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

[Oryonder]

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.


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.

There are way too many problems with John. Whomever wrote John departed so radically from the style of the other Gospels that it is a wonder why you brought the passage up in contrast to the passage from Matt as they clearly contradict each other.

The "will of the Father", as spoken of in Matt, is that we are to obey the law.... This passage is referring to works not faith.

As for the Pauline stuff you quote .. I have already granted that this contradicts what Jesus and James said.

From the Sermon on the Mount we have clear and unmuddled words from Jesus.

Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true.18 Remember that as long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with—not until the end of all things.[a]19 So then, whoever disobeys even the least important of the commandments and teaches others to do the same, will be least in the Kingdom of heaven. On the other hand, whoever obeys the Law and teaches others to do the same, will be great in the Kingdom of heaven

If that is not clear enough I suggest a reading of James 2 which is written specifically to address the works/faith conflict that must have been happening at the time. (likely from the teachings of Paul) Regardless of why .. we have a whole Chapter from the Brother of Christ devoted to the topic.

James asks you this question

What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?​

can faith save him?

and then James answers the question he poses.

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone​

Dead faith is without works. What is interesting is that James does not say the reverse is true. He does not say that works without faith are dead works. ​

Even if one was to grant credibility to Paul who never met Jesus and who seems to know nothing of the life of Jesus. ( or John which has even more problems that Paul) ..​

The best we can get to is a massive contradiction between both the words of Christ in Matt and a whole chapter in James - (Brother of Christ and leader of the Jerusalem Church) specifically dealing with the question of works verses faith.​

To agree with one side is to oppose the other. ​

 

[punkdbass]

opcorn:

I like where this is going lol

 

[sincerly]

There are way too many problems with John. Whomever wrote John departed so radically from the style of the other Gospels that it is a wonder why you brought the passage up in contrast to the passage from Matt as they clearly contradict each other.
The "will of the Father", as spoken of in Matt, is that we are to obey the law.... This passage is referring to works not faith.
As for the Pauline stuff you quote .. I have already granted that this contradicts what Jesus and James said.
From the Sermon on the Mount we have clear and unmuddled words from Jesus.
If that is not clear enough I suggest a reading of James 2 which is written specifically to address the works/faith conflict that must have been happening at the time. (likely from the teachings of Paul) Regardless of why .. we have a whole Chapter from the Brother of Christ devoted to the topic.
James asks you this question
and then James answers the question he poses.
Dead faith is without works. What is interesting is that James does not say the reverse is true. He does not say that works without faith are dead works.

Even if one was to grant credibility to Paul who never met Jesus and who seems to know nothing of the life of Jesus. ( or John which has even more problems that Paul) ..

The best we can get to is a massive contradiction between the words of Christ in Matt and a whole chapter in James - (Brother of Christ and leader of the Jerusalem Church) specifically dealing with the question of works verses faith. ​

To agree with one side is to oppose the other. ​

All you have shown is your opinion of JOHN and PAUL and their writings. No facts, just assumptive/opinions.
Paul wrote in Gal.1:11, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

And Peter attestified, 2Pet.3:15-17, "And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

Why shouldn't John who was beloved of Jesus speak those things which impressed him most in the life and teachings of Jesus. Not only was/is Jesus the Messiah and Redeemer of Mankind, but HE IS THE SON OF THE FATHER---GOD.

The Four Writers of the GOSPELS spoke/wrote the truth of the life and teachings of Jesus as they saw and experienced(Matthew and John) and as eye witnesses had expressed to them(Mark and Luke). ALL they wrote was true and not contradictory---just another piece of the narrative not expressed by another.

You may "oppose the other". However, BOTH are needed to secure heaven for one's self. Faith in the Shed Blood of JESUS CHRIST as the price for redemption and the the Obedience in the Doing of the works which the Father has Willed that one completes.

However, righteous works alone will not suffice.
Titus 3:5-6, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; "

Rom.4:6-8, "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, [Saying], Blessed [are] they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed [is] the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. "

 

[Oryonder]

All you have shown is your opinion of JOHN and PAUL and their writings. No facts, just assumptive/opinions.
"

We can get into the problems with John but it does not matter. The only reason I point out the problems with John and Paul is to be able to choose one side over the other.

