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

[Green Kepi]

Punkdbass...sorry! I didn't read close enough who was posting - I thought it was 'Me Myself'. Anyway, I realize what you believe and I appreciate that. If not, for you...we Gentiles would be SOL. No...again for me, God stated to me (thru His word)... "I predestined your salvation thru a man and a Nation...I put you on hold until I sent the Messiah (I know you are still waiting for yours). Jesus did not just first appear when He came as a baby...He was working all throughout the Old Testament. So...it is bottom to top. The top was Christ and He took the Old Law away...we just see it differently. I learned so much from your Rabbi's and the friends that I had who were Jewish. By the way, I trained with the Jewish Army and most of them...retaught me so much and they made me stronger in my belief and I suppose they in theirs...so, thanks for your patience!

 

[Bob Dixon]

Punkdbass...sorry! I didn't read close enough who was posting - I thought it was 'Me Myself'. Anyway, I realize what you believe and I appreciate that. If not, for you...we Gentiles would be SOL. No...again for me, God stated to me (thru His word)... "I predestined your salvation thru a man and a Nation...I put you on hold until I sent the Messiah (I know you are still waiting for yours). Jesus did not just first appear when He came as a baby...He was working all throughout the Old Testament. So...it is bottom to top. The top was Christ and He took the Old Law away...we just see it differently. I learned so much from your Rabbi's and the friends that I had who were Jewish. By the way, I trained with the Jewish Army and most of them...retaught me so much and they made me stronger in my belief and I suppose they in theirs...so, thanks for your patience!

Ah, that's right! That's what Jesus means by, "it is easier for heaven and Earth to pass away than for one jot or tittle of the Law to pass away" in Luke 16:17. Of course.

 

[Green Kepi]

Ah, that's right! That's what Jesus means by, "it is easier for heaven and Earth to pass away than for one jot or tittle of the Law to pass away" in Luke 16:17. Of course.

With the arrival of Jesus came the completion of God's Plan of Salvation. Jesus is emphasizing that His Kingdom fulfilled the Law and did not cancel it - Matthew 5:17 (teach them more clearly).

Some had accused Him of not following the Law. Now the Principles are still what's important...not just going thru the actions. His was not a new system but the culmination of the Old. The same God who worked through Moses was working through Jesus.

 

[Shermana]

With the arrival of Jesus came the completion of God's Plan of Salvation. Jesus is emphasizing that His Kingdom fulfilled the Law and did not cancel it - Matthew 5:17 (teach them more clearly).

Some had accused Him of not following the Law. Now the Principles are still what's important...not just going thru the actions. His was not a new system but the culmination of the Old. The same God who worked through Moses was working through Jesus.

So therefore the Law is still binding for all, still in effect, and necessary to follow for both Israelites and gentile grafts to the Tree of Israel, to achieve "salvation" and to be righteous, lest one find themselves what 1 John 3:4-10 is warning against. Despite what Paul's alleged epistles may say.

 

[punkdbass]

Punkdbass...sorry! I didn't read close enough who was posting - I thought it was 'Me Myself'. Anyway, I realize what you believe and I appreciate that. If not, for you...we Gentiles would be SOL. No...again for me, God stated to me (thru His word)... "I predestined your salvation thru a man and a Nation...I put you on hold until I sent the Messiah (I know you are still waiting for yours). Jesus did not just first appear when He came as a baby...He was working all throughout the Old Testament. So...it is bottom to top. The top was Christ and He took the Old Law away...we just see it differently. I learned so much from your Rabbi's and the friends that I had who were Jewish. By the way, I trained with the Jewish Army and most of them...retaught me so much and they made me stronger in my belief and I suppose they in theirs...so, thanks for your patience!

I appreciate your friendliness and sincere attitude I understand you believe Jesus was working throughout the OT, the point I was trying to make is that if you, as a Christian, wish to create a theology involving Jesus, then you need to make sure your theology does not contradict teachings of the OT, because the OT is part of your holy scriptures. I have made a good case that the OT supports the idea that blood is not needed for atonement, if you still disagree, I can provide further evidence, otherwise we can agree to disagree lol.

Saying blood is not necessary for atonement should not in any way diminish the value of Jesus Christ to you. You can still believe he is the messiah that will be responsible for bringing world peace and the fulfillment to mankind. It's just that technically, a Jew doesn't "need" Jesus, because everything a Jew needs in order to live a holy life of servitude to God can be found in the Torah(Psalm 19:8).. that being said, the Tanakh urges, if not commands a man to listen and cleave to the wise, so I think one would be a fool to ignore Jesus.

So therefore the Law is still binding for all, still in effect, and necessary to follow for both Israelites and gentile grafts to the Tree of Israel, to achieve "salvation" and to be righteous, lest one find themselves what 1 John 3:4-10 is warning against. Despite what Paul's alleged epistles may say.

