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

[sincerly]

Hi Punkdbass, Happy Mother's Day---(if you have progressed that far)!

See that's just it, I don't see this at all as part of the core message of Matthew. I see a wonderful message of love and mercy.

Luke puts the Gospel's and their writers in a proper prespective. Luke1:1-4, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."
In Deut.17:6 and 19:15 truth in a matter is established by the "Witness of at least two witnesses." The Gospels were NOT just heresay, but written as GOD perscribed the establishment of HIS Messages to be.

Yes, Matthew began with the establishment of the lineage of Jesus Christ and ended with the Gospel Commission after the Resurrection of Jesus. Yes, THE Father's "LOVE and MERCY" are seen in the sending of HIS SON to be a propitiation for the Sins of ALL MANKIND who would heed the message in Repentance and acceptance of the (only proper)"Sacrifice."
The other "Gospels" reflect the same "Love and Mercy" in their narratives.

Many people today (as well as 2000 years ago) look at/believe GOD to be a very unloving and unmerciful GOD----as they interpret the OT scriptures.

"But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifices" The entire time I read Matthew the power of this verse kept echoing throughout my mind.. There is an old midrash that says God, being the perfect Teacher and rolemodel, actually performed every single one of the commandments and teachings before giving them to us -- in order to set a good example. So if God expects me to give mercy over sacrifices, how much more should I expect Him to do the same?

Punkdbass, GOD who knows the end from the beginning didn't have to "perform" any of the Decalogue's negatives. Are you claiming that "mankind HAD TO EXPERIENCE DISOBEDIENCE"?? Tell me, Which of the Decalogue is it "IMPOSSIBLE" to keep/OBEY??

Since Adam sinned, the wages/penalty has to be paid.---Death. GOD is NOT a LIAR, and that was GOD'S stated Penalty. Therefore, DOES ONE accept HIS desire to extend "Mercy" via HIS "gift" of a "Sacrifice" which is acceptable to GOD Or "sacrifices" which could never purge the conscience. Heb.10:1-22???

As for the rest of your post, now you are simply ignoring everything I'm saying and simply regurgitating what the Church has fed you. I feel that the majority of my points were simply not sufficiently refuted by any means, and thus I still believe God has the power to forgive without blood. But more importantly, I just don't buy into the Church dogma behind Jesus's sacrifice and blood atonement at all, it just feels too cold. To me, it places God and His mercy into a very, very small box, truly making His hand too short to save many who strive for charity and justice. And to me, that is not a Just, Merciful god at all.

NO, by no means, have I been ignoring you. I have shown where your conclusions have not followed the context of or the messages of the Scriptures for the Redemption of Mankind from the penalty of Death---which comes from "denial" of the only means for Salvation.

To summarize a few main points I've made and why I still believe in atonement without blood:

We have gone over those points, and it is GOD'S points/the "thus saith the Lord" which counts. GOD is Merciful and Loving enough to be "long-suffering" in waiting for those with a true repentant(believing in the shed blood of HIS SON for Atonement) and contrite heart to do so and not perish.

When I have a contrite spirit and crushed heart, God will not despise me(Psalm 51). When I give the sincere offerings of my lips, God will take me back with love(Hosea 14:2-8). When I confess my sins I shall find mercy(Proverbs 28:13). And when I give up my wicked ways, I shall truly live(Ezekiel 33:14-16)

Amen!!

 

[SaintAugustine]

It means to deny Jesus as part of your life, and by association anything he might have taught.

 

[punkdbass]

Happy mother's day to you as well!

In Deut.17:6 and 19:15 truth in a matter is established by the "Witness of at least two witnesses."

Good point! Which makes me wonder if the parts in certain gospels, especially John, that are not in the other gospels at all are not true accounts of Jesus's life. Obviously I know you believe all of the NT is the word of God, but I just think it's interesting that each gospel has certain things that aren't in the other gospels. And I, as well as many Biblical scholars, think these "additions" reflect the specific wants, needs, motives, of the Church at the time. I do believe truth can be found in the NT, and the difficult part for me is digging through the outer crust of the gospels that the Church has edited and fabricated in, and finding the true gems of Jesus's life and teachings.

NO, by no means, have I been ignoring you. I have shown where your conclusions have not followed the context of or the messages of the Scriptures for the Redemption of Mankind from the penalty of Death---which comes from "denial" of the only means for Salvation.

