It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hebrews9;- The two sanctuaries

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The epistle to the Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians, perhaps to a specific Jewish church.
The message of the letter is that Christ has brought “completeness”.
That is, God is making available, through him, a much greater and more decisive revelation than anything they have received from him previously

Drawing upon the Old Testament statements about Melchizedek, the writer has identified Jesus as the great High Priest, exalted above the heavens and established as priest “for ever”.
He differs from the priests established under the law, because he serves in the true sanctuary in heaven, set up by God himself.
They only serve in the copy of that sanctuary, set up on earth and built with human hands.

Then he begins to explain the essential difference between the two.
First, a brief outline of the arrangement of the earthly sanctuary [KOSMIKON].
That is divided into two spheres, the outer tent and the “Holy of Holies”.
The first contains the lampstand and the table with shewbread.
The second incorporates the golden altar of incense, which gives access to the Holy of Holies, and the ark of the covenant kept within.
Of course the writer is describing the ideal version of the sanctuary, as established by the law, rather than the actual sanctuary of his own time, which had lost the ark (ch9 vv1-5).

Two points have to be noticed about the existence of the inner sphere.
One is the limited access. None of the priests are allowed to enter, except the High Priest himself, once a year.
The other is that even the High Priest cannot enter without blood, to be offered for the sins of himself and the rest of the people.
They both carry a symbolic meaning for us to understand.

The “Holy of Holies” represents the true sanctuary, the immediate presence of God.
Since the mass of the people and even the mass of priests are not allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, this indicates that we don’t have our own access to the true sanctuary as long as the “outer tent” remains in place.
And the outer tent represents “the present age”, as distinct from “the age to come” (v8).

Under this arrangement, the legal priesthood is restricted to making offerings which cannot perfect [TELEIOSAI] the consciences of the worshippers.
That is because they only deal with external things, relating to the conduct of the body.
They are just regulations imposed “until the time of reformation” (vv9-10).
That is the equivalent of Paul’s explanation, that the law kept us under restraint “until faith should be revealed… until Christ came” (Galatians ch3 vv23-24).

Whereas Christ as the High priest concerns himself with spiritual things, things which have been achieved.
He does this by passing through the true outer sanctuary, the one which is greater and “more perfect” [TELEIOTEROS], not made with human hands (v11)
This gives him access to the true inner sanctuary, the presence of God.

And here we see the significance of the necessary offering of blood.
Blood means life.
The priests enter the earthly sanctuary offering the blood of animals as their means of access, but Christ enters the heavenly sanctuary offering his own life.
He only needs to enter once, because he has obtained for us a redemption which is “eternal”. It does not need to be renewed over and over again (v12).

The Old Testament demands blood in other situations, which teach the same lesson.
One is the sacrifice of the unblemished heifer, demanded by the law, so that the ashes can be sprinkled upon “defiled persons”.
But this only served for the cleansing of the flesh.
How much more effective would be the offering made by Christ.
He offered himself, rather than the blood of animals.
He offered himself through the eternal Spirit, rather than under the command of the law.
He was more truly unblemished.
And therefore his offering would be able to cleanse not just the flesh, but the conscience.
The conscience may be cleansed from “dead works” (or the works of a “dead world”?), in order to serve the living God (vv13-14).

Another example is the procedure for making covenants.
As far as we can tell from the hints in the Old Testament, a sacrificial animal was cut in half and laid upon the ground, in such a way that a gap was left between the two portions.
The parties to the agreement would then go between both halves of the animal, along this passage.
They would probably swear an oath along the lines of “May the Lord do the same to me, and more also, if I do not keep this covenant which I have made”.

The Greek word DIATHEKE, like the English word “testament”, can also be used for a man’s “last will and testament”.
The modern translations I find on my bookshelves all assume that the writer is using this double meaning, at least in vv16-17.
The testator makes his will, but it does not take effect until he dies.
Thus his death is necessary, so that his beneficiaries, “those who are called”, can receive “the promised eternal inheritance”.

But this translation is problematic in a number of ways.
It works out very awkwardly as a metaphor about what Christ is doing.
The ordinary testator is passing on property which he can never use again, because he is not expecting to come back.
Whereas the “portion” of Christ, in the more usual understanding, is what he gains through his death and resurrection, before coming back to share it with his people.

