The Real Meaning Behind Jesus Sacrifice.

reply to post by Joecroft

This is why the translation of the word “poured”, in those verses above, is important, because its really the Holy Spirit which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins.

Hello! Bingo! I'm not sure why you were going on about "pouring out", but you proved my point that the whole thing can be wrapped up by stating "poured out for the FORGIVENESS OF SINS"! Once again, it doesn't line up with your theory that he was only killed for the purpose of delivering us the truth/message and nothing more.

Regardless of what you think regarding the gnostics having a hang up over the symbolism of blood, you still can't refute the verses I posted from the book of Hebrew, which is a book from the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

reply to post by Deetermined


That verse in Hebrews says specifically "according to the law". And in the very next chapter is this:



5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou prepare for me;

6In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure:

7Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God.

8Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), 9then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

It's almost like the book of Hebrews along with Amos, Jeremiah, Isaiah are saying God did not prescribe those sacrifices. Along with Jesus saying "no man has seen the Father at any time except the Son", and him saying "you hath heard it said an eye for an eye" Yeah you've heard it said (by Moses) that God wants an eye for an eye. You've heard it said that you should commit genocide against heathens. You've heard it said that you are a disgusting sinful worm. You've heard it said that God is a psychopathic killer…

"But I tell you, love those who persecute you" turn the other cheek. But I tell you "no man has seen the Father at any time, except the son", no that is not my Abba, but a tribal god like all the others. What does the Father look like then? Me. , if you have seen me you have seen the Father. So when you read about Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, just know that, that was not Abba Father, but the corrupted mind of man, God is love and in Him there is no darkness or turning" (my paraphrase of Jesus)

reply to post by zardust


I think you need to read and study Hebrews 8 to find out why the law was set out in the first place.

The short explanation I will give you for why it was done this way was to prove to the Jews that Jesus was prophesied about and eventually came to fulfill the law as told to them by God and as written in the Old Testament. It was to prove that the God of the Old Testament was the Father of Jesus.

Matthew 5:17

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Luke 24:44

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

reply to post by Deetermined


I know all about that line of thought. I just disagree with it. Yes Jesus showed them all about himself in the OT, but he never said hey look "I'm the one who said to smash the babies heads against the rock". Just because he is found in the OT, doesn't mean that every word in the OT is actually what God said. A great example is the census of David. In 2nd Samuel 24 it says that God incited David to take the census, but in 1 Chron 21 it says that Satan incited David to do it. Whats the problem here? Confusion on the part of the writers of Samuel as to the nature of God.

You see their view of God was identical to the surrounding nations. God is a wrathful if you cross him, but if you bring him enough sacrifice then he is satied. And yet Jesus presents a very very different view of God, and as I pointed out before, says pretty frankly "you don't know God", same with the Pharisees that searched the scriptures thinking they would find aionian life in them.

And that is exactly what chapters 9 and 10 of Hebrews are pointing out. Not that there is nothing to gain from the OT, there is a huge benefit, like the pattern of the tabernacle, but the writer of Hebrews makes a distinction between the (as Paul says "weak and useless" law) Old covenant. And about 4 or 5 times repeats the phrase "sacrifice and burnt offerings I did not desire, or take pleasure in".

The word Desire is G2309 thelo, it means to will. Look at the usage and it is vastly translated as to will. So what it means is God did not will sacrifices and burnt offerings. Even if the meaning is desire or wish, Does God do things He doesn't desire?

"Oh I really don't want to do this, but I have to give them sacrifices to give to me"

Is it possible that it was Moses that desired the sacrifice ? (or the writers of the Torah), and God chose to work within that framework, which looks almost identical to a pagan cult btw. Why would the God who (supposedly) hates all things pagan give prescriptions for worship that are exactly the same as the surrounding pagans?? It's probably just a coincidence that much of the Hebrew law code is the same as other ANE law codes like Hammurabi.

How about when God says "make no graven image of anything in heaven or earth", but then later we have the ark of the covenant with cherubim on it (things "in the heavens") and the bulls at the base of the bronze laver.

There are multiple voices in the Bible, and we cannot just lump the whole thing together as "God said it so its good enough for me", when Jesus clearly contradicts the law, and says "no you're wrong thats not what God says about an eye for an eye".