Ah yes I am the one taking things out of context.. Most Christians who read the Hebrew Bible try to relate pretty much every single verse to Jesus in some manner. They will literally take verses that, when read in proper context, CLEARLY refer to a specific individual or purpose, and they will find ways to twist it to relate to Jesus. I have met very few Christians who try to limit their confirmation bias when reading the Hebrew Bible..

That being said, all of your fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the Hebrew Bible were created HUNDRED sometimes even thousands of years after the events of the Hebrew Bible took place. None of the Jews in the Bible worshiped the trinity or shared many of the beliefs the Church has today - but God maintained an eternal relationship of love with them.

Amen!!

glad you agree with me

Quick question for you that is more on topic with my OP lol, if a Christian believes non-Christians can go to heaven, is that Christian "denying" Jesus by believing such a thing? For I know there are many Christian members here on the RF and several in real life I've met that believe non-Christians can still go to heaven. Would such a Christian be "denying" Jesus in your opinion?

 

[punkdbass]

It means to deny Jesus as part of your life, and by association anything he might have taught.

pretty vague. Jesus plays a part in the lives of Ebonite Jews(they consider him the messiah but not God, and believe in atonement outside of Jesus), would they be denying Jesus? Would people who strongly identify as non-Christians but still study the NT and apply teachings from it to their lives be "denying" Jesus? Would Christians who believe non-Christians can still go to heaven by denying Jesus?

As for the second thing you said, how can I know exactly what Jesus taught? All we have of him is the NT, which is clearly edited and fabricated by the Church.

 

[Oryonder]

punkdbass, The "scriptures" are a record of the Creator GOD's relationship to HIS Creation. "Judaism and Jewish Halakhah(law)" came about some approx. 2000+ years after Creation. However,it was GOD'S laws which Abraham obeyed and his progeny were to Obey. NOT anything Judah nor Jacob(Israel) devised.
The Scriptures are filled with the narratives of rebellion by the Israelites from Kadeah-barnea to the Babylonian captivity.

I have read through most of the tread in relation go "blood sacrifice" and I believe some historical and Biblical perspective is needed.

The OT was not written until at least 1000 years after Abraham and indeed the writers spent much time describing rebellion by the Israelites. It must be remembered that it was the perspective of the writers after the Babylonian captivity that is being given and they attributed the destruction of Israel to displeasing God.

For much, if not most of the time after the Exodus, Israel did not worship "Yahweh".
Only a short time after following Moses they return to Worship of El and Asherah sybolized by the Golden Calf.

One would think that after seeing the Red Sea part and so forth the Israelites would not be so fickle. When Moses dissappears for a short time up the mountan his own Brother Aaron has the people give jewlery and gold to make the Golden Calf.

One of the more common themes of Sacrifice is Human sacrifice. In particular the first born son. This theme is played out in Egypt and continued by the Israelites.

Elisha tells us that he is the only Prophet in Israel for the one true God as he puts it. There are 450 for Baal and 400 for Asherah. This is 950-1 and these Gods required human sacrifice and the Bible tells us this was done by the Israelites.

The idea that God sacrifices his son is a continuation of this theme.

Sacrifices were made because of disobedience to GOD---SIN. What GOD required was Obedience. All that came out of Egypt and were to cross over Jordan into the promised land were covenanted to Obey and that covenant was ratified by a Blood Sacrifice.

The Israelites did not believe only in Yahweh. Yahweh was shown with Asherah in at least some archeaological digs suggesting that Yahweh was associated with El (Asherah was El's consort)

Israelite digs are full of small households alters with a bull horn in each corner (El/Asherah) on which the Israelites burned inscence.

The writers of the Bible attribute their downfall to failure to please God but this God is an afterthought rather than something that the Israelites followed en masse from the time of the Exodus to the Babylonian captivity.

 

[Me Myself]

When you deny help to your fellow wo/man, you deny Jesus.

No "lord Lord"s can compensate this denial. Only repentance and then correcting your acts to be a better man.

 

[punkdbass]

@Oryonder - Not sure exactly what the motive or point is of your post, but I would like to add that the Bible is very clear in making the point that God considers human sacrifice to be an abhorrent thing.

-Jeremiah 19:5 “They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal – which I never decreed, and which never came to My mind.”
-Jeremiah 32:35 “and they built the shrines of Baal awhich are in the Valley of Ben-hinnom where they offered up their sons and daughters to Molech-when I had never commanded, or even thought [of commanding], that they should do such an abominable thing..”

there are many other examples but those are the only 2 that come to mind.

The writers of the Bible attribute their downfall to failure to please God but this God is an afterthought rather than something that the Israelites followed en masse from the time of the Exodus to the Babylonian captivity.

interesting point, I agree.

