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.

 

The Real Meaning Behind Jesus Sacrifice.

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

zardust

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?


Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, and He had the authority to forgive sin... we see this in Matthew 9:1-8


Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.




posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

Romans 5:9
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (ESV)
it IS the blood of Christ that forgives sin and saves. That IS the message.
Paul makes a comparison between the ungodly and the good.
Then he makes one between being sinners, and then being "justified".
Seems like what he means by the term, justified, is to be made straight, as in living in accordance with a standard of behavior that God would approve of.
I think that Paul is talking about how a person is made right, or "good", as something that is a result of our being brought into a spiritual kingdom on earth that was made possible through Christ's death, breaking us free from the old system that had really only been a superior system in comparison to all the other religions that existed before Jesus came.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 






Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.


But if there clones of Himself, it still means, they came afterwards…even if you promote them up to the level of Sons (higher case.)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.


But The Tractate also states “He was firstborn” as well, which implies a beginning point, even if He did come out of “the beginning and the end”… And like I was saying in another post, if you merge with the Father completely, you will cease to exist, you can only exist from outside. So the Firstborn Son is the starting point…IMO

And if you don’t agree, then how do get round the Tractate stating He was the “First born”…if you don’t accept there was a beginning…?

“In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God/Father…”

It also states, He was an “only Son” and that NO ONE exists before him and "only Son" because NO ONE is after him.

Based on what Tractate is stating, how can we all be the “first Son”…?

Here’s the verses again…




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.





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.


But I’m already aware they’re all one with each other, that isn’t our contention, we agreed on that aspect, since the start of this discussion.

What we’re in disagreement over, is the structure of the Father, The Son, and sons; and not whether they’re all one or not. We already agree there all One.



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.


But how can there be a firstborn, and offspring, if we are all the Son…?



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
[...] 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.


Yeah, but that just explains the oneness, it doesn’t fully explain the order and structure of it.



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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 ability to name themselves and “conceive” could equally apply, to them (sons) having their own children and offspring; but even their offspring are still in the Father, and of course, IMO in The Son as well…



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.


Yeah, they (the Church) are all in the Son, but the Son that they’re in, is the First born Son. Your now starting to get closer to what I’ve been saying all along. The sons or even Sons (if you prefer), conceiving of themselves, does not negate the First born Son concept.



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.


It’s the Sons greatness that they exist in, not their own.

The verses your looking at, also show that there’s a Son from who there taking there name from…

Here’s the breakdown of the verses…





The Tripartite Tractate
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.



The one whom He raised up is Jesus, and then it’s states those who came from himself i.e. Jesus…It’s clearly stating that those/they, came from The Son (Jesus) himself…Which confirms those other verses, about The Son and the Father bringing forth others….

And the highlighted part describes Jesus himself, as The Son, who is full, complete, and faultless. The rest of the verses are in context of the Son.





The Tripartite Tractate
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. He, however, is as he is, incomparable. In order that the Father might receive honour from each one and reveal himself, even in his ineffability, hidden, and invisible, they marvel at him mentally.



It states He exist by himself. The parts are us, and then it talks about how it’s possible for the parts (us) to seek him out. And him, in context of the entire passage, is The Son.

We exist in the Son, and the Son is in us. But we are just the parts. Where as the Son exist by himself.

Then it continues talking about the Son, by stating “He however is as he is, incomparable”. Then the very next sentence says, this is so the Father could reveal himself to each one (us)….And I’m just paraphrasing that last part. But what it means is The Son, revealed the Father to the parts i.e. us…IMO



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.



Yes, but it still does not negate or cancel out the possibility, that Jesus is the First born Son…



Originally posted 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 go through this! lol




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
But the Tractate says that there is not other son (lowercase) except for the Son (uppercase).




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.



“You say sons do exist” lol

Yeah I do…but so do you… brother lol

But I’ve already tried to explain that verse, in another post. I said that it had to be meant in another context, otherwise there would be no sons. And we both know that’s not possible. So the verse must be meant in another context. Otherwise only one Son would be in existence.

Like I said in another post, it was about The Sons existence; the alpha and omega concept..i.e. “before whom” and “after whom” no sons, will exist…

The other verse in question was slightly different, to the other one…

Here it is again.




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.



In the other verse, the word “after” was in the context of being “after whom” i.e. after the Son existence, no sons will be around etc…

But in the verse above the word “after” is in a slightly different context now. It’s talking about after the Sons creation, no others are after Him.

