FooManChoo

quote:

---

I've experienced these things for myself, and it's described in John 14. That is the reason I'm able to see the father within Jesus. I don't need Jesus to say it, I see it already.

---

You don't see Jesus in the Father and the Father in Jesus, because you don't know what that means. You think it means that Jesus acts like the Father by obeying the commandments rather than having a unique relationship within the godhead. Jesus accepted worship. We shouldn't, because we are not God. It's why you can use a word like "idolatry" when talking about Jesus, because you know that we aren't to worship anyone but God and you don't believe Jesus is God.

quote:

---

God is pure consciousness. Without God there is no experience, no reality, there is only data, there is no experience of data. The beginning and the end.

---

God is not "pure consciousness". He's a pure spirit and being who is conscious. He is a triune being from whom and through whom all things have been created, both those with consciousness and those things without it.

quote:

---

Your soul is also God. A limited version of the father. That limitation is in your flesh. That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit. Or another way is to see that consciousness is not a product of the universe/creation.

---

No, my soul is not also God. It's created. God is uncreated and He has created all that has been created, including you and me.

No, I am not a limited version of the Father. If I or my soul were God, then I would be the exact imprint of His nature, not a limited version of Him. It's why Jesus is said to be the exact imprint of God's nature, because He is God: He shares the one essence of divinity.

quote:

---

These limitations are done for the experience, and to grow from it. For example, a bird is only a bird when it's in that limitation. If you took your experience and then became a bird, you're not a bird, you're a man in a birds body.

---

People do not take on different natures. The Father doesn't have a human nature, either. Only the Son has taken on a human nature, but He retained His divine nature. He isn't merely God in a human body, but He has both a divine (God) nature and a human nature, both at the same time. He is fully God and fully man.

Your gnosticism is showing. Many gnostics had this sort of view of the "divine spark" that existed in men. Your particular brand also seems to add in some sort of pantheism, where God is in or part of all things, or at least humans.

quote:

---

Which modern computers this is easily demonstrated in a video game. Where you take your consciousness and you entire into another reality. A reality where the laws and restrictions of that universe dictate what actions you can take. Of course you are not actually those characters in that game the same way you wouldn't be a bird. In order to do that, you'd need to limit yourself down to only that which is known in that universe/creation.

---

See above.

Also, the video game is not me and does not have my consciousness. I am me, and my consciousness allows me to manipulate the video game. The video game is still the video game, and I am still me. There is no combination of the two here any more than if I pulled strings of a puppet, that the puppet would take on my consciousness.

quote:

---

And that is what you are a product of right now in this creation. That piece of God is within, but you only see the physical and know the physical. It's within all. You are the son, and the kingdom of God is within.

---

False. I am an adopted son of God, not sharing the same essence with Jesus (the Son) or God the Father.

Jesus had to be without sin because He is God, and God cannot sin. If I am God, then God is unholy, because I sin.

quote:

---

This is within all, and this is why doing bad things to other people is a sin against God. You are doing those things to God within them. If there is a soul, then this exists in them.

---

False. In Zechariah 12:1, we read that God formed man's spirit in him. It doesn't say God's spirit was placed in him, but that man has his own spirit.

The reason why it's bad to do do bad things to other people is because God made man in His image (Gen. 9:6), and therefore God owns all people. To disobey God and murder also stealing, as it seeks to destroy God's property without His permission.

quote:

---

Where as you are blinded, Jesus had these connections unlocked.

---

If I am God, how is it that I'm blinded? How can God be blind?

quote:

---

Going back to the video game, imagine if everyone else in the video game had no idea they were anything other than the character in the video game. But then 1 person had what you have know, knowledge and understanding that they weren't just that. That is what Jesus was. And what he describes in John 14 is that unlocking for others. I know it's true because I experienced it.

---

:lol: no...

Jesus said that He came to give His life as a ransom, not to merely be a prophet that explains how to leave the Matrix. Jesus died to accomplish the forgiveness of sins.

