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

[Shermana]

That's when I believe he lived of course. I go by the Septuagint dating.

 

[Oryonder]

Oryonder, In Matthew and Mark Jesus speaks of the future destruction of the Temple(which did happen in AD 70). Had the Gospel writers written those Gospels after AD 70 and the destruction they would not have ignored the fact of Jesus predicting it.

The Gospel of Mark site by Peter kirby admits that some dates are debatable.

Mark does indeed talk about Jesus predictions .. as does Matt. Unfortunately these predictions do not come true.

This has nothing to do with the references in Mark to events during the Jewish revolt and subsequent destruction of the temple.

Clearly you did not take the time to read the numerous citations from folks who have actually written books on the subject.

The dates that are debated are from 65 to 80 AD. 50-60 AD is out of the question.

Right!, "are/is thought"----that equates to some truth and a hardy mixture of assumptions and out-right falseness. A deadly mixture. Right out of the Garden of Eden's serpent's "play-book

It is not known exactly when Mark was written but it is clear that the disciple "Mark" did not write the Gospel of Mark.

That Matt and Luke used Mark as a source document is agreed upon by most Biblical scholars. .. the debate mostly centers around whether or not this mysterious hypothetical document Q was used.

 

[sincerly]

I do not know where you got 50-60 AD because none of the Gospels are throught to be that early. References to the destruction of the Temple in both Mark and John mean that they could not have possibly been written that early.

Mark at the earliest is around 70 AD ..

Oryonder, that is Peter Kirby's evaluation. I saw another site which reviewed 71 scholars and they ranged from 40 AD to 70 AD with an average of estimation at 59 A.D.
Jesus perdicted that the temple would be destroyed. None of the Gospels nor the Epistles confirm nor allude to the destruction of the Temple which occurred in 70 A.D. There were verses which confirmed that HIS time had not yet come, etc. So Why should one NOT affirm the destruction which was prophesied, if it had been accomplished priour to their writings??(acknowledging it would happen their lifetime.)

and Matt and Luke are thought to have used Mark and Q as source documents.

There are a lot of "Scholarly writings" which are false in their conclusions.

John is thought to have been written much later.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke write about the destruction of the temple, John does Not , nor does he speak of it being done in his writings/epistles/Revelation.

 

[Shermana]

Mark does indeed talk about Jesus predictions .. as does Matt. Unfortunately these predictions do not come true.

This has nothing to do with the references in Mark to events during the Jewish revolt and subsequent destruction of the temple.

Clearly you did not take the time to read the numerous citations from folks who have actually written books on the subject.

The dates that are debated are from 65 to 80 AD. 50-60 AD is out of the question.




It is not known exactly when Mark was written but it is clear that the disciple "Mark" did not write the Gospel of Mark.

That Matt and Luke used Mark as a source document is agreed upon by most Biblical scholars. .. the debate mostly centers around whether or not this mysterious hypothetical document Q was used.

The predictions come true if you don't view them as end of the entire world but end of the age in the region of eretz Israel.

When I said that the gospels were composed possibly around 35, I was referring to what may have been the original source document. Such as "Gospel to the Hebrews" which is most likely the proto-Matthew, if not "Q" itself. I agree that the final version of "Mark" was not by Mark, but it may have been influenced by Peter.

 

[sincerly]

Shall I say "once again"?? A contradiction is seen in your "It appears" and "In fact". Like other critics, the "interpolations" come from them. Bernard Muller's comments are those of one who has as his goal to debunk the Truths as shown by GOD in the Scriptures/writings of the NT.(The fulfillment of the OT Prophecies/instructions for a right living in relationship to the Creator GOD and one's fellow beings.)

Okay, so basically a "Nuh uh". And Bernard Muller's goal is to present accuracy of how John was compiled. I understand you may think that anyone who tries to do scholarly work may be working against "Truths as shown by GOD", but your tactics of shucking such work without any real textual basis and making up a timeline probably will not be convincing anyone.

That "complicalition" is by the same principle as was the serpent's/Satan's in the Garden of eden. And the Jewish Leader's with their "traditions and commandments made by them/(rather than continue in the Principles given by GOD for the Righteous ways of living in harmony with GOD and fellow Being.).

Okay so you agree that he met at Galilee first. SO then you'd think they wouldn't be shocked at his ressurrection the next time in the Locked Room.