It also wrecks the logical connection with the next verse, which begins with “For this reason [HOTHEN]”.
If these two verses are about a will, then the writer is saying “A testator’s will only takes effect when he dies, and for this reason the covenant of Moses was ratified by a sacrifice”.
The implication would be that the animal sacrificed by Moses made a last will and testament, which is clearly not the case.
In fact the two verses, when translated this way, interrupt a discussion of covenant-making which begins in v15 and continues afterwards.

So there is a lot to be said for taking the word DIATHEKE as “covenant” all the way through this passage.
The opening statement, in v15,is that Christ is the mediator of a new covenant. In the same way that the covenant sacrifice (rather than Moses) was the mediator of the old covenant.

The real purpose of vv16-17 is to explain the general principle of covenant-making; the covenant sacrifice makes[ the covenant, by his death, and therefore the covenant has no force until the sacrifice has taken place.
From v18, the writer shows how this principle was carried out in the making of the covenant of Moses. The sacrificial blood was sprinkled on the book of the covenant, on the people, and on the tabernacle and the sacred vessels.

All these examples put together are making the point that under the arrangements of the law, all things are purified “by blood”- that is, by the offering of life.
The message, then, is that without such an offering there can be no purification of men, no forgiveness of sins (v22).
And that is what made the death of Jesus an essential condition in the making of the new covenant.

There must be a sacrificial death, so that the “sacred things” of the heavenly tabernacle may be sprinkled with his blood, like their earthly counterparts (v23).

This brings us back to the original image of Christ entering the sanctuary like a High Priest.
That is, he appears in the presence of God, acting on our behalf.
Christ is the reality, of which the old priests were the imperfect copies.




posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Simply understood, simulation of copies, which must be sacrificed below (chaff/ material) to regain union above (wheat). Being in Christ is our higher essence redeemed.

In Sanskrit, Yahweh is Yama, brother to Manu. Yama is defined as self-control and rules the underworld (sub-conscience). Satan is the accuser (conscience). Yama has requirements, which Jesus fulfilled, found in Buddhism in relation to Buddha Nature (Dharma). This is all outlined in Hinduism as well.

The primary point is to refine Primordial Chaos and it's relative Light. I'll do a thread on this for you. I'll outline all related terms. By saying Yama and First man (Manu) are brothers, it is implied as the same Lord. Higher Spirit being refined and lower Man as sacrifice. We ALL have the same image within. Copies. Yama (Yahweh) is the old nature of the Lord as scapegoat. Manu (Son of Man) is redeemed by gaining the Holy Spirit, thereby giving up his old nature (Yama). We all have a judgemental lower nature to refine with self-control. The priest is the Bodhisattva of our simulation.

God is Elohim resting in Adam (Manu). Yahweh is the law of self-control. Guardian of Galatians 3. Yama means self-control. The underworld is primordial chaos in simulation (copy). Light is invariance already at potential. Son of God is Cosmos (Colossians 1:15-17).
edit on 3-3-2017 by DayAfterTomorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow
I prefer my theology to be purely Biblical. I'm averse to mixing different religions together.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Sanskrit is the common thread all religions originate from. You will never understand without keys to knowledge. Yahweh is not God. He's the lower nature of Manu (Man / Adam). Man in English comes from Sanskrit Manu.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow
Not interested. This thread is an exercise in Biblical theology. The topic is the ninth chapter of Hebrews.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

The requirements of the High Priest are those of Yama. You'll never understand why the sacrifice was necessity apart from knowing that Yahweh is the Sons sub-conscience (self) and Satan is the conscience. Locate conscience in your OP Hebrew verses, then compare to Galatians 3 (guardian / law) and Galatians 5 virtues of Dharma. Against such, there is no more law. Love IS the law, found in the Dhammapada chapter 1.

Babel is predated by Sanskrit. Unbiased against relatives or no absolute love in the heart. Hebrew tradition is sourced from the temple common to us all. Buddha body and Bodhi mind.
edit on 3-3-2017 by DayAfterTomorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

John 8

23 But he continued, “You are from below (Yama / Yahweh); I am from above (Manu / Adam / Man's image). You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
25 “Who are you?” they asked.

“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. 26 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”

Their father is the Devil. He says Israel's father is his own old nature. Exodus 4 will reveal who Yama's firstborn is. Israel.

Ruler of the underworld. Christ is from the Light. NOT of this world.

We are Manu. Christ comes to free us from Yama / Law.
edit on 3-3-2017 by DayAfterTomorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Yoga is union. At one ment. All in All is God's desire. Christ fulfilled them all.

requirements


edit on 3-3-2017 by DayAfterTomorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

NIV Study Bible. Yama.