In John 14, Jesus didn't say to the disciples that if they have seen themselves or each other, that they have seen the Father. He said that if they have seen Him (Jesus), then they have seen the Father.

quote:

---

And the holy spirit has no label, it's just God. But I understand what is trying to be expressed here, because you can't actually see the full of God as your limitation would be destroyed completely.

---

God's Word declares that the Spirit is the Spirit, and is a person.

quote:

---

But the father is much greater because the father is without limitation. The father is in me, that was the first thing I learned/understood. But the father is my greater than I am.

---

You do not have the Father because you do not have the Son. You don't have the Son because you reject Him as being God, and the Christ who takes away sins.

quote:

---

And that's why when they took up to stone Jesus, look at what he quoted to them Psalm 82:6.

---

They tried to stone Him because Jesus made Himself to be God. Jesus didn't deny that He was God, but was making an argument from the lesser to the greater: if the ones that God has given the word of God could be called "gods", how can the one that God had sanctified and sent not also use that term?

quote:

---

What you've done is just demonstrated to me that you do not remotely understand the father and son relationship or what you call the trinity. You instead make it into an idol where Jesus is God and have no understanding.

---

I follow Jesus' own teaching. He didn't teach that each one of us has the divine spark. He taught that He and the Father are one by nature, and that we will be received by the Father for the sake of the Son if we believe in His life, death, and resurrection by faith. Jesus wasn't a gnostic.

quote:

---

You start out by telling me you've accepted something is true and that is the only place for answers for you.

But that is instead your blinder. A restriction you have placed on yourself.

---

You're doing the same thing. You believe you've received a personal visitation by God, and that's the only way you can know the truth. You reject the Bible as God's Word, or the words of others who claim to have had other visions or revelations of God.

You are doing the same thing you're accusing me of doing.

quote:

---

And your claims of me contradicting myself are just baseless accusations. There is a reason why you don't name specific things. You just say that because I don't accept the bible is the word of God or that the chosen books for some reason are all true or all false, as if it's impossible for a combination.

If you have specific things, I'll address them.

---

I've been addressing them. For one, you have said that no one should listen to you but to God. Then you turn around and say you are teaching the truth revealed by God. Which is it? Should we listen to you or not? Seems like a contradiction.

Also, you seem to now being saying that the Bible is not the word of God, but then quote from it when you think it is or supports the word of God as you understand it. You are cherry-picking from the Bible based on what you already believe to be true. You are no different than the Muslim or Jehovah's Witness that has a belief system handed to them from another source outside the Bible, and then use the Bible to show where their other source is true through selective passages pulled out from its context. If the Bible contains God's Word, then you need to provide the standard for how I or anyone else can know what is what, otherwise you're just asking us to trust you alone that you know what's right.

quote:

---

The entire book of acts is Paul trying to become an authority. He even tries to create territories for his authority. He is THE thing that you actually follow and the mask that gets put on Jesus to change what he actually said.

---

That's factually not true. He's sharing the word of God that he received. It's not his own word, and he even was tested by the other apostles of Jesus and was approved. Peter even said that his words are scripture.

quote:

---

You should NOT believe me. You should understand me. To believe me is to make me an authority. To understand me is to be your own authority. What good will come of you believing me? Nothing. The only thing good that can come for you is to for something to remove your blinders.

---

This is absurd, and shows that you don't even know what basic language is.

If I believe you, it means that I believe the words you are saying. It means I believe what you are saying is true. It doesn't mean I am seeing you as an authority, but that you are speaking the truth from a true authority.

It's incredible that you don't even get that right, because if no one believed you, then they wouldn't believe what you said. When you teach that we are supposed to obey the commandments of God (which commands, again?) for eternal life, then you are making a truth claim. Either someone believes you (and the claim) or not, and if no one believed you, it means they don't believe the claim you are making. Therefore, it would be pointless for you to tell anyone anything at all if you didn't expect--or even want--anyone to believe you.

Again I say, your beliefs are irrational.

quote:

---

And your claims about Matthew 13 are ridiculous and backwards.

