Yet he says himself clear as day that he desires not sacrifice, but to bring sinners to repentance. He is quoting Hosea 6. And Hosea 6 goes directly into this topic head on. He tells you plain as day he isn't about the sacrifice, he is about the understanding(required to bring sinners to repentance).

Badmedia, You missed the entire point of what he was saying context of what Hosea 6, Matthew 4, Luke 2, and Matthew 12.

First we pointed out specifically that Christ was to die for our sins, being made a curse for us. This was not a Pauline Idea, Christ stated it himself and said that just like when Moses raised up the Serpent, he would be also. You claim it's idolatry, yet you demand we stick with Christ's words.

If it is, then we got a problem as that breaks one of the 10 commandments.

You can't have it both ways. Christ himself is condoning idolatry or he is not -- not us. Either your theology is wrong, or he was not Sinless. There is no two ways to this. Which is it? What did he mean by it?

Or shall we open the escape hatch and say this is a fraudulent text as it directly rebukes your theology and his sacrifice?

We tried to explain this, but you didn't hear us.

Your retort at this point, is to pulling up Hosea 6 and Luke 2 and Matthew 4 as your ultimate reference that he doesn't desire sacrifice. Therefore, since he desires not sacrifice, he can't be one, correct? That's the logic you are implying. As such with this logic, Christ really didn't mean he would be a sacrifice, or made sin for us when he quoted from the books of Moses or any other hints of his upcoming death.

Problem is, a father giving a son for a sacrifice is not just a Pauline Concept. It was in Genesis, when Abraham acted out a prophecy in which another Father would sacrifice his son. He named the place "In the Mount of the LORD shall it be seen". What be seen? The entire context of Genesis 22 IS THE singular sacrifice of a Father giving his only Son and when God would provide himself the sacrifice. I can typologically model the Church AND the Second coming all through Genesis 22 and beyond.

Furthermore, he explained what he meant in Matthew 12, and it doesn't match what you were saying. No where does he say "I will not be a sacrifice", instead:

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw [it], they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.
But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

It's black and white in Matthew 12 what he meant, and it's not what you say it is.

First, the entire context here is THE Law. The Sabbath Day, part of the 10 Commandments.

Second, us not being Jewish, we will NOT grasp the full meaning. God dwells between the Cherubim ON the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant. That Ark used to reside in the tabernacle, and later, the temple. There was ONE way into the tabernacle. Outside it was 'ugly', covered in badger skins, etc. Inside it was beautiful. In the middle, the Mercy Seat. Every description and detail of that Tabernacle is an attribute or direct reference to Christ.

The Ark itself is a powerful message of the Gospel and the Law. The Mercy Seat was ABOVE the law. The very same law that his own finger wrote. And that law was not the first set either, it was a replacement for the first set that was broken. The Law, although Broken Still stands, yet he will show mercy on those that have broken it.

See the Symbolism here?

Him saying he is Lord of the Sabbath implies that he is above it, and indeed he is. He sits on his mercy seat over the law. He's claiming to be the one that dwells between the cherub. As such, he is claiming more so to BE the very God that wrote the commandments.

Nothing about disavowing sacrifice, or not being made sin for us. Even so, His example has David breaking not only the Sabbath, but eating bread only for the Priests. Christ did not blame David and his men breaking the law, even though it was in the law to specifically not to do so. God does not blame the Priests for profaning the sabbath. Same with his disciples picking Corn on the sabbath.

The point, if you're doing the Work of God, you are guiltless. He will have mercy on whom he has mercy, period. Not the law. "Sacrifice" in context here, is the law as we are dealing with the Sabbath day. The law has mercy on no one. The law condemns. This is what he meant by he will have mercy, and not sacrifice. And he will have mercy over the law.

This is the ENTIRE context of what he meant, and it is NOT a Pauline idea.

Proof? Where did any of the people that came to Christ during his ministry who asked for mercy become condemned? I see NONE. He granted them mercy, even in their own unrighteousness and sinful state. He accepted them. Those that came in their own righteousness he condemned. What is your "work" according to Christ, to be righteous through the law? No, to believe on HE whom he sent.

