Egypt, but there is a positive lack of the expected archeological evidence that would support the so-called 'exodus'. That is another fictional event based in a real historical context. Judeo-christian scripture is full of that. Did your god order the slaughter of the women and children of Amalek, or is that just like the wartime claim by humans that 'God is on our side'? If the latter, then the part played by the God character in this account is more historical fiction. If not, then it looks more like humans need saving from the God character, which is another good reason to reject Jesus as a 'saviour'. Which way would you play that one?

Stuart

 

[Robert Pate]

The Bible is a an accurate account of the "Christ Event". The witnesses wrote what they saw and heard. All one has to do to be convinced that the Bible is a truthful and accurate book is to read the new Testament and the wittings of the apostle Paul.

Paul traveled over 10,000 miles for about 20 years taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Pagan world. Even today there are monuments in every town along the upper Mediterranean coast where Paul preached the Gospel. One does not have to read much of the New testament to be convinced that the Bible is truly God's word.

 

[Lon]

Christianity is perfectly logical, but is based on absurd premises.

So are you and 'your' feigned premises for existence, yet there you are making emphatic statements with no substance...

So you are setting people up to commit the fallacy of composition. Historical accuracy does not give any credibility to the fantasy supernatural claims.

Just because you 'might' know a fallacy term or two, I've known you to use them incorrectly. You hide behind your illogical mind. You are not anywhere near as logical as I am and I have to run some things by others at times. It leaves little hope to me, that you are capable. Personal? Yes, but your content isn't cogent so your thinking is also suspect because of it. Point? That you are hiding behind your 'inability' and happy with mediocre as long as you have to do nothing but be yourself. Guess what? Even if you are wrong (and you are by my assertion), you still get to ignore all this and be yourself. Perhaps Jsanford is still, in kindness and grace, trying to reach you, while your resistance isn't even acknowledging the appreciation. Don't think you are here to 'help us poor dupes.' You aren't. This is just a place you can try and sell your inane theories and poorly thought assertions, alternatives, and contrived rejection.

The Judeo-christian scriptures are obviously historical fiction.

YOU are obviously a bunch of fiction... lain: ...yet, as ABSURD as you are, you still exist :noway: What it means is you are happy with simpleton reading and excuses. Good for you. Don't try and dress it in flowers. It is as goofy as it has always been AND your excusing behavior. Those three fingers pointing back are you. Point? You really need to learn to be honest with yourself.

Roman-occupied ancient Palestine did really exist but the requirement that people had to move for the purpose of a census did not. Herod really existed but there is no evidence to support the myth of the slaughter of the innocents. The fact that the reign of Herod and the time of the census of Quirinus do not overlap is good evidence that the gospel writers were transcribing fiction. ...

You are a genuine goofball. NOBODY but the easily duped believes this. You go ahead with your childish Googling and think there is some 'weight' to your silly counterclaims. Even atheists hate this kind of counter-intuitive mindlessness. You've been watching too many James Cameron PBS specials. :dizzy:

There was political and religious conflict in ancient Palestine and ancient Egypt, but there is a positive lack of the expected archeological evidence that would support the so-called 'exodus'. That is another fictional event based in a real historical context.

:dizzy: This 'pop' skepticism is as bad as when they doubted that Daniel had been written prior to A.D. What you have is an account that NOBODY cared to prove, because nobody doubted it. In a couple of years/decades, skeptics will proved wrong yet again LET ALONE it is only conjecture and NOT your supposed 'fictional event' based on lame and unprofessional assertion and empty air. :noway:

Judeo-christian scripture is full of that.

Nope. You are. You'd rather LEAP to 'fiction' based off nothing but desire and sick-twisted-hope. You are NOT my version of impartial or scholastic and never were. You assert over your pay-grade and ability to deliver all day on TOL. This is all outlandish assertion, and thus trolling. lain:

Did your god order the slaughter of the women and children of Amalek, or is that just like the wartime claim by humans that 'God is on our side'? If the latter, then the part played by the God character in this account is more historical fiction. If not, then it looks more like humans need saving from the God character, which is another good reason to reject Jesus as a 'saviour'. Which way would you play that one? -Stuart

Let me guess...you love Kim Jong In and Hate Trump, right? Or is it vice versa? It is always easier to hate 'the other guy' and assume that whoever loses in a war was the victim lain: Grow a brain? Naw, we'll just do your inane and amateur history analysis, shall we? :think:

Stu, you are always playing the adversary card. You'd make a good Satan in the next play. Here is a guy trying to encourage you, for your own good and soul, to take a better look and here is your nasty ill-hearted response. Again.... This address will likely just find you, yet, in your ugly mood. Why even come here? Just like to hear the ill-will from your own lips? OF COURSE you don't believe in God! You are a guy miserably happy where he is at and forever stuck there. What else is left? Oh yeah, try to bad-mouth a few Christians, new or again.