You're basically claiming God deliberately plugs peoples ears and blocks them from understanding so they don't repent. Jesus spoke in parables to unlock understanding, not to hide it.

---

No, you're the one who has it backwards, as you do with everything in the Bible, it seems.

Jesus specifically told His disciples it was given to them to understand the truth, but it wasn't given to others. He quoted Isaiah in order to support His statement, and that passage in Isaiah is God telling the prophet that He would harden the people's hearts until the right time. You aren't even reading the text.

quote:

---

Jesus it almost the only person I quote.

---

Yeah, because you keep quoting the same verse over and over again to the exclusion of so many other things Jesus said.

I hope you've seen the pattern: I'm supporting my views (and contradicting yours) by quoting the gospel writings primarily. I'm not going to Paul to support what I'm saying, even though his writings are God-breathed. I'm showing you that you are wrong by the same books you seem to be OK with quoting.

quote:

---

Outside that it's the parts of the Torah that address understanding and wisdom almost always.

---

AKA, cherry-picking.

quote:

---

Faith isn't some lazy mental agreement. That's what you have. You just have to say "Jesus is lord" and believe he died for your sins. To say you have faith in Jesus while ignoring his direct command to keep the commandments is completely hollow.

---

You are wrong yet again. I haven't said such a thing at all. I actually agree with you that saving faith is not mere mental agreement or assent, but it includes trust. Such trust will manifest itself with obedience. I keep saying that, but you keep forgetting or ignoring me.

quote:

---

If you have faith in a master builder, you do what the master build said - their blueprint. You don't sit around and worship the guy because of what he built and claim that's what builds it for you because you lack the ability.

---

I'm not going to worship just any builder, but if the master builder claims to be God as Jesus did, then I will worship Him and do what He commanded.

quote:

---

I told you how people can be forgiven. It can happen instantly in some cases if the people lacked understanding and gain it. Those with ears heard. It does basically come instantly in that moment when you repent. So when someone accepts this is the way, they are repenting in the process.

---

Accepting that obedience is the way is not actually obeying, though. At least, it's not keeping all the commandments. It's merely assenting to the way, as you believe it to be.

This is another contradiction I see: you say that all commandments must be kept for forgiveness, but then say forgiveness can happen with merely acknowledging that the way is through obedience. It's a contradiction. Many people acknowledge that obedience to the law will save them, and yet they don't keep the law. Acceptance alone doesn't forgive, right? So which is it? Acceptance or obedience?

quote:

---

Furthermore, you are admitting that the blood sacrifice was not required.

---

No, I'm not. I'm saying that faith in Jesus as the Messiah--who takes away sins, as John the Baptist proclaimed--leads to forgiveness of sins. These people in the Bible believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah who would take away iniquity (sin-guilt), and that Messiah was prophesied in Isaiah 53. The people believed it and Jesus forgave their sins based on what He came to do. His death secured the forgiveness that He promised them.

quote:

---

He fulfills God laws. He breaks the laws of men constantly. By filling them he shows the path, which was confused by the pharisess/scribes via scripture, traditions and...rituals.

I never once said God commanded anything - you say that.

---

God commanded the sacrifices in the Old Testament through Moses. Jesus upheld those laws.

quote:

---

Jesus taught people they were the authority. And saying someone accepted it is hardly saying they demanded it or expected it. They showed respect.

---

From the beginning of His earthly life (Matt. 2:11) to the end of His ministry (Matt. 28:9, 17), He received worship.

quote:

---

The father is much greater than Jesus. To say the father is in him - and he is, I can see the father, is not to claim the son is the father. Everyone with a soul is a son/daughter of God, because that's what your soul is. And that is why the kingdom of God is within. And that's why you are the authority, and that is why it is up to you to seek it.

And this is also what he tells the Pharisees in response if you keep reading.

---

You are a blind unitarian. You don't even understand the biblical claim that Christians believe. Jesus is God, but Jesus is NOT the Father. There are not three gods, but only one God. That one God is not sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Spirit, but He is the Father, Son, and Spirit as three different persons.

