What does it mean to "deny" Jesus, according to the NT?

[sincerly]

Ah, so every other time it says "Sacrifice" it doesn't need to say "Animal" or show the context of it but this one time it needs to say "Animal". Wow.

You're well aware that it says "Sacrifice" without referencing to animals many times right?

And I suppose you think the part where it says "It made a pleasing odor" to be a lie?

Maybe you're just interpreting the text out of context? Quite common to say G-d isn't pleased by sacrifices without actually addressing the entire passage where it refers to them being done without a true heart.

Do you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously?

Hi Shermana, the Context of chapter 14 is the subject.
I don't see "It made a pleasing odor".
"Without a true heart" nothing is pleasing to GOD.
HOW can the "praise of one's lips" by acceptable to GOD when the heart is deceitful?

Whether or not anyone takes me seriously matters not to me. GOD knows who are HIS and they will respond to Truth----from you or me or someone else.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so you're saying that Zechariah 14 you can just isolate and not apply the rest of the scripture. Have you even read the OT?

Great discernment.

I'm glad that you think you represent G-d's truth and all and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong just because is. May you be shown swiftly just how right you are.

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, Jesus answered you in John 5:45-47, "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? "

Your bet falls into the same principle---Whether one denies the Prophet or Jesus.
There are no more sacrifices for sins after that one of Jesus on the cross.

How does my bet fall in the same principle? How does that passage have anything to do with what you're saying? If you're trying to prove that you have absolutely no ability to properly exegete a verse and that you read into verses things that aren't there and that you say something's a metaphor when it's clearly not to suit your doctrine, you've done a fine job.

Seriously, take the bet or admit you don't wanna walk the walk. I only bring up the bet when dealing with irrational "preachers" who refuse to actually debate and take things grossly out of context and refuse to reason. So take the bet and prove me wrong if you think I'm so wrong.

All you have to do is say "So may it be" to the following:

May the one who is more wrong than the other lose everything they own and may the other inherit it. It's pretty simple.

What do you have to lose if you're so right and the Spirit is guiding you and you represent God's truth? I have no problem making the bet, why do you have a problem? Please explain how the bet falls into John 5:45-47. Do you think you're a prophet?

I think you're trying to say you're a prophet or something, am I wrong? Or are you saying that I deny Prophet Moses? IF so, please give the exact verse that Moses states that you feel that I'm denying. As far as I'm concerned YOU are denying Moses and Jesus.

And Zechariah.

So make the bet or shut up.

 

[Scuba Pete]

but the only ones who are "brothers and sisters IN CHRIST"

Matthew 12:48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” NIV

John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. NIV

Matthew 12:7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. NIV

People who focus on not sinning never find time to love. This is even more true for those consumed with finding sin in others. Those who devote themselves to love never have time to sin. The only people condemned by Jesus in the scriptures were the religious right bent on showing everyone else a sinner.

 

[Shermana]

But to love is to not sin. The definition of Sin is "Lawlessness", and to love neighbor and god is what all the commandments "hang" on (which means "are based on", not 'replaced by").

Therefore, "Focussing on not sinning" is EXACTLY what the NT is all about. To devote yourself to love IS to not sin.

And if you think the only people who are condemned are those who are bent on showing other people to be a sinner, you most clearly have not read Paul. He says unrepentant sinners are not saved. You have read Paul, right? I mean, I don't even go by Paul, but when "Christians" who DO go by Paul are dismissing what he plainly says about the issues, that's a red flag about what's being taught these days.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But to love is to not sin. The definition of Sin is "Lawlessness", and to love neighbor and god is what all the commandments "hang" on (which means "are based on", not 'replaced by").

The old testament has been fulfilled, meaning it no longer has any power. Look at it like a mortgage. When it has been paid for, you are no longer bound by it.

Therefore, "Focussing on not sinning" is EXACTLY what the NT is all about. To devote yourself to love IS to not sin.

Rly? Do you really believe this? I find that kind of sad. The scriptures exhort me to devote my self to others...

Romans 12:9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. NIV

And if you think the only people who are condemned are those who are bent on showing other people to be a sinner, you most clearly have not read Paul.