Now in context of Hosea 6 which he quoted, since he doesn't desire the law what does he desire? You. He desires you to turn towards Him. He desires you to KNOW him. To have a relationship WITH him. He desires to grant you mercy on HIS work, and not your work.

You can sacrifice burnt Offerings ALL day, but it doesn't lead to your repentance, nor does it Lead to knowing Him.

1 "Come, let us return to the LORD.
He has torn us to pieces
but he will heal us;
he has injured us
but he will bind up our wounds."

Matthew 5

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Yes, I do. You skipped verse 19 and ignored quite a few other verses.

Namely this was his disclaimer because he DID go directly against the law in the following verses as you forgot the rest past verse 20 and didn't quote it verbatim, he explained the Spirit of the Law.

He was also accused of breaking the law, how many times in the scripture?

Even so with your point you attempted to make, it's impossible for men to acquire the righteousness required to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven alone.

But why skip verse 19? Apparently there will be some in the kingdom of heaven, who will be called least, that didn't teach those commandments.

Not the answer you were looking for was it?

Thats because I recognize the Fathers sovereignty in calling whom he will for his Son.

If I break and not follow his commandments, and teach others to do the same, I will be called least. If I follow and keep his commandments, and teach others to follow his commandments, I shall be called great.

Salvation is God's work, but what you have in the Kingdom of Heaven that is given to you -- is your work.

But enough with this, I do know of another "father" that rejects the sacrifice of Christ, in which he and his Gospel was only a "guide". If i were you, I'd really double check if that "father" you seen is the true God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph.

S. 3:3-4: It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). Then those who reject Faith in the Signs of Allah will suffer the severest penalty, and Allah is Exalted in Might, Lord of Retribution.

S. 5:46-47 And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

And "I leave with that".

Originally posted by Not Authorized
Badmedia, You missed the entire point of what he was saying context of what Hosea 6, Matthew 4, Luke 2, and Matthew 12.

First we pointed out specifically that Christ was to die for our sins, being made a curse for us. This was not a Pauline Idea, Christ stated it himself and said that just like when Moses raised up the Serpent, he would be also. You claim it's idolatry, yet you demand we stick with Christ's words.

If it is, then we got a problem as that breaks one of the 10 commandments.

You can't have it both ways. Christ himself is condoning idolatry or he is not -- not us. Either your theology is wrong, or he was not Sinless. There is no two ways to this. Which is it? What did he mean by it?

Or shall we open the escape hatch and say this is a fraudulent text as it directly rebukes your theology and his sacrifice?

We tried to explain this, but you didn't hear us.

If a man joins the military and goes off to war to "fight for your freedom". That man is killed. Do you not say that man laid his life down for others? Do you not say that man paid a ransom for your freedom?

Yet, is it the fact that the man or woman their died that paid the ransom? Is it the fact that the man died that gave you "your freedom"? No it is not. Dieing was never the point for them, it was simply a consequence of what they did. Yet, it was a consequence those people were fully aware of before they did it etc.

So how does it go from that, which is all Jesus ever eludes too into being a blood sacrifice ritual? You can not quote a single thing Jesus says that is anything more than the context of the above. He says he lays his life down for others. And he does. But he is NOT your whipping boy, and that is what disturbs me.

It is not like I do not show you the purpose and reason for these things, and it just so happens that in the context I am speaking, it is completely in line with what you call the "previous promises".

Jesus comes and he says that the people are sick, and that is the reason he is here to bring sinners to repentance. It is right before the passage I quoted before. He comes across people who are "blind" and "deaf". In atleast 1 case of him "healing the blind", or "healing the sick", it is not in reference to the physical. He heals the blind by giving them understanding, making them no longer ignorant.

When they are no longer sick, then they having understanding. And as I showed you before, it is those with understanding who keep the commandments properly.

Thus, in order to save the people, they needed the understanding required to keep the commandments. As such, Jesus is given to the people and he gives those people the understanding. Knowledge of the holy is understanding, always has been.

