God sacrificed His Son, the second Adam, to atone for our sins resulting from the fall of man. Man brought the fall through his own free volition but it was God who became man, who died willingly and defeated death for all mankind.
One can't understand the NT without the OT. It's a reference to Genesis where Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son. Moreover, practice of sacrificing to clean oneself from sin is described in Leviticus. Jesus' death (the death of His human nature only) is the ultimate sacrifice and the end of that practice and just like Isaac wasn't killed, He died but got resurrected. Christ is the fulfillment of all prophesies and He's the final testament between God and man - the promise for man's salvation from death and eternal life in God.
No book has the level of continuity the Bible has, even if it weren't the word of God, it would still be an unmatched literary masterpiece. But as with all written word it needs the correct interpretation which is only possible within the true unchanged early Church tradition.
There is very little 'level of continuity' in the bible when read literally and refusing to SEE the continuity....how sacrifice in the time of Leviticus or anyone else was a lesser understanding of old by primitive people and must be discarded and understood for the symbolic analogy it is.
Until sacrifice of self is understood and accomplished, ritual is needed to assimilate.
There is no 'true UNCHANGED Church tradition except for the common source of all religion.
What book shows continuity by showing this common source?
Throw down your snake by reading this book and try to critique it.
Are you up to the challenge?
This book doesn't negate a thing. It leaves that to others.
There is very little 'level of continuity' in the bible when read literally and refusing to SEE the continuity
Who told you it's supposed to be red what you call "literally"? The Bible is a liturgical text and it's part of a tradition that instructs how it's to be interpreted. It doesn't interpret itself, neither it can be interpreted correctly outside of that tradition.
There is no 'true UNCHANGED Church tradition except for the common source of all religion.
There is in the face of the Orthodox Christian Church. What is the common source of all religion, how do you have knowledge of it and what is religion for that matter? How do you classify a certain set of beliefs and traditions as religion and what's the common ground between such contradictory worldviews (like Hinduism and Christianity for example)?
Are you up to the challenge?
I've red a lot of gnostic texts doing free interpretation of scripture. Even if I'm willing to suspend my belief and be open about it, what would convince me this take is the correct one?
Such comparative religion arguments go like this: Christian theology has a lot of similarities with ancient Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian theology therefore it is connected, influenced and borrows from those. This is called a genetic fallacy - assuming things that appear to be related to be related based on the superficial similarity. The truth is people who interpret Christianity like this don't do an internal critique because they either are not well versed in the Christian theology or because it serves them better to take things out of the proper context distorting the actual belief system and cherry pick the superficial similarities to other religions.
Comparative religion Arguments are for people who don't know what they are comparing with, to, or from without this understanding of source.
Actual comparitive religion will discover similarities leading to ultimate truths they share but don't own. I've done it my whole life. I don't suggest it lightly.
Until the true source is found, It becomes 'wise men in the dark' trying to describe an elephant.
Or as the sufic sage might say, "Like spittle from the mouths of fish on dry land."
Creation is made from Ideation first. All things.
Symbols are ideation.
To mistake the symbol for the ideation behind is 'looking at the finger pointing at the moon.'
You know what an argument between the true gnostics of every religion would sound like? Me either because there would be nothing to argue about. There would be a glorious silence instead.
Many paths, one source/destination. Many boats, one shoreline.
Once the shore is reached, one needs to get out of the boat.
See Christ calming The Storm while disciples ride it out in a boat.
Only Divine Inspiration can explain one's attempt to find the highest truths
and the proof is in the pudding itself. Not its symbol.
Another proposition. What's the source of ideation? How do you have knowledge of the ultimate truth behind the interpretations and various takes? What makes universal metaphysical concepts like knowledge and truth at all possible in your worldview and where are they located?
You’ve answered on whose behalf Jesus was sacrificed but the question is who was he sacrificed TO?
When the lord god of Israel asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was a sacrifice to him - the lord god of Israel. All sacrifices are offerings to some god or other, so to whom did god offer up his son as a sacrifice?
All sacrifices are offerings to some god or other, so to whom did god offer up his son as a sacrifice?
That's a premise. In Christianity, sacrifice acquires another meaning. The Son sacrifices Himself as flesh (yet He's God), and thus transforms our understanding of sacrifice - it's no longer understood strictly as sacrifice of flesh on the altar to God. As everything in the NT - the old is incorporated and made anew without contradicting the OT. God of the NT and OT is the same but the context is different.
Christ doesn't sacrifices Himself to alleviate God the Father's anger caused by Adam disobeying Him (although such a belief in penal substitution is widely held by protestants). This is impossible because all persons of the Trinity share the same will and essence. The Son incarnates, becomes man and defeats death, so that man can gain eternal life and become like God (theosis).
If I sacrifice myself for the well-being of my loved ones, do I offer myself to a god?