Paul was a follower of Jesus, and by his own accord: imperfect. I stand by my statement that the only people Jesus condemned were the religious right of his day. Please show us where he condemned anyone else.

 

[Shermana]

The old testament has been fulfilled, meaning it no longer has any power. Look at it like a mortgage. When it has been paid for, you are no longer bound by it.

Really? So when Paul said to "Fulfill the Law of Christ", that means the Law of Christ has no more power? What do you mean by no more power? Do you think you can now molest animals? Where does the NT forbid molesting animals like in Leviticus 18:23? Can you now dishonor your parents? Can you now strike your dad in the face? Can you now steal? Can you now murder? Can you now eat human flesh? What if the person died naturally? Would you turn down a human steak if you were preaching to cannibals and they sat you down for dinner? Is it now okay to have gay relations? Why not? What is the penalty?

Rly? Do you really believe this? I find that kind of sad. The scriptures exhort me to devote my self to others...

Of course I believe this. What I also believe is that you either have not read any of the NT except a few key cherry picked verses provided by some site to support your doctrine, or you're willfully and deliberately denying 99% of what Jesus and Paul says. I'm going with both. Do you really believe that Jesus does NOT say what I'm saying? If not, then you most clearly have not actually read the gospels. Like most "Christians". It is truly amazing how many so-called "Christians" outright deny what Jesus says. So I'm going to just assume you haven't actually read what Jesus says if you ask this question. If you think there's no point in "not sinning" then I would suspect you have a few "sins" you're not totally willing to give up.

Do you deny that Paul says that unrepentant fornicators will NOT enter the Kingdom? Or will you use some other verse of Paul to negate what he says? I thought "CHristians' were bad in using Paul to negate Jesus, but when they use Paul to negate Paul.....it's almost as if you're trying to justify sinning without repentance....

Romans 12:9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. NIV

Paul was a follower of Jesus, and by his own accord: imperfect. I stand by my statement that the only people Jesus condemned were the religious right of his day. Please show us where he condemned anyone else.

[/quote]

"Away from me ye doers of Lawlessness" - Matthew 7:22-23

That doesn't count as condemnation?


So you not only deny what Jesus says, you also deny what Paul says in Corinthians by quoting some verse from Romans that has nothing to do with the context?

It's amazing how "Christians" twist and ignore scripture to suit their convenience.

So please, explain how the OT has "no more power" specifically, what laws do you think you no longer have to follow and why? What is the scriptural basis for this?

Who do you think Jesus said will be called the "Least in the Kingdom"?

Why did he say "Away from me ye doers of Lawlessness"? What lawlessness?

I understand you may not like what Paul and Jesus says, but try to at least reconcile what else Paul says with your cherry picked quotes, yeah? Otherwise you're basically calling Paul a liar. Not that I believe Paul was an apostle, but it seems you're trying to use one verse of Paul that has nothing to do with the verse to totally trump and negate what he most specifically says in Corinthians.

Unrepentant sinners will not enter the Kingdom. Do you think Paul was kidding? DO you think Paul contradicted himself? That you can use one verse to trump another that Paul said?

What do you think 1 John 5:3 means? And 2 John 6.

Who do you think the "Liar" is according to 1 John 2?

Who do you think Jude is condemning when he says that there are those who use the gospel as a license for licentiousness?

Do you not think Paul condemned anyone?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Really?

Ya rly. Christians have only one command: Love. In fact, Paul wrote the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5:6)

Of course I believe this. What I also believe is that you either have not read any of the OT except a few key cherry picked verses provided by some site to support your doctrine,

It appears that you make a lot of assumptions about me and also with the Scriptures I suspect. It's far easier for you to condemn ideas than to research them and see if they are valid. I never base my beliefs on mere conjecture as you have done. Rather than accuse me of spiritual malfeasance, you might want to understand why I believe what I do. Yes, that would take effort on your part as well as an open mind, so I certainly understand any reticence.

Do you deny that Paul says that unrepentant fornicators will NOT enter the Kingdom? Or will you use some other verse of Paul to negate what he says? I thought "CHristians' were bad in using Paul to negate Jesus, but when they use Paul to negate Paul.....