When you deny help to your fellow wo/man, you deny Jesus.

No "lord Lord"s can compensate this denial. Only repentance and then correcting your acts to be a better man.

Interesting, this makes sense to me. I always enjoy reading your perspective on things

 

[Me Myself]

Interesting, this makes sense to me. I always enjoy reading your perspective on things

thanks! that means a lot!

 

[Oryonder]

@Oryonder - Not sure exactly what the motive or point is of your post, but I would like to add that the Bible is very clear in making the point that God considers human sacrifice to be an abhorrent thing.

-Jeremiah 19:5 “They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal – which I never decreed, and which never came to My mind.”
-Jeremiah 32:35 “and they built the shrines of Baal awhich are in the Valley of Ben-hinnom where they offered up their sons and daughters to Molech-when I had never commanded, or even thought [of commanding], that they should do such an abominable thing..”

there are many other examples but those are the only 2 that come to mind.

The point is that if we look History "blood" sacrifice was human sacrifice in many instances.

It is true that 1000 years after the Exodus the writers of the Bible condemned the practice ( or attrubuted the downfall of Israel to God being displeased at this practice) but they were speaking from "their" perspective in 400 BC, not from the perspective of the Israelites that they were writing about.

The Israelites that are described (Exodus to Babylonian Captivity) do not share the same perspective as the writers of the Bible sometime after the Persians give the Israelites some freedom.

Blood sacrifice to the earlier group was often human sacrifice.

One could argue that the whole idea of God sacrificing his son is a throwback to the ancient ideology. The Romans did not tolerate human sacrifice although were still other cultures that did.

This general abhorrence to the practice of human sacrifice starts with the Persian religion as was monotheistic Zoroastrianism.

It makes complete sence that the writers of the Bible, given that the Persians were obviously favored by God and they were nice to the Israelites, would have found justification for monotheism and condemnation of human sacrifice in Persian customs. God must be on the side of the Persians and conform to their beliefs.

It is no coincidence IMO that the OT was made to conform with Persian Religious beliefs.

Most scholars, Jewish as well as non-Jewish, are of the opinion that Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism in views

Take for example: ZOROASTRIANISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The six days of Creation in Genesis find a parallel in the six periods of Creation described in the Zoroastrian scriptures. Mankind, according to each religion, is descended from a single couple, and Mashya (man) and Mashyana are the Iranian Adam (man) and Eve. In the Bible a deluge destroys all people except a single righteous individual and his family; in the Avesta a winter depopulates the earth except in the Vara ("enclosure") of the blessed Yima. In each case the earth is peopled anew with the best two of every kind, and is afterward divided into three realms. The three sons of Yima's successor Thraetaona, named Erij (Avesta, "Airya"), Selm (Avesta, "Sairima"), and Tur (Avesta, "Tura"), are the inheritors in the Persian account; Shem, Ham, and Japheth, in the Semiticstory. Likenesses in minor matters, in certain details of ceremony and ritual, ideas of uncleanness, and the like, are to be noted, as well as parallels between Zoroaster and Moses as sacred lawgivers

There are numerous other striking parallel's between both Judaism and Christianity and Zoroastrianism. Especially interesting is the Zoroastrian ideas about resurrection.

 

[punkdbass]

Interesting, thank you for sharing. I'm still a little confused as to how your posts relate to the original topic of this thread though.

Are you trying to imply that human sacrifice is not abhorrent to God? Because Christianity views the Hebrew Bible as divine revelation, thus they believe that the verses I quoted from Jeremiah are completely true, but they have different ways of "justifying" Jesus's "human" sacrifice.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
In Deut.17:6 and 19:15 truth in a matter is established by the "Witness of at least two witnesses."

Good point! Which makes me wonder if the parts in certain gospels, especially John, that are not in the other gospels at all are not true accounts of Jesus's life.

Punkdbass, The point given which was made true and you convienently ignored was: """"Luke puts the Gospel's and their writers in a proper prespective. Luke1:1-4, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."
'""""
I realize that you discount the truths seen in John's account of the life and teachings of Jesus. However, each of the Gospel writers were separately recording from eyewitnesses the Truths each was impressed with concerning what Jesus said and did. That time-span was 3 1/2 years for the Activity and 15-20 years after the Resurrection for the writing of the events. It is amazing that each writing the Events, apart from each other, that as much of the actual wording is the same or same message.
Hey, My wife and I have 61 years of living the same events together, but each have some things to tell that the other doesn't recall at the time. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen. We are ALL frail humans--remember.

