Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him
Matthew 10:33
Quote:
"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
So Luke says if I speak against Jesus by saying, "I don't believe Jesus was divine" I will be forgiven for that per Luke 12:10, but if I say, "I don't believe Jesus was divine" I will NOT be forgiven because Jesus will then deny me before the Father. Or can Jesus deny me before his Father and God will still not judge me? Which again doesn't make sense because why does Jesus even have to draw the Father into it because in Matthew 28:18 Jesus said
Quote:
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
So if Jesus has been given all authority, presumably that includes the power to forgive sins, so Jesus shouldn't even be dragging the Father into it as he does in Matthew 10:33.
As I and others have said, contradictions in the gospels can be found all over the place if you just take off the rose-colored glasses and read the Bible critically.
It's an easy question, there is forgiveness of the denial of Christ (as in the case of Peter) with God. As opposed to the sin against the Holy Spirit which Christ is referring to straight after I think.
But there are consequences of the denial of Christ for which He warns, though forgiveness is possible, Peter first wept bitterly before he was restored by Jesus. When we seek the honour of men more than confessing Christ, He will deny us (having a relationship with us - because we denied our relationship with Him out of fear of men) before the Father, but that's not to say forgiveness is out of the question.
Jesus also said that He would pray that Peter's faith would not fail, and though it was shaking at the very core, his faith didn't fail in the end. So I think the kind of denial Christ is talking about in Mat.10:33 isn't a moment of weakness of a sincere believer, for which He will pray for restoration.. but more like the kind of structural denial Judas for example exhibited.
It's an easy question, there is forgiveness of the denial of Christ (as in the case of Peter) with God. As opposed to the sin against the Holy Spirit which Christ is referring to straight after I think.
But there are consequences of the denial of Christ for which He warns, though forgiveness is possible, Peter first wept bitterly before he was restored by Jesus. When we seek the honour of men more than confessing Christ, He will deny us (having a relationship with us - because we denied our relationship with Him out of fear of men) before the Father, but that's not to say forgiveness is out of the question.
Jesus also said that He would pray that Peter's faith would not fail, and though it was shaking at the very core, his faith didn't fail in the end. So I think the kind of denial Christ is talking about in Mat.10:33 isn't a moment of weakness of a sincere believer, for which He will pray for restoration.. but more like the kind of structural denial Judas for example exhibited.
There's a problem with your reasoning. Even all these years later I could seek forgiveness from Christ if I just had sufficient historical proof he even existed. So I definitely have not committed blasphemy, nor would I likely ever. I'm always ready willing and able to believe.
But as not a single secular historian within 90 years of his birth mentions him even once I find it terribly hard that a man who caused the earth to turn dark for 3 hours and caused earthquakes to shake the land and caused thousands of dead bodies to come out of their graves and go into Jerusalem and appear to many of the people---well, how is it not a single historian mentions this??
Yet come Easter Sunday it's back to business as usual and everybody seems to have forgotten the Night of the Living Dead phenomenon.
So apart from the epistles and gospels, which are purely church biased writings written half a century to nearly a century after Jesus ascended, what proof can Christians show me that would convince me Jesus was divine?
Show me that and I'd happily come back to believing he was divine. If you can't show me then just fall back on those tried and true typical non-responses, "You'll never believe because your heart is hardened" stuff.
So Luke says if I speak against Jesus by saying, "I don't believe Jesus was divine" I will be forgiven for that per Luke 12:10, but if I say, "I don't believe Jesus was divine" I will NOT be forgiven because Jesus will then deny me before the Father. Or can Jesus deny me before his Father and God will still not judge me? Which again doesn't make sense because why does Jesus even have to draw the Father into it because in Matthew 28:18 Jesus said
You are mixing apples and oranges. Luke 12:10 concerns blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Mt 10:33 is about denying Jesus. That can be forgiven.
Quote:
So if Jesus has been given all authority, presumably that includes the power to forgive sins, so Jesus shouldn't even be dragging the Father into it as he does in Matthew 10:33.
God will not forgive the one who denies Jesus and dies in that state and stands before God. It is basically saying if you are not a believe, God will not you when you die. and stand before Him in judgement.
Quote:
As I and others have said, contradictions in the gospels can be found all over the place if you just take off the rose-colored glasses and read the Bible critically.
Well you haven found on in those verses. You were not even close.