I dont think half of Christians actually know what their saying when they say "Jesus nullified the law." I know for a fact Jesus did not preach against the Decalogue, rather he commanded his followers to observe the 10 commandments(law), as well as the Shema, and many other commandments from the law. He did not preach against these things. If to be a Christian means to be like Christ, then a Christian would have to follow Jesus's teachings, most of which can be derived from the law.

 

[sincerly]

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

Hi shermana, This was a part of that which I wrote: """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. """

The scriptures seemed clear enough for one to see that Jesus was "prophesied" to be the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" and that the actual Crucifixion was manifest in these last times for you.

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?

Last first---Yes. Who are in the "book of life"?? Ex.32:23, Moses said, "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written."
Ps.69:27-28, "Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous".
Phil.4:3, "And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names [are] in the book of life."
Rev.13:8, "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Rev.3:5, "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels."
Rev,20:12, 15,"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works....And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.[/b'"

Those whose names remain in the book of life are saved(from Moses{actuallyfrom Adam} to the righteous ones seen in Revelations.....the Obedient Repentant ones.)

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.”

Hi Punkdbass, What Micah reported is correct, but you are starting in the middle of things. What did GOD require of Adam and Eve??? The very same Obedience which is required of any person since that time. The "point of sacrifices" remains the same as it did for our first parents(Adam and Eve), Gen.3:15, 21, Adam and Eve were guilty of breaking GOD'S Law and the penalty was death. "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." That is the promise of the Messiah and the mission HE would accomplish is seen as: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them."
That was the beginning of the "Sacrificial system" to which the Messiah was the promised "victim". Notice Cain and Abel's sacrifices. Cain's was rejected because it didn't follow the pattern given by GOD---a blood sacrifice. The Quilt had to be paid by "death". That is why in Lev.17:11 it is stipulated: "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."
When one sinned, One was required to bring a sin offering and cut the animals throat acknowledging that placing one's hand on the sacrified animals head---the animal was taking one's place of death. No other means was acceptable.(for those who knew of the requirement.---and all the Israelites and those mixed multitude ---"knew".) They had been informed of what constituted SIN and they had been made aware of the sacrificial/Ceremonial three Annual festivals which involved the "Sacrifices of animals". The Day of Atonement was no exception. Because it was a yearly event which signified the "cleansing of the entire peoples who declared GOD AS THEIR GOD". That by BLOOD.

From Adam to the tower of Babel was some approx. 1765 years. All of the persons who got off the Ark were well aware of the Creator GOD and HIS JUSTICE AND MERCY. Yet, at the scattering, the people began to replace the teachings of GOD with other gods and "sacrifices." Noah had made Sacrifices according to the instructions of GOD.
Approx.300 years after the Flood Abraham believed GOD and left the area of his birth (His kinspeople were idol worshipers).

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.

Punkdbass, look at verse 18 and In Num.14:21-23, GOD who knows the heart/mind of man recognized (As did Moses before his death, the rebellious spirit of the people) that Moses prayer didn't change the people.) and said those would not enter into the promised land.
Yes, the instructions given by GOD did have the intent to direct the desires of one's Life/soul. LOVE to/for GOD and love for one's neighbor.

Isa.55:7, is true, and with returning/repenting there is the recognizing of the Sacrificing of that Animal for one's Sins.(the "not pointless".)

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.

"Custom?" Yes, established by GOD for the redemption of Sins.
Yes, GOD doesn't seek the sacrifices of animals which had no part in the sin(s) of the people. Heb.10:4 acknowledges that it isn't possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away the sins of the people. However, the Sacrifice of the Jesus did so.
Amen---"""True sacrifice to God is a contrite heart and spirit..""" When one has performed that act, One acknowledges that Jesus has paid the death penalty. John 3:16. And the desire to disobey GOD is overcome by the desire to do HIS Will.

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.

Those "Atonement rituals" is the reason why the Blood sacrifices were necessary "for the time then present" ----Christ came in the fullness of time to fulfill the shadows of those animal sacrifices. Heb.9:9-10; Col.2:8-17; Luke 24:27, 44-48.

 

[punkdbass]

Hi sincerely, I feel like you avoided a lot of the points I made. Your free to interpret the story of Adam and Eve as you wish, although Judaism views it quite differently. God didn't command sacrifices for sins until Moses received the Law, but even so the sacrifices commanded in Leviticus were for unintentional sins only. Please also note that the blood sacrifices required strict criteria -- which Jesus met none of (ex: had to be done by a priest, in the Temple, killed a quick painless death, blemish free, oh and human sacrifice was not allowed).

I understand that the Israelites rebelled but the point still stands nonetheless. Moses prayed for forgiveness without blood and received it. Ignore it if you wish.