Obviously I know you believe all of the NT is the word of God, but I just think it's interesting that each gospel has certain things that aren't in the other gospels. And I, as well as many Biblical scholars, think these "additions" reflect the specific wants, needs, motives, of the Church at the time.

NO, the principles/messages/ instructions/etc. of the OT and NT(Bible) are true and inspired, but not each word written(i.e.) the writers gave the messages in their own manner and it(those writings) expressed the messages given to the Prophets by GOD.
I take it that you disbelieve GOD'S warnings not to Add to nor diminish from HIS words.(Deut.4:2; 12:32; It are repeated in Revelations as well.)

I do believe truth can be found in the NT, and the difficult part for me is digging through the outer crust of the gospels that the Church has edited and fabricated in, and finding the true gems of Jesus's life and teachings.

Why shouldn't truth be found in the NT?? Jesus and all the writers of the NT quoted from the OT in expressing the messages of the Everlasting Gospel. The message of Salvation started in Genesis. It is all wrapped up in Gen.3:15 which every Jewish mother hoped would be the Messiah who came and Gabriel announced to HER. The EMANUEL---GOD with us. NO, NOT the FATHER, but the promised Saviour of the world.
Again, why shouldn't Jesus be found in those OT Prophecies---After all the Prophets were telling of HIM/Jesus throughout the past ages?? Jesus opened the eyes of the Disciples to each of those prophetic passages in Luke 24:27, 44-48. NO mystery!
The OT is there for a Witness to the revealed truth seen in the writings of the NT---Plain and simple.
Now it is a choice that must be made by each indididual----BELIEVE or DENY

Ah yes I am the one taking things out of context.. Most Christians who read the Hebrew Bible try to relate pretty much every single verse to Jesus in some manner. They will literally take verses that, when read in proper context, CLEARLY refer to a specific individual or purpose, and they will find ways to twist it to relate to Jesus. I have met very few Christians who try to limit their confirmation bias when reading the Hebrew Bible..

The OT is a recorded narrative of GOD'S dealings with mankind who HE Created and the long-suffering which GOD exhibited in guiding mankind to be and remain Obedient to HIS Teachings.
Abraham was promising, but HIS descendants proved prone to evil ways rather than continue in the righteous ways precribed by GOD----The prophets who were sent to them and were persecuted attest to the truthfulness of the Scriptures.

That being said, all of your fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the Hebrew Bible were created HUNDRED sometimes even thousands of years after the events of the Hebrew Bible took place. None of the Jews in the Bible worshiped the trinity or shared many of the beliefs the Church has today - but God maintained an eternal relationship of love with them.

Punkdbass, GOD has always had faithful Believers(The Remnant). How many were saved during the Flood of Noah? How many of the old generation that heard GOD at Sinai crossed over into the promised land? Elijah felt alone at Mt. Carmel, but how many had not bowed to Baal? GOD still knows those peoples of this earth who are truly HIS and are not just giving lip-service. Again, Ezek.18

glad you agree with me

I was saying Amen, to your "When" it would occur.

Quick question for you that is more on topic with my OP lol, if a Christian believes non-Christians can go to heaven, is that Christian "denying" Jesus by believing such a thing? For I know there are many Christian members here on the RF and several in real life I've met that believe non-Christians can still go to heaven. Would such a Christian be "denying" Jesus in your opinion?

GOD hasn't shut the door on any person who is alive today. GOD is waiting and desiring "All" to repent and accept HIS prescribed "gift" for the propitiation of sins.---that way is by Christ's shed Blood.

Gal.3:26-29, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. "

Punkdbass, that has been the message of the Scriptures(OT and NT=BIBLE) since Adam Disobeyed. Lineage doesn't save---we all came by way of Adam and EVE.

 

[Oryonder]

Interesting, thank you for sharing. I'm still a little confused as to how your posts relate to the original topic of this thread though.

Are you trying to imply that human sacrifice is not abhorrent to God? Because Christianity views the Hebrew Bible as divine revelation, thus they believe that the verses I quoted from Jeremiah are completely true, but they have different ways of "justifying" Jesus's "human" sacrifice.

It relates to blood sacrifice. The folks that wrote the Bible lived during the Persian era. The perspective of the Persians - the world empire at that time - was towards monotheism and against human sacrifice. It makes complete sense that the Jews adopted this perspective. Isaiah opens with "the lord/Yahweh" annointing the Persian King Cyrus to subdue nations.

The Jews associated Cyrus with their God and so the religious beliefs of Cyrus were adopted.

