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.
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 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.
Paul makes a comparison between the ungodly and the good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I don't know who those persons might be who thought that but it doesn't explain what the writer of John meant.
The word “blood”, was a coded metaphor used by the Gnostic Christians to symbolize the “Holy Spirit”.
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.
jmdewey60
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
Paul makes a comparison between the ungodly and the good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And in this unique way they are equally the single one and the Totalities.
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.
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.
"The Father is the one who is the Totalities,"
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
And yet no blood had to be shed did it? Did jesus take a couple lashes right then to forgive sins?
jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
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.
And yet no blood had to be shed did it? Did jesus take a couple lashes right then to forgive sins?
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?
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.
But he forgave sins while the possibility remained of choosing life.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Is there a Gnostic writing that explicitly distinguishes the Son of God from a son of God?
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.
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.
Melchizedek
Holy are you, Holy are you, Holy are you, Commander-in-chief of the All, Jesus Christ, for ever and ever, Amen.
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 [...]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
The book of Hebrews isn't called that for no reason.
So in Hebrews we have the same thing, yes blood is required… according to the law… of MOSES.
Yeah, but it’s only the Son who shares the same disposition as the Father, this is clearly mentioned in the Gnostic verses.
[...] the Church exists in the dispositions and properties in which the Father and the Son exist, as I have said from the start.
jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
The book of Hebrews isn't called that for no reason.
So in Hebrews we have the same thing, yes blood is required… according to the law… of MOSES.
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)