NIV
edit on 3-3-2017 by DayAfterTomorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Purification is redemption?

v10:
Meats and drinks became communion?
Divers washings became washing of feet and baptism?
What are the carnal ordinances referenced and what did they become?


I've been noticing the pattern of circles within circles for a couple years, like being pushed towards them: Is there not more than two rings? The third passes between the two? I guess I had something different pictured.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Double Post.

edit on 3-3-2017 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Triple Post.

edit on 3-3-2017 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow
I prefer my theology to be purely Biblical. I'm averse to mixing different religions together.



Although I don't agree with DayAfterTomorrow, all the religions belong to Christ. All of the religions teach the same message in regards to the Christ/The Holy Spirit.

Limiting your study to only one of the texts that were inspired by Jesus Christ keeps us divided.

All of the scriptures from all the prophets were inspired by the same spirit and contain the same message.

The bible is not more inspired or more accurate than any of the other religious texts. A broader and more perfect understanding of Jesus Christ who is the Holy Spirit within all mankind can be obtained by those willing to seek past the division of religious bias.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: DayAfterTomorrow
a reply to: DISRAELI

The requirements of the High Priest are those of Yama. You'll never understand why the sacrifice was necessity apart from knowing that Yahweh is the Sons sub-conscience (self) and Satan is the conscience. Locate conscience in your OP Hebrew verses, then compare to Galatians 3 (guardian / law) and Galatians 5 virtues of Dharma. Against such, there is no more law. Love IS the law, found in the Dhammapada chapter 1.

Babel is predated by Sanskrit. Unbiased against relatives or no absolute love in the heart. Hebrew tradition is sourced from the temple common to us all. Buddha body and Bodhi mind. [/quote

I've never understood why blood must be offered, to be saved, or to commune with God. Why must there be anything given? And why blood? I understand it represents life, but so why must life be given to be saved/commune? What does the taking of a life have to do with communing with God? What does that accomplish? And, why an animal? What does an animal being killed have to do with being saved or communing with God??

What are the roots of this sacrifice business? I was raised in a Christian home and am pretty familiar with the bible, old and new testaments. But this blood sacrifice has NEVER made sense to me.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
Purification is redemption?

v10:
Meats and drinks became communion?
Divers washings became washing of feet and baptism?
What are the carnal ordinances referenced and what did they become?

Old Testament purification rituals were attempts to deal with the problem of sin.
New Testament "redemption" is about sin being dealt with in reality. That is the message of the chapter.

The "carnal ordinances" are the rituals of the Old Testament, and they are ALL replaced by the fact that Jeus died on the cross. So the mediaeval Catholic habit of replacing them with new rituals was missing the point.



edit on 4-3-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Limiting your study to only one of the texts that were inspired by Jesus Christ keeps us divided.
All of the scriptures from all the prophets were inspired by the same spirit and contain the same message.

Nevertheless, limiting the topic in this way is the premise of this thread.
Whether that is the right thing to do is NOT part of the topic of this thread, and I will not be discussing it.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl
I've never understood why blood must be offered, to be saved, or to commune with God. Why must there be anything given? And why blood? I understand it represents life, but so why must life be given to be saved/commune? What does the taking of a life have to do with communing with God? What does that accomplish? And, why an animal? What does an animal being killed have to do with being saved or communing with God??

What are the roots of this sacrifice business? I was raised in a Christian home and am pretty familiar with the bible, old and new testaments. But this blood sacrifice has NEVER made sense to me.

(Ideally, you should be ignoring the off-topic posting)

The next chapter tackles this question, and comes a little closer to explaining it, quoting the Psalmist;
What God actually wanted was obedience, and that is what Christ gave.

I think of it like this; What God wants from the human race is obedience which amounts to a complete self-offering.
That is what Adam and Eve were denying in the Genesis story. Eating the fruit is a symbol for doing what they want instead of doing what God wants. Their will was turned away from God's will.

Old Testament sacrifice was a symbol of self-offering. "We recognise that we owe you our lives, and here is an animal life as a token of that". That is why it was inadequate for the purpose, because it was only a token. God kept telling them through the prophets that what he wanted was obedience, and all this sacrifice was a waste of time if it was being used as a substitute for obedience. This chapter brings that out again.

So the point of the death of Jesus is that it was the real thing; complete self-offering, obedience even to the point of death if that's where it led.

