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

[Me Myself]

Where does JESUS say that only his BLOOD saves?

If you can only be saved by Jesuschrist (which he did said, without mentioning blood) you can also be saved by feeding Jesus when he is hungry, visiting him when he is in prison and helping him when he is ill.

Was that clearer?

 

[Green Kepi]

Where does JESUS say that only his BLOOD saves?

If you can only be saved by Jesuschrist (which he did said, without mentioning blood) you can also be saved by feeding Jesus when he is hungry, visiting him when he is in prison and helping him when he is ill.

Was that clearer?

If His blood doesn't save...then tell me then why did God have Him die on the cross? If there are other ways, then why have Him go thru all of that?

Baptism is connected with the “blood of Jesus”, and one reaches (or contacts) the blood of Jesus only through baptism. Notice: “Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4).

 

[Me Myself]

You don´t know, then the first person who says gots the answer must be right? (Paul?)

I have a little hunch that reasoning is....too luck driven...

It could very well be a wide number of reasons.

In within them to show peole not to be scared to die. Also to resurrect sooner so people can see, see? it can serve both purposes. No need for God needing human sacrifice to remember how to forgive.

That´s so pagan...

 

[sincerly]

Are you referring to Revelation 13:8? Many mistranslate this verse. It's not "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world", it's "THe book written before the foundation of the world".

The NLT fixes up this often misconstrued verse:

Hi Shermana, that translation has this footnote: "And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.*
Footnote:
* Or not written in the Book of Life that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered before the world was made."

1Pet.1:18-21, attests to the truthfulness in this manner. """Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
Just as Luke(24:27,44-48) recorded of Jesus telling those gathered in the upper room on that resurrection day so long ago. "They(Scriptures) testify of me".


Only "misconstrued" by your "interpretation.

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, that translation has this footnote: "And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.*
Footnote:
* Or not written in the Book of Life that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered before the world was made."

1Pet.1:18-21, attests to the truthfulness in this manner. """Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
Just as Luke(24:27,44-48) recorded of Jesus telling those gathered in the upper room on that resurrection day so long ago. "They(Scriptures) testify of me".


Only "misconstrued" by your "interpretation.

I'd say the one who confuses "Fore-ordained' with "Slaughtered" is the one who has it misconstrued. The Book was written before the foundation of the world, therefore Jesus was appointed before the foundation of the world. Otherwise, feel free to explain who slaughtered Him and in what way. Either way, even the footnote asterisk still can have the same meaning, the Greek grammar fits. It's like if I said "The girl got in the car of the guy who won the race that was made by BMW".

 

[sincerly]

Where does JESUS say that only his BLOOD saves?

If you can only be saved by Jesuschrist (which he did said, without mentioning blood) you can also be saved by feeding Jesus when he is hungry, visiting him when he is in prison and helping him when he is ill.

Was that clearer?

Hello Me Myself, Look at Lev.17:11, "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul."
Heb.9:12, "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]." John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Then Heb.10:4-7, "For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

Me Myself, The "good works" as seen in Matt.25:34-46 are what a born -again Believer will do , but will not leave other instructed issues undone. Look at Matt.7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Jesus said in John 14:15, "If ye love me, keep my Commandments."----"All the law and the prophets is summed up" in those TEN.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus said in John 14:15, "If ye love me, keep my Commandments."----"All the law and the prophets is summed up" in those TEN.

I think he's referring to the Totality, not just the 10. That's why he includes "Do not defraud" in the same sentence as "Do not steal" to the Rich man.

 

[Me Myself]

I don´t see a single quote from Jesus.

Now if you believe the OT is good for morality, I would wonder what your country believes of stoning children who misbehave.

If you dont believe stoning children who misbehave is good then you ARE discarding OT teachings. It´s okay. Jesus did too.

He used some scriptures as being good, others as being misinterpretations (like divorce one). Given the case that he both challenges some scriptures and quotes some others, we can only judge as true those which he explicitely quoted. Others are completely up to question and we should judge by the fruits.