What you seem to not want to face up to is that there are two completely different paths to salvation given in the Bible and that these two paths contradict each other.

That you give a bunch of passages supporting your perspective does not change the fact that there is another perspective given in the Bible.

Paul wrote in Gal.1:11, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

And Peter attestified, 2Pet.3:15-17, "And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

You have completely ignored addressing the passages from the Bible I quoted in support of my "Works" perspective.

I have already agreed that the "faith" perspective is also there so there is no need to continue posting material that supports this perspective.

The Four Writers of the GOSPELS spoke/wrote the truth of the life and teachings of Jesus as they saw and experienced(Matthew and John) and as eye witnesses had expressed to them(Mark and Luke). ALL they wrote was true and not contradictory---just another piece of the narrative not expressed by another.

Of course the verses I posted earlier contradict Paul and John. Once speaks of works for salvation .. the other of faith.

You may "oppose the other". However, BOTH are needed to secure heaven for one's self. Faith in the Shed Blood of JESUS CHRIST as the price for redemption and the the Obedience in the Doing of the works which the Father has Willed that one completes.

Not according to the passages from James and Jesus I gave you earlier.

Your quote from Peter does not support your premise.

 

[sincerly]

We can get into the problems with John but it does not matter. The only reason I point out the problems with John and Paul is to be able to choose one side over the other.

Oryonder, There are no "works"(alone) by which one can pay the penalty for sin. The penalty for Sin is death of the individual. Had that means been possible(a persons working to attain salvation), then Jesus Christ would NOT HAVE NEEDED to die on the cross.

Jesus, James, John and Paul ALL speak the same Everlasting Gospel message of Salvation. NO contradiction. All the "Gospel writers" attest to Jesus' death on the Cross.

 

[Oryonder]

Oryonder, There are no "works"(alone) by which one can pay the penalty for sin. The penalty for Sin is death of the individual. Had that means been possible(a persons working to attain salvation), then Jesus Christ would NOT HAVE NEEDED to die on the cross.

Jesus, James, John and Paul ALL speak the same Everlasting Gospel message of Salvation. NO contradiction. All the "Gospel writers" attest to Jesus' death on the Cross.

They do not speak the same message.

The message of James and Jesus is not the same message as Paul.

James spends a whole chapter (James 2) explaining that faith alone will not get you into heaven.

Jesus tells us in the sermon on the mount what is required to get into heaven.

Paul never met Jesus and he seems to know almost nothing about the life of Jesus .. nor did he have much of a relationship with the Church of Jerusalem founded by every living disciple.

 

[sincerly]

They do not speak the same message.

Concerning Salvation and one Denying/accepting The shed Blood of Jesus Christ for the Atonement of one's sins---that is the Gospel Message.

The message of James and Jesus is not the same message as Paul.

James doesn't deny the above.

James spends a whole chapter (James 2) explaining that faith alone will not get you into heaven.

However, neither will "works alone". As James acknowledges his "Faith"

Jesus tells us in the sermon on the mount what is required to get into heaven.

Yes, from Fulfilling those Sacrificial/Ceremonial laws to Keeping the Decalogue(Love to GOD and love to neighbor/Brother)

Paul never met Jesus and he seems to know almost nothing about the life of Jesus .. nor did he have much of a relationship with the Church of Jerusalem founded by every living disciple.

Then you refuse to believe Acts 9:4-16; Gal.1:11-12; 2Pet.3:15-16??

 

[Oryonder]

Concerning Salvation and one Denying/accepting The shed Blood of Jesus Christ for the Atonement of one's sins---that is the Gospel Message.

James doesn't deny the above.

However, neither will "works alone". As James acknowledges his "Faith"

Yes, from Fulfilling those Sacrificial/Ceremonial laws to Keeping the Decalogue(Love to GOD and love to neighbor/Brother)

Then you refuse to believe Acts 9:4-16; Gal.1:11-12; 2Pet.3:15-16??

Of course James denies the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. One Read of James 2 confirms this.