While this was the perspective of the Jews at the time the Bible was written, it was not the perspective of the Israelites from the Exodus to the time of the Babylonian captivity.

Blood sacrifice to the Israelites (and many of the nations around them) prior to Persia included human sacrifice.

The idea of Jesus (a human sacrifice) is a throwback to ancient beliefs but also aleiviated the need for continued human sacrifice.

The idea that humans no longer had to be sacrificed because God had sacrificed his own son is compelling and kind of links the old ideas to the new.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by SaintAugustine
It means to deny Jesus as part of your life, and by association anything he might have taught.

pretty vague. Jesus plays a part in the lives of Ebonite Jews(they consider him the messiah but not God, and believe in atonement outside of Jesus), would they be denying Jesus? Would people who strongly identify as non-Christians but still study the NT and apply teachings from it to their lives be "denying" Jesus? Would Christians who believe non-Christians can still go to heaven by denying Jesus?

Punkdbass, Did the Israelites deny the power of GOD/HIS ability to perform the clearing of the Promised Land as HE said HE would??? Does any human being have to power to negate the messages of GOD?? Can one walk counter to GOD and still be in agreement with GOD??

As for the second thing you said, how can I know exactly what Jesus taught? All we have of him is the NT, which is clearly edited and fabricated by the Church.

Punkdbass, By the same reasoning that the one believes that GOD SPOKE to the people at Sinai and wrote the Decalogue on tablets of stone for all of man kind to live in proper relationship to HIMSELF and to the rest of mankind.

 

[ChristineES]

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

I think he meant to deny the truth of His message. We, 2,000 years later, can't deny His miracles because we didn't see them, and I don't think He meant the third one. His message was pretty straightforward and it was such that even gentiles could follow it (he did teach some Roman soldiers and some other gentiles that were probably the soldiers' families). That is just my opinion.

 

[punkdbass]

Punkdbass, The point given which was made true and you convienently ignored was: """"Luke puts the Gospel's and their writers in a proper prespective. Luke1:1-4, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

I ignored it because 1. I don't really get what it means, and 2. it's circular logic. If you find a book, and someone asks you "how do you know that the book is accurate?" And you respond "Oh because inside the book it says the book is accurate" .... it's just poor logic, nothing to take too seriously.

I take it that you disbelieve GOD'S warnings not to Add to nor diminish from HIS words.(Deut.4:2; 12:32; It are repeated in Revelations as well.)

We believe it is forbidden to change anything that is written in the Torah. Of course I believe that. We also believe that when God gave us the Torah, he gave us the right and authority to constantly interpret, re-interpret, apply, and reapply it in every generation(Deut 17:9-10). I think of the Torah as a living organism, something that evolves and changes with time. It is a dynamic book that has infinite levels of meaning, rather than a static book meant to be interpreted in only 1 manner for all time. We believe God is the most Moral Being possible, so if something written in the Bible starts to become immoral in today's age, we believe it is our duty to re-interpret and re-apply it in ways that would be morally acceptable.

And please, dont even think to judge me for such a thing. If you believe stoning a person when they do not observe the Sabbath is wrong, and you refuse to do such a thing, then you have no room to judge.

Why shouldn't truth be found in the NT?? Jesus and all the writers of the NT quoted from the OT in expressing the messages of the Everlasting Gospel. The message of Salvation started in Genesis. It is all wrapped up in Gen.3:15 which every Jewish mother hoped would be the Messiah who came and Gabriel announced to HER. The EMANUEL---GOD with us. NO, NOT the FATHER, but the promised Saviour of the world.
Again, why shouldn't Jesus be found in those OT Prophecies---After all the Prophets were telling of HIM/Jesus throughout the past ages?? Jesus opened the eyes of the Disciples to each of those prophetic passages in Luke 24:27, 44-48. NO mystery!
The OT is there for a Witness to the revealed truth seen in the writings of the NT---Plain and simple.
Now it is a choice that must be made by each indididual----BELIEVE or DENY

For your first sentence, good point! For your second, Idk if you've noticed or not but the reason I've ignored all your comments on Genesis 3:15 is because I have no reason to believe it is a messianic prophecy at all. It simply says that although sin will always be there to tempt us, we human beings have the power to overcome it.

I do not see the Hebrew Bible pointing to Jesus at all, and I have a very good knowledge of it's content. I do however, notice a theme in the NT, that much of its content runs parallel to that of things of the Hebrew Bible. Although the suffering servant in Isaiah 52-53 does not directly point to Jesus(it refers to Israel), What Jesus taught and stood for seems to run parallel to the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. I do not think the Tanakh points to Jesus but I think the writers of the NT went through great efforts to make sure Jesus ran parallel to it, if that makes sense..