So the question is, is it fruitfull to put on a pedestal human sacrifice as a nice and compassionate thing to do for God?

furthermore and if you truly want to say all OT not specifically said "no" by Jesus is still true, then "No human sacrifices, I find this distatesful in my eyes" said by God still applies.

Or was God filling dirty when he planned that in your head?

 

[Shermana]

I don´t see a single quote from Jesus.

Most "Christians" generally avoid quoting Jesus in regards to their beliefs and doctrines it seems.

Now if you believe the OT is good for morality, I would wonder what your country believes of stoning children who misbehave.

If by "misbehaving" you mean "being an unrepentant glutton and drunkard who is a total drain on the family resources and is given many chances to repent", then perhaps, but this could be viewed as a great motivator to not be a glutton who drinks all day and wastes the family's funds, don't you think?

If you dont believe stoning children who misbehave is good then you ARE discarding OT teachings. It´s okay. Jesus did too.

Jesus didn't discard any OT teachings, where do you get that he did? The story of the adulteress? That's an interpolation.

He used some scriptures as being good, others as being misinterpretations (like divorce one)

There's also belief based on manuscript evidence that some parts of his teachings on Divorce were interpolations, in that men couldn't marry another wife. (Probably done at the behest of women who felt it unfair).

.

Given the case that he both challenges some scriptures

He doesn't actually challenge any scriptures as much as he challenged their interpretation.

and quotes some others, we can only judge as true those which he explicitely quoted. Others are completely up to question and we should judge by the fruits.

If anything, the verses that don't appear which he quoted may be evidence that the version of Scriptures we use has been tampered and edited since then.

So the question is, is it fruitfull to put on a pedestal human sacrifice as a nice and compassionate thing to do for God?

That's kind of what Isaiah 53:10 is about.

furthermore and if you truly want to say all OT not specifically said "no" by Jesus is still true, then "No human sacrifices, I find this distatesful in my eyes" said by God still applies.

Get the verse and we'll discuss context.

 

[sincerly]

I'd say the one who confuses "Fore-ordained' with "Slaughtered" is the one who has it misconstrued. The Book was written before the foundation of the world, therefore Jesus was appointed before the foundation of the world. Otherwise, feel free to explain who slaughtered Him and in what way. Either way, even the footnote asterisk still can have the same meaning, the Greek grammar fits. It's like if I said "The girl got in the car who won the race that was made by BMW".

Shermana, No confusion on my part. Of 12 versions, ten translated the Geek word(sphazo) as "slain"; I "slaughtered"; and one "killed".

Peter's Greek word "proginosko" was translated foreordained; foreknow.

Yes, Peter is saying that before the foundation of the world it was known(planned/promised) that Jesus would die a violent death for mankind.

Shermana, The "book of life" has only those names who have been obedient to/in the Repentance of one's sins. That Book has been kept upto date since the Creation of Human Beings. Either name added or blotted out as the individual choose to believe(OBEY) GOD or the Adversary.

As far as who slay/slaughtered/butchered Jesus, Jesus voluntarily laid down HIS life for all of mankind who Repent and Obey the Father's Will. ALL of mankind from Adam to the last person to be born are responsible for HIS DEATH----and was represented by those who shouted, "Crucify HIM"----and hung HIM on the cross.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, No confusion on my part. Of 12 versions, ten translated the Geek word(sphazo) as "slain"; I "slaughtered"; and one "killed".

That's fine, but missing the point of what I said.

Peter's Greek word "proginosko" was translated foreordained; foreknow.

Thanks for the Greek lesson, but I think you're failing to see what I meant. Jesus was foreordained, not slaughtered, from the beginning of the world.

Yes, Peter is saying that before the foundation of the world it was known(planned/promised) that Jesus would die a violent death for mankind.