WHY ARE YOU HERE ON TOL, Stu? What have you given for anyone to guess as to anything but this? :think:

 

[Stuu]

So are you and 'your' feigned premises for existence, yet there you are making emphatic statements with no substance...

Well, I guess it is a positive thing that you are acknowledging the absurdity of christian premises. One way to measure the quality of knowledge is to count the assumptions:

Mine are: 1. I exist; and 2. What I observe is not an illusion.

I suggest yours are: 1. You exist; 2. What you observe is not an illusion (although perhaps you disagree); 3. There is a being that created the universe; 4. It is possible for humans to know what this being wants them to do.

Generally, the fewer the assumptions you have to make, the higher the quality of the knowledge you can generate.

Just because you 'might' know a fallacy term or two, I've known you to use them incorrectly.

An example or two might help to support that assertion.

You hide behind your illogical mind.

I'm not hiding from anything. Bring on whatever you think I fear.

You are not anywhere near as logical as I am and I have to run some things by others at times. It leaves little hope to me, that you are capable. Personal? Yes, but your content isn't cogent so your thinking is also suspect because of it. Point? That you are hiding behind your 'inability' and happy with mediocre as long as you have to do nothing but be yourself. Guess what? Even if you are wrong (and you are by my assertion), you still get to ignore all this and be yourself. Perhaps Jsanford is still, in kindness and grace, trying to reach you, while your resistance isn't even acknowledging the appreciation. Don't think you are here to 'help us poor dupes.' You aren't. This is just a place you can try and sell your inane theories and poorly thought assertions, alternatives, and contrived rejection.

YOU are obviously a bunch of fiction... ...yet, as ABSURD as you are, you still exist What it means is you are happy with simpleton reading and excuses. Good for you. Don't try and dress it in flowers. It is as goofy as it has always been AND your excusing behavior. Those three fingers pointing back are you. Point? You really need to learn to be honest with yourself.

You are a genuine goofball. NOBODY but the easily duped believes this. You go ahead with your childish Googling and think there is some 'weight' to your silly counterclaims. Even atheists hate this kind of counter-intuitive mindlessness. You've been watching too many James Cameron PBS specials.

This 'pop' skepticism is as bad as when they doubted that Daniel had been written prior to A.D. What you have is an account that NOBODY cared to prove, because nobody doubted it. In a couple of years/decades, skeptics will proved wrong yet again LET ALONE it is only conjecture and NOT your supposed 'fictional event' based on lame and unprofessional assertion and empty air.

Nope. You are. You'd rather LEAP to 'fiction' based off nothing but desire and sick-twisted-hope. You are NOT my version of impartial or scholastic and never were. You assert over your pay-grade and ability to deliver all day on TOL. This is all outlandish assertion, and thus trolling.

Let me guess...you love Kim Jong In and Hate Trump, right? Or is it vice versa? It is always easier to hate 'the other guy' and assume that whoever loses in a war was the victim Grow a brain? Naw, we'll just do your inane and amateur history analysis, shall we?

Stu, you are always playing the adversary card. You'd make a good Satan in the next play. Here is a guy trying to encourage you, for your own good and soul, to take a better look and here is your nasty ill-hearted response. Again.... This address will likely just find you, yet, in your ugly mood. Why even come here? Just like to hear the ill-will from your own lips? OF COURSE you don't believe in God! You are a guy miserably happy where he is at and forever stuck there. What else is left? Oh yeah, try to bad-mouth a few Christians, new or again.

WHY ARE YOU HERE ON TOL, Stu? What have you given for anyone to guess as to anything but this?

Do you feel better now you've typed all that? Better out than in, I suppose.

Let us know if you have anything constructive to add.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

The Bible is a an accurate account of the "Christ Event". The witnesses wrote what they saw and heard. All one has to do to be convinced that the Bible is a truthful and accurate book is to read the new Testament and the wittings of the apostle Paul.

