Truth has nothing to do with it.
Notice that the majority of children raised into Hindoo remain Hindoo, Muslim- Muslim, Christian-Christian, and so on.
Which of the three religions mentioned above is truth ?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does it mean to "deny" Jesus, according to the NT?
- Thread starter punkdbass
- Start date
Truth has nothing to do with it.
Notice that the majority of children raised into Hindoo remain Hindoo, Muslim- Muslim, Christian-Christian, and so on.
Which of the three religions mentioned above is truth ?
punkdbass
I will be what I will be
sincerly said:
I was talking about the New Testament, sorry. Why should I believe it is 100% truth and does not contain the error of man in it? And if the error of man is present in it, how can I know which parts are truth or not?
The JPS translation is very different than the one you gave me for Isaiah 8:20, could you further explain what you mean by that verse? The JPS translation of 8:19-20 seems to be saying that people will say to you to inquire of ghosts and spirits to learn about God... and for such a person there shall be no dawn(light), presumably because they are telling you to do something contrary to God's word, for the Bible commands us to not try to talk to ghosts or spirits.
Bob Dixon
>implying
Are you seriously suggesting that the New Testament is the ultimate source of Christian and Jewish history? Take a course in World Religions (one that includes history), dude. In the meantime, read this article and learn about the events that split Christianity from Judaism and changed it from another school of thought/set of beliefs. It's not as simple as you say.
Split of early Christianity and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look here:
"...at the end of the 1st century CE there were not yet two separate religions called ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity’"
Is that not significant to you at all?
Enjoy! Show them the religion of the earliest Christians. You know. Those within living memory of Jesus.
I disagree. To deny Jesus is to deny his message and/or to deny that his message was inspired.
Finally you have addressed the scripture in question .. Thank you.
Jesus was not referring to "only" sacrifical laws. In fact, the examples Jesus gives have zero to do with anything sacrificial and I do not think Jesus cared to much about these things as evidenced by his statement " It matters not what goes into the mouth but what comes out"
Whether Jesus included "sacrificial laws" is not known. What we know for sure if one believes these words came from Jesus .. is that he is speaking of works and deeds .. not belief in any kind of "blood sacrifice" as you suggest.
Jesus gives examples of what he means right after Matt 18 and it is not what you claim
He is talking about all the laws and then he gives more specific examples.
Deeds, deeds .. and more deeds .. works and more works. Zero about any blood sacrifice.
I do not know where you are getting this "blood sacrifice" idea from bacause it clearly is not the only thing nor the main thing Jesus is referring to.
Hebrews is written by Paul and it is my contention that Paul contradicts Jesus so I do not know why you would bring it up.
Luke 24:27 does not help us at all and 44-48 "while compelling" says nothing about blood sacrifice as a requirement for salvation.
I would also be willing to bet that 44-48 was a later insertion (note that it is almost the last passage of the last Chapter in Luke which should ring alarm bells). It really does not matter however because it is not given as a requirement for salvation and even if it did would still contradict Jesus and James.
It is quite amazing how much human sacrifice was done in the name of El-Yahweh.
I do not know why you would bring this up in relation to the Topic however so lets drop it unless you can connect the dots.
Yes .. Paul contradicts Jesus and James .. I get it.
All the above clearly supports my claim.
"the engrafted/(implanted) word" the message of Jesus which has been given.
It is the message .. and doing what Jesus commands that saves souls.
James states "Lay apart all filthiness and so on" and listen to the message of Jesus. This is about deeds not faith in any blood sacrifice ?
There is no doubt what James is talking about .. no mystery, it is crystal clear and he spends a whole chapter on it. Not some obscure passage that you are trying to make mean something you want it to mean.
James could not be more clear when he asks the very specific question.
"Can faith save him?"
Then after giving further clarification on the use says.
"Faith without works is DEAD"
Prior to discussing the question of "faith" James prefaces "
Do good works .. this is what James is saying and he goes on to give further "transgressions of the law"
And then James talks about " Gods Judgement" James 2:12-13, and that Judgement is by the Law. Zero is said about some requirement for Faith or that Faith will mitigate this Judgement.
