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

[Oryonder]

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

In some parts perhaps but definately not on the issue of salvation by faith.

You seem to want to dismiss James .. do you also dismiss the sermon on the mount ?

This is easy:

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

Disciples of Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Confucious and every other messenger who preached the same message.

 

[Shermana]

You've earned 10 Internetz, Oryander. My opinion of you has risen sharply, I can look past our differences on the historical foundation...for now.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You seem to want to dismiss James .. do you also dismiss the sermon on the mount ?

I don't dismiss either, but especially not the sermon on the mount.

 

[Oryonder]

You've earned 10 Internetz, Oryander. My opinion of you has risen sharply, I can look past our differences on the historical foundation...for now.

Good and thanks.. thats a start. I do not always get it right but I do try and justify my perspective with evidence.

If there is evidence to the contrary then I am open to that too.

 

[Oryonder]

I don't dismiss either, but especially not the sermon on the mount.

The sermon on the mount gives a salvation by works recipie. If you do not dismiss this recipie then you must dismiss Paul's recipie of "salvation by faith alone".

My guess is that Paul had not heard of the famous sermon of Jesus. Paul does not seem to know much at all about the life of Jesus.

 

[Bob Dixon]

The sermon on the mount gives a salvation by works recipie. If you do not dismiss this recipie then you must dismiss Paul's recipie of "salvation by faith alone".

My guess is that Paul had not heard of the famous sermon of Jesus. Paul does not seem to know much at all about the life of Jesus.

My question is, if Paul was writing so soon after Jesus and, supposedly, had knowledge of him, why is Jesus not quoted all the time in those letters?

 

[Scuba Pete]

The sermon on the mount gives a salvation by works recipie.

O rly? I don't see it as works based at all. Most of it was showing them how they completely misunderstood God and the Law. Then there are those true gems like

Matthew 5:44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. NIV

It sounds like Jesus was preaching love from the onset. Yeah, I don't see how anyone could get a works faith out of Matthew 5, 6 or 7.

 

[Bob Dixon]

O rly? I don't see it as works based at all. Most of it was showing them how they completely misunderstood God and the Law. Then there are those true gems like

Matthew 5:44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. NIV

It sounds like Jesus was preaching love from the onset. Yeah, I don't see how anyone could get a works faith out of Matthew 5, 6 or 7.

Please don't misunderstand. No one here is saying that Jesus DID NOT preach love.
He did. That's not what we're arguing, though.

 

[Oryonder]

My question is, if Paul was writing so soon after Jesus and, supposedly, had knowledge of him, why is Jesus not quoted all the time in those letters?

This is a large conundrum. Paul seems oblivious to some of the main things that Jesus taught .. and seems to know very little of the life or stories of Jesus.

One possibility is that the synoptics had not yet been written. The earliest is Mark and it is dated 65-80 AD at the earliest. This is after the supposed time

Considering Paul is thought to have died around 67 AD he was probably dead by the time Mark was being written.

There were many different Christian traditions in the early days. Pauline, Johannine, that which followed from the Church of Jerusalem, Gnostism and so on.

After the Jewish rebellion and destruction of the temple around 70 AD there were likely even more scism's.

By the time the Bible was put together under Constantine there were a large number of different Christian writings.

Origin had a large library and this was what Eusebius used to put the Bible together.

Unfortunately we do not have any of these original texts which is very odd. Why would the Church, having power for the first time in its history, have not kept any of the original Gospels.

My guess is that many of the originals deviated from the first Bibles and so they were torched.

 

[Shermana]

My guess is that many of the originals deviated from the first Bibles and so they were torched.

I have often said this, and am often accused of "Conspiracy Theory".

 

[Oryonder]

I have often said this, and am often accused of "Conspiracy Theory".

How is it possible that we have Zero .. Nada .. Nothing, of any of the originals used in the creation of the first Bibles ?

This is crazy if you think about it. Why would they not have treasured like gold the only historical documentation in existence.

Eusebius goes to great lengths (some say including forgery .. such as the spurious additions to Josephus) to prove the legitimacy of Jesus. Others go to great lengths to counter claims from folks such as celcus against Christianity.

Eusebius cited from many documents and talked of a massive library that Origen kept.

We have none. Why ??

If some other empire had come and destroyed all this precious material it would be recorded. We have all kinds of records for the destruction of knowledge that the Church deemed unacceptable for over 1000 years.

Why is there no record of the most important of documents being destroyed ??

There was no foreign power that took over .. never mind take over and destroy "ALL" of this documentation.

We have not a scrap of any of this original documentation that was kept by the Church.. nor does the Church say anything about these documents being destroyed.

There is only one plausible conclusion. The Church destroyed these original documents.

We can argue about the why .. but there are no other plausible conclusions.

 

[Shermana]

What's also interesting, besides the early documents being totally and completely missing, there are 5 centuries of manuscripts missing between around 500-1000. Were they all lost in one big fire or something?

Indeed, I do in fact believe the Church took great pains to eliminate or horde any and all traces of the early copies that might possibly clash with their own "official" documents. I also think they may have edited and destroyed parts of works that were too infamous to outright eliminate like Wulfias's Arian Gothic Bible, I find it coincidental that the first few chapters of John are gone, but that might be pushing it, could be wear and tear.