And this is what he does, knowing full well the consequences and what those who work to blind people, and to make them ignorant, closing the gates of heaven up to men and so forth will do to him as a result. And he is killed specifically for that reason.

Yes, it had to be done because it is the only way people could maybe see the way of the tree of life, and have the proper understanding needed in order to once again eat from the tree of life(have eternal life Jesus speaks of). In this manner he himself makes a huge sacrifice.

And those who believe will keep the commandments and it will be those who are saved. Mercy will be given to those who give mercy.

But when you turn that into it being about his death, about a sacrifice and so forth, then you are doing the same thing as if you did that with those who die "for your freedoms". I put that in quotes btw, because that whole bag is really a lie, and is in fact trying to save yourself and is the path of death and destruction.

Yes he has a purpose, yes it needed to be done, yes he lays down his life for others. Yes he pays a huge price/ransom in an attempt to help and save people. But is it his life that saves, or is it his death is at issue here. The death of the truth only goes to serve the lie. It is up to you to bring the truth back to life within you, and then the truth will be in you. And if the truth be in you, then you will keep the commandments. And if you are to keep the commandments, then it means you have the understanding required, that which Jesus teaches and lives in his life example.

Your retort at this point, is to pulling up Hosea 6 and Luke 2 and Matthew 4 as your ultimate reference that he doesn't desire sacrifice. Therefore, since he desires not sacrifice, he can't be one, correct? That's the logic you are implying. As such with this logic, Christ really didn't mean he would be a sacrifice, or made sin for us when he quoted from the books of Moses or any other hints of his upcoming death.

No, there is a struggle in the OT between different forms of atonement. Most specifically atonement from blood sacrifice, and atonement from repenting for sins. Where as men more desired atonement from the sacrifice of animals etc, rather than atonement by repenting for their sins. Thus, it is often warned of for people to not get caught up in the blood sacrifice.

Hosea 6 is in reference to this. Saying he desired mercy and not sacrifice, and knowledge of god more than burnt offerings.

Burnt offerings is also animal sacrifice, but the sacrifice is burned and consumed in fire.

Thus you have those who work in sin, and is a city polluted with blood. Hosea 6 is an account of the wrong doings of the people and a charge against them on these errors.

And this entire conversation is really no different. I am speaking of the desire for mercy and knowledge of god over atonement from sacrifice.

Jesus and the Sabbath. Jesus also says what man would not save their donkey if it feel in a well on the Sabbath?

They did not understand the spirit of the Sabbath is what he is talking about. But then, they did not understand the spirit of many things did they?

He says if they had mercy on those people, then they would have not condemned the guiltless. As even though they believed they were guilty, if they had mercy then they would have still not done it.

This goes right into Matthew 7 and not judging people etc. And that eye for an eye was wrong, that it was seen as 2 sins, not just 1. Because "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord".

Thus, if they had understood the way, which would to have been as Jesus lived, then they would have understood the mercy over sacrifice, and they would have not condemned the guilty.

I understand symbolism, but you are not looking at what the symbols represent. And it is in this manner that one becomes guilty of idolatry and why idolatry is wrong. Because what happens is the symbol becomes the replacement for what it represents, and people end up only looking at the symbolism instead of the meaning. It is in this manner that people are blinded.

Because doesn't Jesus represent the truth, the way, and the light? Thus, if "Jesus" is sitting in that place, does it not mean that it is the truth, the way and the light that is there? Or in terms of the OT - wisdom? That which leads you from the "ugly" outside as you say, into the beautiful inside? The light that guides men, the truth and understanding it gives them, and the path they follow.

I am not an expert in the OT in terms of symbolism. But see, if you just say "Jesus", then you are just seeing the idol.

You say that all things in the OT point towards Jesus. This is saying all things in meaning pointed to the idol. In truth, it's the other way around. Jesus points to the OT and shows true meaning. He is the word in the flesh, not the flesh in the word.

Btw, I know the father, and it is from the father that I gained understanding. I was once an atheist until I meet the father. Thus this personal relationship you say I need, I have.



[edit on 2/5/2010 by badmedia]

Originally posted by Not Authorized
Actually it's a reference to the Order of Melchizedek, but I'm not even going to get into it here, as I don't think you would understand.