GOD still knows those peoples of this earth who are truly HIS and are not just giving lip-service. Again, Ezek.18

Exactly my point, only God knows..

And you didn't really answer my question.. I realize labels aren't perfect, but for the sake of simplicity I am going to use them: If a Christian beleives it is possible that non-Christians(who die) can go to heaven, then are those Christians in effect "denying" Jesus? This question interests me a lot.

Punkdbass, By the same reasoning that the one believes that GOD SPOKE to the people at Sinai and wrote the Decalogue on tablets of stone for all of man kind to live in proper relationship to HIMSELF and to the rest of mankind.

Not true at all(this was in reference to my question of how can I know that the NT accurately portrays Jesus's life and teachings, and does not contain editing by the Church used for its own agenda) You really can't even compare them. Everything written in the Hebrew Bible describes experiences shared by an entire community of hundreds of thousands of Jews. Everything. Most of the NT on the otherhand reflects experiences of one man, small groups of people, or at most a few thousand. I'm not in any way making the claim that the Tanakh is "more true" than the NT, I'm simply disagreeing with you and saying that you cant use "the same reasoning" to compare them. Once you realize that everything in Judaism is tied to a community, that every event or action described is something an entire community of people has experienced and shared, then maybe you will understand what I mean. For in this manner the Tanakh and NT are very different.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Punkdbass, The point given which was made true and you convienently ignored was: """"Luke puts the Gospel's and their writers in a proper prespective. Luke1:1-4, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

I ignored it because 1. I don't really get what it means, and 2. it's circular logic. If you find a book, and someone asks you "how do you know that the book is accurate?" And you respond "Oh because inside the book it says the book is accurate" .... it's just poor logic, nothing to take too seriously.

Hi punkdbass, because you fail to understand it, doesn't negate it nor deminish the fact of it. Then in the next sentence you claim(since you don't get it) that it is "circular logic". Therefore, if you fail to understand something, "it isn't serious".

Isa.8:20 gives the source of truth. :"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them."

We believe it is forbidden to change anything that is written in the Torah. Of course I believe that. We also believe that when God gave us the Torah, he gave us the right and authority to constantly interpret, re-interpret, apply, and reapply it in every generation(Deut 17:8-10).

"If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:"

Punkdbass, GOD gave Judgments and the penalty. At that Time GOD would was the Authority(Theocracy). The priest would inquire of HIM. {like the child who cursed GOD}
GOD has never given authority to mankind to change HIS LAWS-----They only observed the laws given and sentenced accordingly.

I think of the Torah as a living organism, something that evolves and changes with time. It is a dynamic book that has infinite levels of meaning, rather than a static book meant to be interpreted in only 1 manner for all time. We believe God is the most Moral Being possible, so if something written in the Bible starts to become immoral in today's age, we believe it is our duty to re-interpret and re-apply it in ways that would be morally acceptable.

That explains the frequent backslidings and Why Daniel prophesied (9:24), "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. "

And please, dont even think to judge me for such a thing. If you believe stoning a person when they do not observe the Sabbath is wrong, and you refuse to do such a thing, then you have no room to judge.

Judgment isn't mine to make. I do believe the Seventh Day Sabbath which GOD said was HIS Holy Day is correct---and still to be "Remembered" to Keep Holy and convocate on that day.

For your first sentence, good point! For your second, Idk if you've noticed or not but the reason I've ignored all your comments on Genesis 3:15 is because I have no reason to believe it is a messianic prophecy at all. It simply says that although sin will always be there to tempt us, we human beings have the power to overcome it.

'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."
Can you show me where the Messiah is first promised if not here??

I do not see the Hebrew Bible pointing to Jesus at all, and I have a very good knowledge of it's content. I do however, notice a theme in the NT, that much of its content runs parallel to that of things of the Hebrew Bible. Although the suffering servant in Isaiah 52-53 does not directly point to Jesus(it refers to Israel), What Jesus taught and stood for seems to run parallel to the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. I do not think the Tanakh points to Jesus but I think the writers of the NT went through great efforts to make sure Jesus ran parallel to it, if that makes sense..

Punkdbass, While you can't ignore the parallelism of the OT with THE NT and the LIFE OF Jesus, that is the point----Jesus is THE "fulfillment" of those OT stories and prophecies. GOD meant it to be such.
Israel wasn't the "suffering servant", but the rebellious servant as is seen in the Prophets----with the constant "Return unto ME." "Repent".
There is a "Remnant" which will be saved.