No!, I didn't "agree" with that false conclusion. Your comprehension is faulty in that assumption.
Did the Israelites go into the promised land at the appointed time? NO! The same type of disbelief prevailed in the "upper room"as was a kadish-Barnea. Therefore, There was a lingering before the fulfillment.
Human minds had to be changed just as was seen with Pharaoh, and the prince of Persia(Dan.10:13) withstooding the Angel meeting with Daniel.
There was no specifying of that "some doubted" by Matthew. HIS resurrection is assumned by you. However, in Acts 1:6, one sees a preception which has plagued the Disciples in many aspects concerning themselves and the mission of Jesus Christ---that of "restoring the kingdom of Israel from the Roman Empire".

 

[Oryonder]

The predictions come true if you don't view them as end of the entire world but end of the age in the region of eretz Israel.

When I said that the gospels were composed possibly around 35, I was referring to what may have been the original source document. Such as "Gospel to the Hebrews" which is most likely the proto-Matthew, if not "Q" itself. I agree that the final version of "Mark" was not by Mark, but it may have been influenced by Peter.

In Matt Jesus does say "end of the world" or "end of the age" depending on which translation one uses. Even if we take it as end of the "age" .. the predictions absolutely do not come true. At least not all of them. 1) the Gospel was not preached in all nations, 2) There was no "Tribulation" such has never been seen or ever will be seen, 3) The Sun and Moon were not darkened at the same time nor did the stars fall from the sky, 4) All the Earth did not see Jesus come in the clouds with great power and glory .. and so on (Matt 24)

I also think that there must have been early writings that were used to create the Gospels.

I think what needs to be kept in mind is that there many hands that touched the gospels on their way to what we have now.

The Bible shows evidence of competing beliefs and doctrines, but in the early days there were many more competing doctrines than what the Bible alludes to.

There were many other Gospels that did not make it into the Bible. Part of the reason why certain Gospels were not included was because they did not fit in with the story that the writers of the Bible, 300 years after the fact, wanted to portray.

What was more legitimate pretty much a crap shoot 300 years after the fact.

 

[Shermana]

]That "complicalition" is by the same principle as was the serpent's/Satan's in the Garden of eden. And the Jewish Leader's with their "traditions and commandments made by them/(rather than continue in the Principles given by GOD for the Righteous ways of living in harmony with GOD and fellow Being.).

Ummm, are you even remotely concerned with addressing the actual specifics?

No!, I didn't "agree" with that false conclusion. Your comprehension is faulty in that assumption.

I was being facetecious in pointing out the obvious contradiction.

Did the Israelites go into the promised land at the appointed time? NO! The same type of disbelief prevailed in the "upper room"as was a kadish-Barnea. Therefore, There was a lingering before the fulfillment.

That has nothing to do with the specifics of what I said.

Human minds had to be changed just as was seen with Pharaoh, and the prince of Persia(Dan.10:13) withstooding the Angel meeting with Daniel.

What does that have to do with anything I said specifically?

There was no specifying of that "some doubted" by Matthew. HIS resurrection is assumned by you. However, in Acts 1:6, one sees a preception which has plagued the Disciples in many aspects concerning themselves and the mission of Jesus Christ---that of "restoring the kingdom of Israel from the Roman Empire".

Edit: Are you saying that because it doesn't specify who doubted that this somehow eliminates the clash? How? Why would they still be doubting after seeing him at the locked room?

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted

So thus, the endings of John and Matthew clash, your counter argument is a series of non-sequiturs.

I have yet to see a single person actually resolve the clash between Matthew and John. Probably because it can't be done.

 

[sincerly]

And he says "Let them be one AS we are one",

"As" = 'in the same way that"

Yes, in purpose and actions.







He made him "lord" and "Christ", lower case lord. The word for LORD is a name, it's not a title. Thus, it has to have been "Lord and Christ", as in the same kind of "Lord" that David was. You can't make someone the LORD just like you can't make someone Shermana. Now do you understand what "Christ" would entail in Jewish prophecy?[/quote]

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.[/color]"

The "making" was by "GOD the FATHER". The "kyrios"= Lord/Master: and the "Christos"= Anointed="Mashiyach"="Messiah" and that wasn't "lower case"' because GOD was referring to the "conceived seed of the woman"----HIS SON. Gen.3:16. for the salvation of mankind and the destruction/eradication of Satan and evil/wicked ways from the universe which HE MADE free of evil, but mankind corrupted.