In the very next verse however James does talk about Faith. What does he say ?
And just in case folks did not get it the first time he actually says it twice. (verse 17 and verse 20)
James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead"
And here perhaps he is speaking directly to you my good Sincerely.
Notice that James never states that "works without faith is dead"
He does speak about the OT just in case you wanted to claim support from there.
Abraham, according to James was "justified by works", not by faith.
You then go on to quote a bunch of Pauline material which says the opposite.
Clearly James is speaking against the Pauline ideas that were floating around and just in case folks did not get it the first or second time .. he repeats it a third time after stating how the harlot Rahab was justified by "works"
James 2:26 "faith without works is dead"
3 times in one chapter.
James is not in agreement with the doctrine of salvation by faith .. Period.
He is however in agreement with the message of Jesus and he had faith in the message of Jesus and that Jesus was inspired/sent by God.
Last edited:
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Please give the locations of those Zech. and Ezek. verses.
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Oryonder,
"Hinduism lacks any unified system of beliefs and ideas" (from search of Hindu tenents.)
Therefore, no set facts or standards to evaluate errors of the tenents.
Muslim/Islam is a corruption of the JudeoChristian religion.
Christianity is an extension/fulfillment of the Prophecies of the OT and extends to the end of time. Showing that the CREATOR GOD'S "words/vocal and written" are Truth.
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Punkdbass, the same Isa.8:20 applies to the NT. Didn't you read my, ""That admonition is in regards to any source---wizards, false prophets, so-called-scholars, the "wisdom of man","false philosophies", etc. Any who go counter to the "Thus saith the LORD GOD", will be denied the priviledge of being in that "new heavens and new earth" which Isa.66:22-23 is promised by GOD to make.
Bob Dixon
>implying
A Muslim would say that the "Judeo-Christian" religion is a corruption of the original Islam. How do you know you're right and he's wrong?
I'll give you the answer: the same way he "knows" he's right and you're wrong.
Shermana
Heretic
I agree that Christianity is the fulfillment of the Prophecies of the OT.
I completely disagree that it's the non_Jewish Pauline "orthodox" version.
I also think its very possible Islam was originally almost exactly similar to Messianic Judaism (including many ancient apocryphal and Rabbinical concepts entailed) in terms of practices and beliefs, and the texts were distorted by Uthman and others who wanted to create a more "Arabized" version, just like how the gentiles "gentilized" the otherwise totally Jewish Gospels.
sincerly
Well-Known Member
BOB, are you seriusly believing wikipedia?? When it's "editors" have more debates concerning what is OK by their rules to agree upon. Even that article is "incomplete".
However,
Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Bob,I see LFH answered you post before I read it.
I don't see in any of the epistles where those who Believed in the "followers of the way"(initially) or when those were latter called "Christians" ever made animal sacrifices. Perhaps you have a verse to that effect?
Yes, the Jews and the Followers of Jesus continued to "worship togather" just as Jesus had prior to HIS Crucifixion. The Truth of the OT Scriptures had not changed.
It was the Jewish people who had rejected Jesus---the Messiah and HIS Mission which was revealed in those OT writings.
The Disciples were continuing to reveal to the congregate those truths which Jesus taught as revealed in the writings which the Jews claimed to Believe.
Those OT writings revealed Jesus as the true Sacrifice(Luke 24:27, 44-48)----a truth valid even today.
Where are the animal sacrifices made by Christ's followers/Believers after the Resurrection.??
Shermana
Heretic
Start with Ezekiel 40:38-43, 43:18-27.
Feel free to explain when you think this takes place or if you think this was intended to have some non-literal metaphorical meaning or something and what it was.
Zechariah 14:20-21
[/URL]
Interesting, there will also be no Canaanites in that day. How racist of Jesus!!
punkdbass
I will be what I will be
So basically your saying the way for me to know if the NT, or any book/teaching for that matter is "truth" depends on whether or not it contradicts God's will. So for me, as a Jew, to determine whether or not certain parts of the NT are "truth" I need to see if they are contrary to the teachings in the Tanakh, which is basically what I have been doing all along.