Originally Posted by sincerly
GOD still knows those peoples of this earth who are truly HIS and are not just giving lip-service. Again, Ezek.18

Exactly my point, only God knows..

Doesn't Ezek.18 speak of individuals and salvation? While addressing all----the message is to the individual. "The soul that sinneth it shall die". Repent and live.

And you didn't really answer my question.. I realize labels aren't perfect, but for the sake of simplicity I am going to use them: If a Christian beleives it is possible that non-Christians(who die) can go to heaven, then are those Christians in effect "denying" Jesus? This question interests me a lot.

Punkdbass, the simplistic answer is GOD is long-suffering and not willing that any should perish. "possible"?, only when the LORD JESUS comes or the person dies will the status of one's "reward" be sealed. Again, Ezek.18. At what time will one "Repent" Or "Deny"??

Not true at all(this was in reference to my question of how can I know that the NT accurately portrays Jesus's life and teachings, and does not contain editing by the Church used for its own agenda) You really can't even compare them. Everything written in the Hebrew Bible describes experiences shared by an entire community of hundreds of thousands of Jews. Everything. Most of the NT on the otherhand reflects experiences of one man, small groups of people, or at most a few thousand. I'm not in any way making the claim that the Tanakh is "more true" than the NT, I'm simply disagreeing with you and saying that you cant use "the same reasoning" to compare them. Once you realize that everything in Judaism is tied to a community, that every event or action described is something an entire community of people has experienced and shared, then maybe you will understand what I mean. For in this manner the Tanakh and NT are very different.

punkdbass, may I use your phrase----"Not true at all".
Didn't you start your post with the belief that Israel had the "authority" to Change God's written messages?? Didn't those people that came out of Egypt include a "Mixed Multitude"?
Isn't it true that All those Disciples and JESUS were JEWS? Those Jews who heard Jesus teach marveled that HIS teachings were more authoritative than the Jewish leaders. Matt7:28-29, "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as [one] having authority, and not as the scribes. "

Stephen, a Jew, said this in Acts 7:38, "This is he[Moses], that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:"
That "church"/ convocation of believers/assemblage of and called out ones in Belief are/were both to the same Creator GOD.
Jesus is the "prophet like as me" that Moses spoke of being future.
Heb.4:2 is a reference to the 40 years of wilderness wandering---"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it]." It was the same "gospel"/ Message.

 

[punkdbass]

honestly sincerly, I'm kind of tired of putting a ton of effort into writing huge posts of things I sincerely believe while you clearly are making no effort to even try to understand my ideas, as you shove most of them aside with great ease.

There is just nothing more I have to learn from our debate, and the only reason I am here at RF is to learn. I get the feeling that is not why you are here..

Lastly, you have a kind of warped view of what Judaism is. You seem to only judge us Jews by the mildly antisemitic remarks in the NT made about the Pharisees, which mind you only represent a small minority of Jews today. You have no idea what Judaism is or the wide variety of schools of thought it entails, or how Conservative Jewish Halakhah works.

I love being Jewish, and I love the relationship I have with God.. it's brought so many blessings to my life and has been the only solution to happiness that I have found thus far in life. If you are indeed right that Jesus is the messiah, or whatever it is that you believe, I know God will judge my heart and my intentions and have compassion and mercy upon me. For by our acts our faith is known(James 2:18), and I swear that there is no difference between the good acts of a righteous Jew and a righteous Christian, thus I know both of their faiths will be acceptable to God.

If you have any last bits of advice for me, particularly in my read through of the NT, please feel free to share. But this is my last post for our debate, adios

 

[sincerly]

honestly sincerly, I'm kind of tired of putting a ton of effort into writing huge posts of things I sincerely believe while you clearly are making no effort to even try to understand my ideas, as you shove most of them aside with great ease.

Hi punkdbass, I do know and believe that you do "sincerely believe that which you believe". It isn't that I "make no effort to understand my(your) ideas". The problem is your "ideas"/understanding of the Scriptures are continuing in the same vain way of placing your(Like the Israelite forefathers) reasoning, upon the things which GOD has said and warned HIS people concerning. Like King saul---for example.
Remember the vast number of "backslidings"-----those were because other than GOD'S instructions were appealing.
Paul, who had studied at the feet of Gamalial (a highly respected Jewish) leader of that day, said at the end of his ministry, Acts 24:14; 22:3 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: "
And Gamaliel had said/warned the Jewish leaders earlier(Acts 5:34-39) concerning those who were following the teachings of Jesus, "But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God".