/sigh is all I know to say. It's just coincidence that they are nearly exactly the same?

Your theology is 100% reversed here. The Flesh and Blood do not represent Bread and Wine as Wisdom, but Wisdom points to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ. Christ defined it as such, and so did your Proverbs 9 reference. If you hear Wisdom, you WILL come to his table, and eat his flesh, and drink his blood.

Jesus represents Wisdom. Wisdom gives the knowledge/understanding and that is the bread and wine.

But yet, above you said this was not at all in reference to Proverbs 9, but now you are talking about it as if it is?

Wisdom made the bread and wine, but Wisdom is NOT the bread and wine. That bread and wine is specifically Christ's Body, and his Blood. In his Wisdom, God gives us his flesh and his blood so that we might live, as we cannot do it ourselves.

Think you misunderstood me. Wisdom is the gaining of knowledge and understanding and then using that which is gained in order to make the correct choice. Thus those who are seeking wisdom will be feed with these things.

But the entire point was that it is those things which he gives. You used those verses towards the blood of the sacrifice, which was not at all right as his blood in that verse represented those things.

I figured you would have realized the commandments are not enough in Matthew 19. In verse 20 -

"Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Ummm, Jesus was pointing out that he had not kept all the commandments. But yet, why doesn't Jesus tell that rich man what you and the church will tell him? Why doesn't Jesus just say - wait until after my sacrifice, then just believe in me? Why doesn't Jesus tell the man he has come to die for his sins? See, where as Jesus turns that rich man away, the church accepts him with open arms and tells him that he is saved(even if he did much less).

Remember, Jesus speaks to them only in Parables after Matthew 13 and this is in Matthew 19.

"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: "

Why Parables?

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Answer: To conceal/hide the truth. Now lets move on.

False, that is not the answer. It is not to conceal or hide any thing. He is saying that only those with understanding will be able to hear what he is truly saying, and that the understanding itself is hidden from others.

This I know from experience, so no way I am wrong on this one. See, nothing is actually hidden from you or anyone. It is all there plain as day. People simple do not notice or see it. I did not notice or see it for a long time.

When you come to understanding, then you are changed in an instant. Your entire perspective and what you "see" changes instantly. I am not talking about you will see different things in the physical, and I am not talking about "auras" or any of that stuff. I am talking about you will see the meaning of things change in an instant.

As a child, I read Jesus and it never meant much to me. I took it as to mean whatever the church said etc. It was not until after I meet the father that when I read the words of Jesus that I could understand and "hear" him. The words were exactly the same etc, but now when I read them they jump out at me in meaning.

And I am talking about an understanding that up until I read Jesus I didn't think any man on earth understood.

When this first happened to me, it was like things were happening in synchronicity. This experience was really heavy for a month or so. But anytime I had a question, I had that question answered in random things. A 1 second line on the radio that was talking about something different, but was completely the answer I was looking for etc. A walk in the park and so on.

What I came to realize eventually is that these things were not really synchronicity. It just felt that way because the answers were ALWAYS there staring me in the face. All that changed was I started to notice. Nothing is hidden, most people simple do not notice or care to notice. They have been blinded by symbolism and things you speak of. Blinded to the true meaning.

This is something someone must experience for themselves. I can not give you understanding, it can only come from the father. But it is something you must seek on your own, it can not be handed to you.

So this I know and understand from both sides. I know what it is like to be blind, and I know what it is like to see. It's a big difference.




[edit on 2/5/2010 by badmedia]

Originally posted by Not Authorized
Jesus flat out dictates that this is impossible for men. But with God all things are possible. Only with his mercy is it as such, which goes back to your Hosea 6 quotation. If you have his mercy, then you will pass through that Camel's eye, as God can make it as wide as he wants.

Peter drives this nail home in verse 27. Peter denied the Christ 3 Times, he was told to "get behind me Satan", and any number of instances where he certainly is in the flesh. Peter was about as far from the "perfection" that God requires -- yet he was saved.