Leviticus 26:39-42 proves that there is atonement without blood. It says that exiled Jews, who were thus unable to offer sacrifices, could humble their hearts and receive atonement. And only after they recieved atonement would they be able to re-enter the land. These verses prove atonement is possible without blood - for it is a fact that Jews could not offer blood sacrifices in exile, yet the following says they could still achieve atonement :yes:

Leviticus 26:39-42 "Those of you who survive shall be heartsick over their iniquity in the land of your enemies... and they shall confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, in that they trespassed against Me... when I in turn... have removed them into the land of their enemies, then at last shall their obdurate heart humble itself, and they shall ATONE for their iniquity. Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob... and I will remember the land. For the land shall be forsaken of them... by being desolate of them, while they ATONE for their iniquity

Psalm 51 came way before Jesus lived my friend, and it is the reason why David was forgiven. No Jesus required. The Bible says what true sacrifice to God is, yet you seem to ignore it and add your own man-made requirements.

The prophet Hosea preached to exiled Jews who could thus not offer blood sacrifices(no Temple), and told them that when they offered sincere prayer to God - that God would accept them back with love. So when a Jew sincerely confesses his sins through prayer and repents, God will accept him back with love.. yet you believe God would send them to hell. Love = hell?

Ezekiel also preached to exiled Jews who could thus not offer blood sacrifices, and told them that if they gived up their wicked ways their sins would be forgotten and they would live.

I have given you many scriptural examples of atonement without blood, yet you ignore them and add your own requirements.

 

[sincerly]

Hi sincerely, I feel like you avoided a lot of the points I made. Your free to interpret the story of Adam and Eve as you wish, although Judaism views it quite differently. God didn't command sacrifices for sins until Moses received the Law, but even so the sacrifices commanded in Leviticus were for unintentional sins only. Please also note that the blood sacrifices required strict criteria -- which Jesus met none of (ex: had to be done by a priest, in the Temple, killed a quick painless death, blemish free, oh and human sacrifice was not allowed).

Hi punkdbass, I assure you that I wasn't avoiding your posted remarks; I was answering your comments and Scriptural references according to the way the History of the events took place.
The laws/Principles of marriage and the Sabbath was given at Creation. In fact, all the Decalogue can be understood in that first disobedience. However, the principles of the Decalogue are seen before Sinai.
I-- Gen.35:1-4
II- Gen.31:19, 34, 35; 35:2-4
III Lev.18:3, 21, 24, 27
IV Gen.2:1-4; Mark2:27. Gen. 8:10, 12; 29:27,28; Ex. 16:4, 22, 23, 25-30
V- Gen.9:22-25
VI Gen.4:8-11, 23, 24; 9:5-6
VII Gen.20:5-9; 38:24; 39:7-9
VIII Gen. 30:33; 31:19, 30, 32, 39; 44:8
IX-- Gen.39:7-20
X--- Had to be broken before the eight was broken.

"Burnt Offerings" were made by Noah. Gen.8:20; (Abraham) 22:2-13 ( a foretelling of GOD'S fortelling of the Offering HE MADE for the Atonement of Sins.)
True, GOD did forbid human sacrifices, but HE didn't exclude the giving of HIS Son for the fulfilling of the death penalty which man could not do for himself and live.(John 3:16) Therefore, To deny Jesus(and HIS Sacrifice) is to deny the Father's LOVE.

I recognize that "intentional sins" were swiftly dealt with by stoning. Also, that When Moses lead the Israelites and the mixed multitude to Mt. Sinai, it was a Theoracy. Therefore, after 430 years in Egypt and there being that Group of people who had seen the power and plagues of GOD and desired to Follow HIM that a "refresher course" was needed.

I understand that the Israelites rebelled but the point still stands nonetheless. Moses prayed for forgiveness without blood and received it. Ignore it if you wish.

Punkdbass, Ex.24:8, "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words."
They rebelled and repented.(and that many times over the course of the years).

Leviticus 26:39-42 proves that there is atonement without blood. It says that exiled Jews, who were thus unable to offer sacrifices, could humble their hearts and receive atonement. And only after they recieved atonement would they be able to re-enter the land. These verses prove atonement is possible without blood - for it is a fact that Jews could not offer blood sacrifices in exile, yet the following says they could still achieve atonement :yes:

Leviticus 26:39-42 "Those of you who survive shall be heartsick over their iniquity in the land of your enemies... and they shall confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, in that they trespassed against Me... when I in turn... have removed them into the land of their enemies, then at last shall their obdurate heart humble itself, and they shall ATONE for their iniquity. Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob... and I will remember the land. For the land shall be forsaken of them... by being desolate of them, while they ATONE for their iniquity.

Are you translating " רצה ratsah" as "Atone"?? They did "accept" their punishment for disobedience and the exile. They were still under the blood of the covenant.

Psalm 51 came way before Jesus lived my friend, and it is the reason why David was forgiven. No Jesus required. The Bible says what true sacrifice to God is, yet you seem to ignore it and add your own man-made requirements.

David was ,also, under the blood of the Covenant ("All the lord says we will do"). Obedience with a heart filled with LOVE for GOD. David let lust get the better of him, but he loved and acknowledged that GOD even though Just, God was merciful. It is better to receive the punishment from GOD and HIS MERCY than fall into the hands of one's enemies. Repentance with a humble contrite heart restores one who has previously been washed in the Blood of the Atonement.
Yearly, the day of Atonement occured. It was a Blood sacrifice and the "scape Goat" Received the "Blood" of the Lord's Goat which was for the sins of the people.