Which can only mean there are no others like Him, after Him. What came after, are the sons and the parts, who just aren’t the same as the Son. No others are after Him, because God didn’t create any more Sons (higher case). Hence, the phrase “only begotten Son” in other verses…The Father and Son created all other sons.

- JC



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 





Originally posted by OptimusSubprime



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.


According to Jesus, in order to enter the Kingdom of God and be “saved”, you must become born of Water and Spirit. We learn this through Jesus message only, which is why the message saves.

The word “blood”, was a coded metaphor used by the Gnostic Christians to symbolize the “Holy Spirit”.

It’s the Holy Spirit, which is poured out for our sins, and we only learn how to receive it, by coming to know God through Jesus message, therefore it’s Jesus message that saves.

See my 2 replies to the poster “Deetermined” where I explained it in more detail…you can find them here and here

- JC



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 

The word “blood”, was a coded metaphor used by the Gnostic Christians to symbolize the “Holy Spirit”.
I don't know who those persons might be who thought that but it doesn't explain what the writer of John meant.
If anything, he was arguing against gnostics, as evidenced in the Johannine epistles.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 






Originally posted by jmdewey
I don't know who those persons might be who thought that but it doesn't explain what the writer of John meant.
If anything, he was arguing against gnostics, as evidenced in the Johannine epistles.


There arguing against the Gnostics because they didn’t understand their writings.

Also it explains it perfectly IMO…

There’s another verses in John, which talks about how one must drink of Jesus blood, or you will have no life in you etc…

Which surely can’t be meant to be taken literally. And I don’t think it means I am a sacrifice either. Plus we know from other verses, that it’s the Spirit which one receives, the living water, which brings life. So there’s a clear connection there again, to the Holy Spirit being the correct interpretation, instead of literal blood.

- JC


edit on 14-2-2014 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

Romans 5:9
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (ESV)
it IS the blood of Christ that forgives sin and saves. That IS the message.
Paul makes a comparison between the ungodly and the good.
Then he makes one between being sinners, and then being "justified".
Seems like what he means by the term, justified, is to be made straight, as in living in accordance with a standard of behavior that God would approve of.
I think that Paul is talking about how a person is made right, or "good", as something that is a result of our being brought into a spiritual kingdom on earth that was made possible through Christ's death, breaking us free from the old system that had really only been a superior system in comparison to all the other religions that existed before Jesus came.


The term "justified" is synonymous with, and used interchangeably with, the term "saved" all throughout the New Testament. When Jesus died on the cross, He fulfilled the law and made the old covenant obsolete. There is no standard of behavior in regards to salvation and being justified before God. Salvation comes by grace through faith and nothing else. Now certainly once a person is saved, they should attempt to "walk in the new man" as Paul says on several occasions. The book of James says that faith without works is dead, however works is not what justifies/saves.. only faith does that. A follower of Christ should attempt to live a holy life, which only means that they should live their life outside the "normal" way that the ungodly, or unjustified live. For example, a Christian shouldn't curse because that is how the world talks. A Christian should be willing to give to others because the world, generally speaking, is selfish. To be holy means to basically do the opposite of what the world does. Having said that, living a holy life does not save or justify, only faith in Christ saves and justifies.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


I think where we disagree is that you believe Jesus is the Son while we are not while I believe we are the Son just as Jesus was and we are offspring of the Son just as Jesus was an offspring.



He existed before anything other than himself came into being. The Father is a single one, like a number, for he is the first one and the one who is only himself. Yet he is not like a solitary individual.


This part is about the Father, it says that he is a single one, but the important part is where it says "yet he is not like a solitary individual", meaning it is one entity broken up into many parts, hence not being like a solitary individual.

The Son mirrors this concept because he "is in the same disposition as the Father", in that he exists within the Church and each part of the Church contains the fullness of the Son, as it says here:



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.


This is the key part of what I'm trying to show you about the Son, which is that he exists fully within the parts of the Church. Each part is fully the Son because as this says, the Son exists in his own form, manner, and greatness within each part.

We are the parts that the Son fully exists within. Since the Son fully exists within us, that means we are fully the Son and the Son "is a single one but is not like a solitary individual" because he exists fully within many parts.



And in this unique way they are equally the single one and the Totalities.