Jesus is co-equal with the Father, and only took on a subordinate role in His humanity, by veiling His glory with a human nature. He was almost stoned because the Jews understood that Jesus was making Himself equal with the Father (John 5). They again tried to stone Him in John 10 because they understood Him saying He and the Father are one as being equality of essence with God. In John 14, Jesus says that if you've seen Him, you've seen the Father, because they are both God. In Matthew 28, Jesus said He shares the one name of God, Father, Son, and Spirit.

I could go on, but you again show your ignorance of the Bible.

quote:

---

It means to clarify. That is what the path is, a clarification on how to keep the commandments. An example to follow. If you take on an apprentice or trainee, you show them how to do the job by example. They will follow you and from your example they will learn.

---

:lol: no it doesn't.

Fulfillment is a terminus. It's the end of the journey that the road signs pointed to. The signs clarify the way, and the destination is the fulfillment of the journey.

You can't even get that one right.

quote:

---

In doing that, you also show the ways NOT to do it. The things that are incorrect. Instead of stoning the sinner, forgive them etc. And that is why Jesus and the Pharisees had discussions almost EXACTLY the same way we are. Where you quote scripture, claim I am of the devil and so forth to dare go against your view of the scripture.

---

Not at all. They weren't quoting the Scripture but their own man-made traditions. You can't even quote the Scripture because you don't believe the Scriptures are relevant, or even that they exist as anything from God, except where they possibly confirm your gnostic heretical views.

Jesus used the Scriptures over and over again against the Pharisees, as I'm doing with you. You don't even accept the Scriptures.

quote:

---

I wouldn't say his sacrifices were garbage. If a man see's a child in the street about to get hit by a car, and that man runs out, pushes that kid out of the way and gets killed by the car, that man made a sacrifice. In fact, that man made the ultimate sacrifice. But it wasn't the sacrifice that saved the child and it's dumb to worship the sacrifice is what saved the kid rather than the actual actions the man took which resulted in his death of being that which saved them.

Talking about how great the man was while wearing a BMW symbol around your neck is a huge misunderstanding on the mans actions, their purpose and is somewhat insulting to the man at the same time.

---

Your analogy is awful.

What the Bible teaches would be more like this: a person is sentenced to death by being run over by a car for the crimes they committed. Jesus willingly accepts the death sentence, Himself, in order for the other person to be forgiven and set free. Jesus then gets hit by the car, dies, and then raises Himself to life 3 days later.

You make Jesus' sacrifice to be nothing but incidental and just one of many sacrifices that anyone can make at any time. Jesus claimed to be God and was sent to die to forgive sins, not merely be a good example. No one can forgive sins like Jesus.

quote:

---

This is all bullshite. Jesus thought the sacrifices were missing the point and said so.

---

He said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The ceremonial law (the sacrifices, etc.) were part of the law He said He came to fulfill.

How does He fulfill it if it's garbage? From my reading of the Scriptures (the historic reading within Christianity), Jesus fulfilled those laws by being the sacrifice they pointed to.

In your interpretation, God commanded sacrifices that didn't actually do anything (sacrifices aren't needed, only repentance) and don't point to anything. So why were they commanded?

quote:

---

More bullshite. Nothing of actual substance, just idol worshiping. The very things Jesus spoke against.

---

You do realize that Jesus accepted worship, right? He said He and the Father were one, and He accepted worship as God. Do you disagree?

quote:

---

More bullshite and excuses for made up traditions and rituals of man, which Jesus posed and fulfilled the law to separate that which was of God and that which was the bullshite of men.

And it's just more of the same usual bullshite from you, so I'm going to skip to the bottom.

---

Again, what do you think the word "fulfilled" means? Jesus said He didn't abolish it, but fulfilled it. What you are saying seems to be more of abolition rather than fulfillment, since you seem to think Jesus thought the sacrifices were garbage. Where do you get that?

quote:

---

You don't repent for shite. What you ask for is a blind eye. The rich man would have also loved that blind eye.