So Luke says if I speak against Jesus by saying, "I don't believe Jesus was divine" I will be forgiven for that per Luke 12:10, but if I say, "I don't believe Jesus was divine" I will NOT be forgiven because Jesus will then deny me before the Father. Or can Jesus deny me before his Father and God will still not judge me? Which again doesn't make sense because why does Jesus even have to draw the Father into it because in Matthew 28:18 Jesus said
So if Jesus has been given all authority, presumably that includes the power to forgive sins, so Jesus shouldn't even be dragging the Father into it as he does in Matthew 10:33.
As I and others have said, contradictions in the gospels can be found all over the place if you just take off the rose-colored glasses and read the Bible critically.
Not everything is a contradiction but an unawareness of what the kingdom of heaven is and what is meant when it is said,''' Heaven, the kingdom of heaven.''
What is the kingdom of heaven?
There are many places in the new testament where the word ,'' Heaven, or kingdom of heaven,'' is used without people knowing what is being said.
If Jesus says, ''they shall never enter the kingdom of heaven,'' what does it mean?
The temple proper only has two sections and then there is the great court.
A house within a house inside the temple proper is the Zoe kingdom and we are taught the difference between the Zoe kingdom and the court of salvation.
Saved people come up to the banquet and are then kicked out, they don't lose their salvation but they will never enter the higher Zoe kingdom of heaven.
Here are some Christians who have their salvation,
'' But Lord, we taught your name in the streets and WE DID MIRACLES in your name,'' and Jesus still says,'' Depart from me you breakers of the law, I never knew you.''
They will never enter the higher Zoe kingdom and yet they are saved through their belief but they are standing in the court.
Hebrews tells us that the Temple was made in an exact deign to exactly shadow and teach the 3 sections of heaven.
You are mixing apples and oranges. Luke 12:10 concerns blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Mt 10:33 is about denying Jesus. That can be forgiven.
God will not forgive the one who denies Jesus and dies in that state and stands before God. It is basically saying if you are not a believe, God will not you when you die. and stand before Him in judgement.
Well you haven found on in those verses. You were not even close.
Actually, it's Jesus who mixes apples and oranges. In the same verse he compares speaking against him with blaspheming again the HS. Apples = speaking against someone.....oranges = blaspheming. The two are not the same so why does Jesus mention them in the same breadth?
Not everything is a contradiction but an unawareness of what the kingdom of heaven is and what is meant when it is said,''' Heaven, the kingdom of heaven.''
What is the kingdom of heaven?
There are many places in the new testament where the word ,'' Heaven, or kingdom of heaven,'' is used without people knowing what is being said.
If Jesus says, ''they shall never enter the kingdom of heaven,'' what does it mean?
The temple proper only has two sections and then there is the great court.
A house within a house inside the temple proper is the Zoe kingdom and we are taught the difference between the Zoe kingdom and the court of salvation.
Saved people come up to the banquet and are then kicked out, they don't lose their salvation but they will never enter the higher Zoe kingdom of heaven.
Here are some Christians who have their salvation,
'' But Lord, we taught your name in the streets and WE DID MIRACLES in your name,'' and Jesus still says,'' Depart from me you breakers of the law, I never knew you.''
They will never enter the higher Zoe kingdom and yet they are saved through their belief but they are standing in the court.
Hebrews tells us that the Temple was made in an exact deign to exactly shadow and teach the 3 sections of heaven.
Quote:
If Jesus says, ''they shall never enter the kingdom of heaven,'' what does it mean?
They shall never enter the kingdom of heaven.
The point being I don't go for doublespeak and triplespeak and quadruplespeak like what's found in the Bible. The Bible should mean what it says and say what it means. There should be no hidden meanings and cryptic crap and other shenanigans. It either states what it wants us to understand in plain English or it's worthless. To me, anyway.
The point being I don't go for doublespeak and triplespeak and quadruplespeak like what's found in the Bible. The Bible should mean what it says and say what it means. There should be no hidden meanings and cryptic crap and other shenanigans. It either states what it wants us to understand in plain English or it's worthless. To me, anyway.
To you?
Who do you think you are Thrill?
LOL, I gotta love me some Thrill, speaks his mind and well,'' That's just alright with me.''
But it does double speak, triple speak.
You want no more Shenanigans?
Tell me something I cannot do with nature against your state and let us put it to the test.
No, really?
Should you see a she bear, run.
Now see Thrill, that's how much I love ya dude, put myself out there for you in a bad way when I know failure is in my path.
Should I whisper to the frogs, the cricket or to the sky or should the water become blood?
Among snakes I am a king and I know all those under me and after I have swallowed him up, I will know all about you.
I can see my brother.
He is within you and he needs to come out to the wilderness to keep a 3 day feast, he will come with or without you.
Let him go.
Let my people go lest I call a curse upon you all and swallow up every one of you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