The prophet Hosea preached to exiled Jews who could thus not offer blood sacrifices(no Temple), and told them that when they offered sincere prayer to God - that God would accept them back with love. So when a Jew sincerely confesses his sins through prayer and repents, God will accept him back with love.. yet you believe God would send them to hell. Love = hell?

All who Deny Jesus will be as Jesus said, 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?"

All who do not believe the Scriptural reports will end their lives in the grave/pit= hell and that will be the second death. Or as Mal.4:1-4 states, Ashes.
In Obedience to the scriptures, Isa.66:22-23 is the outcome.

Ezekiel also preached to exiled Jews who could thus not offer blood sacrifices, and told them that if they gived up their wicked ways their sins would be forgotten and they would live.

Yes, GOD still honored the Blood of the Covenant even though the Israelites continued to "break it". Ezek.I8:30-32,"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn [yourselves] from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn [yourselves], and live ye." Return ye to the "Blood of the covenant".

I have given you many scriptural examples of atonement without blood, yet you ignore them and add your own requirements.

Not my requirements.

 

[punkdbass]

I understand you interpret the Tanakh quite differently than I do, but I feel like you are still dodging the core scriptural points I'm making.

I gave you an example of Moses praying for forgiveness(from intentional sins by the way). God immediately forgives, despite no blood being shed. The fact that the Israelites later offered sacrifices for OTHER sins, is completely irrelevant. The point stands - I have given you a clear example of forgiveness without the need for blood. The God of Israel is not a weak, limited god who does not have it within His power to forgive without the need for blood to be shed. His arm is not too short to save non Christians who strive for justice, goodness and charity(Isaiah 59:1).

As for Leviticus 26:39-42, I gave you the JPS(Jewish publication Society) translation. You also dodged the importance of this example. These verses say that exiled Jews - who thus could not offer blood sacrifices(no Temple) - could confess their sins and humble their hearts and achieve atonement. And only after they achieved atonement(without blood since no sacrifices could be made in exile), were they allowed to re-enter the land. Leviticus 26:39-42 is proof of atonement without blood.

You continue to dodge the importance of Psalm 51, in fact, you completely dodged it. Psalm 51 specifically says that True Sacrifice to God is not blood but a contrite heart and spirit. It then says God will never despise a contrite heart and spirit. Non-Christians can offer true sacrifice of a contrite heart and spirit, and when they do so, God will not despise them. How "not despise" means they'd go to hell, I have no clue I am well aware of what Yom Kippur is. I am also aware that it cant make atonement for intentional sins against other human beings, unless you obtain forgiveness from person you hurt. For example, Yom Kippur does not have the power to forgive murder, because the murdered person isn't alive to forgive you. Psalm 51 is the only way to obtain forgiveness for murder -- and is how David was forgiven. David was not forgiven by Yom Kippur. The Law states murder is punishable by death. Yom Kippur is part of the law and would not contradict that teaching.

You completely dodged my reference to Hosea. In fact your response to the verses didn't even mention Hosea at all, you simply ignored the point. Hosea tells exiled Jews, who thus cant offer blood sacrifices, to sincerely pray for forgiveness -- and when they do so God will accept them with love. No where in the Tanakh does does it say God's love = your going to hell. What nonsense.

Ezekiel 18:30 does not say return to the blood of the Covenant - at least not in the JPS translation. Not that it even matters!! The whole point I made with Ezekiel, which you again dodged, is that he preached to exiled Jews(who thus couldnt make blood sacrifices) and told them that if they gived up their wicked ways they would not die they would live.

Ezekiel 33:14-16“So, too, when I say to the wicked, “You shall die,”and he turns back from his sinfulness and does what is just and right – if the wicked man restores a pledge, makes good what he has taken by robbery, follows the laws of life, and does not commit iniquity – he shall live, he shall not die. None of the sins that he committed shall be remembered against him; since he does what is just and right, he shall live.”

He tells them exactly what they(exiled Jews who cant offer blood sacrifices) need to do in order to have their sins forgotten and live

 

[sincerly]

I understand you interpret the Tanakh quite differently than I do, but I feel like you are still dodging the core scriptural points I'm making.

Hi Punkdbass, I apologize for the lateness of getting back to this subject.
There can only be one correct understanding of the Scriptures----OT/tanakh/OR NT/Bible. As the GOD who issued them intended them to be understood. Human opinions as to what is being taught by Scripture doesn't count when it is contrary to HIS INTENT. Neither does GOD obscure/cloak HIS Messages because HE wants all to know HIS INTENT and salvational messages.
It is the same entity who "beguiled Eve", who attempts to change the truth of the scriptures into "doubt".