But none will be given. And you will be turned away just like that rich man - probably worse honestly.

---

I do repent. I repent of greed, lust, pride, unrighteous anger, idolatry, false worship, and other things of the heart as the Westminster Confession of Faith lays out in great detail from the Scriptures.

You are the one with the blind eye. You make Christ's death of no account because you think Jesus was just an example to follow, even though He didn't teach anything that you couldn't also get from the Old Testament (from your own perspective, at least).

quote:

---

Stop using Dan Brown novels to excuse your fake history.

---

I'm not. I've actually read many history books and read the sources. There were lists of the Biblical cannon compiled long before Constantine. You are simply incorrect, and it's not even debatable. The Church had the books of the Bible long before the Roman government became friendly to Christianity.

quote:

---

The fact of the matter is there were multiple sects after Jesus and the reason the Pauline version won out is because people would rather have a free gift than to actually follow Jesus.

---

There is no Pauline version of Christianity. There is only Christianity.

I know you like to keep parading your ignorance about this, but Paul actually agreed with Jesus. Over the past several weeks and months, I have been able to use Jesus' own words to support the teachings found clearly in Paul's writings. You need to get over this hatred for Paul, because he didn't teach a different Christianity.

You'll need to show evidence of your claims if you disagree.

quote:

---

The books were then chosen to act as a mask over what Jesus said to create and solidify the notion that people could just believe in the sacrifice and not worry about keeping the commandments, or gain the understanding required to do it.

---

The Church already circulated the books known to be from the apostles and their disciples from very early on in church history. You make it sound like everything was up in the air and there was no consensus whatsoever as to what Christianity was and what books were Scripture until Constantine came along. That's just not historically accurate.

quote:

---

You yourself demonstrate this in action as you constantly call me a heretic. Only you don't have the authority to kill me for saying these things.

---

I call you a heretic because the Scriptures support the claims of the Church that condemned gnostic teachings about Jesus and the Trinity.

You deny essential truths about Christianity, so yes, you're a heretic. You reject Christianity out-right, and only agree with selective verses from the Bible that you think support your views.

quote:

---

Dude, I've had my entire consciousness pulled into another realm and stood before God. You are out of your league.

---

:lol:

If that were true, you would be on a mission to save the souls of anyone you could. You would be teaching your works-righteousness to whoever would listen. Instead, you tell people not to listen to you at all. You contradict yourself and don't have the slightest bit of knowledge about the Bible, even though you claim you have been given understanding. Even Muslim apologists have a better understanding of the Bible than you do.

So no, I don't believe you stood before God. I have no doubt that you have been deceived by some evil spirit--maybe Satan, himself-- and that you believe you met God. Your persona on this forum would say otherwise, as you have not been changed by the encounter with the holy to be holy and set apart in this world. If all one did was observer your remarks on this forum, they would think you were no different from anyone else.

Again I say: repent of your idolatry and worship of demons, and believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and second person of the godhead. Trust in Him for the forgiveness of your sins, because surely no one will be justified by the works of the law (obeying the commandments).

Hate of sin is critical to Christianity. God hate’s sin and we are to live what He loves and hate what He hates.

Christians are to act in love towards others, certainly, but we can’t act like there is no place for righteous anger and intolerance of wickedness.

quote:

---

You are confusing consistency with forcing everyone to read the text through your specific theological lens.

---

No I'm not. I'm reading the text for what it actually says within its context. That's the opposite of what you're claiming: that I'm cherry-picking.

If I were actually cherry-picking, you would be able to explain how rather than just saying that I'm doing it.

You made the claim, now prove it. I've said that multiple times now and you don't actually prove it.

quote:

---

I don't have to accept everything that was collected by the roman government 1700 years ago as an authority in order to recognize the things Jesus says are true and/or examine the text for myself.

---

1) The writings were originally written long before they were "collected", and no, they weren't collected by the Roman government, but received by the Christian church. Stop getting your history from Dan Brown novels.

quote:

---

You just want me to force into your box it's not going to happen.