What is to "negate"? Why all the negativity? Paul was imperfect, ergo I imitate Paul in as much as I see him imitate Jesus. You do believe that Paul was imperfect, don't you?

So you not only deny what Jesus says, you also deny what Paul says in Corinthians by quoting some verse from Romans that has nothing to do with the context?

I was showing you that your assumption (there's that word again) about what the NT was all about was fallacious at best.

It's amazing how "Christians" twist and ignore scripture to suit their convenience.

That's not what I find amazing. You seem to deify the Scriptures.

So please, explain how the OT has "no more power" specifically, what laws do you think you no longer have to follow and why? What is the scriptural basis for this?

Wow... this could be a long discussion. Why don't you start a new thread on this and invite me to it. By your remarks, I don't think you're going to like what I or the Scriptures have to say on the matter. Not that I care. I live under the law of Love.

Here's a few questions for you to ponder: Where do scriptures claim to be the Word of God? They don't, but try to find this anyway. Where do scriptures claim to be infallible? Again, they don't. People who accuse me (and others) of cherry picking are almost always literalists who deify the scriptures and miss following the Spirit.

 

[Shermana]

I notice that you snipped the thing about molesting animals and then you say Christians have only one command "to love"...............................................(dot dot dot dot dot)

So feel free to tell me how you feel I defy the scriptures after you strangely cut that big chunk out. I'm not even going to comment on what else you ignored until we get that straightened out first.

I can only imagine a few reasons why you would snip that paragraph short. Seriously. Why would you snip that paragraph short? Do you realize how that looks?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I can only imagine a few reasons why you would snip that paragraph short. Seriously. Why would you snip that paragraph short? Do you realize how that looks?

Do you always obsess over perceived slights? Oh snap... I edited the quote from your last response! Oh the horror! That you can only imagine a "few reasons" indicates that you need to work on your creativity and imagination. I clipped the quote for brevity. This was nothing but an amass of rules and written rules at that. Christianity as it was envisioned by Jesus was not simply following rules ad nauseum... it was being led by his Spirit into loving others. Rules are nothing but a yoke of slavery: a method of control of men devised by men.

Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. NIV

You can choose slavery, just as I choose freedom!

 

[Shermana]

Yeah, you edited a key part of it. A very, very, very key part of it. And you also took out most of my argument. I can only guess why you didn't want to address it. Not like I actually backed my case with a direct quote of Jesus or anything and asked a question about it.

I clipped the quote for brevity. This was nothing but an amass of rules and written rules at that

"Brevity". Right. So let the reader note, the rule to not molest animals is apparently too much yoke for Scuba Pete here.

Rules are a "yoke"? So you want NO rules at all? Yeah, that's exactly what Jesus was teaching.

(Someone hasn't read the Gospels)

What kind of "Freedom" are you espousing? Freedom to molest animals? I want nothing to do with that freedom.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Someone hasn't read the Gospels)

Both of us have obviously read the Gospels and while I won't assume this for you, I have read them several times and in three languages. You keep demonstrating your ignorance or your propensity to twist what others write.

What kind of "Freedom" are you espousing?

God's freedom. Freedom from legalism. Freedom from rules.

Matthew 11:28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” NIV

Freedom to molest animals? I want nothing to do with that freedom.

My, my! You're as good at twisting my words as you are at twisting the scriptures! You boast of your knowledge and yet what do you make of this?

I Corinthians 10:23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. NIV

Again, the Law of Love supersedes all others. That you don't understand this tells me a lot about your legalism...

Romans 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. NIV

BTW, if you have a problem with this, you also have a problem with Paul.

 

[Shermana]

Freedom from rules = Freedom to molest animals apparently. You've strangely had no objection to this. Strangely...

My, my! You're as good at twisting my words as you are at twisting the scriptures! You boast of your knowledge and yet what do you make of this?

First off, accusing me of "boasting" when I don't in fact boast doesn't help your credibility. Please, show me where I boasted. And of course, no need to show which scriptures I twisted because you snipped out the use of the scripture to begin with. What an easy way to rebut what I say. Totally ignore the quote, and then accuse me of twisting. And of course, you're not twisting and cherry picking at all!