You’ll need to put some meat on the bones of that final analogy. In what context could you sacrifice yourself for you Loved one’s? Like, throwing yourself in front of a hail of bullets that were otherwise destined for them?
In that case, no you wouldn’t be sacrificing yourself to a god.
However, the Jesus story is fundamentally not that.
Christ doesn’t sacrifice HIMSELF at all. His sacrifice is ordained by his father. Remember, ‘for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son’ and ‘Father, father, why have you forsaken me’ and
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
Here, you can see that Jesus was given as a sacrifice TO God.
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Here, you can see that he was a sacrifice FROM god.
So, God gives his son as a sacrifice to himself for the forgiveness of the world’s sins.
Why not just forgive the sins directly?
Christianity is dumb my man. The mental gymnastics you need to go through to make this retarded concept work is astonishing. And yet, you will impute all manner of nonsense reasoning to do so.
Would you sacrifice your own son to yourself to forgive the sins of your nieces and nephews when it is solely in your gift to forgive anyway? Of course you wouldn’t as that would be insane.
Christ didn't sacrifice himself. Now you aren't showing continuity.
He was sacrificed by God's plan in literal interpretation, and then man blamed.
If you don't offer your SELF to the God of All for its own Reason, magic and its motives won't matter.
If the Christos becomes the Christ and then Jesus Christ who absolves you from both sacrifice of self and sin, the original concept of the Christos and the Chrism are forsaken. During the time of modern Christianity's conception in Rome (Tarsus), gnostic christians called literalists "Seekers after smooth things." Meaning they miss the point by over-simplification.
They had a saying: "If you think heaven is in the sky, the birds in the sky will get there before you."
I've read that book many times over, gaining deeper understanding each time. Now read the one I sent the link to. I predict you won't.
That would be a lot simpler.
Dude, Christ is God. He is the second person of the Trinity and He shares the same will as God the Father.
I've read that book many times over, gaining deeper understanding each time. Now read the one I sent the link to. I predict you won't. That would be a lot simpler.
I'm sure you have the correct interpretation and you're getting deep into that hidden knowledge and meaning only the initiated can achieve, my gnostic friend. But that's not Christianity, you're doing your own thing based on the Bible and the Christian concepts. The fullness of the faith is the historic Church, which is the body of Christ - it includes the Bible, tradition, the apostles, the saints, the believers, the canons etc. and Christ is the sole head of that body. There is a very strict hierarchy. Christianity is not an esoteric occult religion - it is open to anyone who accepts Christ as their savior and seeks unity with God.
God sacrificed His Son, the second Adam, to atone for our sins resulting from the fall of man. Man brought the fall through his own free volition but it was God who became man, who died willingly and defeated death for all mankind.
One can't understand the NT without the OT. It's a reference to Genesis where Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son. Moreover, practice of sacrificing to clean oneself from sin is described in Leviticus. Jesus' death (the death of His human nature only) is the ultimate sacrifice and the end of that practice and just like Isaac wasn't killed, He died but got resurrected. Christ is the fulfillment of all prophesies and He's the final testament between God and man - the promise for man's salvation from death and eternal life in God.
No book has the level of continuity the Bible has, even if it weren't the word of God, it would still be an unmatched literary masterpiece. But as with all written word it needs the correct interpretation which is only possible within the true unchanged early Church tradition.
There is very little 'level of continuity' in the bible when read literally and refusing to SEE the continuity....how sacrifice in the time of Leviticus or anyone else was a lesser understanding of old by primitive people and must be discarded and understood for the symbolic analogy it is. Until sacrifice of self is understood and accomplished, ritual is needed to assimilate.
There is no 'true UNCHANGED Church tradition except for the common source of all religion.
What book shows continuity by showing this common source?
Throw down your snake by reading this book and try to critique it.
Are you up to the challenge?
This book doesn't negate a thing. It leaves that to others.
https://kupdf.net/download/jesus-christ-sun-of-god-ancient-cosmology-and-early-christian-symbolism-by-david-r-fideler-ocr_58a100e36454a7335db1eb87_pdf
Who told you it's supposed to be red what you call "literally"? The Bible is a liturgical text and it's part of a tradition that instructs how it's to be interpreted. It doesn't interpret itself, neither it can be interpreted correctly outside of that tradition.
There is in the face of the Orthodox Christian Church. What is the common source of all religion, how do you have knowledge of it and what is religion for that matter? How do you classify a certain set of beliefs and traditions as religion and what's the common ground between such contradictory worldviews (like Hinduism and Christianity for example)?
I've red a lot of gnostic texts doing free interpretation of scripture. Even if I'm willing to suspend my belief and be open about it, what would convince me this take is the correct one?
