"Denying" Jesus

[waitasec]

Jesus kept the old laws as he would being a jew but his biggest problem was with the religious leaders of the time who putting unnecessary burdens on the jews and often ignoring the rules themselves.

this presents a problem

 

[Shermana]

lol I did not dodge the question at all you just do not understand Grace.If Jesus wanted us to keep the law for our salvation why did he come to fullfill that law, why did he reduce it to two when asked?salvation is now through Grace not works so none shall boast, we keep the commandments out of love who is forgiven much forgives much, the parable of the debtor is very interesting and shows that some do not realise how much they have been forgiven and continue as if not forgiven at all.They way we live our lives as believers is very important as it shows the world who we believe on, it shows we are different, it shows we can love because we were first loved ourselves, if we Love God why would we want to disappoint him with bad behaviour but when we fail and fail we will we should be secure in the fact our salvation is secure, new mercies every day, that tells me God knows we will mess us each and every day, the enemy would try to put condemnation on us to try and make us feel unworthy of coming to God, but now there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

No, I understand "Grace" just fine, you clearly dodged my question of which actual commandments you believe a "CHristian" has to follow. So you believe that a Christian merely "disappoints G-d" but he'll be forgiven anyway, so you believe that the only thing a rapist or murderer or defrauder or adulterer has to worry about is temporarily "disappointing G-d", well even Paul doesn't teach that, try 1 Cor 6.

What is the point of even obeying Jesus's teachings in the first place if one will be forgiven anyway for disobeying them?

As for the very common canard of misinterpreting the word "Fulfill", if you go by that definition of FUlfill to mean "Abolish" (Despite Jesus clearly saying "I did not come to abolish the Law", then you have to account for Paul saying for believers to "Fulfill the Law of Christ", under your (and the very common) definition of "fulfill", Paul would be telling Believers to do away with the Law of Christ. Unless you want to explain why "fulfill" means something different in Paul's sense than Jesus's, gramatically at least.

 

[miss interpret]

No, I understand "Grace" just fine, you clearly dodged my question of which actual commandments you believe a "CHristian" has to follow. So you believe that a Christian merely "disappoints G-d" but he'll be forgiven anyway, so you believe that the only thing a rapist or murderer or defrauder or adulterer has to worry about is temporarily "disappointing G-d", well even Paul doesn't teach that, try 1 Cor 6.

What is the point of even obeying Jesus's teachings in the first place if one will be forgiven anyway for disobeying them?

As for the very common canard of misinterpreting the word "Fulfill", if you go by that definition of FUlfill to mean "Abolish" (Despite Jesus clearly saying "I did not come to abolish the Law", then you have to account for Paul saying for believers to "Fulfill the Law of Christ", under your (and the very common) definition of "fulfill", Paul would be telling Believers to do away with the Law of Christ. Unless you want to explain why "fulfill" means something different in Paul's sense than Jesus's, gramatically at least.

A person who has accepted Jesus as their Lord and saviour is no longer bound by the law, whom the son sets free is free indeed, faith is accredited not works, works are counted as debt before God, how was abraham saved by faith.If you are relying on your ability to keep the law to be saved you have no chance, Once you are saved you will try your best to be a good person but you will fail but God sees you as righteous because he sees you through the righteousness of Jesus our chosen high priest, he paid the price for all our sins once and for all, for now there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, we do our best out of love not by trying to measure up to a law that was intended to direct you to the saviour you have already accepted.why does Paul complain he does all the things he shouldn't yet struggles to do the things that are right and seldom manages, was paul saved?

 

[obi one]

A person who has accepted Jesus as their Lord and saviour is no longer bound by the law, whom the son sets free is free indeed, faith is accredited not works, works are counted as debt before God, how was abraham saved by faith.If you are relying on your ability to keep the law to be saved you have no chance, Once you are saved you will try your best to be a good person but you will fail but God sees you as righteous because he sees you through the righteousness of Jesus our chosen high priest, he paid the price for all our sins once and for all, for now there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, we do our best out of love not by trying to measure up to a law that was intended to direct you to the saviour you have already accepted.why does Paul complain he does all the things he shouldn't yet struggles to do the things that are right and seldom manages, was paul saved?