2 Peter is a Pseudepigraph ( Peter did not write it) 2 Peter

What I think about Acts and Galations is not really relevent.

The point is that Paul is contradicted by Jesus and James.

Either Paul is wrong or James and Jesus are wrong. Take your pick.

 

[sincerly]

Of course James denies the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. One Read of James 2 confirms this.

Hi Oryonder, I have read through James several times and the context of Chapter 2.
You are claiming that James is denying that one should have Faith----which he is NOT. None of the Everlasting Gospel excludes Faith from the Salvation process---and that is James' position here. Faith plus the righteousness of the Decalogue. notice (2:5,8)

2 Peter is a Pseudepigraph ( Peter did not write it) 2 Peter
Peter Kirby is wrong in his assessment, but you believe his site if you choose----I don't.

What I think about Acts and Galations is not really relevent.

You have made claims against Paul and they are relavant to disputing those charges.

The point is that Paul is contradicted by Jesus and James.

Either Paul is wrong or James and Jesus are wrong. Take your pick.

I have stated that it is your assessment which is contradictory---not any of the three.
"Works alone" is a denial of Christ's shed Blood as the propitiation of sins---and Christ's death was----therefore---in vain.

 

[Oryonder]

Hi Oryonder, I have read through James several times and the context of Chapter 2.
You are claiming that James is denying that one should have Faith----which he is NOT. None of the Everlasting Gospel excludes Faith from the Salvation process---and that is James' position here. Faith plus the righteousness of the Decalogue. notice (2:5,8)

I never once claim that James denies that one should have faith. Faith in life after death is, in the message of Jesus, and that Jesus is messenger of God/ sent by God and so forth were all part of early Christianity.

What James is saying is that the idea that one can be saved simply on the basis of "Faith" is nonsense. I do not know how he could have made it more clear "Faith with out works is Dead" and so forth.

Jesus too talks about works as being important.

Clearly this idea "salvation purely on faith" was cropping up in some Christian circles, otherwise James would not have spent so much time addressing this specific issue.

Considering what we know about Paul's message, and the disputes between Paul and the Church of Jerusalem, it is not hard to figure out who James is directing this chapter at.

You have made claims against Paul and they are relavant to disputing those charges.

My main claim is that Paul's message differs from that of Jesus and James. What I think of Paul personally matters not to that claim.

Peter Kirby is wrong in his assessment, but you believe his site if you choose----I don't.

You are shooting the messenger here. The claim is that the arguments made by Kummel has caused "all" critical scholars (this is a pretty strong statement) recognize that Peter II is a Pseudepigraph.

Kummel's argument is given.

If you have some material that counters Kummel's argumentI would welcome the opportunity to read it.

Flat out denial without any counter arguments to Kummel's is .. well .. Denial.

I have stated that it is your assessment which is contradictory---not any of the three.

What about my assessment is contradictory ?

"Works alone" is a denial of Christ's shed Blood as the propitiation of sins---and Christ's death was----therefore---in vain

There is so much more to the message of Christ than "Just believe and be saved".

The doctrine of "salvation by faith alone" negates the entirety of the message of Christ.

When Jesus is asked what is required to enter Heaven, he does not say one word about belief in his blood sacrifice. He talks about the Law and doing good works.

 

[punkdbass]

Oryonder, I dont think sincerly is trying to argue that faith alone can save, rather he is arguing that faith and works TOGETHER are required in order to be saved. I think he is arguing that the bible supports this idea, and that it does not support the idea that works alone can save.

Sorry for speaking for you sincerly, but I'm just trying to mediate the debate. Oryonder, how do you think the bible supports the idea that works alone can save? Obviously I agree with your side, but I'm just trying to facilitate the debate.

 

[Oryonder]

Oryonder, I dont think sincerly is trying to argue that faith alone can save, rather he is arguing that faith and works TOGETHER are required in order to be saved. I think he is arguing that the bible supports this idea, and that it does not support the idea that works alone can save.

Sorry for speaking for you sincerly, but I'm just trying to mediate the debate. Oryonder, how do you think the bible supports the idea that works alone can save? Obviously I agree with your side, but I'm just trying to facilitate the debate.