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
But the Father is God isn't he? So how is Jesus God but not the Father?

Yes, the Father is God, but God had to exist in some kind of form IMO, so He now exists, as both the Father and The Son, or in the proper sense He exists as the Son.

And, like I tried to explain in my other post, I see Jesus as Gods highest aspect of the Father, to extent where he is, for all intense purposes God, or the closest thing to it etc... The word “Son” kind of clouds the issue a little bit, the best way to think of it, is that Jesus is the Fathers representative.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The verse says that no one is after him and there is no other son but him.

You are saying you are a son but not the Son, that contradicts "no other son exists", and you say that you came after him which contradicts "no one came after him".

There is a clear contradiction here, you are not explaining the contradiction away, you are only furthering it. I have come up with a solution to this supposed contradiction and it agrees with what is written down.

There’s no contradiction, see my explanation further down…

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
But that's not what it says, it says no other son (lowercase used) exists after the Son (uppercase used). You are saying you are a son (lowercase) that came after the Son (uppercase) which fully contradicts what is written.

The passage does not contradict itself, the way you are interpreting it is where the contradiction is coming from. Your interpretation is what is contradicting what is written, what is written does not contradict itself IMO.

There’s no contradiction, see my explanation further down…
Plus you clearly haven't fully grasped it, which is totally understandable, because you’ve only just discovered these verses, like a couple of days ago!!!

The Tripartite Tractate
Just as the Father exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no one else, and the one apart from whom there is no other unbegotten one, so too the Son exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no other, and after whom no other son exists. Therefore, he is a firstborn and an only Son, "firstborn" because no one exists before him and "only Son" because no one is after him. Furthermore, he has his fruit, that which is unknowable because of its surpassing greatness. Yet he wanted it to be known, because of the riches of his sweetness. And he revealed the unexplainable power, and he combined with it the great abundance of his generosity.

Here’s my explanation, to what you say is a contradiction…

My explanation is as follows, the verse above the highlighted verse, states “before whom there was no other” so because He came before, there were no other sons (lower case) or even other Sons (higher case) before Him…Which is fairly straightforward, and easy to see etc…

The line, which starts “before whom”, means before He existed, and the next line is framed in the same context/theme, except now its “after whom” which means, after He exists i.e. no longer exists…

So when it states, “after whom no other son exists”, the key phrase is “after whom”, and is in the context of His existence. So it means after the Son (Jesus) has gone, i.e. no longer exists, there will be no other sons (lower case) left etc…It’s really the Alpha and the Omega concept, it’s just worded in a slightly different way…

But the thing is, the very next line makes it even clearer…

The Tripartite Tractate
Therefore, he is a firstborn and an only Son, "firstborn" because no one exists before him and "only Son" because no one is after him.

These verse above just on there own, clearly show that Jesus is unique. It’s going out of its way, to show that no one was before or after and that He’s an only Son.

Only “Son” because “NO ONE” was after him. There were no other Sons (higher case) that came afterwards. Only sons (lower case) came after. Because Jesus was the only Son of his kind…

What it means, is that no other Sons (higher case) were created after Him, i.e. like Him. All that came after Him, were the (lower case) sons. So there’s no contradiction at all…

This is why Jesus is an only Son, which is what I’ve been saying all along.



And Just to add - If you still don’t accept what I’ve outlined above, try looking at it this way. We know from the verses above that “NO ONE” came after Him or before. It’s also saying He’s an only Son. So there can’t realistically be any Sons (higher case) like Him or after him, out there. To say so, would be going against the verses.

But we know for a fact, that there are many other sons (lower case) out there…i.e. us

Which means, the apparent contradiction in that verse, about “and after whom no other son exists.” Must be meant in another context (and it does), otherwise, there would not only be NO sons, (lower case) but only ONE Son (higher case). So the only solution, is the one I’ve outlined in this post…

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The explanation I am giving you perfectly explains what is written and removes any apparent contradiction that may seem to be there. The only thing is, you have to be open to a new view on things, one that does not put Jesus on a pedestal as being THE Son.