Such comparative religion arguments go like this: Christian theology has a lot of similarities with ancient Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian theology therefore it is connected, influenced and borrows from those. This is called a genetic fallacy - assuming things that appear to be related to be related based on the superficial similarity. The truth is people who interpret Christianity like this don't do an internal critique because they either are not well versed in the Christian theology or because it serves them better to take things out of the proper context distorting the actual belief system and cherry pick the superficial similarities to other religions.
Comparative religion Arguments are for people who don't know what they are comparing with, to, or from without this understanding of source.
Actual comparitive religion will discover similarities leading to ultimate truths they share but don't own. I've done it my whole life. I don't suggest it lightly.
Until the true source is found, It becomes 'wise men in the dark' trying to describe an elephant.
Or as the sufic sage might say, "Like spittle from the mouths of fish on dry land."
Creation is made from Ideation first. All things.
Symbols are ideation.
To mistake the symbol for the ideation behind is 'looking at the finger pointing at the moon.'
You know what an argument between the true gnostics of every religion would sound like? Me either because there would be nothing to argue about. There would be a glorious silence instead.
Many paths, one source/destination. Many boats, one shoreline.
Once the shore is reached, one needs to get out of the boat.
See Christ calming The Storm while disciples ride it out in a boat.
Only Divine Inspiration can explain one's attempt to find the highest truths and the proof is in the pudding itself. Not its symbol.
Another proposition. What's the source of ideation? How do you have knowledge of the ultimate truth behind the interpretations and various takes? What makes universal metaphysical concepts like knowledge and truth at all possible in your worldview and where are they located?
You’ve answered on whose behalf Jesus was sacrificed but the question is who was he sacrificed TO?
When the lord god of Israel asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was a sacrifice to him - the lord god of Israel. All sacrifices are offerings to some god or other, so to whom did god offer up his son as a sacrifice?
That's a premise. In Christianity, sacrifice acquires another meaning. The Son sacrifices Himself as flesh (yet He's God), and thus transforms our understanding of sacrifice - it's no longer understood strictly as sacrifice of flesh on the altar to God. As everything in the NT - the old is incorporated and made anew without contradicting the OT. God of the NT and OT is the same but the context is different.
Christ doesn't sacrifices Himself to alleviate God the Father's anger caused by Adam disobeying Him (although such a belief in penal substitution is widely held by protestants). This is impossible because all persons of the Trinity share the same will and essence. The Son incarnates, becomes man and defeats death, so that man can gain eternal life and become like God (theosis).
If I sacrifice myself for the well-being of my loved ones, do I offer myself to a god?
You’ll need to put some meat on the bones of that final analogy. In what context could you sacrifice yourself for you Loved one’s? Like, throwing yourself in front of a hail of bullets that were otherwise destined for them?
In that case, no you wouldn’t be sacrificing yourself to a god.
However, the Jesus story is fundamentally not that.
Christ doesn’t sacrifice HIMSELF at all. His sacrifice is ordained by his father. Remember, ‘for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son’ and ‘Father, father, why have you forsaken me’ and
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
Here, you can see that Jesus was given as a sacrifice TO God.
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Here, you can see that he was a sacrifice FROM god.
So, God gives his son as a sacrifice to himself for the forgiveness of the world’s sins.
Why not just forgive the sins directly?
Christianity is dumb my man. The mental gymnastics you need to go through to make this retarded concept work is astonishing. And yet, you will impute all manner of nonsense reasoning to do so.
Would you sacrifice your own son to yourself to forgive the sins of your nieces and nephews when it is solely in your gift to forgive anyway? Of course you wouldn’t as that would be insane.
Christ didn't sacrifice himself. Now you aren't showing continuity. He was sacrificed by God's plan in literal interpretation, and then man blamed. If you don't offer your SELF to the God of All for its own Reason, magic and its motives won't matter.
If the Christos becomes the Christ and then Jesus Christ who absolves you from both sacrifice of self and sin, the original concept of the Christos and the Chrism are forsaken. During the time of modern Christianity's conception in Rome (Tarsus), gnostic christians called literalists "Seekers after smooth things." Meaning they miss the point by over-simplification.
They had a saying: "If you think heaven is in the sky, the birds in the sky will get there before you."
I've read that book many times over, gaining deeper understanding each time. Now read the one I sent the link to. I predict you won't. That would be a lot simpler.
Dude, Christ is God. He is the second person of the Trinity and He shares the same will as God the Father.
I'm sure you have the correct interpretation and you're getting deep into that hidden knowledge and meaning only the initiated can achieve, my gnostic friend. But that's not Christianity, you're doing your own thing based on the Bible and the Christian concepts. The fullness of the faith is the historic Church, which is the body of Christ - it includes the Bible, tradition, the apostles, the saints, the believers, the canons etc. and Christ is the sole head of that body. There is a very strict hierarchy. Christianity is not an esoteric occult religion - it is open to anyone who accepts Christ as their savior and seeks unity with God.