I would agree that some parts of the bible support the idea that faith is a requirement for salvation. (Paul and John).

My argument is that the words of Jesus and James do not seem to suggest that faith "in the blood sacrifice of Jesus" is a requirement for salvation.

The first point is that there is a contradiction between philosophies at minimum, in different parts of the Bible.

My rational for haveing less "faith" in Paul is that he never met Jesus and did not seem to be on the same page as the Church of Jerusalem (James, Peter, and the rest of the disciples)

Johannine material is questionable for a number of reasons .. some of which were discussed earlier.

 

[sincerly]

I would agree that some parts of the bible support the idea that faith is a requirement for salvation. (Paul and John).

Hi Oryonder, Heb.11:6, "But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
What is the "believes"/Faith seen in John 3:16-18? " 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. 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."

Rev.5:9-10, "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. "

John the Baptist attested to Jesus as the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world".(John1:29; Rev.13:8) "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

My argument is that the words of Jesus and James do not seem to suggest that faith "in the blood sacrifice of Jesus" is a requirement for salvation.

Oryounder, you can add your "do not seem" to that of Proverbs 14:12 with the same results. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death. "

The first point is that there is a contradiction between philosophies at minimum, in different parts of the Bible.

Only as they are assumed/speculated to be---by you.

My rational for haveing less "faith" in Paul is that he never met Jesus and did not seem to be on the same page as the Church of Jerusalem (James, Peter, and the rest of the disciples)

Had you not dismissed Gal.1:11-12; 2 Pet.3:15-16; you would have seen the close connection between Paul and Jesus.
In Acts 15, that council agreed with Paul and the teachings Paul got from Jesus.

Johannine material is questionable for a number of reasons .. some of which were discussed earlier.

That is another topic, and just as false as this assumption/speculation on your part.

There is no remission of sins except by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only mediator between the Sinner and GOD THE FATHER.

 

[Oryonder]

I would agree that some parts of the bible support the idea that faith is a requirement for salvation. (Paul and John).

Oryounder, you can add your "do not seem" to that of Proverbs 14:12 with the same results. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death. "

You continue to avoid the parts of the Bible that do not jive with your perspective. Namely .. the Words of James and Jesus.

Im not sure why this is ?

Only as they are assumed/speculated to be---by you.

You have not pointed out where the "assumption/speculation" so this claim is baseless.

Had you not dismissed Gal.1:11-12; 2 Pet.3:15-16; you would have seen the close connection between Paul and Jesus.
In Acts 15, that council agreed with Paul and the teachings Paul got from Jesus.

I have not dismissed Galations.
I have given support for my claims about Peter. You have not provided any rebuttle other than abject denial.

Even if you had however, this would not change the central premise that the "salvation by faith alone" doctrine is contradicted by James and Jesus.

That is another topic, and just as false as this assumption/speculation on your part.

There is no remission of sins except by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only mediator between the Sinner and GOD THE FATHER.

First off .. if you are going to claim that something is a "false" then you need to give some support for this claim. Otherwise it is just like a Hari Krishna standing on the street corner chanting the same thing over and over again hoping that repitition will make it true.

Im not sure if you noticed but all of your responses consist of abject denial/no substance. You completely ignored Post 110 as well.

You quoted Proverbs but I would reference the words of Jesus where he says that ones foundation should be built on "Rock" as opposed to sand (abject denial of anything that conflicts with your belief is akin to a foundation of sand .. a solid foundation can withstand any questions)

I would also encourage you to read Ecclesiastes and Proverbs where it councils one to seek knowledge .. and also the words of Jesus "seek and you will find".

 

[punkdbass]

Im not sure if you noticed but all of your responses consist of abject denial/no substance. You completely ignored Post 110 as well.

Yeah... this is how "debating" with sincerly goes, it's kind of frustrating.

 

[Oryonder]

Yeah... this is how "debating" with sincerly goes, it's kind of frustrating.

This is understandable.

Religion was long ago recognized as an effective tool to control the "raging masses"
Like any tool, religion can be used for good or evil.

Egyptians had the concept of Maat. Maat, like Karma, was a force that bound all things together. It represented upholding the laws of justice harmony, unity and balance.