Well, actually what he is talking about is that only with god can a man have any understanding or do anything which is good. Jesus says - why does thou call me good? For none is good but the father.

Mercy is given to those who have mercy. Yes the father can and does forgive sin. This is given automatically once someone fixes their mistakes. I'm not at all saying that anyone who doesn't keep the commandments goes to hell etc. I am saying that all people will/must keep the commandments in order to enter into heaven/society as such.

Most people are simply poor in spirit and do not know any better. And blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. All people will be given a chance to understand and choose the way before it's over with. I'm not a doom and gloomer, and I'm not about telling the world they are going to hell etc.

Again, Wisdom points to Christ, not Christ pointing to Wisdom.

No, to be like Jesus is Wisdom. Jesus is "wisdom/word in the flesh". Is it wisdom because Jesus did it, or did Jesus do it because it was wisdom?

Christ himself said it was impossible as you being a man. Only with God all things are possible, you will never be perfect, you are condemned already. Are these also not his words?

No, as I pointed out, even greater things will you do because I go unto my father.

You need to believe on Him and his mercy. That was the whole point of him coming to sinners.

Sinners to repentance was pretty clear I thought. Mercy is part of keeping the commandments because Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord, and eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Rather than Judge people, have mercy and you are much more likely to not break a commandment. It's blessed are the peacemakers, not blessed are the warmakers.

The Cross was not a tragedy, it was a triumph.

Because Jesus showed it is better to die sin free, than to take up evil to save yourself. As he is risen, it proves he showed the correct way for men to follow. It is however a temporary victory for evil in that the truth was stalled, and is the entire reason people await the return of truth/Jesus. Yet as the way is shown for all to follow - it is there already for those who believe/follow as the truth will live within them - even as the world can not accept/see it.

Your Eternal destiny depends on it.

I know the father, and I don't have to be here. Upon meeting the father, I was only asked if I wanted it to end. It was made known to me that I stay here only by my own choice.

When it comes to the bible and such, I only look to see how/if it is a true expression of the understanding that comes from the father. This I know and see in Jesus. I try very hard to see it in Paul, but instead all I get is contradictory understanding of what the father gives - which is not the case with Jesus.

But, believe this - at the end of the day, you had better keep the commandments and keep them properly(means being like Jesus).

You better re-read Matthew 7 and the rich man very carefully.

Either way, at this point you are contradicting yourself, saying that God desires mercy and not sacrifice. What is the point of having mercy you are perfect and are in no need of it?


Think I explained this already with the poor in spirit. I do not look out at a world condemned, but only a world which is blind and poor in spirit. The term revelation means to reveal - the truth will come to people.

You have the law, you have the commandments, you need not anything else. Sounds like the very Pharisee's Christ rebuked.

No, I have the understanding of which the commandments are based on, which is what Jesus speaks of and gives. Where as the Pharisees only kept the written law, of which they pick and choose which to follow.

But the law is as valid as it ever was, and Jesus is not the end of it. And anyone who teaches otherwise is false - sorry.

You have your own righteousness, following the law. You don't need Christ to show mercy on you or any need for his righteousness.

False, I rely completely on the father who is within. I was an atheist and completely ignorant and blind until I found the father, and it is only because of the father that I have any understanding. The father is much greater than I am, and in no way would I ever try to say otherwise.

I am talking about following in the example of Jesus, rather than worshipping his death.

I just need to walk the same path, and make myself my own Christ. My own god, me.

No, you need to find the father in order to gain the understanding needed to do such. At which point, you will know and understand the father(god) is within you.

Which is a dangerous doctrine, and is not true Christianity. If a so called Christian sins willfully, habitability, with no remorse, he is in full bondage of sin, he was never saved. If i sin, i am struck with an awesome amount of guilt. We are free FROM sin, not free TO sin.

Honestly, it's a futile effort, as you will NEVER be satisfied with sin again. Any born again will tell you the same thing.

I don't love my neighbor as myself to save myself, I do it cause Christ died for me, and if I love him, then I will do it. Not so that I am saved, but because I am saved already and his laws are written on a new heart.

I KNOW, present tense, I have eternal life.