Miss interpret. No, in the long run, Paul was not saved. He is dead. In the short term, yes, he was saved, he was saved by two cohorts of Roman soldiers, while being chased out of Jerusalem, but it was not the salvation noted in the OT and mentioned by Yeshua.

As for what salvation is, you need to go Joel 2:32 for the meaning. It is with regards to the "day of the Lord", when the sun turns into darkness and the moon into blood.

 

[miss interpret]

Miss interpret. No, in the long run, Paul was not saved. He is dead. In the short term, yes, he was saved, he was saved by two cohorts of Roman soldiers, while being chased out of Jerusalem, but it was not the salvation noted in the OT and mentioned by Yeshua.

As for what salvation is, you need to go Joel 2:32 for the meaning. It is with regards to the "day of the Lord", when the sun turns into darkness and the moon into blood.

eternal salvation is promised to those who believe on Jesus as their Lord and saviour, so yes Paul was saved.the free gift of righteousness comes at the same time you God then sees you based on your hiGh priest and his righteousness, which in this case is Jesus.notice in the old testament when a sacrifice is brought the sacrifice is examined for spot or blemish not the person who brought it just as it is with Jesus.

 

[Shermana]

eternal salvation is promised to those who believe on Jesus as their Lord and saviour, so yes Paul was saved.the free gift of righteousness comes at the same time you God then sees you based on your hiGh priest and his righteousness, which in this case is Jesus.notice in the old testament when a sacrifice is brought the sacrifice is examined for spot or blemish not the person who brought it just as it is with Jesus.

The word Aionios is "Age-like/long" and is not necessarily "Eternal" and could in fact be meaning to life on this Earth during the current "age" you live in, and from there a Purgatorical "Hades" followed by being "born again".

Perhaps you'd like to explain what Paul meant by "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling".

 

[miss interpret]

The word Aionios is "Age-like/long" and is not necessarily "Eternal" and could in fact be meaning to life on this Earth during the current "age" you live in, and from there a Purgatorical "Hades" followed by being "born again".

Perhaps you'd like to explain what Paul meant by "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling".

in can mean time past but it can mean eternal and that iss how it is usually translated.We all find our faith in different ways, some through trauma, some through friends, the way we come to Christ may be different but results in the same blessings and benefits.

 

[jtartar]

So you're saying it's not necessary to try to understand the intended meaning of a passage or that grammar is unnecessary or that the passage is too vague? What do you mean "shades" of meaning? I'd think there's only so many meanings and that the author intended something very specific. I don't think you understood what I said in the OP that those who were being claimed to deny Jesus were already probably Christians because they were following the "Grace" doctrine to begin with. Luke 9:22 is not referring to people who already believe in Jesus. Jude 1:4 is. Why don't you give your interpretation of everything involved in Jude 1:4. Who are the ones who are "turning the doctrine of grace into a license to sin"? Obviously it's not referring to the Jews and High Priests who rejected Jesus as Christ altogether. This was the point of the OP in itself, your definition of "deny" is exactly what I'm trying to say is NOT the case in Jude 1:4.

It's one thing to recognize that Jesus was the Christ, even heretics did that, it's another to actually obey his teachings, which is the context of the passage in question. Jesus specifically said in Matthew 7:22-23, there will be many who call him "lord" but he will reject them because they are "doers of Lawlessness" who do not obey His Father's will.

Shermana,
To deny Jesus is to deny that he is who he said he is.
I don't know which translation you are reading from, some are clearer than others, by their wording.
I really don't see anything difficult to understand in Jude 4. Jude was writing about some men that had entered into the Christian congregation, and used the Grace or undeserved kindness of God wrongly. Some had the idea that because God was forgiving, it meant they could do anything they wanted to and it would cause God's mercy to abound even more.
Jude was telling that these men, and others like them had already been spoken about, these men were already condemned because they did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, John 3:18. Jude was pointing out that these men would not come under the Ransom sacrifice of Jesus, the Messiah or Christ, Heb 10:26, Rom 3:7,8.
Most of the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. If they did they would have obeyed his teachings, John 1:9-13, 5:39,40.
In Paul's writings he said that only a remnant of the Jews would be saved, Rom 9:27, 11:5. Also consider what Jesus said at Luke 13:23,24, Matt 7:13,14.
Also look what Jesus said at Matt 23:37,38.
Anyone who did not believe that Jesus was the Christ and the son of God was an Antichrist. The same is true today, and if they deny who Jesus is, they do not have his Father either, 1John 2:22,23.
Jesus is the only mediator between God and man, 1Tim 2:5. Belief in Jesus and following his steps closely is the only way to salvation, 1Pet 2:21, Acts 4:12, John 14:6. Jesus came to give his life for all who had faith in him, John 1:29, and anyone who does not had no ransom for them, Matt 20:28, Gal 2:16, Acts 13:38,39.