 

[Shermana]

The "making" was by "GOD the FATHER". The "kyrios"= Lord/Master: and the "Christos"= Anointed="Mashiyach"="Messiah" and that wasn't "lower case"' because GOD was referring to the "conceived seed of the woman"----HIS SON. Gen.3:16. for the salvation of mankind and the destruction/eradication of Satan and evil/wicked ways from the universe which HE MADE free of evil, but mankind corrupted.

Can anyone make sense of what this means and how it relates to what I said? I'm trying to figure it out but I can't make heads or tails of it.

 

[sincerly]

Think about it. If God (aka Jesus) decided to allow himself to be crucified .. should we feel sorry for God ? After all it was God who wanted to do this.

Well said, a Trinitarian getting teary eyed about the idea of God willfully sacrificing Himself and trying to get all pushy and preachy with their "He died for YOU" is in my view, not just strange but actually psychotic, like some extremely forced and conditioned emotions. I also wonder where they get this commonly held view that only God's blood that redeem His own creation, scripture says nothing like it yet its such a widespread excuse for the concept.

Not to mention that they casually ignore almost every time the fact that he says "Let YOUR will be done not mine" and "Take this cup from me if YOU will", that equates to that Yashua did NOT want to go to the cross. He did not go completely willingly, he did so out of duty and heavenly requirement.

I can totally understand the idea of sympathizing for someone who was going against his will but had to take orders since he was the guilt offering of Isaiah 53 and had to play into prophecy, but the idea of feeling weepy for God sacrificing himself sounds like ...well, forced emotions.

The emotions one should feel is happiness and relief that one is "set free" by a "Loving, Willing, Creator GOD" who made that way of escape for all who are condemned to death as the results of disobedience to that LOVING GOD.

Shermana, As Jesus said, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed HIM". Those hundreds of years of sacrifices for the Atonement of sins are/were symbolic of the Giving of Christ's blood---instead of the sinner paying the Sin penalty by their own life blood.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, As Jesus said, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed HIM". Those hundreds of years of sacrifices for the Atonement of sins are/were symbolic of the Giving of Christ's blood---instead of the sinner paying the Sin penalty by their own life blood.

Are you incapable of anything but Non-sequiturs? I was not talking about the effect of the Sacrifice itself but the Trinitarian concept and how silly it is for Trinitarians to get all weepy about Christ's sacrifice if He's God, and then I provided a reason why the episode proves Jesus was not God.

Again, I bring up the return to sacrifices in Zechariah 14 which you called "Symbolic" but when asked if you think anything else in Zechariah 14 is symbolic, you shrugged.

Why would Jesus even waste his time talking about making offerings on the altar if his words would be void 2 days later?

The emotions one should feel is happiness and relief that one is "set free"

Why don't you explain what you think it means to be "set free", do you think that means freedom from having to obey rules? Even Paul disagrees with that.

 

[Oryonder]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke write about the destruction of the temple, John does Not , nor does he speak of it being done in his writings/epistles/Revelation.

Then Matt Mark and Luke were all written after 70 AD.

 

[sincerly]

A note on the word "GOdhead", it means "Divinity" as in a quality, not a being itself, like "The Angel had divinity", or rather "godhood" as it means in olde English. The idea that there's something called "The Godhead" which incorporates the 3 persons of the Trinity, I think is a much later invention, even among Trinitarians. The word "Godhead" as far as "Divinity". Strong's doesn't help break this misconception because it probably wants to cater to its Trinitarian audience that has become accustomed to this fabrication and misuse of a Greek word that is otherwise a qualitative noun.

Now one may say that only God has divinity, but then that brings up the question of what "godhood" and "Divinity" means, clearly the angels are called "gods" and "Divine beings".

Strong's numbers(2304) apply to three(Bible) verses referring to "Godhead".
Acts 17:29, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead2304 is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device"

No, It isn't "quality" that verse says "Off-spring"---therefore, as we are Beings--SO IS GOD.
Paul was addressing the people of Athens and their multiple statutes to their gods. Paul addressed them concerning the one dedicated to "The Unknown GOD"--- which Paul declared was the Creator GOD.

2Pet.1:3-4, "According as his divine2304 power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine2304 nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
"
Peter acknowledges The Creator GOD--(2304)(Godhead) and HIS "Divine POWER"/"Nature"-- AND THE "GIVER" to us so that we may PARTAKE FROM THOSE ATRIBUTES.