I gave you an example of Moses praying for forgiveness(from intentional sins by the way). God immediately forgives, despite no blood being shed. The fact that the Israelites later offered sacrifices for OTHER sins, is completely irrelevant. The point stands - I have given you a clear example of forgiveness without the need for blood.

punkdbass, Yes, you did give "examples", but fail to see the whole principle of the Covenant relationship. God established HIS relationship with the people and the people a relationship to their avowed GOD by a shedding of Blood.
GOD is LOVE, MERCIFUL,GRACIOUS, LONG-SUFFERING, FORGIVING, JUST, ETC. Even though the Israelites broke the covenant many times, GOD didn't cast them away nor did GOD ratify a new Covenant each time they "returned in repentance". That First Covenant was honored.

All your "examples" fall under that Blood sacrifice of the first Covenant. GOD'S Grace and Mercy and Forgiveness restored the Nation to the status of "MY People."

Jeremiah 31:30-34, declared that a "New Covenant" would be made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah."(another topic)

The God of Israel is not a weak, limited god who does not have it within His power to forgive without the need for blood to be shed. His arm is not too short to save non Christians who strive for justice, goodness and charity(Isaiah 59:1).

GOD has been in the business of seeking and saving the lost of the world since Adam and Eve----IMHO HIS terms are spelled out and clear to all who are "seeking to know". Turning from one's evil/contrary ways is not a insurmountable blockage.

No where in the Tanakh does does it say God's love = your going to hell. What nonsense.

"shĕ'owl" =hell, grave, pit. Isn't nonsense. All will eventually reside in the grave/pit/hell and await the "resurrection" and "one's reward".

Ezekiel 18:30 does not say return to the blood of the Covenant - at least not in the JPS translation. Not that it even matters!! The whole point I made with Ezekiel, which you again dodged, is that he preached to exiled Jews(who thus couldnt make blood sacrifices) and told them that if they gived up their wicked ways they would not die they would live.

Your point isn't the point of Ezek.18. Yes, they were exiles because of their wickedness/disobedience to GOD. Every one of them is dead today. Ezekiel's point was concerning "eternal life"--not this physical life. We will not know how many actually returned from their wickedness until the judgment Day.(Nor our own fate)
Repentance and Atonement is necessary(No remission without the shedding of blood). The scriptures ask each person, "What will you do with Jesus?"-----Therefore, the OP question? Deny? or Believe? Everyone gets to choose.
Heb.9:27-28, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

The Christian theology is all within the OT and the NT.

The OT is holy scripture for Christians, but it is not the entire Bible.

 

[punkdbass]

Hi Punkdbass, I apologize for the lateness of getting back to this subject.
There can only be one correct understanding of the Scriptures----OT/tanakh/OR NT/Bible. As the GOD who issued them intended them to be understood. Human opinions as to what is being taught by Scripture doesn't count when it is contrary to HIS INTENT. Neither does GOD obscure/cloak HIS Messages because HE wants all to know HIS INTENT and salvational messages.
It is the same entity who "beguiled Eve", who attempts to change the truth of the scriptures into "doubt".

No worries. But I disagree completely with this -- the Rabbis of the Talmud teach that the Torah has infinite levels of meaning. It is not meant to be a static document but rather it provides for a highly dynamic system of laws/teachings that can eternally be applied to the ever changing and evolving societies of the world. To say it is only meant to be read in one single, literal way, is not a trait of Judaism.

Also, the fact that every single human being has a slightly different/unique interpretation of the Bible, to me, testifies to the fact that:
1. the Bible isnt meant to be read in only 1 single literal way for all time
2. no man can fully know God's will - Isaiah 55:8

We can agree to disagree on this issue, I'm fine with that, for I will always believe the Torah has infinite levels of meaning.

punkdbass, Yes, you did give "examples", but fail to see the whole principle of the Covenant relationship. God established HIS relationship with the people and the people a relationship to their avowed GOD by a shedding of Blood.
GOD is LOVE, MERCIFUL,GRACIOUS, LONG-SUFFERING, FORGIVING, JUST, ETC. Even though the Israelites broke the covenant many times, GOD didn't cast them away nor did GOD ratify a new Covenant each time they "returned in repentance". That First Covenant was honored.

All your "examples" fall under that Blood sacrifice of the first Covenant. GOD'S Grace and Mercy and Forgiveness restored the Nation to the status of "MY People."

You are right, I did give examples of atonement without blood, which to me proves that God has the power to forgive those who sincerely repent yet don't believe in Jesus.

The covenant was not defined by blood. Go back and read Genesis 17.4-8, God makes an ETERNAL covenant with Abraham and his descendants to be their God. The ONLY requirement to be apart of this covenant(besides being a descendant) was to be circumcised. The covenant was not defined by blood, the lack of blood sacrifices do not separate a man from his Maker.

Jeremiah 7:22 testifies to what I just said:
“For when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt offerings or sacrifice. But this is what I commanded them: do my bidding, that I may be your God and you may be my people; walk only in the way that I enjoin upon you, that it may go well with you.”

Clearly here Jeremiah is saying that the sacrifices did not define the covenant, rather "to do God's bidding" in order for Him to "be your God(the covenant)" mainly referred to the moral commandments, as well as some of the other ritual ones of course. But Jeremiah makes the explicit point here that sacrifices are not necessary for God to "be our God," and for us to be His people.