Which is why I would never call myself a Christian, and why it is the anti-christ religion.

Interesting. You do realize that Christ, before he gave up the Ghost, said "tetelestai" not so much as it is finished, but more accurately describing a financial transaction that has taken place? IE, “Paid in full”, purchase made, payment received. Who is the purchase, and what was the payment?

So god paid himself? Again, it's just a manipulation in the way you are putting it. Btw, if he died for all the sins of the world, then why do I need to believe in him? Guess that is a bit of a misnomer huh? Cuz he actually only died for a small minority of the population if you put it in terms of Christianity.

You must be born again. You are born spiritually dead. And the Spirit makes you born again, not you, but by his sovereignty that he does so. The 2nd death, is later. Everyone is resurrected. Some unto life, others unto damnation. If you are unsaved, first you die physically, then you die the 2nd death at the resurrection.

If you have not meet the father, then you have not been born again. If you do not know John 14:20 except from the bible, then you have not been born again.

In contrast, your methodology makes him a false prophet if he did not come to forgive sins. If your theology is correct, and Christ showed us the way, then no one is saved. Why? No ones followed his path. Name me one person but Christ that rose up on the 3rd day after they died, and is now living eternally on this Earth.

You ignored the point. If the price for sins is the spiritual death, then Jesus did not die that death as he was risen. As such, the only death he has was the death of the physical. And if the death of the physical is the price for sins, then nobody has been saved(which makes it odd for you to ask me to name someone who hasn't died, since that is not the price for sins, and is a death all experience - psalm 82).

See, Jesus is risen because he is sin free. Thus he does not die the 2nd death, and that is why he is the example to follow.

The manner in which he saves people is that the Father gives us to Him, and what the Father gives the Son will not lose, nor the Father. Salvation is his work, not yours.

Anything to keep you from accepting responsibility for your actions. You will reap what you sow. You are already paying the price for your sins today. Where do you think you are?

Originally posted by Joecroft
This idea that Jesus death on the cross is a “free gift”, that forgives us of all of our sins, in one clean swoop, is actually in conflict with Jesus life and teachings. I mean why (and this is just one example) would Jesus tell people, they need to pray to the Father/God for the forgiveness of their sins, if they are already forgiven, by believing that Jesus did it all, in one act, on the cross…No, I don’t believe that is how it works.

Yes Jesus died for our sins and it is a “free gift” but only in the sense that his death brought us the “Holy Spirit”. The “Holy Spirit” convicts us of our sins and in this way, help’s us to keep the commandments.

Jesus death only helps us with our sins because it brought the “counselor”. Once you receive the “Holy Spirit” you are then connected back to the Father/God and are in a relationship with him, which is an on going life walk. The “Holy Spirit“ does not take away all the sins that you will ever do, in one go, because it’s an on going process with the Father/God.

I see. I'm just not so sure the holy spirit is really a new thing, but maybe a new label. As in my experience the holy spirit is like the father in that it is beyond labels and such, but we as humans must use labels like it in order to speak.

"Father" for example. That is not a label I used when I first meet the father/god etc. As the things I experienced just "were" and was beyond any such labels. Yet, I do like the label "father" very much because of what it expresses in terms of the father/son relationship and so I use it.

So in the time before Jesus, and in the OT, it was wisdom that did such things. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned to you before how John 14 describes my experience almost exactly to the point it amazed/shocked me. From meeting the father and knowing he was within(14:20) down to learning from the holy spirit in verse 26.

But I also see that described in the OT as well in like Proverbs 8. Where people are rewarded with riches - real riches of wisdom and understanding. Because it's those riches that the holy spirit brings. Someone who is poor in spirit does not have these riches. Someone who is rich in spirit does have them. And as I have mentioned before, someone who is poor in spirit is blessed because they have not had the chance to turn down the truth/holy spirit(and they will accept the truth when it comes to them).

So I really am not sure. I speak mostly from my own experiences. As my only experiences in such obviously came after Jesus, I don't have any experience prior to really know 1 way or another. Details and such aren't the kind of things I was given, anymore than I could tell you tomorrows lottery number tickets, or what day will be "the end".

As I think about it. Perhaps it's a matter of the way the holy spirit and the father gives vs how Jesus being in human form was still limited to labels/symbols in many things. I mean when you get things in terms of pure understanding it is unlike anything you have ever experienced. When they say that these things "speak their own language" that is unlike any of man, that is true. Because where as man has to express the understanding with the labels, when you receive it from the father/holy spirit such labels are completely void. It's like you are looking/hearing things beyond the labels themselves.

John 16

25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

So, on earth in the flesh he can only speak of this understanding in proverbs/parables. But, as the father/holy spirit - he can give you the understanding plainly and directly.

The process and differences between these 2 things I can say for sure is true/real. This is why I am of no authority, why there is only 1 true teacher and 1 true master, 1 true father. We can not even begin to compare to what the father gives.

But I can't say one way or another when that started as all my understanding obviously happened after. I don't see how Jesus needed to die for this, but I can see how they would only look to Jesus for answers as long as Jesus was there, and how this could in fact blind them in the same manner the bible/church/religion can blind people, as they will only look for the literal and not the understanding. It is so much easier just to have someone tell you 1+1=2 than it is to understand the math behind it. Yet, without the understanding itself the 1+1=2 is not very useful to that person in their daily lives.

So can't say for sure either way, I can only say that the difference between the 2 is 100% true and real.

When you say “come to understanding”, do you mean the understanding that death had no hold over Jesus, because of his death and resurrection?

Know this. I can in no way possibly ever really show you the understanding itself. I can speak of the understanding, and I can express the understanding. But the understanding itself is something only the father gives. If for example I say something and you come to understand it now, and you didn't before - you can thank the father for that, because that is where it came from, not me.

To come to understanding is about many things and everything. As odd as it may sound, understanding a few basic things in terms of who/what you are and in terms of reality will in itself lead to many other things becoming somewhat obvious - including why the physical death is not real, the 2 births and so forth.

But, as you come to understanding in terms of death and the resurrection, then not only will you see why death had no hold on Jesus, but also why death has no hold on you. When you understand, you will say and see for yourself why the physical death isn't real. And from that you can understand why Jesus says not to fear that which can kill the body, but only that which can kill the soul(real death). Because the death of the body/flesh is not the real death.

False fear of the death of flesh is the #1 manipulation tool towards getting people not to walk the path. #1 way to get people to try and "save themselves", and in the process they lose themselves.

The physical/flesh = dead. Life = soul/spirit/consciousness/observer in things. Creation was dead until the spirit of the father descended into it and brought it to life.

Originally posted by Joecroft
I should just point out that what I explained in my last post, is the only way I could make sense of Jesus dieing for sins and at the same time, not be in conflict with his life teachings.

There is a movie called roadside prophets. It's kind of slow, but I enjoyed it. Somewhat of a deep movie that can be hard to understand. Anyway, in the movie there is a scene where one of the people they meet tells a story.

It talks about these ancient gladiators/saints. They were all slaves. They were forced to fight and kill each other for the entertainment of royality/others.

They decided they would no longer do this. They refused to fight. And so the kid in the movie says - they were all killed weren't they? And he says - yes, but they didn't waste their death. And maybe it was because they were martyred, or maybe it was because they were right - their convictions lived on through the ages. They could see the truth, they followed it and they touched souls.

And that is the manner in which I see the death of Jesus and how he saves people in the process. And those convictions have been passed down through the ages, even through the darkest of times(if not especially).

Well, the Holy Spirit has always been around, it spoke to the men in the Old Testament, like the prophets, wise men and Holy men. Although throughout the Old Testament it is only received by a select few.

The arrival of Jesus on the other hand seems to change all that, because now anyone who believes through Jesus, can receive the Holy Spirit. The day of Pentecost where the Holy Spirit was poured out on believers, for example, was something that never happened prier to Jesus.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is not new, but it’s now accessible to anyone who believes in Jesus. Jesus does say that the Holy Spirit will testify to all truth, so yes the Holy Spirit will bring wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

I think I have issue with what it means to believe in Jesus. Is it a matter of believing in Jesus the person, or a matter of believing in that which Jesus does, shows and as such - is? A person, or what he represents and so forth? Because I see many people who believe in "Jesus", yet such things are well beyond them I can see.