This is saying that they (Church) are both the single one (Son) and the Totalities (parts) all at once.



He is each and every one of the Totalities forever at the same time. He is what all of them are. He brought the Father to the Totalities. He also is the Totalities, for he is the one who is knowledge for himself and he is each one of the properties.


The Totalities is referring to the individuals of the Church, or us. How can the single one be within many bodies fully at once? Because "he is a single one but not like a solitary individual".

He (Son) is each and every on of the Totalities (us) and he (Son) is what all of them (the Church) are, meaning each part of the Church is the Son, and since the Father shares the same disposition as the Son, they (we) are the Father as well, "a single one but not like a solitary individual".

He (Son) also is the Totalities (parts), meaning each one of us is the Son existing fully within parts.



He knows them, which things he himself is, since they are in the single name, and are all speaking in it. And he brings (them) forth, in order that it might be discovered that they exist according to their individual properties in a unified way.


He (Son) knows them (Church/Totalities) because he is them and they (we) are him. We are all the single name (Son) and we are all experiencing or "speaking" that name. Our individual properties, i.e. our individual bodies, are unified in that we are all the Son.

And again, since the Father is in the same disposition as the Son, that means we are the Father who "is a single one but not like a solitary individual", as it says in this part:



"The Father is the one who is the Totalities,"


You see the Son as a solitary individual, that individual being Jesus. This is not how it works, as the Tractate states. It says the Son is a single one, but is not like a solitary individual as in how you think Jesus is the solitary Son.



And he did not reveal the multitude to the Totalities at once nor did he reveal his equality to those who had come forth from him.


This part says that the Son did not reveal their (our) equality to him at once, meaning we are equal to him but not everyone understands this at once.

You say that you came forth from the Son but you do not see yourself as him or equal to him, you have not yet revealed this to yourself, but I am trying to help you realize that it is so.



Rather, their begetting is like a process of extension, as the Father extends himself to those whom he loves, so that those who have come forth from him might become him as well.


Those who come forth from the Father are the Church or us. This says that we can become the Father through gnosis, or attainment of knowledge.

Since the Son shares the same disposition as the Father, you could replace Father in the passage with Son and it would be equally as true, meaning we can become the Son through gnosis.

It seems as though right now you are not ready to become the Son or the Father because you do not recognize your equality to them.
edit on 2/14/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 

Which surely can’t be meant to be taken literally. And I don’t think it means I am a sacrifice either. Plus we know from other verses, that it’s the Spirit which one receives, the living water, which brings life. So there’s a clear connection there again, to the Holy Spirit being the correct interpretation, instead of literal blood.
Part of it can be taken literally, where he says, "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
He literally gave his flesh. He wasn't saying that he is giving it right then, so it would have been pointing forward to where he was given over to be brutally killed by the occupying forces.

I'm missing what your step of logic is that gets you from blood to water.

He goes on to say, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing".
So the spirit here is a way to explain how it is the truth of God, which is of a higher order, that gives eternal life, and nothing that the material world can do.
He isn't specifically talking about some sort of ethereal substance that gets transferred to you and somehow energizes you.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


And yet no blood had to be shed did it? Did jesus take a couple lashes right then to forgive sins?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 

And yet no blood had to be shed did it? Did jesus take a couple lashes right then to forgive sins?
Once Jesus was here on earth as a man, I think that it was already at that point pretty much a done deal that Jesus was going to come to a violent end, based on the reactions against him from the beginning, from those who might have the ability to have such a thing carried out.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
 

And yet no blood had to be shed did it? Did jesus take a couple lashes right then to forgive sins?
Once Jesus was here on earth as a man, I think that it was already at that point pretty much a done deal that Jesus was going to come to a violent end, based on the reactions against him from the beginning, from those who might have the ability to have such a thing carried out.


Yes I think it was pretty much a done deal because that is the nature of man and religion, to scapegoat. But there was a chance it wouldn't happen. God didn't require Jesus to die so that sins could be forgiven. Men are the ones who require sacrifice. Jesus came to show the way, which is giving of yourself, yes even unto death to stop the violent mechanism of religion. But he forgave sins while the possibility remained of choosing life.

I think the transfiguration also speaks to this, in a round about way. We see this pattern: death, resurrection/glorification, and yes that is the pattern we all take, but with the transfiguration we see resurrection/glorification pre death. There were no requirements of the murder of Jesus for him to experience a glorified body.