I don’t think it perfectly explains it at all. Also, your throwing out what you call this “perfect theory”, and yet you’ve only just discovered the verses in the “The Tripartite Tractate”, like a few days ago!!! You should really give it a bit more time than that IMO…

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The Son is a brother to himself in the way that you are a brother to me, and I do consider you a brother.

Thanks, I see you as not only a brother, but one of the best religious posters here on ATS. So Regardless of what happens here, that’s not going to change.


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


You're still not taking into account where it says the Son exists in parts and is a brother to himself alone. What are these parts that the Son fully exists in? You have the notion that Jesus is the one and only Son yet neglect the fact that the Tractate clearly says the Son fully exists in "parts". You are ignoring this important piece of information, probably because it would mean you'd have to get rid of the notion of Jesus being on a pedestal, greater than everyone else. And you do believe Jesus is greater than everyone else by the fact that you have no problem with calling him God but you do have a problem with calling yourself God.

What does it mean that the parts wear him and he wears the parts? You have no good explanation because the interpretation you currently have does not allow an explanation. The interpretation I have allows for an explanation. The explanation is that the parts that the Son exists in and "wears" is the Church (us), which is innumerable (Church) but indivisible (Son). The Church is an explanation of the Son being a brother to himself, the Church is the Son being a brother to himself by existing in innumerable parts. This is what the Tractable says and you seem to be ignoring it.

The Son is no different than the universe, the universe exists in many parts (planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) but there is still only one universe. In the same way, the Son exists in many parts (bodies, organisms, etc.) but there is still only one Son. The many parts that the Son fully exists in is called the Church (us), and the Church is an explanation of the Son being a brother to himself and the Son making offspring of himself. We are the Church, we are the brothers, we are the offspring "of" the Son, we are the Son that exists in many parts or bodies.

Again, in your opinion what are these parts that the Son exists in if he is only one being? And how can these parts wear the Son while the Son wears them? How does your interpretation explain this anomaly? If it cannot explain it, it must be wrong. My interpretation explains it perfectly.

Honestly brother, I see a bit of bias on your part toward Jesus "having" to be the first and the best while everyone else is below him and after him. You keep changing your explanation to deal with the information I am presenting and you keep changing the meaning of what is written to fit your interpretation. When the Gnostics speak of the Son, they are speaking about ALL of life, not just Jesus and Jesus alone, the thing about "parts" makes this obvious. When they speak of the Father, Son, and Church, they are speaking about our and their existence. They are trying to explain how life works, they are not trying to single out one person as Christianity does.

The Father is the Son is the Church. We are the Father, Son, and Church, we are the Son existing in many parts (Church), and we are all connected (One) with the Father, if that weren't so we wouldn't be here right now.

Thanks, I see you as not only a brother, but one of the best religious posters here on ATS. So Regardless of what happens here, that’s not going to change.

I feel the same about you brother, there is no animosity between us.

reply to post by zardust


I see that you still didn't understand what was written in the book of Hebrew, but then again, I'm not sure what I expected considering that you don't understand the Old Testament either.

I'll just leave you with a clue about the tabernacle and the laws.

Hebrews 8:5 - They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven.

Maybe a more in depth view from someone else will help you to understand it better, but I won't hold my breath. I don't have much faith in the ATS crowd any longer, which is why I visit so infrequently now.

Over and out.

Hebrews 8 - A New, Better Covenant

www.enduringword.com...

The one whom he raised up as a light for those who came from himself, the one from whom they take their name, he is the Son, who is full, complete and faultless.

This says that the Church takes their name from the Son, implying they have the same name as the Son, which also implies "they" are the same entity as him.

Rather, he exists by himself. As for the parts in which he exists in his own manner and form and greatness, it is possible for to see him and speak about that which they know of him, since they wear him while he wears them, because it is possible for them to comprehend him.

Right here it says the Son exists by himself, meaning there is no other but him. If the Son exists by himself then how did Jesus have 12 apostles and preach to other people? Maybe because Jesus was saying that he was in them and they were in him just as he does in John 14:20. If he is in us, that means we are the "parts" that he exists within in the same form, manner, and greatness as in himself.