Your point isn't the point of Ezek.18. Yes, they were exiles because of their wickedness/disobedience to GOD. Every one of them is dead today. Ezekiel's point was concerning "eternal life"--not this physical life. We will not know how many actually returned from their wickedness until the judgment Day.(Nor our own fate)
Repentance and Atonement is necessary(No remission without the shedding of blood). The scriptures ask each person, "What will you do with Jesus?"-----Therefore, the OP question? Deny? or Believe? Everyone gets to choose.
Heb.9:27-28, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Okay, so assuming your interpretation of Ezekiel is correct, then Ezekiel is telling the exiles how to gain eternal life without blood, so my point still stands..

What does it mean to "believe" in Jesus? And why isn't believing in God alone not enough?

Jeremiah17:7 “Blessed is he who trusts in the Lord, Whose trust is the Lord ALONE.”
Isaiah 43:3 “For I the Lord am your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior.”
Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me"

The Bible paints a clear and distinct point to me: by putting all of my trust and devotion to God, and to God alone, I will be blessed. God is my one and only savior - and I shall need nothing else before Him.

 

[sincerly]

No worries. But I disagree completely with this -- the Rabbis of the Talmud teach that the Torah has infinite levels of meaning. It is not meant to be a static document but rather it provides for a highly dynamic system of laws/teachings that can eternally be applied to the ever changing and evolving societies of the world. To say it is only meant to be read in one single, literal way, is not a trait of Judaism.

The question of the OP wasn't concerning: "the Rabbis of the Talmud teach that the Torah has infinite levels of meaning." It was concerning the Denial of Jesus in the NT.
GOD'S instructions and teachings(LAWS) are eternal.(Just as GOD---"I change not".) They do not change with the "evolving" of societies, or of human thought. Remember that was the problem with the antedeluvians---they had "evolved' in their thinking to the point where "the thoughts of their imagination was only evil continually".
I can believe that """To say it is only meant to be read in one single, literal way, is not a trait of Judaism.""". The denial of the truths of the Scriptures has been a problem with Most peoples of the world---including the multiple backslidings of Isreal.

Also, the fact that every single human being has a slightly different/unique interpretation of the Bible, to me, testifies to the fact that:
1. the Bible isnt meant to be read in only 1 single literal way for all time
2. no man can fully know God's will - Isaiah 55:8

2Pet.1:19-21, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."

God's principles remain the same and apply to every changing situation in the lives of men.
True, Mankind cannot understand everything about GOD, But HIS will can be known because it is made known to mankind. Deut.29:29, "The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law."
Also, Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

GOD hasn't hid HIS WILL from his People. It has been revealed by the to Holy spirit to the Prophets for all seekers to see and know.

You are right, I did give examples of atonement without blood, which to me proves that God has the power to forgive those who sincerely repent yet don't believe in Jesus.

At the time of Noah we see that Blood was shown to be respected because in it was the life of the individual. Then in Lev.17:11, this knowledge. "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.
Ezek. 18:4, "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die."
Those Animal Sacrifices were shadows of the sacrifice which Jesus was to make(did) upon the Cross for the sin penalty(Death) of all men(Sinners). ----That is ---BLOOD to "Cover"/Atone.

The covenant was not defined by blood.

The (Sinai)Covenant was ratified by Blood . It was an agreement between the Creator GOD and the living "dead"(All are dead in trespasses and sins) who were revitalized by the "LIFE IN THE BLOOD" of the promised Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".---JESUS. Rev.13:8

Go back and read Genesis 17.4-8, God makes an ETERNAL covenant with Abraham and his descendants to be their God. The ONLY requirement to be apart of this covenant(besides being a descendant) was to be circumcised. The covenant was not defined by blood, the lack of blood sacrifices do not separate a man from his Maker.

Do you think "circumcision" was bloodless? Ex.4:25, "Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast [it] at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband [art] thou to me."

Jeremiah 7:22 testifies to what I just said:
“For when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt offerings or sacrifice. But this is what I commanded them: do my bidding, that I may be your God and you may be my people; walk only in the way that I enjoin upon you, that it may go well with you.”

Clearly here Jeremiah is saying that the sacrifices did not define the covenant, rather "to do God's bidding" in order for Him to "be your God(the covenant)" mainly referred to the moral commandments, as well as some of the other ritual ones of course. But Jeremiah makes the explicit point here that sacrifices are not necessary for God to "be our God," and for us to be His people.

The context of that chapter is that the Istraelites HAD NOT BEEN OBEDIENT throughout their history and HAD THEY BEEN there wouldn't have been the need for those sacrifices for sins.

Okay, so assuming your interpretation of Ezekiel is correct, then Ezekiel is telling the exiles how to gain eternal life without blood, so my point still stands..

Those "exiles" were there because of disobedience to GOD---Sin.(and the need for the cleansing Blood.) As HE said would happen.