The forgiveness of sins without blood
Glorification without blood



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   

zardust
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


And yet no blood had to be shed did it? Did jesus take a couple lashes right then to forgive sins?





Yes, blood had to be shed. The manner in which Jesus died was as a sacrifice for the sin of man. Just like in the old covenant, blood had to be shed from a sacrificial animal.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 

But he forgave sins while the possibility remained of choosing life.
You are creating a hypothetical that really doesn't exist, since if Jesus was a person who would change his mind somehow, we wouldn't be here talking about him.
Jesus was demonstrating that he had all the power of God that a person could possibly have without everyone in the world just instantaneously dropping dead on the spot.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

OptimusSubprime

zardust
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


And yet no blood had to be shed did it? Did jesus take a couple lashes right then to forgive sins?





Yes, blood had to be shed. The manner in which Jesus died was as a sacrifice for the sin of man. Just like in the old covenant, blood had to be shed from a sacrificial animal.


Was Jesus lying when he said "get up your sins are forgiven"? Because the blood had not been shed yet. Maybe he should have said "get up in a couple years, after I'm murdered, your sins will be forgiven, because remember according to the law there is no forgiveness of sins without blood being spilt."

God does not require, desire, will, or command sacrifice. Yes it says that in the bible. That is what this passage in Hebrews is saying. Yes according to the law (of Moses) massive amounts of blood were required. But, or in opposition to there is a heavenly option. And no violence is required. Yes Jesus fulfilled the law, it was a bloody law, but God did not give those commands. At least not the God that Jesus called Father, or Daddy.

How many times did Jesus correct peoples "correct" understanding of God?

When the sons of thunder wanted to call down flaming sulfur on that town ala sodom and gomorrah, what did Jesus say? "You know not what Spirit you are of". What did he tell Peter to do when he wanted to be God's warrior and battle the heathen? Or What did he call Peter when he spoke of stopping Jesus' mission of Peace, Satan. Peter had a correct Jewish understanding of what God was like, according to their scriptures. That is what God is portrayed as, very often, a warrior, violent, destructive God. Vengeance is mine, right?

Father forgive them for they know not what they do
If you have seen me you have seen the Father

Jesus presents a very different view of God than what those with a "correct" understanding of God "knew" about God. They "knew" an eye for an eye because thats what the law says, but Jesus says "no you heard wrong", thats not correct. No man has seen the FAther except the Son. I am the way, not the way of violence, not the way of the Temple cult. They didn't understand, that wasn't God telling Joshua to slaughter the babies, that was their carnal minds.

So in Hebrews we have the same thing, yes blood is required… according to the law… of MOSES. The law of God is Love God, Love others. That was the two tablets. Moses was raised in all the wisdom of Egypt. He "knew" God required sacrifice, and so 613 other "heavy burdens" laid on were written (eventually). Was it Moses or the lying pen of the scribes? The Deuteronomists? The Josiahn purge? Ezra when he transferred the bible to the babyloninan script? Who knows?

The prophets, Jesus, Paul, John, the Hebraist all repeat: God does not require, or command, or want your bloody sacrifices. He wants mercy and justice, love and compassion. Keep your idolatry, God has no use for sacrifices. He wants your life. He wants Life so much that allowed his son to step into the mechanism of human idolatry aka religion and not strike back. He doesn't act like the other gods who find vengeance. When he is brought to life he says "shalom" Peace I bring to you. The same thing that the angels said when they hearkened the good news. Peace on earth and good will (eudokia, the same word as what God does not desire in sacrifice).

His blood speaks a better word than Able's. What did Able's blood say? When will I have vengeance? Able was "correct" in his "jewish view of God". Vengeance, blood, violence, sacrifice. Yes Hebrew's describes these things, but it is a letter to the Jews saying this is what you thought was God, BUT, BUT, BUT that is not God.

What does God look like?? Jesus

I'd like you to think of Jesus holding little kids heads under water and drowning. "jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world" is being sung while they drown in the flood caused by a loving father. Then he tells a general, "when you go into this town, I want you to slaughter every man woman and child, and animal, then burn the place to the ground.

Please show me where in the gospels you find any evidence of these types of crimes against humanity in Jesus' character. When does he destroy? Kill? Decimate? Oh when he comes back right? Or is that a bunch of nonsense also, and why he had to explain himself to the disciples when he came back. And why Paul says even to this day their minds are veiled.

Jesus should be the lens through which we read the OT, NOT the other way around. So when we see Jesus saying I desire Mercy not Sacrifice, don't you think he means it. Either the prophets and the NT writers are right and God didn't command, desire, require or have good intention toward (eudokia) sacrifice and burt offering, OR the writerS of the Torah are right.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I think where we disagree is that you believe Jesus is the Son while we are not while I believe we are the Son just as Jesus was and we are offspring of the Son just as Jesus was an offspring.


Yeah, that's the one; that’s what we disagree on, no doubt about it… lol



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This part is about the Father, it says that he is a single one, but the important part is where it says "yet he is not like a solitary individual", meaning it is one entity broken up into many parts, hence not being like a solitary individual.


Exactly, your getting closer to the truth. He’s not like a solitary individual, because He’s in three parts…according to the theology of the texts…

(see my next post)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The Son mirrors this concept because he "is in the same disposition as the Father", in that he exists within the Church and each part of the Church contains the fullness of the Son, as it says here:


But The Son is different from us, according the Gnostic text theology …

(see my next post)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This is the key part of what I'm trying to show you about the Son, which is that he exists fully within the parts of the Church. Each part is fully the Son because as this says, the Son exists in his own form, manner, and greatness within each part.
We are the parts that the Son fully exists within. Since the Son fully exists within us, that means we are fully the Son and the Son "is a single one but is not like a solitary individual" because he exists fully within many parts.


But The Son is an extension/higher aspect of the Father. So just like the Father is in all, the Son is in all as well, except The Son exists as an actual entity, according to the texts.

(see my next post)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
And in this unique way they are equally the single one and the Totalities.




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This is saying that they (Church) are both the single one (Son) and the Totalities (parts) all at once.


That verse is just saying that they’re all one, it isn’t saying that all the parts, are the Son, just like it’s not saying that all the parts, are the Father. You first need to see the complete theology, before you make a decision…

(see my next post)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This is saying that they (Church) are both the single one (Son) and the Totalities (parts) all at once.

He is each and every one of the Totalities forever at the same time. He is what all of them are. He brought the Father to the Totalities. He also is the Totalities, for he is the one who is knowledge for himself and he is each one of the properties.


There everything at once because they are connected and a part of each other. But there is a structure to it, as outlined in other gnostic text verses…

(see my next post)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The Totalities is referring to the individuals of the Church, or us. How can the single one be within many bodies fully at once? Because "he is a single one but not like a solitary individual".

He (Son) is each and every on of the Totalities (us) and he (Son) is what all of them (the Church) are, meaning each part of the Church is the Son, and since the Father shares the same disposition as the Son, they (we) are the Father as well, "a single one but not like a solitary individual".

He (Son) also is the Totalities (parts), meaning each one of us is the Son existing fully within parts.


There’s only ONE Son, and the theology of that fact, exists within the Gnostic texts……

(see my next post)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
He knows them, which things he himself is, since they are in the single name, and are all speaking in it. And he brings (them) forth, in order that it might be discovered that they exist according to their individual properties in a unified way.


He bringing them forth, is The Son begetting other sons, which is a theology mentioned in the other Gnostic texts……

(see my next post)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
He (Son) knows them (Church/Totalities) because he is them and they (we) are him. We are all the single name (Son) and we are all experiencing or "speaking" that name. Our individual properties, i.e. our individual bodies, are unified in that we are all the Son.


He is in them yes, but He, is NOT them/us, just like I’m not You!… that’s where your going wrong… IMO

(see my next post)




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
And again, since the Father is in the same disposition as the Son, that means we are the Father who "is a single one but not like a solitary individual", as it says in this part:


But’s that's just about the Son, who is unique, it doesn’t apply to us, because where NOT the Son.

(see my next post)




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You see the Son as a solitary individual, that individual being Jesus. This is not how it works, as the Tractate states. It says the Son is a single one, but is not like a solitary individual as in how you think Jesus is the solitary Son.


It says Hes not like a single one, because He’s made up of three parts. You need to see the completely theology within the Gnostic texts, to piece it together.

Also, various verses in the Gnostic texts, show that Jesus is a unique individual.

(see my next post)




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
And he did not reveal the multitude to the Totalities at once nor did he reveal his equality to those who had come forth from him.

This part says that the Son did not reveal their (our) equality to him at once, meaning we are equal to him but not everyone understands this at once.


It must mean equality in a different sense, like being one with the Father and being a son etc…because we can’t be equal to that which came first, but we can be equal in other ways.

(see my next post)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You say that you came forth from the Son but you do not see yourself as him or equal to him, you have not yet revealed this to yourself, but I am trying to help you realize that it is so.


Well, I appreciate the help, but The Son, is regarded a God, in the Gnostic texts, and it names Him, and states everyone else came from Him. So it’s just not possible to be the Son.

(see my next post)




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Those who come forth from the Father are the Church or us. This says that we can become the Father through gnosis, or attainment of knowledge.


But I would argue, that we only realise we are only a part of the Father, through gnosis and knowledge etc… and not that we actually are the Father himself. ……

(see my next post)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Since the Son shares the same disposition as the Father, you could replace Father in the passage with Son and it would be equally as true, meaning we can become the Son through gnosis.


Yeah, but it’s only the Son who shares the same disposition as the Father, this is clearly mentioned in the Gnostic verses.

(see my next post)



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
It seems as though right now you are not ready to become the Son or the Father because you do not recognize your equality to them.


I can’t ever become the Son, because He was the first born, so I can’t ever be Him, just like I can’t ever be the Father.

(see my next post)


- JC



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I cant believe the amount of resistance you are putting up here. In hindsight, perhaps “Tripartite Tractate” verses, were not the best ones to choose, to try to show the distinction.




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Is there a Gnostic writing that explicitly distinguishes the Son of God from a son of God?


Here’s your question again above.

I’m now going to show you other verses found within the Gnostic texts, which show the exact same theology. And that they show a clear distiniction is being presented, between The Son and a son…

I’ll add little bit of commentary, as I go…




The (Second) Apocalypse of James
I am the first son who was begotten. –
He will destroy the dominion of them all. -
I am the beloved.
I am the righteous one.
I am the son of the Father.
I speak even as I heard.
I command even as I received the order.
I show you even as I have found.



First up “The (Second) Apocalypse of James”, brings in this theological idea that there is a first, who was begotten.





The Apocryphon of John
7 Barbelo gazed intently into It, the pure light. She turned herself toward It. She gave birth to a spark of blessed light, but it was not equal to her in greatness. [She gave birth to a spark of light resembling the blessed light ] This is the Only-begotten who appeared from the Father, the divine Autogenes, the first-born son of the All of the Spirit of pure light.



Next up the “The Apocryphon of John”, brings in this idea that this First Son, is the ONLY begotten, the first who emanated from the ALL…




Melchizedek
Holy are you, Holy are you, Holy are you, Commander-in-chief of the All, Jesus Christ, for ever and ever, Amen.



Now this verse Melchizedek, is clearly singling Jesus out specifically. There’s no way writers would present it this way, if they thought we were all exactly like Jesus and that we are all the Son etc...




The Dialogue of the Savior
So when you offer praise, do so like this: Hear us, Father, just as you heard your only begotten son, and received him, and gave him rest from any [...]



Agian, the only begotten Son theology, within the text.




The Dialogue of the Savior
If one does not understand how blowing wind came into existence, he will blow away with it. If one does not understand how body, which he bears, came into existence, he will perish with it. And how will someone who does not know the Son know the Father?



This verse states you have to know the Son to know the Father…





The Gospel of the Egyptians
Three powers came forth from him; they are the Father, the Mother, (and) the Son, from the living silence, what came forth from the incorruptible Father. These came forth from the silence of the unknown Father.



This verse above states, there are three powers which came forth first, and again one of them is the Son…




The Gospel of the Egyptians
* * * The Gospel of Egyptians. The God-written, holy, secret book. Grace, understanding, perception, (and) prudence (be) with him who has written it - Eugnostos
the beloved, in the Spirit - in the flesh, my name is Gongessos - and my fellow lights in ncorruptibility. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, Ichthus. God-written (is) theholy book of the great, invisible Spirit. Amen.



This verse above is now singling Jesus out, as the Son of God. Again, you just wouldn’t single somebody out by name, if you believe where all The Son of God…and that we are all the same etc…they’re clearly taking it, to another level.




The Gospel of Truth
And the name of the Father is the Son. It is he who, in the beginning, gave a name to him who came forth from him - he is the same one - and he begat him for a son. He gave him his name which belonged to him - he, the Father, who possesses everything which exists around him.



Again above, this theology, of a first Son, coming forth from the beginning, and from the Father.




Melchizedek
O glorious one, Jesus Christ! O chief commanders of the luminaries, you powers Armozel, Oroiael, Daveithe, Eleleth, and you man-of-light, immortal aeon Pigera-Adamas, and you good god of the beneficent worlds, Mirocheirothetou, through Jesus Christ, the Son of God!



The above is from the Melchizedek book again. This time they’re calling him to the glorious one, and they’re putting a name to this Son of God, by calling him Jesus Christ.

There clearly going way beyond, just thinking he came to bring the gnosis, or that He’s exactly like us!




Trimorphic Protennoia
Then the Son who is perfect in every respect -- that is, the Word who originated through that Voice; who proceeded from the height; who has within him the Name; who is a Light -- he revealed the everlasting things, and all the unknowns were known. And those things difficult to interpet and secret, he revealed



Agian above, The Son is the Word, who Originated from the Voice (and for argument sake, the voice has to be the Father) So again, it’s this theology of a first Son, comng forth.




Trimorphic Protennoia
Then the Perfect Son revealed himself to his Aeons, who originated through him, and he revealed them and glorified them, and gave them thrones, and stood in the glory withwhich he glorified himself. They blessed the Perfect Son, the Christ, the only-begotten God. And they gave glory, saying, "He is! He is! The Son of God! The Son of God! It is he who is! The Aeon of Aeons, beholding the Aeons which he begot.



The above highlighted verse, states (they i.e. us) orignated through Him i.e. through The Son of God…

The next highlighted verse down, shows this theolgy again of a begotten Son, except now, there calling him God!!!

And the last highlighted verse, is going out of is its way to state this entity is The Son of God, and that it is He who begot all the Aeons. Which means He begot/Created everyone else!




Trimorphic Protennoia
Then, moreover, the God who was begotten gave them (the Aeons) a power of life on which they might rely, and he established them. The first Aeon he established over the first:



The above verse, is now stating again that this begotten one is God!!. And just to clarify, He’s begotten because He came from the Father.

Writers wouldn’t go to all this trouble, if we are all The Son of God…there’s a clear distinction being made here…




Trimorphic Protennoia
They were the first to appear, exalted in their thought, and each Aeon gave myriads of glories within great untraceable lights, and they all together blessed the perfect Son, the God who was begotten.



Again, the above is another verse, which calls the begotten Son, a God. And again. you just wouldn’t single any body out, as being God, if you believed everyone else is the same as the Son/Him.




The Tripartite Tractate
This is the one who is called "Son" and the one of whom they understand that he exists and they were seeking after him. This is the one who exists as Father and (as) the one about whom they cannot speak, and the one of whom they do not conceive. This is the one who first came into being.



It’s the “Tripartite Tractate” again.

The first line talks about the Son, the one whom others (us) are seeking after. But the key line is the next highlighted verse.

Now remeber it’s in the context of talking about the Son, and it clearly states “He is the one who exist as the Father!!!”

So again, they’re essentially calling The Son, God…

And the last highlighted verse shows this theology again of there being a First Son, who came First into being.




A Valentinian Exposition
God came forth: the Son, Mind of the All, that is, it is from the Root of the All that even his Thought stems, since he had this one (the Son) in Mind. For on behalf of the All, he received an alien Thought since there were nothing before him. From that place it is he who moved [...] a gushing spring. Now this is the Root of the All and Monad without any one before him.



This verse above, is agian showing the exact same theolgy of a God, Son, who came forth first, from the ALL.

The exact same theolgy can be found in the Old Testement and in Jesus words in the New Testement.

True Gnosis IMO, is not just knowing you are a part of God, but also knowing the structure, of the beginning of ALL things. Which includes God creating a higher aspect of himself, through which everything eles was created. This is why in proverbs 8:30 it’s states “He was the craftsmen at His side” etc…and the biblical verse, “in the beginning was the Word…” etc…


Anyway, you asked me to show you, if there were verses which show a distinction between The Son and a son. ALL the above verses, clearly show a distinction…

Firstly, they clearly state there was a first Son, which means there’s a clear distinction, right there! on its own!, because no one else can be first.

And lastly, there’s a clear difference, because they’re singling Him out to be God. You just wouldn’t do that, if you had a theology, whereby you thought everyone was God, because if that was the case, it would surely be presented in a different manner.

I think your “hang up”, is that because He is being called the only Son, that your thinking he is better than others, which puts others below Him etc…

But your looking at it, in the wrong way IMO. He is the Fathers, highest aspect, of Himself, according to the theology. So just like we can’t be the Father, we also cant be Gods highests aspect (The Son) either.

You can say all these verses above are currupted, if you like; but you cannot deny, the theology they are portraying.


- JC



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 

So in Hebrews we have the same thing, yes blood is required… according to the law… of MOSES.
The book of Hebrews isn't called that for no reason.
It is specifically addressing a group of people who were Jewish converts to Christianity living in Rome who were expelled by some sort of imperial edict because of conflicts going on, probably in relation to insurrections in Judea and in the city of Rome itself.
Some would have been discouraged, thinking that this was a sign of the failure of Christianity as a movement, and were considering going back to Judaism.
This was probably when the Jerusalem temple still stood, and so was a viable option.
So the writer is making a very direct and practical comparison between the two systems, showing where there is a convergence of shared concepts, and where there is a divergence.
A lot of this may not be so pertinent to us today, but it is useful in a general way, especially to understand terms like a new covenant that Jesus was talking about at the Last Supper.
Here he is saying that it is like a will, where it doesn't go into effect until the person who made it dies.
So the blood is indicative of a death, not so much as the blood itself having an intrinsic value but it does create a point of connection between two concepts when making a comparison.
edit on 15-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 




Yeah, but it’s only the Son who shares the same disposition as the Father, this is clearly mentioned in the Gnostic verses.


No, it says that the Church shares the same dispositions as both the Father and Son.



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


It clearly mentions that the Church shares the same disposition as the Father, which contradicts what you said above. This is where the contradiction is coming from, your personal interpretation. How can the Son only share the disposition of the Father when the text clearly says the Church does as well? How can we not become the Father (God) when it clearly says that we can become him (Father)?

If the Church, Son, and Father all share the same disposition, it goes to reason that they are all the same entity, which is God, who is One and apart from whom nothing else exists.

I'm not showing any resistance, I see it as you showing resistance. It says that the Son is the Totalities and that the Totalities are the Son, it clearly supports my reasoning.

We will have to leave this discussion for another thread though, once I get around to making it because I realize I have derailed the topic. Sorry for that brother.

ETA: By the way, I do not disagree with any of the Gnostic texts you highlighted, they are all equally true, I just see them in a different way than you. If we are all One, there is no separation, there are no sons other than the Son as the texts say, there is only the Father, Son, and Church (Mother) which we are all fully a part of and fully are. We have the Spirit (Father), the Mind (Son), and the body (Mother) within us. We are the Trinity to its fullest and the Trinity is fully within all of us, as the texts are trying to portray.
edit on 2/15/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
 

So in Hebrews we have the same thing, yes blood is required… according to the law… of MOSES.
The book of Hebrews isn't called that for no reason.
It is specifically addressing a group of people who were Jewish converts to Christianity living in Rome who were expelled by some sort of imperial edict because of conflicts going on, probably in relation to insurrections in Judea and in the city of Rome itself.
Some would have been discouraged, thinking that this was a sign of the failure of Christianity as a movement, and were considering going back to Judaism.
This was probably when the Jerusalem temple still stood, and so was a viable option.
So the writer is making a very direct and practical comparison between the two systems, showing where there is a convergence of shared concepts, and where there is a divergence.
A lot of this may not be so pertinent to us today, but it is useful in a general way, especially to understand terms like a new covenant that Jesus was talking about at the Last Supper.
Here he is saying that it is like a will, where it doesn't go into effect until the person who made it dies.
So the blood is indicative of a death, not so much as the blood itself having an intrinsic value but it does create a point of connection between two concepts when making a comparison.
edit on 15-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


I'm not denying that there are comparisons being made. What I'm pointing out are the contrasts also being made. And a clarification taking place in the text of gods nature and worship. Specifically that forgiveness doesn't require blood to be shed.

Also my previous statement you said was a hypotheymtical. It wasn't at the time Jesus said it. No blood was shed yet and the trigger hadn't been pulled to end his life. The probability was great that he would die but I don't believe 100% and the text makes no assumption that blood had to be shed.



new topics




 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join