The Egyptians believed that at the end of days ones deeds in life were weighed on the scales of Justice. If you were found to light you were fed to a monster and that was it.

The evolution of the concept of some kind of punishment in the afterlife and the introduction of the "fear factor" increases the effectiveness of religion as a means of control.

Zoroastrianism has the concept of everlasting punishment in Hell. Christianian dogma also relies heavily on "the fear factor". Don't question, believe or suffer. This combination of enforced ignorance (don't question) coupled with fear of eternal punishment was a fantastic way to subdue the masses.

Divine right, Pontifex Maximus, codify the ideas that some human speaks for God so you better not question anything that person says.

Should you question you will face the possitility of not only earthly suffering but eternal suffering.

Children raised from birth in this doctrine have a build in subconscious aversion to questioning certain religious beliefs so a high percentage dont.

Satan was introduced as the ultra evil sadistic fellow that oversee's hell. This character and demonic images serve to cement the "fear factor" into the minds of adherents.

The next evolution of the "fear factor" was the Quran. On almost ever second page you will find .. Do this and suffer, Dont do this and risk the eternal fire .. over and over .. in many different varients the Quran reminds adherents what awaits should one not believe and obey.

It is not easy to overcome the intense subconscious aversion to thoughts and ideas contrary to the pillars of some belief systems. If even one tenet is shown to be false, or even suspect, the whole foundation collapses. Most people indoctrinated by fear are far to scared to risk this and so they go into denial mode.

Sometimes, control techniques used are often sophisticated and intended. (Not all churches do this but some do .. most commonly Evangelical and Pentacostal denominations)

For those indoctrinated as children the odds are high that they will not ever have the strength to question certain ideas.

 

[Bob Dixon]

It is not easy to overcome the intense subconscious aversion to thoughts and ideas contrary to the pillars of some belief systems. If even one tenet is shown to be false, or even suspect, the whole foundation collapses. Most people indoctrinated by fear are far to scared to risk this and so they go into denial mode.

Sometimes, control techniques used are often sophisticated and intended. (Not all churches do this but some do .. most commonly Evangelical and Pentacostal denominations)

For those indoctrinated as children the odds are high that they will not ever have the strength to question certain ideas.

This is why some say religion is poison. And, in some ways, it is. But let's remember one of the most important rules of toxicology: there is no poison, only dose.

 

[Oryonder]

This is why some say religion is poison. And, in some ways, it is. But let's remember one of the most important rules of toxicology: there is no poison, only dose.

Even Athiests grant that much of the message of Jesus has merit. I think much, if not most of the poison comes from man twisting the message to suit an agenda.

In this way, the message itself becomes poisoned.

 

[Bob Dixon]

Even Athiests grant that much of the message of Jesus has merit. I think much, if not most of the poison comes from man twisting the message to suit an agenda.

In this way, the message itself becomes poisoned.

Precisely. A little poison may even do it some good. Afterlife beliefs help a lot of people. But too much of that stuff poisons you.

 

[Shermana]

Precisely. A little poison may even do it some good. Afterlife beliefs help a lot of people. But too much of that stuff poisons you.

I think a little differently.

I think when "Christians" (and Jews) stopped believing in what was a nearly-universal ancient belief in the Afterlife (the Chasids are a great example of ancient Jewish afterlife beliefs in reincarnation living on), they lost a major motivator for morality. Even with the desire to serve the Father, without belief in a life after this one, things become....more...present if you know what I mean. A little more "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" rather than "Live righteously even until death for tomorrow we may be reborn".

Part of the problem is compounded by what I consider "incorrect' views of the Afterlife, such as the typical Orthodox Christian view of eternal heaven and hell. I don't think Jesus intended the word Aionos to be "eternal" as opposed to "age-like" a in a period of time regarding both heaven and hell. But I do believe that the ultimately wicked will be sealed in Tartarus after many unrepentant chances at life.

Even then, the Jewish idea of the "World to come" I think is very accurate and close to the Millenial Reign concept in Revelation (which was arguably written and used originally by anti-Pauline Jewish Christians, Pagels is not the only one to say this)