 

[jtartar]

Just remember that Peter denied Christ three times before the rooster crowed, but was the rock upon which Jesus founded his church.

Reptillian,
Have you really researched the Greek words that were used at Matt 16:18. Here Jesus said: You are Peter, and on this rockmass I will build my congregation. The Greek word used for Peter was Petros, which means a little rock. The word used for rockmass was Petra, which mans a huge rock, like a rockmass. Jesus told Peter that he was a small rock, but it was on JESUS, THE ROCKMASS, that he would build the congregation.
To make sure you have the truth of God's word on any subject, the scriptures must all agree with your idea. Many places state that it was Jesus on which the congregation was built, 1Cor 3:11, Eph 2:20.
Consider closely what is written at 1Pet 2:4-8. These scriptures show clearly exactly who the rockmass really is!!!
If Peter held any higher position than any of the other disciples, the disciples would not have argued over who was the greatest among them, as they did several times, Mark 9:33,34. Even on the night before Jesus' death they were arguing about who was greater among them, Luke 22:24.
If anyone was greater in the first century, it was Paul. Paul rebuked Peter for acting like a hypocrit, on one occasion, Gal 2:11-14. Also, it was Peter that denied Jesus three times.
At Matt 23:8-12, Jesus was teaching the disciples that they were all equal. As Jesus said, ONE was the teacher, One was their leader.

 

[Thief]

How about the possibility of coming face to face with Him?
(or any other prophet?...it's not just Him)

If you 'deny' Him as you proceed in this life....
won't He, and His followers hear of it?

Even if they don't....won't they ask when you first meet them?

 

[Shermana]

Shermana,
To deny Jesus is to deny that he is who he said he is.
I don't know which translation you are reading from, some are clearer than others, by their wording.
I really don't see anything difficult to understand in Jude 4. Jude was writing about some men that had entered into the Christian congregation, and used the Grace or undeserved kindness of God wrongly. Some had the idea that because God was forgiving, it meant they could do anything they wanted to and it would cause God's mercy to abound even more.
Jude was telling that these men, and others like them had already been spoken about, these men were already condemned because they did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, John 3:18. Jude was pointing out that these men would not come under the Ransom sacrifice of Jesus, the Messiah or Christ, Heb 10:26, Rom 3:7,8.
Most of the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. If they did they would have obeyed his teachings, John 1:9-13, 5:39,40.
In Paul's writings he said that only a remnant of the Jews would be saved, Rom 9:27, 11:5. Also consider what Jesus said at Luke 13:23,24, Matt 7:13,14.
Also look what Jesus said at Matt 23:37,38.
Anyone who did not believe that Jesus was the Christ and the son of God was an Antichrist. The same is true today, and if they deny who Jesus is, they do not have his Father either, 1John 2:22,23.
Jesus is the only mediator between God and man, 1Tim 2:5. Belief in Jesus and following his steps closely is the only way to salvation, 1Pet 2:21, Acts 4:12, John 14:6. Jesus came to give his life for all who had faith in him, John 1:29, and anyone who does not had no ransom for them, Matt 20:28, Gal 2:16, Acts 13:38,39.

Nowhere does it say that they denied that Jesus was the Christ or denied him as the sacrifice, by contrast, it says that they were distorting the message of the Grace doctrine. If they weren't already believing that Jesus was Christ because of this "grace", then they'd have to be Pharisee agents within the assembly or something. Clearly it is implying that these men already believed Jesus was Christ if they believed in the grace doctrine to begin with. Jude is in fact referring to people who already believe Jesus is Christ but do not obey his teachings. Jude is summarizing virtually every Christian who believes there is no punishment to their sin because of Grace. Saying that it's just those who don't believe that he is Christ is basically the purpose of the OP to show that it's clearly not.

"Those who have faith in him" are apparently more than just those who even claim that he is Christ. To have faith in him means obeying his teachings.

Your argument that believing Jesus to be Christ is somehow a pre-requisite to obeying all his teachings does not work unless you believe that only those who obey all of Jesus's teachings believe that Jesus is Christ, therefore 99% of CHristians don't really believe Jesus is Christ then.

 

[F0uad]

^_^ Am i glad that i am not a Christian but a muslim and still can belief in Jesus(p).


Sorry had to say it...

 

[Shermana]

^_^ Am i glad that i am not a Christian but a muslim and still can belief in Jesus(p).


Sorry had to say it...

Personally, I think Muslims understand Jesus for the most part far better than any Christian (other than Messianic Jews) with some issues perhaps on his nature as the "Son of G-d". Muslims and Messianic Jews should be friends.

 

[sojourner]

Personally, I think Muslims understand Jesus for the most part far better than any Christian (other than Messianic Jews) with some issues perhaps on his nature as the "Son of G-d". Muslims and Messianic Jews should be friends.

Because, of course, understanding Jesus is far, far superior to actually following Jesus...:sleep:

 

[Shermana]

Because, of course, understanding Jesus is far, far superior to actually following Jesus...:sleep:

'
Let me know when there are reports of a Christian who actually follows Jesus and obeys his teachings and doesn't just go by the saved-by-faith mentality as some kind of excuse to not have to actually do anything he does. Especially when he says that those who teach to not obey the least of the commandments shall be called the least in heaven.

Your reply sounds as if you don't place much emphasis on understanding what you claim to be following.

 

[sojourner]

'
Let me know when there are reports of a Christian who actually follows Jesus and obeys his teachings and doesn't just go by the saved-by-faith mentality as some kind of excuse to not have to actually do anything he does. Especially when he says that those who teach to not obey the least of the commandments shall be called the least in heaven.

Your reply sounds as if you don't place much emphasis on understanding what you claim to be following.

There are a lot of that kind of Xtian out there, if you'd care to look.

One doesn't have to understand love in order to live within the law of love.

 

[Thief]

Understanding the parables, would be understanding the Carpenter.
Can't follow Him without His word.

Your hand will perform as you think you should, or feel like it.

If His word is a reflection of Him...in you....your deeds will follow.

 

[F0uad]

Because, of course, understanding Jesus is far, far superior to actually following Jesus...:sleep:

For one to follow he needs to understand, i think in general live the muslim looks more like a Jesus(p) then Christian in general do?

Who was upholding the laws.. and who are in general upholding the laws?

Off-course you can let the Church tell you what to do and abide by it, but did Jesus(p) teach people to submit there self to a Church or to God?

 

[sojourner]

For one to follow he needs to understand, i think in general live the muslim looks more like a Jesus(p) then Christian in general do?

...and yet, we are all the imago Dei.

Who was upholding the laws.. and who are in general upholding the laws?

We are all called to live in love, and we all fail to do so at times.

ff-course you can let the Church tell you what to do and abide by it, but did Jesus(p) teach people to submit there self to a Church or to God?

I don't know what you mean. We abide with each other in a community of faith, and in a covenantal relationship of love. That covenant points us toward God.

 

[Shermana]

...and yet, we are all the imago Dei.

The full "image" would include having a beard. Interestingly, Clement and other church fathers considered shaving an abomination, just like Muslims and Orthodox Jews.

We are all called to live in love, and we all fail to do so at times.

But again, what is "love"? Is this idea of "love" different than the one spelled out clearly in the NT? 1 John 5:3: The love of G-d is obedience to His commandments.

I don't know what you mean. We abide with each other in a community of faith, and in a covenantal relationship of love. That covenant points us toward God.

But this "covenantal relationship of love" nonetheless is supposed to mean obedience to the commandments. Anything else is unscriptural fluff.

There's also the question of what "Church" means exactly. The word does not necessarily mean "A community" by itself, but "A community of those selected by Heaven", or "Out-calleds". There is no actual call to "be in a church", it's a matter of the true disciples being "the elect".


Nonetheless, "Many will be called but few will be chosen".