Yes I agree with all of this, but I have been wondering about the “poor in spirit”. I’m not sure about this, so I’m just going to throw it out there. “Fatherless” seems pretty straight forward, meaning people who don’t know God, but I have been considering if the “poor in spirit”, is referring to people who believe in God but have not yet received Gods Holy Spirit or do not fully understand God, even though they are still blessed.

I see 3 basic categories in this manner.

Poor in spirit - those who have never heard and don't know/understand. Those who have been unable to recieve "the spirit of truth" and so on. As Jesus says "Bless them father for they know not what they do". Ignorance is no excuse in a court of law with men, because any man will just claim ignorance all the time. Yet, ignorance of the law is a valid excuse with the father because the father will know if you were truly ignorant etc, and you couldn't fake it.

Rich in spirit = those who have understanding and so forth. Filled with the treasures and live/follow it etc.

Wicked = those who have understanding and know the truth, but work purposely against it for their own agenda/gain/purposes.

Hard to say who is poor in spirit and who is the wicked, except that the wicked are generally those who rule over the poor in spirit. Yet, who knows where the actual line is there. Thus, I just generally treat them as being poor in spirit anyway.

This is the first thing the Holy Spirit taught me, that death is not real and this was when I was just on the verge of believing in God. It was only much later I began to piece together the understanding of it. To use you number analogy, I was shown 2+2=4 (but try to imagine no one has ever seen 2+2=4 before). This was completely new too me, and yet somehow I believed it but without understanding, the understanding came about more slowly, later on.

Like you said “in itself lead to many other things becoming somewhat obvious”, which is absolutely true.

[edit on 2/8/2010 by badmedia]

So if Saul of Tarsus never met 'Iesous' in the flesh (only in dreams and visions) and hated and fought with the original disciples (galatians chapter 2, 'those So-called Pillars of the Church over there...'), and those that DID know the Rabbi 'in the flesh' called this Saul person a 'heretic' then why are we even listening to anything this person is alleged to have written, again?

It seems to me that people on this little threadlet (getting carried away with their flimsy dogmatic grip on reality) tend to forget these trifling little details when they are discussing these little matters...

Originally posted by pthena
The question remains: If Paul was creating a religion for Gentiles, why does he include blood sacrifice of Jesus for forgiveness of sins? Wouldn't he have been better off just ignoring blood sacrifice? He could have, but he didn't. So he is still relevant to the blood sacrifice debate.

Sacrifice of the truth is needed in order for the lie to live. The lie will live and flourish until the truth returns. In the light of truth, the lie hasn't a chance, so only by killing/manipulating/covering it up and so forth can the lie live.

By telling people that, instead of what Jesus said which is to keep the commandments, walk the path and so forth it enables people to not do those things. It also takes away the importance of understanding those things and so forth.

Imagine if instead of Christianity being based on the blood sacrifice, it was instead based on following the example of Jesus and keeping the commandments. Would it not be something completely different?

It wasn't really a new religion he created. It was just the same Pharisee movement he was apart of as "Saul" with new clothing. He put on "sheep's clothing", which is symbols and things of that nature. Thus he praises Jesus alot, just like a politician praises the country and such. But when it comes to actually being about what those things represent, it's not there/empty.

Look at how politicians work. How they carry their flag pins, how news stations wave the flag around. This is the true magic of the world. Those symbols give them power over the people. The people think well that guy is all about the symbolism, so he must be one of us. But they are just holding the symbolism and such for the power it brings them.

So that is all Paul does. I think he quotes something Jesus said 1 time. The rest of the time if you look, you will see that it is all "Praise Jesus" and talking about how good Jesus is, but then he says - so do this. Just like the politician, he is talking good about Jesus so he must be one of us, but really it's all just wolves in sheep's clothing.

It's the entire reason for Matthew 7 and what Matthew 7 is all about. Not much mystery in it to me.