And as you can see, that doesn't mean he was slaughtered from the beginning of the world. Foreordained to be slaughtered is not the same thing as being slaughtered at the beginning. "Who was slaughtered from the foundation of the world" in the way you are rendering it would mean he was actually slaughtered at the beginning and not just at the ordained time.

Shermana, The "book of life" has only those names who have been obedient to/in the Repentance of one's sins. That Book has been kept upto date since the Creation of Human Beings. Either name added or blotted out as the individual choose to believe(OBEY) GOD or the Adversary.

Please back your case that the Book of Life ONLY contains the names of the saved and isn't a record of the events to come as indicated in the OT (you've read the OT, right?) So then you're agreeing that Jesus was not actually slaughtered from the foundation of the world, but was foreordained to be?

As far as who slay/slaughtered/butchered Jesus, Jesus voluntarily laid down HIS life for all of mankind who Repent and Obey the Father's Will. ALL of mankind from Adam to the last person to be born are responsible for HIS DEATH----and was represented by those who shouted, "Crucify HIM"----and hung HIM on the cross.

Okay, so you're agreeing that being foreordained to be slaughtered from the beginning of the world is not the same as actually being slaughtered at the foundation of the world.

 

[sincerly]

I think he's referring to the Totality, not just the 10. That's why he includes "Do not defraud" in the same sentence as "Do not steal" to the Rich man.

That Rich man was defrauding GOD of the LOVE due GOD by his love for his "great possions."

Shermana, Do you see any of the LOVE GOD Commandments in that list? The Rich young ruler stated that he had done/kept "those things".
We see "defraud" and "stealing" as the same usage. Here Jesus uses two different words. Steal="klepto" and Defraud="apostereō".

That Rich man was defrauding GOD of the LOVE due GOD by his love for his "great possessions." Look at 1Cor.7:5, "Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
(i.e.) Don't deprive/with hold.

 

[Shermana]

That Rich man was defrauding GOD of the LOVE due GOD by his love for his "great possions."

I agree with the point you're making, but it's not relevant to the immediate issue of which commandments Jesus was speaking of, he also said "Do not steal", and I don't think you understand what "Defraud" means. You cannot "Defraud God of the love due to Him", you can DEPRIVE him of such. But to defraud means to "Swindle", as in to purposely deceive. He was not necessarily PURPOSELY deceiving G-d. You can Deprive someone of their wages and that would be defrauding them, but only if you planned on doing this. Otherwise, the use of the word in question is "To intentionally deceive and cheat".



The whole verse is:

New International Version (©1984)
You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"

Shermana, Do you see any of the LOVE GOD Commandments in that list? The Rich young ruler stated that he had done/kept "those things".

Why would he need to? He wasn't listing EVERY commandment, just a few examples. Of which each Gospel that has his story lists a different set.

We see "defraud" and "stealing" as the same usage. Here Jesus uses two different words. Steal="klepto" and Defraud="apostereō".

You're missing the point. If he listed them both, he wouldn't be saying they're the same usage to begin with. You said 10 commandments, and I said Jesus taught more, because he included defraud and steal (there's a commandment to not defraud, I'm suspecting you haven't read the OT...have you?) in the same sentence, and to not defraud is one of the commandments apart from the 10 so obviously Jesus was not talking about just the 10.

That Rich man was defrauding GOD of the LOVE due GOD by his love for his "great possions.

"

I don't think you understand what "Defraud" means by both your examples. To defraud means to willfully deceive, by any definition. You're thinking of DEPRIVE. One cannot "Defraud God of the love due to Him" by any real use of the word "Defraud". It can be used as such and is, but with the intent of willful deceit.

Look at 1Cor.7:5, "Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
(i.e.)

Here it's referring to depriving of things that are owed with intentional deceit as well. As we can see with the examples, the translations that switch up "Defraud" and "Deprive" are doing so purely in the idea of willful, deliberate swindling.