This CLEARLY points toward everyone being the parts that the Son exists in in his own manner, form, and greatness. That means we are no less than Jesus and we (the Church) existed in the beginning along with him, because we are him, we are the Son being a brother to himself and making offspring "of" himself. Jesus was one of these "parts" just as we are and the Son existed in him in the same way the Son exists in us, that is in the same form, manner, and greatness.

I don't know how it could be any clearer than that brother. You have to drop preconceived notions in order to understand it.

I may have just discovered the book, but that does not speak badly about my understanding of what is said within it. I had this idea before I discovered the book and it just so happens the book agrees with my idea, to a "T".

reply to post by Deetermined


Of course I don't understand and have no knowledge of the bible. Thank you for pointing that out. It's easier that way. Blessings brother.

reply to post by Deetermined

Originally posted by Deetermined
Hello! Bingo! I'm not sure why you were going on about "pouring out", but you proved my point that the whole thing can be wrapped up by stating "poured out for the FORGIVENESS OF SINS"!

The Holy Spirit, is described as being like water, which is why the word “poured” fits, and makes perfect sense.

For example…

John 7:37-39
On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.

Jesus says in order to enter the kingdom of God, you must become born of water and spirit….

John 3:5
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

The above verse is a crucial part of Jesus message of salvation, and without which, no ONE would know how to enter the kingdom of God. In other words, Jesus could die a thousand times on the cross, but if He never spoke those words, NO one would be able to enter the Kingdom. Which is why the message saves. Remove the message, and you have nothing!

Entering the Kingdom, is the most important thing within standard Christianty, to becoming “saved”. You can only aquire this, by coming to know God, through Jesus message, you can’t reach it by believing in a sacrifice.

Originally posted by Deetermined
Once again, it doesn't line up with your theory that he was only killed for the purpose of delivering us the truth/message and nothing more.

It lines up perfectly. Jesus says those who believe in Him will receive the Holy Spirit. And you can only do that, by coming to know and believe in Him, through Jesus message.

Originally posted by Deetermined
Regardless of what you think regarding the gnostics having a hang up over the symbolism of blood, you still can't refute the verses I posted from the book of Hebrew, which is a book from the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

Hang up lol

That wasn’t a “hang up”, it was a deeply coded symbolic metaphor, for the Spirit of God…

The New Testement writers compounded the error, because they mis-interpreted the word “blood”. But if you want to find the truth on the matter, you really need to go back to the beginning of the meaning behind the sacrifces.

It really all goes back to the time of Cain and Able. Cain's sacrifices were at one point, said to be unacceptable to God. Cain sacrifices were surely just the same as Able’s. But we know from the story, that God was never interested in the sacrifices themselves, but only in the heart condition, of the giver of the sacrifices/offerings. God rejected Cain sacrfices, because his heart just wasn’t in it. Which means it was never about the sacrifices to begin with.

I think men were really the ones who created the offerings/sacrifices, because they wanted to honour God, in some way. But God was only ever interested in the heart intention behind them. Which means, mercy/love was never bought through sacrifices, but only through the intention of a mans heart…

I think some prophets thought sacrifices came from God, but many other prophets, throughout the Old Testament, were constantly telling others, that God did not require sacrifices of animals.

But the great thing is, we know where Jesus stands on this issue, because he quotes those prophets words, which were against sacrifices…i.e. Hosea 6.6

Hosea 6:6
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Acknowldedge of God, comes only through Gods message.

Christianity has it completely wrong, there putting a “sacrfice”, above the acknowledgement of God. When according to the scripture above, it’s only the acknowledgement of God, which is necessary.


- JC

reply to post by Deetermined

. . . the whole thing can be wrapped up by stating "poured out for the FORGIVENESS OF SINS"!

That is one posible translation.
It could just as easily mean to get rid of sins, which would be the more direct translation, where "to forgive" would be a subset of to get rid of.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What does it mean that the parts wear him and he wears the parts? You have no good explanation because the interpretation you currently have does not allow an explanation. The interpretation I have allows for an explanation.

I have an explanation further down…

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You're still not taking into account where it says the Son exists in parts and is a brother to himself alone. What are these parts that the Son fully exists in?