---

I just want you to abide by basic rules for grammar and logic.

quote:

---

This was exactly why I ignore you. I did, multiple times. Even in this thread you talk about the rich man, but you don't quote anything Jesus actually said in Mark 10 except the word ransom, but you'll instead quote tons of other verses out of context to make it mean something else.

---

All you/ve ever done is touch on Mark 10, but you won't tell me how any of the other verses I cite are cherry-picked. That's my point. You won't because you can't.

And no, I wasn't cherry-picking from Mark 10, either. I even referenced Jesus' comments the came right after the rich man passage as context. You aren't addressing that. You just keep going back to the words in the rich man passage and ignore everything else. That's the definition of cherry-picking.

quote:

---

The free gift was what the rich man asked Jesus for specifically.

---

No, he asked for the good work he had to do. That wasn't a gift, but a work. A gift isn't earned. The rich man was asking how he could earn eternal life.

quote:

---

To what end should I remotely keep this discussion going?

---

My hope is eventually you'll see the truth, repent of your sins, reject that false god of yours, and believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

Whether you want to continue the discussion or not is of no concern to me.

quote:

---

The topics have been discussed, I'm not going to keep looping around with you. I should probably just completely ignore you to be honest.

---

You keep looping because you aren't actually engaging with all the arguments. You are ignoring those things which go against you and seem to be pretending I never actually said those things. It's why we keep going around and around, and why I keep repeating myself to you.

If I were to guess, I would say it's because you can't do anything with those arguments. You are stuck with "nuh uh; my personal experience doesn't agree with you", or "you are just cherry-picking" (without any support for how I am).

Regardless, it's pretty futile if you aren't going to actually have a discussion. I'm not going to back down from refuting your gnostic views, and I will continue supporting the truth of Christianity, so if you feel compelled to ignore me, go for it.

quote:

---

You replaced understanding with scripture and that is ultimately your burden.

---

That's a false dilemma fallacy. I'm not replacing understanding with scripture, but receiving understanding from scripture. You refuse to listen to God's word in the scriptures, which is why you are the one who lacks true understanding.

quote:

---

You are the one who thinks the bible is the word of God.

---

Yes, and I'm being consistent with my usage of the Bible. You are the one who isn't. You are free to reject the Bible as God's Word to your own demise, but you can't be intellectually honest by cherry-picking from it. You can't only look at the rich man in Mark 10 but then ignore Jesus' other teachings from Mark or the rest of the Bible.

quote:

---

The OT/Torah is a collection of books towards 3 areas - wisdom, understanding and history/tradition. I am most interested in 2 of those areas, wisdom and understanding. Not to say history isn't valid, but I'm not Jewish and it's not my history or tradition.

---

In other words, you are cherry-picking. You admit that you are not "interested" in what they say unless they relate to what you already believe about wisdom and understanding. So yeah, no wonder you reject the teaching about the blood sacrifices.

quote:

---

You just cherry pick multiple verses to claim he said something other than what he actually said and did.

---

:rolleyes: then show me how I'm cherry-picking. You can't, so you won't, because I'm not doing that.

Seriously, you can't just keep using the phrase "cherry pick" without explaining how I'm doing so. I'm giving you the specific references so you can look them up on your own.

You are incredible, and I don't mean that as a compliment. Absolute dishonesty on your part, and a violation of the 9th commandment.

quote:

---

No rich man has ever had a problem with a free gift.

---

:lol: Really? Are you saying that without exception? I could give you a ton of examples of a free gift that a rich person would reject.

Killing an innocent child = good. Executing a terrorist murderer = bad.

They are wicked and call evil good and good evil.

quote:

---

Or it's to give understanding so people can keep them. And to give that understanding is to give light to the blind.

---

No. That's not what Jesus was teaching based on the rest of the Bible, but we've been through this before and I'm not going to argue it all over again. You keep ignoring my arguments, anyway, and only address the things that you think you can comment on. It's willful ignorance at this point.

quote:

---

Because the entire concept of the blood sacrifice is evil as frick and completely pointless. It's just things people like you say because you are just like the rich man.