1 Corinthians 6:8 V-PIA-2P
BIB: ἀδικεῖτε καὶ ἀποστερεῖτε καὶ τοῦτο
NAS: wrong and defraud. [You do] this
KJV: do wrong, and defraud, and that
INT: do wrong and defraud and these things
1 Corinthians 7:5 V-PMA-2P
BIB: μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους εἰ
NAS: Stop depriving one another, except
KJV: Defraud ye not one the other,
INT: Not deprive one another if

Don't deprive/with hold.

Defraud only applies to depriving and withholding in the sense of outright swindling. It's clearly a reference to other men. One cannot "defraud G-d of the love due to Him". One can DEPRIVE it to him, but the meaning of "Deprive" as some translations use is not in the same sense as "He was deprived as a child".

 

[punkdbass]

You guys are all confused, the Hebrew Bible says atonement can be made without blood

So even if you could consider Jesus a legitament sacrifice(and you really cant considering he doesnt meet any of the requirements for a sacrifice according to the Torah), then I simply see no reason why a Jew needs his blood when there are other means for atonement.

-Hosea teaches atonement through prayer.
-Ezekiel teaches atonement through giving up one's wicked ways(repenting)
-Leviticus says exiled Jews(who thus cant make blood sacrifices) can humble their hearts and achieve atonement, and only after they get atonement they can re-enter the Land.

Literally the entire Tanakh supports the idea of atonement without blood, I just dont understand how you can believe in a God whos mercy is so limited. Proverbs says when a man confesses and gives up his wicked ways he will find mercy. God's mercy isnt limited to only blood, at least not my God.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so what's the point of the sacrifices then? Why does David say that He will offer up Bulls after he repents in Psalm 51?

 

[Green Kepi]

I think he's referring to the Totality, not just the 10. That's why he includes "Do not defraud" in the same sentence as "Do not steal" to the Rich man.

What about the other 603 Commandments?

 

[Bob Dixon]

What about the other 603 Commandments?

What about them?
They're included, too.

You guys are all confused, the Hebrew Bible says atonement can be made without blood

So even if you could consider Jesus a legitament sacrifice(and you really cant considering he doesnt meet any of the requirements for a sacrifice according to the Torah), then I simply see no reason why a Jew needs his blood when there are other means for atonement.

-Hosea teaches atonement through prayer.
-Ezekiel teaches atonement through giving up one's wicked ways(repenting)
-Leviticus says exiled Jews(who thus cant make blood sacrifices) can humble their hearts and achieve atonement, and only after they get atonement they can re-enter the Land.

Literally the entire Tanakh supports the idea of atonement without blood, I just dont understand how you can believe in a God whos mercy is so limited. Proverbs says when a man confesses and gives up his wicked ways he will find mercy. God's mercy isnt limited to only blood, at least not my God.

And there we have it.
What the Hebrew Bible says should actually be most authoritative here. If we Christians are saying that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, then we're also saying that he would've definitely agreed with these teachings, right? So there we go.

Remember, if Jesus had DISAGREED with any of them, he would've said so.

 

[punkdbass]

Okay, so what's the point of the sacrifices then? Why does David say that He will offer up Bulls after he repents in Psalm 51?

First of all, it is important to note that it was a very common practice in those days to offer sacrifices to the gods your people believed in. So naturally, the Israelites were not immune to this custom, rather they wanted to offer sacrifices to God as well, and God gave them holy instructions on how to do so. But know that they are not required too in order to pay homage to God, for in Micah 6:6-8 a person asks how they should pay homage to God, should they offer sacrifices? And Micah says no, He has already told you what is good and what He ONLY requires of you

“With what shall I approach the Lord, do homage to God on high? Shall I approach him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Would the lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with myriads of streams of oil? Shall I give my first born for my transgression, the fuit of my body for my sins? “He has told you, o man, what is good, and what the lord requires of you: ONLY to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your God; then will your name achieve wisdom.”