But the verses are also differentiating between The Son and sons (lower case)

There’s only one Son (upper case)…according to the verses.

So for me, it would the sons, (lower case) existing in The Son, and the Father.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You have the notion that Jesus is the one and only Son yet neglect the fact that the Tractate clearly says the Son fully exists in "parts". You are ignoring this important piece of information, probably because it would mean you'd have to get rid of the notion of Jesus being on a pedestal, greater than everyone else.

Yeah, but the “parts” can be the offspring of the first Son.

There has to be a first Son, to have a family of offspring from. So the sons (lower case) can still exist in The Son and the Father.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The explanation is that the parts that the Son exists in and "wears" is the Church (us), which is innumerable (Church) but indivisible (Son). The Church is an explanation of the Son being a brother to himself, the Church is the Son being a brother to himself by existing in innumerable parts. This is what the Tractable says and you seem to be ignoring it.

I don’t think that’s quite what the Tractate is saying, based on these verses below.

The Tripartite Tractate
Not only did the Son exist from the beginning, but the Church, too, existed from the beginning. Now, he who thinks that the discovery that the Son is an only son opposes the statement (about the Church) because of the mysterious quality of the matter, it is not so.

I think this verse above pretty much refutes your idea. Not because there isn’t a family of sons or brothers being a brother to himself etc.. which still applies.

But because it differentiates between the first offspring brotherhood i.e. one is a Son (higher case) and the other (brother) is a son (lower case!!!) and we know that further up in the verses, that it’s states there is only one Son and non are like Him etc…. You seem to be ignoring those key differences. ( that's sounds familiar lol)

The Tripartite Tractate
Being innumerable and illimitable, his offspring are indivisible. Those which exist have come forth from the Son and the Father like kisses, because of the multitude of some who kiss one another with a good, insatiable thought, the kiss being a unity, although it involves many kisses.

Plus the above verse states, his offspring are indivisible, and then goes onto explain how they come, forth from Son (upper case) and the Father…

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The Son is no different than the universe, the universe exists in many parts (planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) but there is still only one universe. In the same way, the Son exists in many parts (bodies, organisms, etc.) but there is still only one Son. The many parts that the Son fully exists in is called the Church (us), and the Church is an explanation of the Son being a brother to himself and the Son making offspring of himself. We are the Church, we are the brothers, we are the offspring "of" the Son, we are the Son that exists in many parts or bodies.

But the Son is a brother, to the sons (lower case) and of course the sons (lower case) can be brothers, to each other.

Your right though, we are offspring of the Son, but the mistake your making, is that we are then the Sons (higher case), where not, where are only the sons (lower case)…where the offspring of the Son, (Higher case) that exists in many parts with each other. Where not Sons (higher case), because there’s only one Son (higher case), according to the verses.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You keep changing your explanation to deal with the information I am presenting and you keep changing the meaning of what is written to fit your interpretation.

My explanation hasn’t changed, it’s been the same theme throughout. I haven’t changed anything major in the theory.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The Father is the Son is the Church. We are the Father, Son, and Church, we are the Son existing in many parts (Church), and we are all connected (One) with the Father, if that weren't so we wouldn't be here right now.

I really appreciate what you’ve wrote here above. But like I was saying in another post, I used to see it the same way as you do now, but then I changed my mind, to my current view, because I seen many connections and verses describing, the same things, about the nature of Jesus.


- JC

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The one whom he raised up as a light for those who came from himself, the one from whom they take their name, he is the Son, who is full, complete and faultless.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This says that the Church takes their name from the Son, implying they have the same name as the Son, which also implies "they" are the same entity as him.

How do you go from them taking his name, to them being the same entity…??? Looks like a jump to me lol

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Rather, he exists by himself. As for the parts in which he exists in his own manner and form and greatness, it is possible for to see him and speak about that which they know of him, since they wear him while he wears them, because it is possible for them to comprehend him.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Right here it says the Son exists by himself, meaning there is no other but him. If the Son exists by himself then how did Jesus have 12 apostles and preach to other people?