I've also suggested that they may exist in some Vatican vault or in the Vatican Library or something that will never see the light of day until they lose their control over it, I get called for "Conspiracy Theory" on that one too. But apparently Napoleon had to conquer them in order for the world to have access to the Vaticanus, so....

(And not to mention that many of the manuscripts findings happen to be hidden in monasteries).

 

[Oryonder]

What's also interesting, besides the early documents being totally and completely missing, there are 5 centuries of manuscripts missing between around 500-1000. Were they all lost in one big fire or something?

Indeed, I do in fact believe the Church took great pains to eliminate or horde any and all traces of the early copies that might possibly clash with their own "official" documents. I also think they may have edited and destroyed parts of works that were too infamous to outright eliminate like Wulfias's Arian Gothic Bible, I find it coincidental that the first few chapters of John are gone, but that might be pushing it, could be wear and tear.

I've also suggested that they may exist in some Vatican vault or in the Vatican Library or something that will never see the light of day until they lose their control over it, I get called for "Conspiracy Theory" on that one too. But apparently Napoleon had to conquer them in order for the world to have access to the Vaticanus, so....

(And not to mention that many of the manuscripts findings happen to be hidden in monasteries).

Calling someone out for "conspiracy theory" with no justification is ad hom.

Occam's razor would apply IMO. Selection, among competing hypothesis, that which makes the fewist assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation.

In this case, what are the other plausible explanations for not one shred of the original documents to have been kept ?

 

[Jainarayan]

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?

1. Accepted.

2. Accepted (sure, why not? many things we can't explain).

3. Denied. The most he is, is a person sent by God to teach and to reform the religion of his time, which had become mindlessly ritualistic. Much as Buddha did when he decried the rituals of the Vedas as being ends in themselves. Btw, Sri Krishna had some unkind words for the ritualism of the Vedas also.

Jesus is the Christian's mediator with the Father and the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through Jesus. He is the ONLY way. If a person deny's Christ, He will deny them to the Father and there will be no way to enter heaven.

Denying Him...is by saying, that there are “other ways” to enter Heaven. Jews, Muslims, elected leaders...do not like to hear this. I understand...if I were Jewish or a Muslim...I'd be the same way.

That's too literal a reading, something Christian writers have been guilty of since the 2nd century CE. Jesus taught A way that was palatable to the people he was addressing.

However...this is plainly what the Christian Bible says...like it or not.

Actually it doesn't say that at all.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Green Kepi
Jesus is the Christian's mediator with the Father and the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through Jesus. He is the ONLY way. If a person deny's Christ, He will deny them to the Father and there will be no way to enter heaven.

Denying Him...is by saying, that there are “other ways” to enter Heaven. Jews, Muslims, elected leaders...do not like to hear this. I understand...if I were Jewish or a Muslim...I'd be the same way.

That's too literal a reading, something Christian writers have been guilty of since the 2nd century CE. Jesus taught A way that was palatable to the people he was addressing.

"To literal a reading"? That is the theme of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.
"Palatable to the people HE was addressing"?? Jesus came to HIS own people and they Rejected HIM. Jesus taught the truth concerning the Salvation of all peoples. And the world population(as a whole) is still rejecting HIM.

Nobody comes to the Father except through Jesus. He is the ONLY way. If a person deny's Christ, He will deny them to the Father and there will be no way to enter heaven.

Actually it doesn't say that at all.

Yes, the scriptures do say that fact.---You may not want to believe those truths, but John 3:16-21; 14:6, are there for one to see and understand. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

 

[F0uad]

Jesus is the Christian's mediator with the Father and the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through Jesus. He is the ONLY way. If a person deny's Christ, He will deny them to the Father and there will be no way to enter heaven.

The highlighted area is not found in the verse also the verse could have mean different things. That they will go to heaven true Jesus(p) as the Jews would go to heaven true Moses(p) at that time and Muslims true Mohammed(saws). This heaven can be reached by following the messengers as all three instructed to do so. Where did Jesus(p) claim to be divine or god and actually says: ''I AM GOD or A PART OF GOD or WORSHIP ME'' nowhere in the entire bible surlely if he was there would be ONE simple verse saying it.

Denying Him...is by saying, that there are “other ways” to enter Heaven. Jews, Muslims, elected leaders...do not like to hear this. I understand...if I were Jewish or a Muslim...I'd be the same way.

Since when do Muslims deny him, heck you cannot even be a Muslim if you deny him. You cannot ask us to follow a book that is written by anonymous writers who were Greek.

"To literal a reading"? That is the theme of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.
"Palatable to the people HE was addressing"?? Jesus came to HIS own people and there Rejected HIM. Jesus taught the truth concerning the Salvation of all peoples. And the world population(as a whole) is still rejecting HIM.

Where did he say that he would die for the others, where did he say he would take the sins of all? Where did he say i will be crucified for the sack of humanity?