What does it mean to "believe" in Jesus? And why isn't believing in God alone not enough?

John 3:16-18, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,(upon the Cross for the propitiation of the sins of mankind.) that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "

Correct "Believing" results in "Obedience". At this point in the history of mankind, Jesus was as 1Pet.1:18-21, states, "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."

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Hey guys. I really like the topic of the thread. I wanted to interject an idea. It's not original but I think it's powerful.

Why do the two positions (only saved by/through belief on Christ–vs– non christians that are good saved) have to be mutually exclusive? I believe 100% that it is through Jesus Christ that we are saved. I believe John's account. In fact it is my favorite book in all of scripture. "Lord, how can we know the way?" Thomas asks. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." I believe this with all my heart. However, I also believe that good people who do their best with what they are given will be saved (see parable of the talents, also Matthew where it talks about judgement day "And the king shall answer and say unto them:...).

How can I believe both of these? I don't believe that this life is the end. True, it is very important to our eternal situation. But just because someone doesn't accept Christ in this life DOES NOT mean they won't accept him at some point. This isn't a free excuse to reject God and party. What I'm saying is that good Muslims, Jews, Atheists, even Christians with an incorrect or incomplete understanding of Christ's doctrine (which I would argue is pretty much ALL of us) who seek to do what is right, will be dealt with justly. I strongly believe that heaven will be made up of a very diverse cross-section. I also believe that people who call themselves christian will find themselves scattered throughout the levels of glory in a pretty similar fashion to any other belief group. I'll close by going back to the Matthew reference about judgement:

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

I believe very strongly both in the justness and mercifulness of God, and in the straightness and narrowness of the gate and the path that lead to eternal life. And I believe that we must be more active in helping people discover that path (ye are the light of the world, if the lights are all out, people stop following it). However, I believe that this life is only a narrow slice of eternity and God's work is not limited to this one phase of existence.

 

[Tarheeler]

What are the criteria of things one must deny in order to be classified as "denying Jesus" - according to the NT? I dont want any church doctrine related opinions, I just want to know specifically what the NT says on the issue, and preferably just from Matthew, Mark, or Luke.

Does "to deny Jesus" mean:

1. To deny that truth can be found in his message?
2. To deny the miracles he performed?
3. To deny He is God?

or something else? I'm just curious what the NT specifically says on the subject.. what are the criteria of things one must deny in order to be classified as denying Jesus, according to the NT? Thanks

According to my Baptist upbringing, it's simple my friend.

Anyone who has heard of Jesus and doesn't accept him as the son of God and messiah is rejecting him.

People who are born to another faith, such as Jews and Muslims, and have heard about Jesus and do not immediately convert to Christianity are damned. And people like me, who were born and raised Christian and then convert to another religion, are in an even worse position.

Like you, I think that belief in Jesus isn't a requirement; I don't really think that disbelief in God is an automatic no. I think actions are much more important that belief, and everyone has the potential to share in the world to come.

And do know that there are Christians who don't apply such a strict adherence to the idea, but the seem to be in the minority.

 

[punkdbass]

The question of the OP wasn't concerning: "the Rabbis of the Talmud teach that the Torah has infinite levels of meaning." It was concerning the Denial of Jesus in the NT.

I agree, but you were the one to make the claim that scripture is only meant to be interpreted in one way, and I was simply informing you that Judaism and Jewish Halakhah(law) do not work this way.

God's principles remain the same and apply to every changing situation in the lives of men.
True, Mankind cannot understand everything about GOD, But HIS will can be known because it is made known to mankind. Deut.29:29, "The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law." ...GOD hasn't hid HIS WILL from his People. It has been revealed by the to Holy spirit to the Prophets for all seekers to see and know.

At a very general level, I actually agree with this. That through the Holy Spirit, or God's Ruach hakodesh(Holy Spirit) and Shekinah(Presence) His will is made known.

But what's interesting is that these things often lead men to do significantly different things -or so they claim. I do believe in Revelation, but at the same time I believe man can not fully comprehend God's ways or plan. Obviously there are some things about God man can not know by definition. And as I stated, I think the fact that every single religious person has a slightly different God-concept or interpretation of the Bible testifies to that fact.

The context of that chapter is that the Istraelites HAD NOT BEEN OBEDIENT throughout their history and HAD THEY BEEN there wouldn't have been the need for those sacrifices for sins.

I disagree completely, and as a Christian you should as well. Christians who believe in original sin would believe man would need a sacrifice no matter what - even if he was obedient. So I think my point of Jeremiah 7:22 still stands: that the blood sacrifices did not define the covenant, rather Jeremiah tells the Jews exactly what they must do to be God's people and have Him as their God, and he specifically says sacrifices are not a requirement.

Those "exiles" were there because of disobedience to GOD---Sin.(and the need for the cleansing Blood.) As HE said would happen.

And I have demonstrated with Leviticus 26:39-42, among many other passages, that it was possible for exiled Jews who thus could not make blood sacrifices(no Temple) to still achieve atonement.