There’s no other but Him because he’s the Son (HIGHER CASE!!!) everyone else, is a son (lower case!!!) how many times, do we have to through this! lol

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Maybe because Jesus was saying that he was in them and they were in him just as he does in John 14:20. If he is in us, that means we are the "parts" that he exists within in the same form, manner, and greatness as in himself.

Your getting close. The Father had to exist as an entity outside of Himself, hence The Son, being His spokesperson. This is why Jesus says, we will be in the Father, and in Him, on that day etc… in John 14:20…

But IMO everyone is already in the Father and the Son already, they just don’t know it yet. This is why there is no separation from God etc.… On that day a person receives the Holy Spirit, or more accurately put, when its gets acknowledge within, it then becomes realised and known. And then you enter/realise/know the Kingdom of God.


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

He wonders at himself, along with the Father, and he gives him(self) glory and honor and love. Furthermore, he too is the one whom he conceives of as Son, in accordance with the dispositions: "without beginning" and "without end."

It says that "he too is the one whom he conceives as a Son" which means he conceives himself, not lesser sons, but "clones" of himself. Jesus was conceived of the Son and he was the Son just as we are conceived of the Son and are the Son, because the Son is a brother to himself and we are all brothers within the Church which was from the beginning along with the Son.

You say that there was a "first" Son, but a first implies a beginning and the Tractate says the Son is without beginning or end, meaning there was no "first", there is only what has been forever, which is the Son and Church from the "beginning" together.

This is to say, it is the Church consisting of many men that existed before the aeons, which is called, in the proper sense, "the aeons of the aeons." This is the nature of the holy imperishable spirits, upon which the Son rests, since it is his essence, just as the Father rests upon the Son.

This part says that the Son's essence is within the Church and that he rests upon the Church. If the Father and Son are One, and the Father rests upon the Son, it goes to reason that the Church and the Son are One as well because the Son rests upon the Church just as with the Father and Son.

If the Church and Son are One, it also goes to reason that the Church is the vessel(s) on which the Son rests. Our bodies house the Son, and the Son inhabiting each body is the Son being a brother to himself.

[...] the Church exists in the dispositions and properties in which the Father and the Son exist, as I have said from the start.

This says that the Church (bodies/us) exists in the same disposition as the Father and Son, meaning the Church and the Son are One just as the Father and Son are.

They alone have the ability to name themselves and to conceive of themselves.

If the Church alone has the ability to conceive of themselves and to name themselves, that ties into these next parts:

The one whom he raised up as a light for those who came from himself, the one from whom they take their name, he is the Son, who is full, complete and faultless.

And this part:

Furthermore, he too is the one whom he conceives of as Son, in accordance with the dispositions: "without beginning" and "without end."

Since only the Church can conceive of itself, it goes to reason that the Church is composed of the Son because the passage says that the Son "too" is the one who conceives of himself. The word "too" is referring to the Church only being able to conceive of itself, meaning the Church is the Son broken up into many "parts" where each "part" contains the fullness of the Son.

Also, since the Church alone can name themselves and the Church takes their name from the Son, it goes to reason that the Church is the Son within many "parts" because only the Church can name themselves and the Son is who they get their names from.

The Church being the "parts" of the Son ties into this next part as well:

Rather, he exists by himself. As for the parts in which he exists in his own manner and form and greatness, it is possible for to see him and speak about that which they know of him, since they wear him while he wears them, because it is possible for them to comprehend him.

It says that the Son exists alone then goes on to say that the Son exists in parts. These parts are the Church where the Son exists in his own manner, form, and greatness. This means that each part (or brother) contains the fullness of the Son.

The parts wearing the Son while the Son wears the parts is just another way of Jesus saying "you are in me and I am in you", Jesus means that he wears us while we wear him.

And finally, further down we find this:

This one was given to them for enjoyment and nourishment and joy and an abundance of illumination, which consists in his fellow laboring, his knowledge and his mingling with them, that is, the one who is called and is, in fact, the Son, since he is the Totalities and the one of whom they know both who he is and that it is he who clothes.

This part says that the Church (Totalities) was given the Son and that the Son IS the Totalities (Church).

The Church being the Totalities (plural) is a reference from further up where it says that the Son exists fully within the "parts", hence Totalities. This explicitly says that the Son is many by saying he is plural.