Yes, the scriptures do say that fact.---You may not want to believe those truths, but John 3:16-21; 14:6, are there for one to see and understand. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Why mention something twice?

 

[Me Myself]

Matthew 10:33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.


2 Tim 2:12 If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us.


Jesus is the Christian's mediator with the Father and the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through Jesus. He is the ONLY way. If a person deny's Christ, He will deny them to the Father and there will be no way to enter heaven.


Denying Him...is by saying, that there are “other ways” to enter Heaven. Jews, Muslims, elected leaders...do not like to hear this. I understand...if I were Jewish or a Muslim...I'd be the same way.


However...this is plainly what the Christian Bible says...like it or not.


So understanding what denying Christ is all about is of live saving importance. Take it or leave it....

I agree, if you deny Jesus, you cannot go to Heaven. That said, denying Jesus means not helping your brothers, because Jesus is anyone who needs help.

So even if you deny a man that lived 2000 years ago and was a carpenter and all that, if you are good to your brothers, you are still helping Jesus when he needs it the most, and you can still go to heaven through him, because of the good acts you have done to your fellow men and women. Jesus is all of us. Furthermore, no one can know himself throughly without being a compassionate an moral person, because Jesus also said that we are all Gods.

So, to better know our Godhood, we must act as Jesus did, and through our actions that manifest our christhood, we can achieve our own divinity. Be one with the Father, as this is what the son of man can do, and all of us are the sons of man, all of us are gods.

All of this is part of Christ´s message, although it is the most ignored part.

 

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by Green Kepi

"To literal a reading"? That is the theme of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.
"Palatable to the people HE was addressing"?? Jesus came to HIS own people and there Rejected HIM. Jesus taught the truth concerning the Salvation of all peoples. And the world population(as a whole) is still rejecting HIM.

Yes, palatable. For centuries the Jewish people were ruled by a religious elite. He used metaphors and allegories to teach universal truths. The problem is that those who believe in a literal interpetation of the bible from start to finish miss the whole message and don't see the forest for the trees. As a non-Christian, I get more out of the bible's messages than a lot of Christians do. The same can be said for non-Christian writers.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

So what does that mean? Could that not mean that one could not know God or how to reach God without Jesus's teachings? Until Jesus appeared the Jewish people were ruled by mindlessly ritualistic priests and Pharisees who put rituals above devotion to God. Buddha did the same thing when the rituals of the Vedas became an end in themselves, and people forgot the real truths in them.

Read some commentaries by writers that have no stake in Christianity and are completely unbiased and disinterested. Unfortunately that would shake the foundations of what Christian literalists believe.

Christianity has a lot to offer, but people don't know where to look.

 

[Oryonder]

Originally Posted by Green Kepi
Jesus is the Christian's mediator with the Father and the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through Jesus. He is the ONLY way. If a person deny's Christ, He will deny them to the Father and there will be no way to enter heaven.

Yes, the scriptures do say that fact.---You may not want to believe those truths, but John 3:16-21; 14:6, are there for one to see and understand. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Jesus talks on numerous occasions about being the "Judge" at the end of days.

In order to get into heaven you have to go through Jesus, but the standards set are on the basis of works. (see Matt 25 and Matt 5)

Johannine tradition is much later (not written by John) and is Pseudo Pauline.

Paul never did meet Christ and deviates so greatly from Markan material that they can not both be correct.

Paul also does not seem to know much about the life of Christ. Therefor I default to Markan scripture which is more in keeping with James, brother of Christ and leader of the Church of Jerusalem.

 

[sincerly]

Where did Jesus(p) claim to be divine or god and actually says: ''I AM GOD or A PART OF GOD or WORSHIP ME'' nowhere in the entire bible surlely if he was there would be ONE simple verse saying it.

There are numerous passages of persons "worshiping Jesus"---from lepers to young rulers.(Jesus didn't correct them and say worship is due only GOD. However, when tempted by Satan, Jesus did say one should worship only GOD.) The Father acknowledged Jesus as HIS beloved SON several times during Jesus ministery. The Angel Gabriel which appeared to Mary was, no doubt, the same a was sent to Joseph and exclaimed that the Baby Jesus was to be named Emmanuel=="GOD with us"...."HE shall save HIS people from their sins".

Since when do Muslims deny him, heck you cannot even be a Muslim if you deny him. You cannot ask us to follow a book that is written by anonymous writers who were Greek.

Denied as the SON of GOD; Denied as dying upon the Cross; Denied as being the propitiation for the sins of the world(Everyone).
As far as the BIBLE, all those writers were Jews who wrote in the Greek language, because that Empire preceeded the Now ruling Roman Empire.
The "Everlasting Gospel" remains the same principles and truth from the Creator GOD from the Creation of this world/earth until GOD Creates the "new heavens and new earth". Obey or "deny" it---along with(promised) "the Lamb of GOD slain from before the foundation of the world".

Where did he say that he would die for the others, where did he say he would take the sins of all? Where did he say i will be crucified for the sack of humanity?

Matt.20:25-28, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many".
Luke 24:27, 44-48, "And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things."

Why mention something twice?

It seems humanity has a hard time even understanding the "thus saith the Lord GOD".