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.
The body of Christ consists of those who understand the concept.
'Christianity' is currently different in each head of the 99.
I provided a source. I knew nobody would even look, let alone read, let alone understand. It isn't about a book.
Yes Christianity is a cult religion, who could legitimately deny that?
It's only esoteric in the highest of the hierachy. The higher the position, the more that one knows about the esoteric which means knowledge that is 'hidden' in the open from 'the profane'. A term used for the agnostic 'believer'.
The SOURCE of ALL languages.....all numbers/mathematics.....all names of things...Showing the blueprint map of creation aka 'the way/mind of god'. You're right, why should you, of all people, want to see and know and understand that and raise up from the 99?
I asked you to read the book before getting back to avoid the boring back-and-forth. I'm here to show things, not get into lower level arguments. See Elisha/Elijah as the principle of upbraiding the 'Church'
by Divine Inspiration (Q/17/The Star).
If you avoid knowledge, it will become your enemy.
There were 'two thieves' on either side of the 'cross/crucifix' of 'christ'.
I attempt to bring Manna to both. Here's a sop:
A circumstance brought me to a discussion about Cognition with a top Cognitive Behavior Psychologist and by relation, with his 'team' of metaphysicists. They had a new theory called String Theory. I asked him to explain. When he'd finished, to make a long story short, I had shown lacking in the theory and offered something to allow it to work. I introduced the concept of spirit into the equation, inserted between 'that which is seen, and that which sees it' the word 'Magic'. Why magic?
An invisible middle between all forces exist and that spirit is invisible yet constantly proven/inferred by the two. (thieves).
Micro to macro, one finds the two thieves as science and religion. They are enemies currently and always until the spirit is known, not guessed at or given a number of measurement or a 'name'.
This idea was excitedly accepted and introduced as their own of course. I let them do that, because I knew its fault and wanted no credit had they offered. lol
I was personally thanked, but you know what? They are currently trying now to remove the M (magic/spirit) from the equation, because they and science can't actually define it as a thing, and they don't believe in spirit.
What is known to the gnostic is magic to the agnostic 'believer'.
I fight thieves on both sides of the invisible middle (silence) from which is born the Logos/light, who's 'mantle' is to be worn, Until then, one could only hope to touch the hem of the garment. Let he who has ears hear.
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.
The body of Christ consists of those who understand the concept.
'Christianity' is currently different in each head of the 99.
I provided a source. I knew nobody would even look, let alone read, let alone understand. It isn't about a book.
Yes Christianity is a cult religion, who could legitimately deny that? It's only esoteric in the highest of the hierachy. The higher the position, the more that one knows about the esoteric which means knowledge that is 'hidden' in the open from 'the profane'. A term used for the agnostic 'believer'.
The SOURCE of ALL languages.....all numbers/mathematics.....all names of things...Showing the blueprint map of creation aka 'the way/mind of god'. You're right, why should you, of all people, want to see and know and understand that and raise up from the 99?
I asked you to read the book before getting back to avoid the boring back-and-forth. I'm here to show things, not get into lower level arguments. See Elisha/Elijah as the principle of upbraiding the 'Church' by Divine Inspiration (Q/17/The Star).
If you avoid knowledge, it will become your enemy.
There were 'two thieves' on either side of the 'cross/crucifix' of 'christ'.
I attempt to bring Manna to both. Here's a sop:
A circumstance brought me to a discussion about Cognition with a top Cognitive Behavior Psychologist and by relation, with his 'team' of metaphysicists. They had a new theory called String Theory. I asked him to explain. When he'd finished, to make a long story short, I had shown lacking in the theory and offered something to allow it to work. I introduced the concept of spirit into the equation, inserted between 'that which is seen, and that which sees it' the word 'Magic'. Why magic? An invisible middle between all forces exist and that spirit is invisible yet constantly proven/inferred by the two. (thieves).
Micro to macro, one finds the two thieves as science and religion. They are enemies currently and always until the spirit is known, not guessed at or given a number of measurement or a 'name'.
This idea was excitedly accepted and introduced as their own of course. I let them do that, because I knew its fault and wanted no credit had they offered. lol
I was personally thanked, but you know what? They are currently trying now to remove the M (magic/spirit) from the equation, because they and science can't actually define it as a thing, and they don't believe in spirit.
What is known to the gnostic is magic to the agnostic 'believer'.
I fight thieves on both sides of the invisible middle (silence) from which is born the Logos/light, who's 'mantle' is to be worn, Until then, one could only hope to touch the hem of the garment. Let he who has ears hear.
How's the book coming? Read one page.