Also, even further down we find this:

All of them exist in the single one, as he clothes himself completely and by his single name he is never called. And in this unique way they are equally the single one and the Totalities.

This is talking about the Father. It says that the Totalities exist in the single one (Father) and that in a unique way they (the Church) are all the single one (Father) and the Totalities (the Son within many parts).

This all points toward us being the Son along with Jesus. In the same way that the Totalities (Son/Church) are single but many, so too is the Church which is indivisible (Son/single one) but innumerable (parts/Totalities).

--------------------------------------------------

To break it down:

1. It says that the Son is the Totalities, meaning the Son is plural.

2. The Totalities represent the "parts" or Church in which the Son's essence is within.

3. The Son's essence being within the Church represents the Son fully existing within "parts".

4. The parts represent us, the Church, which the Son's essence is within and which the Son rests upon.

5. The Son rests upon the Church in the same way that the Father rests upon the Son, in that they are One.

6. The Totalities are the single one (Father) in the same way that the Church is the single one (Son).

7. The Church being many parts in which the Son fully exists within represents the Church or brothers being "innumerable but indivisible", meaning they are "equally the one as they are the Totalities (plural)".

This all points toward the Son existing within us and us being the Son, not just Jesus.

ETA: To add one more thing, even further down is a perfect example of what I'm trying to say about the Son existing fully in many parts, the parts being us and us being the Son:

They offered glory worthy of the Father from the pleromatic congregation, which is a single representation although many

In the same way that the Totalities (Church) are the many of the single representation (Father) so is the Son a single representation although many. The Son (single representation) being many is the Son existing fully within the parts of the Church. We are the Church and we are the single representation (Son) being many.

I read a bit further down and it describes the Father in the same way that I described the universe, being a unity but a multiplicity.

Just as the present aeon, though a unity, is divided by units of time and units of time are divided into years and years are divided into seasons and seasons into months, and months into days, and days into hours, and hours into moments, so too the aeon of the Truth, since it is a unity and multiplicity, receives honor in the small and the great names according to the power of each to grasp it - by way of analogy - like a spring which is what it is, yet flows into streams and lakes and canals and branches, or like a root spread out beneath trees and branches with its fruit, or like a human body, which is partitioned in an indivisible way into members of members, primary members and secondary, great and small.

In the same way as the Father, the Son to is a unity and multiplicity. Unity being the Son and multiplicity being the Church. The Son is fully within all of us and IS us just as the Son is the Totalities and the Father the Totalities as well.

They offered glory worthy of the Father from the pleromatic congregation, which is a single representation although many, because it was brought forth as a glory for the single one and because they came forth toward the one who is himself the Totalities.

reply to post by Joecroft

There’s no other but Him because he’s the Son (HIGHER CASE!!!) everyone else, is a son (lower case!!!) how many times, do we have to through this! lol

But the Tractate says that there is not other son (lowercase) except for the Son (uppercase).

Just as the Father exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no one else, and the one apart from whom there is no other unbegotten one, so too the Son exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no other, and after whom no other son exists.

It says the Son exists in the same sense as the Father, meaning there is no other but the Son and no other son (lowercase) after him.

You say sons do exists, the Tractate says that no sons exist other than the Son, who is alone and by himself in the same sense as the Father.

reply to post by Joecroft

but it is not his death/blood that saves them… it’s the message that he died to bring, that saves them.

Romans 5:9 (ESV)

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

it IS the blood of Christ that forgives sin and saves. That IS the message.

OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Joecroft

 

but it is not his death/blood that saves them… it’s the message that he died to bring, that saves them.

Romans 5:9 (ESV)

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

it IS the blood of Christ that forgives sin and saves. That IS the message.

What about when Jesus forgave men's sins before the cross?

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


Not according to Jesus.

Matthew 6
14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

Jesus says to be forgiven you must forgive others. It's pretty clear, but I'm sure you will find some way to ignore it, probably by quoting Paul.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


That is what happens when you mix Paul with Jesus...

The blood of the innocent does nothing... it does not save, nor does it forgive sin...

Never has, never will...

How does Blood Save?