​

​

 

[Shermana]

Strong's numbers(2304) apply to three(Bible) verses referring to "Godhead".
Acts 17:29, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead2304 is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device"

Other translations use "DIvine". Are you a KJV-onlyist by chance? I also have to ask you if you looked up the Strong's definition to begin with, I am aware that they throw in the fudgy definition at the end that most KJV-onlyists are familiar with to placate their audience, that's part of why Strong's is often taken with a grain of salt, they throw in a few KJV-only translations for good measure to placate their audience.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man.

No, It isn't "quality" that verse says "Off-spring"---therefore, as we are Beings--SO IS GOD.

I'm assuming you didn't bother to look up any other translations than the KJV to get their perspective on what the word means in its other uses? I don't think I understand exactly what your rebuttal here is, which is not the first time. Feel free to explain in depth how being the offspring somehow changes the definition of Godhead from Divine/Divinity to something else.

Paul was addressing the people of Athens and their multiple statutes to their gods. Paul addressed them concerning the one dedicated to "The Unknown GOD"--- which Paul declared was the Creator GOD.

What does that have to do with it?

2Pet.1:3-4, "According as his divine2304 power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine2304 nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

So wait, you are agreeing that it means "Divine" as in a quality by posting this? I think you lost track of what you're doing here.

"
Peter acknowledges The Creator GOD--(2304)(Godhead) and HIS "Divine POWER"/"Nature"-- AND THE "GIVER" to us so that we may PARTAKE FROM THOSE ATRIBUTES.

Thus, "Divine" is the meaning of 'Godhead", which means "godhood", it's a Quality. Just as Angels are called "Divine beings", Angels have "godhead" as well.

Do you not understand how you contradicted yourself and proved my case for me? Thanks for saving me the effort!

​

 

[sincerly]

That Jesus had the powers of "God"/was God the Father is a most confusing thing.

Jesus never clained to be "THE FATHER."

Think about it. If God (aka Jesus) decided to allow himself to be crucified .. should we feel sorry for God ? After all it was God who wanted to do this.

Those who refuse to Obey Jesus "should feel sorry for themselves". Yes, GOD HAS no pleasure in the death of the wicked/disobedient. However, by/through the Father's Love Jesus was the LOVE sacrifice to pay the sin Penalty(death) for all who are willing to die to self and appropiate Jesus' robe of Righteousness in order to be able to stand before the Almighty GOD Redeemed by Jesus shed Blood.
ALL was arranged, in the promise of the "Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world".

It makes no sence to claim that Jesus was God based on the above.

That conclusion is of your own making---As you admonished---"Think about it".

Further, Jesus refer's to "The Father" as someone other than himself countless times.

Sure you can find at most one or two vauge references where, with the aid of some bad interpretation if not interpolation, one could say "perhaps this was what Jesus meant" .. but this stands against a backdrop of numerous direct and unambiguous references from Jesus to God as someone other than himself.

See above.

That Jesus was God's messenger, makes way more sense in relation to the stories about Jesus but also, this is what Jesus himself claims.

The acknowledging by Jesus that HE was sent by the Father and that only what was given by the Father is what HE has taught ny no means denies that Jesus is the SON of GOD---NOR that the Father acknowledged that "This is my beloved son--- hear ye HIM."

 

[F0uad]

Just to throw it out there God-Head doesn't exist in the Greek text. Reading the James King version in the 21century is really silly...

 

[Oryonder]

Jesus never clained to be "THE FATHER."

I agree. So then why does the creed that is cited in the vast majority of Christian churches claim that Jesus is "one substance with the father".

The Trinity doctrine states that Jesus is "The Father".

I take it that you do not believe in the Trinity doctrine ?

 

[Bob Dixon]

Just to throw it out there God-Head doesn't exist in the Greek text. Reading the James King version in the 21century is really silly...

You're right, as a translation, it's no good; there are many better ones.
But it's beautiful, a true classic in the English language.

 

[Shermana]

It's important to recognize that "Godhead" is modern spelling of what was "Godhede" which was "Godhood".

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Jesus never claimed to be "THE FATHER."

I agree. So then why does the creed that is cited in the vast majority of Christian churches claim that Jesus is "one substance with the father".]

Since you acknowlwdge that fact, just possibly you will be able come to comprehend the other truths concerning Jesus Christ as is revealed in the Scriptures. Your choice---accept or "Deny" as the OP asks.

As Jesus declared in John 4:24-26, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am [he]."

NO! that isn't the "Trinity Doctrine".

I take it that you do not believe in the Trinity doctrine ?

A false conclusion on your part.