There is just nothing more I have to learn from our debate, and the only reason I am here at RF is to learn. I get the feeling that is not why you are here..

I still learn from GOD'S inspired Word when it is given----but, contradictory to HIS Messages opinions/conclusions lead away from GOD as we see in the "Garden" experience. Discerning GOD'S truth and Messages is a learning experience---debate helps sharpen that information and knowledge.

Lastly, you have a kind of warped view of what Judaism is. You seem to only judge us Jews by the mildly antisemitic remarks in the NT made about the Pharisees, which mind you only represent a small minority of Jews today. You have no idea what Judaism is or the wide variety of schools of thought it entails, or how Conservative Jewish Halakhah works.

Punkdbass, the NT view is that of the Loving, Merciful, Long-suffering, Gracious Just Father and GOD "who changes not". There is no desire on the Father's part to cause the wicked to perish/die--- but to Repent and Live. Mal.3:1-6; 2Pet.3:9.
The Father has sent the messenger and the only ONE who could expiate the
SINS OF THE WORLD.(From Adam to the last person to be born). An Animal can not pay the death penalty for mankind. Neither can just claiming to repent---even in sincere remorse.

I love being Jewish, and I love the relationship I have with God.. it's brought so many blessings to my life and has been the only solution to happiness that I have found thus far in life. If you are indeed right that Jesus is the messiah, or whatever it is that you believe, I know God will judge my heart and my intentions and have compassion and mercy upon me. For by our acts our faith is known(James 2:18), and I swear that there is no difference between the good acts of a righteous Jew and a righteous Christian, thus I know both of their faiths will be acceptable to God.

Punkdbass, there is no place from Genesis to Revelation which in which GOD is said to be a respecter of persons. In fact, there is a "NO" before that phrase. ALL who have the right relationship with GOD will be accepted by GOD.

That right relationship to the Father,also, requires a right relationship to the
ONE who GOD the Father sent to be the "Redeemer"/ propitiation for the reconciliation of Sinful /disobedient mankind to the Merciful Father.

That "Faith" one has is achored by the actions one has in the shed blood by "the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world". (Promised then and fulfilled 2000 years ago.---In Jesus.----HE came and was rejected then---and the offer is still available today--- to all who heed.)

If you have any last bits of advice for me, particularly in my read through of the NT, please feel free to share. But this is my last post for our debate, adios

Punkdbass, the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 in connection with Isa. 53; Matthew 23:23-39; John 1:11 would be a start to understanding much.

 

[Oryonder]

That right relationship to the Father,also, requires a right relationship to the
ONE who GOD the Father sent to be the "Redeemer"/ propitiation for the reconciliation of Sinful /disobedient mankind to the Merciful Father.

This is a popular Christian belief which has its basis in Pauline writings rather than based on what Jesus and the rest of the Church of Jerusalem had to say (especially James and Peter who were the leaders of the Jerusalem Church)

Jesus and James talk about the need for works to enter heaven .. not Faith or a "right relationship" with Jesus.

This may be a popular belief but it is certainly not what Jesus and James taught.

Even if we did go with Paul .. Romans says "The Jews first, and then the Gentiles" suggesting that even Paul thought there were different standards for Jews in relation to putting oneself right with God.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
That right relationship to the Father,also, requires a right relationship to the
ONE who GOD the Father sent to be the "Redeemer"/ propitiation for the reconciliation of Sinful /disobedient mankind to the Merciful Father.

This is a popular Christian belief which has its basis in Pauline writings rather than based on what Jesus and the rest of the Church of Jerusalem had to say (especially James and Peter who were the leaders of the Jerusalem Church)

Jesus and James talk about the need for works to enter heaven .. not Faith or a "right relationship" with Jesus.

This may be a popular belief but it is certainly not what Jesus and James taught.

Even if we did go with Paul .. Romans says "The Jews first, and then the Gentiles" suggesting that even Paul thought there were different standards for Jews in relation to putting oneself right with God.

Let's look at what Jesus has said, John 14:6,"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

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."

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."

James and Paul are echoing the same message and agreeing with Jesus----Faith without the works of Righteousness(Love to ones neighbor) is dead. James2:14-20; Rom.2:13-15.
Eph.2:8-10, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
Now look back at (1:4), for those "works". "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"'
Walking in LOVE TO GOD and ones neighbor. Faith comes first and then one acts/does the "ordained" actions/deeds necessary/before one.