John 3:16-18, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,(upon the Cross for the propitiation of the sins of mankind.) that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "

"You shall have no other gods before me"

You must understand that as a Jew, such an idea is abhorrent to me, for I can not place something before God in the way you have described.

Correct "Believing" results in "Obedience"

Then surly having faith in God alone would result in Obedience -- as demonstrated in the Hebrew Bible when Israel was faithful to God, or when specific prophets/leaders were faithful, obedience always resulted. Likewise, when they were not faithful and served other gods(thus disbelieving) they were not obedient. I just dont understand the difference between a Jew who has faith in God - and is thus obedient to the Torah(God's teachings), and a Christian who has faith in Christ - and is thus obedient to what they believe to be God's teachings. Christians claim that every teaching of Jesus is supported by the teachings of the OT, that Jesus does not contradict the Law. If this is true, then Jews would essentially be following the same things Jesus taught, so where is the problem

As you will notice I didn't address several your points regarding blood and atonement. I feel like we have argued that subject enough. I gave many points with scriptural support that atonement can be achieved without blood - and I still remain convinced that I am right. Obviously you are in the same boat with your beliefs, and that is fine.

 

[punkdbass]

Hey guys. I really like the topic of the thread. I wanted to interject an idea. It's not original but I think it's powerful.

Why do the two positions (only saved by/through belief on Christ–vs– non christians that are good saved) have to be mutually exclusive? I believe 100% that it is through Jesus Christ that we are saved. I believe John's account. In fact it is my favorite book in all of scripture. "Lord, how can we know the way?" Thomas asks. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." I believe this with all my heart. However, I also believe that good people who do their best with what they are given will be saved (see parable of the talents, also Matthew where it talks about judgement day "And the king shall answer and say unto them:...).

How can I believe both of these? I don't believe that this life is the end. True, it is very important to our eternal situation. But just because someone doesn't accept Christ in this life DOES NOT mean they won't accept him at some point. This isn't a free excuse to reject God and party. What I'm saying is that good Muslims, Jews, Atheists, even Christians with an incorrect or incomplete understanding of Christ's doctrine (which I would argue is pretty much ALL of us) who seek to do what is right, will be dealt with justly. I strongly believe that heaven will be made up of a very diverse cross-section. I also believe that people who call themselves christian will find themselves scattered throughout the levels of glory in a pretty similar fashion to any other belief group. I'll close by going back to the Matthew reference about judgement:

I believe very strongly both in the justness and mercifulness of God, and in the straightness and narrowness of the gate and the path that lead to eternal life. And I believe that we must be more active in helping people discover that path (ye are the light of the world, if the lights are all out, people stop following it). However, I believe that this life is only a narrow slice of eternity and God's work is not limited to this one phase of existence.

Very interesting, I appreciate your reply. This reminds me somewhat to an idea I've heard from Jews who believe in re-incarnation. Basically they believe that in this life, most of us don't have the chance to completely fulfill God's will(in fact by definition none of us do since some commandments are for men only, or woman only, for example) thus it takes many lives before one's soul is completely refined, and has reached it's fullest potential in fulfilling God's will.

The idea that God's work is not limited to this one phase of existence is an idea I like, although one needs to strive to make the most of this life by all means of course.

 

[punkdbass]

According to my Baptist upbringing, it's simple my friend.

Anyone who has heard of Jesus and doesn't accept him as the son of God and messiah is rejecting him.

People who are born to another faith, such as Jews and Muslims, and have heard about Jesus and do not immediately convert to Christianity are damned. And people like me, who were born and raised Christian and then convert to another religion, are in an even worse position.

Like you, I think that belief in Jesus isn't a requirement; I don't really think that disbelief in God is an automatic no. I think actions are much more important that belief, and everyone has the potential to share in the world to come.

And do know that there are Christians who don't apply such a strict adherence to the idea, but the seem to be in the minority.

Yeah, my Dad is certainly in that minority..

But I guess the reason why I start these threads, and why the topic frustrates me so much is because I simply can't think that God could possibly be so limited and so small, that His arm is too short to save good people who strive for justice and charity. I just cant stand people shoving their "boxed" god-complex onto others.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Very interesting, I appreciate your reply. This reminds me somewhat to an idea I've heard from Jews who believe in re-incarnation. Basically they believe that in this life, most of us don't have the chance to completely fulfill God's will(in fact by definition none of us do since some commandments are for men only, or woman only, for example) thus it takes many lives before one's soul is completely refined, and has reached it's fullest potential in fulfilling God's will.

The idea that God's work is not limited to this one phase of existence is an idea I like, although one needs to strive to make the most of this life by all means of course.

Yeah. We definitely need to do all we can in this life. I mean, who doesn't want to become better? Who doesn't want the blessings of living the commandments? Who doesn't want to live on a higher plane of existence? Who doesn't want the world to be filled with more love and unity? I believe that once people really begin to understand the gospel, love becomes their motivation for living it. Love for others and a desire to come together as a human family is a powerful motivating force.