---

Evil? The same God who you like to cherry-pick quotes from in the Old Testament commanded animal sacrifices. We know from the whole of Scripture that those sacrifices typified Jesus who would be the true blood sacrifice for sin, as the blood of animals didn't have enough value to actually take away sin.

Jesus, Himself, said the bread and wine of the Eucharist (updated Passover) represented His body and blood, broken and and shed for the forgiveness of sins. That's sacrifice language.

The only way you can call a blood sacrifice "evil" is to denounce the entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament that God commanded. The only reason why it's evil today is not because it's evil conceptually, but because it denies the sufficiency of Jesus' blood sacrifice for sins.

quote:

---

Yet Jesus told the rich man he had to keep them perfectly and pointed out the reason why he wasn't instead of just saying - you can't keep them, just wait for me to be murdered.

---

I've been through this several times. Please read my response and process it this time.

Jesus already knew the hearts and intentions of men, so He tailored His messages to them purposefully to get specific responses.

“But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.” -John 2:24-25

There are several examples of Jesus knowing what others were thinking without hearing them: Mark 2:8; Luke 6:8; Matthew 12:25; Luke 9:47; Luke 7:39, for examples of knowing the thoughts of men.

Jesus knew the true intentions of questions, as well, and responded accordingly.

In this case, Jesus knew that the rich man was given over to his idolatry for his possessions. It's why after the man walked away, that Jesus said it was so hard for those who trust in riches to get to heaven, because their riches are their god.

Jesus didn't engage with that man to save him, just like Jesus didn't engage with the Pharisees so often to save them. The primary purpose was for teaching others, and in this case, it was His disciples that He was teaching.

Jesus knew that man was given over to his idolatry and that he thought that keeping the law was the way to be saved. It's why the man asked what good deed he had to do to be saved. He thought that doing good works (obeying the law) outwardly was sufficient for him, and Jesus was addressing his heart. Jesus responded in-kind to the question by pointing him first to the 2nd table of the law and then to the first. He started with the commandments toward men and then pressed him on his commitment to the first commandment: honoring Jesus as the Lord and God. The man didn't follow Jesus as God, which He was supposed to do, and so he left very sad, because he couldn't give up his true god: his possessions.

Even if you took Jesus' words to the man as you are, the fact that the man didn't obey Jesus only shows how impossible it is to keep the law perfectly for sinners like you, me, and the rich man. That guy thought he had kept the law perfectly (he hadn't), but Jesus exposes him with one command: sell everything and follow after Him. The man could keep every law but that one. And we know that the command was tailored to the rich man, because Jesus doesn't command all people to sell all their possessions.

Jesus knew that the man was a lost cause. It's why He used it as a teaching example. You cannot obey the law to be saved. You need to follow Jesus by faith.

quote:

---

Because Jesus never once made the claim people couldn't do it. In fact, he says if you believe you will do all he does AND MORE.

---

You're wrong. Jesus actually did teach the impossibility of mere man keeping the law. Right after the lesson of the rich man, the disciples were concerned for themselves, because if the rich man couldn't keep the law, they didn't hold out hope for themselves. They asked who could be saved if it's so hard for the rich, to which Jesus said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible". He highlighted God's grace in the face of man's inability. That's what Christians believe because that's what Jesus taught.

Jesus also taught that no one can follow Him unless it has been granted by the Father to do so (John 6:44 and John 6:65).

Jesus also taught a new birth as a requirement for the kingdom, not just mere obedience (John 3:3)

Finally, when the crowd that followed Jesus after the miraculous feeding asked Jesus what good work they should do (just like the rich man), Jesus didn't tell them to keep the law. He said, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent"(John 6:28-29).

You need to be able to reconcile the teaching on works (obeying the commandments) and faith. You can't. You keep focusing on one to the neglect of the other. I can reconcile both, since we are to follow Jesus by faith, and true faith comes with a desire to obey the commandments.