Paul traveled over 10,000 miles for about 20 years taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Pagan world. Even today there are monuments in every town along the upper Mediterranean coast where Paul preached the Gospel. One does not have to read much of the New testament to be convinced that the Bible is truly God's word.

The most relevant point is that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

Stuart

 

[Robert Pate]

The most relevant point is that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

Stuart

That's because you are spiritually blind. Christianity has changed the world. America was founded by Christian men with Christian ideals. America would not be the great nation that it is without our founding fathers. The Holy Spirit is present in the constitution, but you have to be a Christian to see it. Christianity is the only religion that is based upon faith. Christians don't have to see to believe. We have the most incredible record of Jesus Christ that was composed by the eyewitnesses of that day. You would have to be a fool to believe that it is fiction. The Bible has changed billions of lives, I happen to be one of them. The Holy Spirit is present in every page.

 

[Lon]

Well, I guess it is a positive thing that you are acknowledging the absurdity of christian premises.

Of course there is a 'reason' for that. 1 Corinthians 1:27-29

One way to measure the quality of knowledge is to count the assumptions

Mine are: 1. I exist; and 2. What I observe is not an illusion.

Incorrect. Many things you and I can tangibly observe are illusion and furthermore, most of the time we are willing to pay for it.
All television and movies are illusion. Jack Sparrow doesn't exist but as a character. Most of our scientific dates are illusion. We have absolutely no idea but for a tiny bit of geological and biological data how old the Grand Canyon is. Scientists, oddly with that tiny bit of data, will tell you unabashedly, it is 70 to 80 million years ago. Listen to PBS and they'll jump right to 80 million years. THAT is an illusion of accuracy. Oddly, sadly, the really answer is "estimated 70 to 80 million years ago (example, I don't want to go off on a tangent discussion).

QUOTE]I suggest yours are: 1. You exist; 2. What you observe is not an illusion (although perhaps you disagree); 3. There is a being that created the universe; 4. It is possible for humans to know what this being wants them to do.

3 covers 4. The 'reason' 3 is a given is because I have reason.

Generally, the fewer the assumptions you have to make, the higher the quality of the knowledge you can generate.

Agree.

An example or two might help to support that assertion.

It would, but I've called them into question already in the past.

I'm not hiding from anything. Bring on whatever you think I fear.

Posturing. One reason for dismissing God, by your own admission is 'character flaw.' Well, that hardly eliminates my or your existence. You are eliminating 'a' God from your mind and criteria. In other words, you don't care if He exists or not. If He is like such and such, "not my God!"
It doesn't work that way. If there is a Creator, He is your Creator, despite your dislike. THAT is the logical deduction, not this other and it is nearly always one of the reasons a skeptic gives for 'nonexistence.' Talk about your 'assumptions.' "If God is mean, He doesn't exist!" :dizzy:
Do you even see yourself emoting?

Do you feel better now you've typed all that? Better out than in, I suppose.

Er, I didn't just trounce a guy for his good intentions with rancor and mean-spirited banter. That guy was you.

Let us know if you have anything constructive to add.

Some buildings are condemned. I don't want to destroy you, just your façade and ill-manners. "Us?"
It doesn't matter how many guys or gals composed your previous response. That 'building' has to come down.
It was wrong-hearted and wrong-headed.

 

[God's Truth]

Sigh.

For every look at yourself, take ten looks at Christ.

AMR

You look to Christ and don't see his words?

He tells US TO HAVE FAITH. He tells us WHAT TO DO.

How do you ever get that is is wrong to obey Jesus?

How do you ever get that there is a right and wrong way to obey God?

 

[God's Truth]

God put living forever in the hearts of humans. Humans know they will die. So they search for God. That is right, the unsaved search for God so that they can become a child of His and live forever.

 

[God's Truth]

You believe that salvation is by keeping the commandments. "Jesus directions" If that were true Jesus lived and died in vain. Jesus didn't come into the world to show us the way. He came into the world to be the way. Did he not say, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man can come to the Father but by me" John 14:6. Was it not Jesus that fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law? Was it not Jesus that atoned for our sins and the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

This is why Paul could say, "YOU ARE COMPLETE IN HIM" Colossians 2:10.

You have to do what Jesus says in order to get in him.