Is that your advice for me when trying to decide which parts of the NT carry truth? or am I still misunderstanding you?
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Oryonder, James is in agreement with the other NT writers and the OT.
However, your twisted version places James as being the only writing to believe in the whole of the Bible. Therefore, you deny Jesus as well----while acknowledging that Jesus was sent by GOD with a message( and a mission---to be the propitiation for the sins of all mankind.)
Shermana
Heretic
Did he say that James was the only writing to believe in the whole of the Bible? Or are you confusing "Whole of the bible" with "Doctrine of faith"?
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Bob,The GOD who Lead the people of Abraham out of Egypt and Spoke to that Group from Sinai Issued Laws, Judgements, Commandments, Ordinances, etc, which were recorded. Those recordings, also, included the history and their relationship with GOD by those people. Just a brief comparison of Islam(origin some 675 years after the Resurrection of Jesus) and that recorded history shows the distortion by Islam and its claim of corruption by Jews and Christians.
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Shermana, Paul was the writer/or voice being transcribed of most of the epistles placed/seen in the NT, But the principles written are those seen in the OT. just as was Jesus----"Search the Scriptures" and Paul(Acts 17:11),"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
Also, Acts 24:14, " 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:"
The only "scriptures" at that time was the OT.
Shermana
Heretic
Most of the Roman Canon. But what does that matter? There are many books that are called "Apocryphal" which I go by which Paul did not write, yet the Roman orthodox did not accept. Why are they wrong but Paul's inclusion was justified? Perhaps you can explain why just because most of the Epistles in the Roman Canon are by Paul that it necessarily proves Paul was correct, that would be an extreme logic fail. DO you believe majority opinion = correct?
Maybe you'd like to chime in on the Paul vs Jesus threads if you want to get into it in more detail.
What does that have to do with what I said at all? The principles were 100% Jewish, thus the "orthodox" gentile schism beliefs from a century later would be completely heretical to the ideas that the Bereans were hearing.
Okay, so what does that have to do with what I said?
And what does that have to do with what I said now? BTW, apparently they went by other texts like Enoch and Assumption of Moses if we are to take Jude's word seriously.
Last edited:
You have just proven my point. The truth or lack therof is irrelevent to what people believe via religious indoctrination.
Your have not addressed any of the relevent Biblical evidence I presented because you can't.
Restating your premise over and over again does nothing to support your claim. Calling my version "twisted" without stating why does not support your claim.
Denial and self delusion does not help your case either.
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Hi Shermna, I apologize for the lateness in getting back to you on this point.
You had Included Christians as making animal sacrifices In the last days. and used Ezekiel and Zechariah as proof.
Ezek.40:1 shows that the Israelites had 45+ years yet to spend in Babylonian captivity. Ezekiel"vision had to do with the rebuilding of the temple which had been destroyed. That reconstruction was to be accomplished under Nehemiah's commission/actions/work.
Of course, the Returning Israelites were to/did Sacrifice Animals; Jesus and the Crucifixion was almost 500 in the future.
Ezek.43:18-27, speaks of the priests duties in that reconstructed and reordained temple.
Zechariah 14:20-21 covers a period of 37 Years of events during the initial years of Darius, the Medes reign.
Zech.14:1-3 tells about overthrow of Jerusalem during that Babylonian captivity. However,4-11 is a prophecy of Jesus Second Coming and the Preparation for the New JERUSALEM.(Rev.20:7-9; 21:2)
(16-21) Is the "Remnant" of all the peoples of the world who have ever been born will sacrifice before the Lord. (See also, Isa.66:22-23)
Since Isa.11:9; 65:25, declare, "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain", What is the sacrifice seen here----Jer.33:11, "The voice of joy, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that shall say, Praise the LORD of hosts: for the LORD [is] good; for his mercy [endureth] for ever: [and] of them that shall bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the LORD. For I will cause to return the captivity of the land, as at the first, saith the LORD".
Seen, also, in Heb.13:15, "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name".
Last edited: