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: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 

I'm not denying that there are . . .
I think things are a bit more complicated than you allow for.




posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
 

I'm not denying that there are . . .
I think things are a bit more complicated than you allow for.


??? I think you are making an assumption. You know what assuming does.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





Originally posted by jmdewey
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.


Yeah ,that’s right your on to it…It’s not given right then, because the Holy Spirit was something which was to be received by people later on…



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


Blood is a metaphor for Holy Spirit IMO, and we know from other verses that the Spirit has attributes and characteristics, of being like water. So that’s the logical step that I’m making…



Originally posted by jmdewey
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.


His flesh was a metaphor as well…IMO

Here’s the verse your thinking of below…




John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”






John 6:53
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.



Just like you can’t drink Jesus literal blood, you can’t eat his literal flesh either…and if one is a metaphor, then surely they both are…

Plus, if it’s talking about accepting a sacrifice, then why put it across as two elements…i.e. blood and flesh…? That wouldn’t make any sense IMO…


The Gnostic Gospel of Philip, clears up both metaphors…




The Gnostic “Gospel of Philip”
Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit.




Jesus flesh, is his “word” that he speaks, which means He's giving His message (word) “for the life of the world”. Which brings us right back, to it being His message which saves.

You come to know God through the word, you take it in (by eating it) to yourself, and then after you believe, you receive his Holy Spirit (blood). Which means, it all leads back to the message, which saves.


- JC



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 






Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
No, it says that the Church shares the same dispositions as both the Father and Son.

It clearly mentions that the Church shares the same disposition as the Father, which contradicts what you said above.


IMO They only share the same dispositions in that they’re all one, but the texts elsewhere clearly show, that the Son is different, in that He is God, and that there are non others like Him. That’s what the texts say…I’m just going with the overall theology of the texts…



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.


The church only share the disposition, in that they’re all one i.e. connected spiritually to each other IMO But The Son is clearly being singled out elsewhere, as having unique attributes to the Father. Again, I’m just with what the texts say…



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.


I mean resistance in a light-hearted sense, like listening to “I wont back down”, in the background lol . I’ve pretty much gone out of my way, to answer question, after question, on a thread, that’s not even about defining who Jesus is.

Your original question was “why do I believe Jesus is the Son of God”, and I think I’ve done more than enough, to show why I believe it. Not sure what else I can add, other than my own testimony of receiving The Holy Spirit, when I came to believe in Jesus; but that’s not really evidence, and I wouldn’t expect you to believe it.



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.


No need to apologize; actually I ‘m glad you’ve given me your own perspective on it, and defined it, in the way you did. Not many people could have done that.

This was an awesome discussion, but I think we should just agree to disagree, I’ll even give you the last word, if wish.

But I also think you should set up a separate thread, on those The Tripartite Tractate verses. Maybe outline your own perspective, in the best way you can. And then see what others Ats’ers make of your theory, and what they think of those “Tripartite Tractate” verses. Heck, you can even throw in my theory, and see what they make of that…


Peace Brother…



- JC



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 

Plus, if it’s talking about accepting a sacrifice, then why put it across as two elements…i.e. blood and flesh…? That wouldn’t make any sense IMO…
I think it is talking about accepting Jesus in general, which includes the fact that he gave it his all, fully committed.
When we accept him, we accept all of it, including his truths, as if they were God's truth, and the only way to eternal life.

Jesus flesh, is his “word” that he speaks, which means He's giving His message (word) “for the life of the world”. Which brings us right back, to it being His message which saves.
The "message" is the manna from heaven that gives life, and extending the metaphor, he says his message is bread that sustains you, then he says the bread is his flesh.
He himself is given and then is something to be broken, as part of what makes it capable of providing us with life.
An actual "word" was something that has always been there, as in John 1:1. What was needed to really get it across is having it instilled in people, starting with John the Baptist, then Jesus, and then the Apostles.
What the focus is on, first pointing forward, then pointing back, is Jesus and his person as God's son in a singular sort of way to where his sacrifice is not just his own, but is just as much God's.

You come to know God through the word, you take it in (by eating it) to yourself, and then after you believe, you receive his Holy Spirit (blood). Which means, it all leads back to the message, which saves.
A message and then a message about the message bringer.
The person is the core of the message since just what he was talking about was really nothing new but was ignored for a lack of focus.
The new thing that he was saying was about himself, where to come to God, we come to Jesus because he represents God in his person.
edit on 15-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 



Was Jesus lying when he said "get up your sins are forgiven"? Because the blood had not been shed yet.


No, He wasn't lying. Jesus had the authority to forgive sin, as I stated earlier in this thread. See Matthew 9:1-8



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 05:57 AM
link   

OptimusSubprime
reply to post by zardust
 



Was Jesus lying when he said "get up your sins are forgiven"? Because the blood had not been shed yet.


No, He wasn't lying. Jesus had the authority to forgive sin, as I stated earlier in this thread. See Matthew 9:1-8


I agree. He had authority and it had nothing to do with blood. It has to do with the life of the spirit flowing out of him. When the woman who had a bleeding disorder touched him he felt power go out. He didn't cut himself and smear her with blood. Nor did he say "well you bled for 14 years so that will cover gods blood quota for forgiveness/healing"



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 

... It has to do with the life of the spirit flowing out of him. When the woman who had a bleeding disorder touched him he felt power go out. ...
The Greek word used is dunamis
biblehub.com...
which is physical power.
That seems like kind of the opposite of spirit to me, as far as describing what was "flowing".
The spirit would have been an indwelling that didn't go in or out at random moments but stayed with him.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
 

... It has to do with the life of the spirit flowing out of him. When the woman who had a bleeding disorder touched him he felt power go out. ...
The Greek word used is dunamis
biblehub.com...
which is physical power.
That seems like kind of the opposite of spirit to me, as far as describing what was "flowing".
The spirit would have been an indwelling that didn't go in or out at random moments but stayed with him.


Sorry the life is what I was referring to.
Dunamis has nothing to do with any physical power IMO. It is supernatural from the spirit. I was saying the life was flowing out. He came that we might have life and that abundantly.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 

Dunamis has nothing to do with any physical power IMO.
I put that link in my post because it gives the definition of Dunamis as physical power.
It looks like you are just making up your own definitions to suite your theory.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
 

Dunamis has nothing to do with any physical power IMO.
I put that link in my post because it gives the definition of Dunamis as physical power.
It looks like you are just making up your own definitions to suite your theory.


Um yeah... Or. In the context I was speaking of and in general Dunamis is associated with the power of the spirit. Did some mechanical power flow out of Jesus into the woman?

Yes we get our word dynamite from it but when it's used in conjunction with healing or the spirit it is not speaking of anything in the natural sphere. The Dunamis of the holy spirit seen in the apostles wasn't literal dynamite or any physical force.

In all respect I think it's you trying to force meaning into my words. Do you think that a natural force healed the woman?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 

Did some mechanical power flow out of Jesus into the woman?
Her flow was a physical condition.

The Dunamis of the holy spirit seen in the apostles wasn't literal dynamite or any physical force.
I think you are inventing usages and also making a straw man by throwing in the word "force" as if I was talking about something you can measure, like temperature and pressure.

edit on 16-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
 

Did some mechanical power flow out of Jesus into the woman?
Her flow was a physical condition.

The Dunamis of the holy spirit seen in the apostles wasn't literal dynamite or any physical force.
I think you are inventing usages and also making a straw man by throwing in the word "force" as if I was talking about something you can measure, like temperature and pressure.

edit on 16-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Now you are nitpicking flow? When I said flow I was waxing poetic in regards to the spirit.
Life flowing out of him. That life is the life in the spirit. That is what healed the woman. Not anything physical or material. Yes a physical flow was healed by a spiritual flow. But I was never putting them together. Just like your throwing the definition of Dunamis at me as though that's what I meant.

Let me restate my position for u
You.

Jesus healed by the power of the spirit. That power has nothing to do with blood. At least not literal blood. That power is not mechanical, it comes from the life of the spirit that Jesus lived in and that poured out of him.

Do we now need as word study on
Poured? Because it wasn't mentioned in that specific text. I can connect the dots for you if you need.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 

Life flowing out of him. That life is the life in the spirit. That is what healed the woman.
That's a nice little theory but that is all it is.
Life is something that is spiritual, where it means eternal life and it comes through a truth about how to live, which only God can provide and that is through the agency of the spirit that comes to us through Jesus but originates from God as part of God.
The word holy in the New Testament is a Greek word that started out meaning God, so God is holy by definition, and Jesus is filled with a quality of holiness to the point of being virtually God, and that divine wisdom of Jesus we have access to spiritually, meaning in our inner thoughts.

Just like your throwing the definition of Dunamis at me as though that's what I meant.
You were giving as a reference something that is a physical thing, which is a verse in the Bible, which is made up of words which each has a specific meaning.
If you choose to ignore those meanings, then I feel it is important to the truth of things to point it out.
edit on 16-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
 

Life flowing out of him. That life is the life in the spirit. That is what healed the woman.
That's a nice little theory but that is all it is.
Life is something that is spiritual, where it means eternal life and it comes through a truth about how to live, which only God can provide and that is through the agency of the spirit that comes to us through Jesus but originates from God as part of God.
The word holy in the New Testament is a Greek word that started out meaning God, so God is holy by definition, and Jesus is filled with a quality of holiness to the point of being virtually God, and that divine wisdom of Jesus we have access to spiritually, meaning in our inner thoughts.

Just like your throwing the definition of Dunamis at me as though that's what I meant.
You were giving as a reference something that is a physical thing, which is a verse in the Bible, which is made up of words which each has a specific meaning.
If you choose to ignore those meanings, then I feel it is important to the truth of things to point it out.
edit on 16-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Lol sorry I don't know what you're point is anymore? Are u saying Jesus healed by mechanical power?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





Originally posted by jmdewey
The "message" is the manna from heaven that gives life, and extending the metaphor, he says his message is bread that sustains you, then he says the bread is his flesh.


Yeah, the metaphor of bread is because we take it into ourselves (we eat it)…we also “eat” the words that come out of his flesh…In other words, what He speaks from his mouth, is coming out of His flesh, so to speak, and then we take it into ourselves, by digesting it…(we eat it)…



Originally posted by jmdewey
He himself is given and then is something to be broken, as part of what makes it capable of providing us with life.


I would say Jesus words are teaching us how to have life, and the part that gives us life, is the Holy Spirit. The two go hand in hand IMO, you have to receive the word/message, to know about how to receive the Holy Spirit. You also have to come to believe in God through Jesus in order to receive it. So again, these things can only be done through Jesus words/message…



Originally posted by jmdewey
An actual "word" was something that has always been there, as in John 1:1. What was needed to really get it across is having it instilled in people, starting with John the Baptist, then Jesus, and then the Apostles.


In the Gospel of Philip the word “word”, isn’t capitalised, so I think it just means the spoken word, and not the “Word” as in John 1:1.



Originally posted by jmdewey
A message and then a message about the message bringer.
The person is the core of the message since just what he was talking about was really nothing new but was ignored for a lack of focus.

The new thing that he was saying was about himself, where to come to God, we come to Jesus because he represents God in his person.


Who Jesus is, is wrapped up into his message, for sure, but that’s something which has to dealt with, on a person by person basis. Like I was saying to another poster, God isn’t holding against people, as to whether they’re Trinitarian or non-Trinitarians…IMO

I think commonality that most people share, is that God spoke through Jesus, and even those who just see him as a teacher, still see truth in his message. So yes, both are wrapped up in each other, but I would say Jesus message is primary, and who He is, is secondary. Partly because who he is, tends to lead to divisions among people, where as his message, is what unites people.


- JC

edit on 16-2-2014 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 

Like I was saying to another poster, God isn’t holding against people, as to whether they’re Trinitarian or non-Trinitarians…IMO
I think that we really know just about nothing about who Jesus called his heavenly father.
I think that this thing, God, is a lot more complex than most people imagine.
Understanding Jesus I think is the closest thing that we will achieve in trying to understand God (at least in this life), and I think that is the point of the Gospel of John.
edit on 16-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Joecroft
 

Like I was saying to another poster, God isn’t holding against people, as to whether they’re Trinitarian or non-Trinitarians…IMO
I think that we really know just about nothing about who Jesus called his heavenly father.
I think that this thing, God, is a lot more complex than most people imagine.
Understanding Jesus I think is the closest thing that we will achieve in trying to understand God (at least in this life), and I think that is the point of the Gospel of John.
edit on 16-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Dude that's what I've been saying all along Jesus is the exact image of the father.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I find nothing wrong with the OP, but there is more to Jesus's sacrifice than just the message He brought to us. Remember that God instituted sacrifice as a means for the early Jewish nation to attone for their transgressions, or sins. Those sins were made known by the law, and Jesus was the fullfilment of the law. He became sin for us, and by dying on the cross, He became a sacrifice for all.

I don't understand how God judges and maintains balance, but I do believe He does. He is perfect, and in Heaven, everything must be perfect or it can't be there. Only through Jesus's sacrifice are we made whole and able to be in Heaven. What happened when Jesus died in those three days, I can only imagine, but something special did. Jesus took His place at the right hand of the Father, and in doing so, jutified us all. Now when the Father wants to balance out the universe because of the sin we cause, He looks at Jesus, and Jesus makes the balance ok again, somehow, in a way I don't understand right now. Maybe one day we'll all understand, and I think when we do, we will love Jesus even more, and feel greater shame for the sin and pain we caused Him.

So in your analagy, I don't see Him as the messenger. If you want a messenger, John the Baptist would be the better example. Jesus, though, was the one who jumped on the grenade to protect us.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MRSeeker
 

I don't understand how God judges and maintains balance, but I do believe He does.
The balance would be between God and man and it happens at Jesus.
There may not be a balance possible beyond that.
It may have to happen in a small way (as opposed to some sort of universal balance),
one person at a time.

I think that there is a certain inevitability that things are going to go bad, that bad things will happen, but we don't want to be the cause of them ourselves, as if we were actually working towards that as a goal.
We have to have as a goal always that we want good things, and for things to get better, and wrongs are only inadvertent happenings that couldn't be avoided no matter how hard we tried.
edit on 17-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join