Now as for what I make of that, what part about "Summed up" do you think somehow "replaces"? Here you go talking about your "freedom from rules" and then you go and post something by Paul where he outright talks about rules. Do you have any idea what you're even posting? How does what you posted in any way jive with what you're trying to say? If Paul says to not steal, THAT IS A RULE!!

Second, you're the one who completely snipped that part out of the argument for the sake of (cough) "brevity". I'll leave it to the reader to decide how that looks.

And yes, I do have a major problem with Paul. I don't consider Paul an authentic Apostle. Neither did the Ebionites. But I still use his words when dealing with those who accept him. Now it seems your outright ignoring where PAul specifically says that unrepentant fornicators will not go to the Kingdom as well. Do you deny he says this or do you think your use of one verse from Paul somehow negates and trumps another verse by Paul? Apparently so.

Who do you suppose Jesus was referring to when he said "Away from me ye doers of Lawlessness", let's try that again.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Freedom from rules = Freedom to molest animals apparently. You've strangely had no objection to this.

I see you are continuing the Beatle's strategy of "Twist and Shout". Do you really believe that I do not object to molesting animals? Rly? You haven't come out to say that it's not OK to beat your wife. Using your logic, should I accuse you of this?

First off, accusing me of "boasting" when I don't in fact boast doesn't help your credibility.

Actually, you suggested that I had not even read the Gospels, inferring that you had. Condescension is a time honored, albeit a rather negative way of boasting about your own acumen by demeaning others.

And of course, you're not twisting and cherry picking at all!

I love picking cherries! They taste good.

Second, you're the one who completely snipped that part out of the argument for the sake of (cough) "brevity". I'll leave it to the reader to decide how that looks.

Still beating that drum, eh? What you wrote and I snipped was completely irrelevant, myopic and pure drivel. I don't respond well to pure drivel. Instead, I respond to what interests me. If you don't like it, please put me on ignore.

And yes, I do have a major problem with Paul.

Join the club. Only Jesus was perfect. Everyone else was flawed and sometimes horribly so. Unfortunately, they wrote the scriptures and legalists like yourself try to turn a nice blog about men getting to understand God into a rule book. You end up straining the gnat and swallowing the camel! It's just too funny that you can't see it.

Who do you suppose Jesus was referring to when he said "Away from me ye doers of Lawlessness", let's try that again.

What do you suppose Jesus was referring to when he said "Go and do likewise"? IOW, why don't you give me a reference to the scripture you want to discuss so I can read it IN CONTEXT. Yeah, I know you hate that, but unlike you, I don't like to cherry pick. Unless it's real cherries we're talking about. Then it's all "Yum!"

 

[Oryonder]

Ya rly. Christians have only one command: Love. In fact, Paul wrote the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5:6)

It appears that you make a lot of assumptions about me and also with the Scriptures I suspect. It's far easier for you to condemn ideas than to research them and see if they are valid. I never base my beliefs on mere conjecture as you have done. Rather than accuse me of spiritual malfeasance, you might want to understand why I believe what I do. Yes, that would take effort on your part as well as an open mind, so I certainly understand any reticence.
.

Scuba .. New convenant theology (NCT) has not been adopted by the majority of Christian Churches. It is a fringe idea promoted mostly by Evangelical and Pentacostal denominations.

NCT is a relatively recent idea and it does not completely do away with the "old covenant" as many of the old covenent laws are understood to have been reinstated in the new covenant.

The claim of Paul in faith "is the only thing that counts" is contradicted by the words of Jesus (sermon on the mount and other places) and James (the entire chapter - James 2).

James was the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Church. The idea of salvation by faith alone was not something that the Church of Jerusalem belived. This was an idea that had cropped up in some of the fringe elements of the early church.

Seeking to correct the idea of "salvation by faith" James spends a whole chapter. In this chapter he says that "Faith without works is Dead" no less than three times.