Our part of the process is self-offering in faith. As Paul tells the Romans, "make your bodies a living sacrifice".

(This is summarising one of my future threads. In fact there is a whole thread series coming up, but not immediately)


edit on 4-3-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Not to distract from the topic of two sanctuaries but I'm pretty sure there is a 3rd thing - like there has to be. (You know how being lead feels: like being compelled towards a suspicion.) Circles within circles, over and over, everywhere, in anything I study. And so my guess is that the third must be the ark or inside the ark - like has to be. And what's inside the ark but the will of God / Spirit, right? Has to be (it's such a strong feeling).

Anyways...

The purification question: What I was wondering about is whether or not redemption is purification of the conscience. Is purification of the conscience our redemption? The way that I had always thought of redemption was that Yeshua was our redemption / our redeemer: the blood of Christ, I thought, covered our spirit / covered our sin like "sheep skin". But apparently, sin is in the conscience, and the blood of Christ does not simply cover our sins, no, it cleanses our conscience of sin? Is that correct? Like it flushes it out? You know, the verse about "doing what you know is wrong is sin to you" kind of takes on deeper meaning if sin is going against your conscience and your conscience is the Word you have heard. (I thought redemption was more like Christ in us, covering us.)

Not too deep is it? I get too deep sometimes.

Edit again: You know, I might be thinking of the conscience wrong: instead of it being an inner-voice, it's probably better thought of as the will of the voice. e.g. The conscience wills the "voice of" what's righteous, what's sinful, what we've done wrong (hear this and feel guilt), etc. So then the blood of Christ would fill our cup and be to us a quickening spirit. (A sinful conscience filled over with the will of righteousness (sacrificial blood) would purge sin.)
edit on 3/4/2017 by Bleeeeep because: Christ in us, covering us.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
I'm pretty sure there is a 3rd thing - like there has to be.

I don't see why, particularly. On the one side, there are the things man comes up with. On the other side, there is the solution which God provides. I think that covers it.


The purification question: What I was wondering about is whether or not redemption is purification of the conscience. Is purification of the conscience our redemption?

The thought in the mind of this writer is that conscience is the consciousness of having sinned.
When the Old Testament worshippers had carried out their purification rituals, they were still conscious of themselves as sinners, and that was a symptom that the sin had not really been taken away. As he says in the next chapter, "If the worshippers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have had any consciousness of sin" (ch10 v2). The regular repetition of the sacrifice was revealing a continuing sense of the need to deal with sin, which confirmed that the sin was still there.
The message is that the death of Christ deals with the reality of sin, as an obstruction between God and ourselves, and as a side-effect it also deals with the sin that is in our conscience. So the purification of the conscience is the evidence of redemption rather than the redemption itself.

the blood of Christ, I thought, covered our spirit / covered our sin like "sheep skin".

I have a different understanding of the "covering" metaphor carried over from the Old Testament.
I think it relates to the idea that the blood of a murdered man, like Abel, "appeals" to God from the ground. So the body of a dead criminal has to be buried, covered with earth, so that God does not "see" it.
Extending that to sin in general; God "sees" our sin, and the way to prevent him seeing it is to "cover it up" (or persuade him to "turn his face away", which is another way of saying the same thing).
The death of Jesus has the effect of persuading God not to "see" our sin; so it has, metaphorically, been "covered up".

But apparently, sin is in the conscience, and the blood of Christ does not simply cover our sins, no, it cleanses our conscience of sin? Is that correct? Like it flushes it out?

However, I think that is certainly the idea in the writer's mind. The sense of guilt, the consciousness of having sinned, may be flushed out of the believer's conscience, by the awareness that Christ has dealt with it.


edit on 4-3-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

See my "edit again" in the post above.

Also, the two things are symbolic of 2 heavenly things but there is a third thing missing: the Spirit, the innermost chamber.

Think inwards:
[the outer tent[the holy of holies[the ark of the covenant]the holy of holies]the outer tent]
[son[father[holy spirit]father]son]
[body[soul[spirit]soul]body]

Like looking into a mirror (the z axis is flipped / flip inwards).

Spirit>Father>Son>Angels>Man>plants and animals maybe

We were on the fifth ring, I thought. But then God also took a tribe for himself, and not only that but the angels didn't act right, they fell ("But you will die like mere mortals and fall like every other ruler"), so now God leads every tribe.

But yeah, I think there's an innermost circle.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join