And to answer your question, the sacrifices were most definitely not pointless. The Rabbis of the Talmud explain that their purpose was to help direct the intent and desires of one's soul.. but that the same thing could be done with prayer. I just think it's foolish to place God into a small box and say His mercy is only limited to blood sacrifices, that He does not have the power to forgive those who sincerely repent without blood.. what a weak and unjust god that must be. In Numbers 14:19-20, Moses prays to God for forgiveness for the Israelites, and offers no blood sacrifices, and God FORGIVES them. God's mercy is not limited to blood, he has the power to freely forgive as Isaiah 55:7 says.

I'm glad you brought up David. David offered sacrifices because it was the custom to do so, but yet, as Psalm 51 says: True sacrifice to God is a contrite heart and spirit.. not blood sacrifices. David murdered and commited adultery - both sins were punishable by death according to the law. Yet God forgave him and established an eternal messianic covenant with him. So why did God forgive him? There were no animal sacrifices in the Torah that could forgive murder and adultery. God forgave david because he gave true sacrifice to God: a contrite heart and spirit. David provides a perfect example of atonement without blood.

I have given plenty of scripture to prove that blood is not the only means for atonement, ( I can give you 20-30 verses if you really want..) and the ONLY verse I've heard Christians use to support their claim that blood is the only way is Leviticus 17:11 - which oddly enough, doesnt even say blood is the ONLY way for atonement. It simply explains why we cant eat blood, because blood was used for atonement rituals.

 

[Green Kepi]

You guys are all confused, the Hebrew Bible says atonement can be made without blood

So even if you could consider Jesus a legitament sacrifice(and you really cant considering he doesnt meet any of the requirements for a sacrifice according to the Torah), then I simply see no reason why a Jew needs his blood when there are other means for atonement.

-Hosea teaches atonement through prayer.
-Ezekiel teaches atonement through giving up one's wicked ways(repenting)
-Leviticus says exiled Jews(who thus cant make blood sacrifices) can humble their hearts and achieve atonement, and only after they get atonement they can re-enter the Land.

Literally the entire Tanakh supports the idea of atonement without blood, I just dont understand how you can believe in a God whos mercy is so limited. Proverbs says when a man confesses and gives up his wicked ways he will find mercy. God's mercy isnt limited to only blood, at least not my God.

So...you discredit 1 John 1:7 and Hebrews 9:1-10; 11-14? 1 Cor. 5:7 teaches that Christ is our Passover (Exodus 12). You wouldn't have made it without smearing the blood on the doorposts. Christ is our Atonement as in Leciticus 16:3...what else can I say...I don't think you want to hear these verses...oh,well...carry on....

 

[punkdbass]

So...you discredit 1 John 1:7 and Hebrews 9:1-10; 11-14? 1 Cor. 5:7 teaches that Christ is our Passover (Exodus 12). You wouldn't have made it without smearing the blood on the doorposts. Christ is our Atonement as in Leciticus 16:3...what else can I say...I don't think you want to hear these verses...oh,well...carry on....

I'm Jewish -- my Bible consists of the Tanakh(torah, prophets, writings) not the New Testament.

But anyways, lets try to think about this logically for a second. When you build a house do you start building from the top and work your way down? Or do you start with the bottom(create a foundation), and then work your way up? Obviously the latter is the correct answer. Christians regard the Hebrew Bible as holy scripture, hence you include it in your Bible. If you are going to try to create a logical Christian theology, then your theology must not contradict the teachings of the OT.. otherwise you would be building a house from the top down -- which every single fundamentalist Christian I've met with seems to do with their theologies, so I've noticed.

I have given you plenty of Old Testament scripture to support my points, and I can give you more if you'd like. Yet, you seem to discredit all of the verses I give you -- making it quite obvious that you have been building your theological "house" from the top to the bottom. The power of confirmation bias is probably 100 times greater when you do this as well. I'm not trying to deceive you, like I said, every point I've made can be found in the OT, which is regarded as holy scripture to Christians -- thus I feel you have an obligation to examine these things, and keep asking questions.