Salvation by faith is a Pauline idea. This idea is not supported by the words claimed to have been spoken by Jesus in numerous places nor the official Church whose leaders were Peter, Paul, and whose elders were the other disciples.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Your "NCT" was started about 200 AD and men have slowly evolved a highly convoluted religion that bears little resemblance to the first century church and is now the highlight of the majority of Christian Churches.

Now, you missed the entire point: FAITH expressing itself through LOVE is not "just faith". Read James 2 again... it's all about loving others! I'll show you my faith by what I do is talking about what? LOVE! Love with teeth in it. Sacrificial love that meets the needs of the person you are loving.

If you want to pigeon hole my faith... call me a lover. The only way to love is to have faith.

Let's see how well you know this Jesus. What was the only OT scripture that he repeated twice? In my estimation, it must have been his favorite since I know of no other NT scriptures he used twice.

 

[Oryonder]

Your "NCT" was started about 200 AD and men have slowly evolved a highly convoluted religion that bears little resemblance to the first century church and is now the highlight of the majority of Christian Churches.

Now, you missed the entire point: FAITH expressing itself through LOVE is not "just faith". Read James 2 again... it's all about loving others! I'll show you my faith by what I do is talking about what? LOVE! Love with teeth in it. Sacrificial love that meets the needs of the person you are loving.

If you want to pigeon hole my faith... call me a lover. The only way to love is to have faith.

Let's see how well you know this Jesus. What was the only OT scripture that he repeated twice? In my estimation, it must have been his favorite since I know of no other NT scriptures he used twice.

I have read James 2 numerous times and indeed James does talk about "loving thy neighbor as thyself" .. the golden rule .. "do unto others"

What is abundantly clear from James is that "love thy neighbor" is not the only command.

2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

2:11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

I do not pigeon hole your belief. It is you that have pigeon holed yourself by claiming that there is only one command and that the rest does not matter.

James 2:10 clearly states that you can obey the command of love all you want but if you ignore the rest of the law you are guilty.

 

[Scuba Pete]

James 2:10 clearly states that you can obey the command of love all you want but if you ignore the rest of the law you are guilty.

I take it you are a literalist. The "clearly states" gives you away. Have you ever found a verse where it specifically refers to the scriptures as being the word of God OR inerrant? I haven't, because there is none. IOW, holding to that teaching is holding to the traditions of men.

Jesus gave a singular mark by which to identify his disciples. What was that mark?

Paul and James don't disagree with each other. You have arrived at an untenable conclusion with the one and have no means to see how the two are discussing the same topic from slightly different perspectives.

 

[Oryonder]

I take it you are a literalist. The "clearly states" gives you away. Have you ever found a verse where it specifically refers to the scriptures as being the word of God OR inerrant? I haven't, because there is none. IOW, holding to that teaching is holding to the traditions of men.

Jesus gave a singular mark by which to identify his disciples. What was that mark?

Paul and James don't disagree with each other. You have arrived at an untenable conclusion with the one and have no means to see how the two are discussing the same topic from slightly different perspectives.

It is funny that you mention "literalism" because that I am definately not.

What is clear is that scripture conflicts with itself .. Especially James and Paul in relation to "Faith". Logic dictates that one of the two versions of the story is wrong.

The problem is trying to figure out what the message of Jesus actually was .. who to believe ?

I agree with your premise in general that Jesus taught "do unto others/love they neighbor as thyself" as what seems to be the most important overall command.

Not only did the Church of Jerusalem disagree with Paul .. Paul himself records this disagreement in numerous places.

The fact that James specifically addresses the doctrine of salvation by faith tells us that this was a conflict at the time and he wanted to shed some light on the issue.

There is no reconciling James 2 with the doctrine of Paul. The entire purpose of James 2 is to counter the ideas put forward by Pauline doctrine.

What is it that you think James was doing ?

If you think there is a certain "mark" through which Jesus identified his disciples then make that case. I am certainly not going to make your case for you.

 

[Scuba Pete]

To be sure... I am interested in the epistles as I see they agree with the teachings of Jesus. Since they were mere men, they were flawed.

If you think there is a certain "mark" through which Jesus identified his disciples then make that case. I am certainly not going to make your case for you.

This is easy:

John 13:35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” NIV