Are we blood bought?

[Alexander the adequate]

Irrelevant

irrelevant

My response considers every word in the passage.

I never said Jesus died. I said Yeshua or the Holy Spirit was associated with a heavenly life-force or soul (the “blood” of Yeshua) who died. You are erroneously trying to project the mythical Jesus in the Gospels INTO heaven with human blood (and declaring it impossible) whereas, in Paul’s epistles Yeshua is associated with the Holy Spirit indwelling the saints. That is the same idea in Hebrews of Yeshua as Wisdom of the Most High God, that is, Wisdom indwelling the Son of God, aka, the Prexistent Man in heaven.
The author of Hebrews like Paul is describing heavenly events and you being unable to perceive it erroneously presume they must be talking about earthly events. Your frame of reference is on earth. Their frame of reference is in heaven.

Humans don’t die in heaven but the “body of Christ” summed up as all things (ephesians 1:10) suffers and dies in all of us.

My explanation is based on Paul’s epistles describing the inner Jesus. He indwells my soul or life force (or “blood”) , therefore, my life force or soul is his life force or soul. My “blood” is his “blood.” In that sense, when I die, he dies in me. (It is the whole point of baptism to symbolize the underlying truth of our reality. We are one with him in death and resurrection.)

Paul says, “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.”


Not if one knows what Christ actually is.

Don’t even go there. You wouldn’t know truth if it slapped you upside the head.

Lol

Thanks for your response, I am curious if you are part of any movement. or if your ideas are solely your own.

 

[docphin5]

Thanks for your response, I am curious if you are part of any movement. or if your ideas are solely your own.

I feel a connection to the theosophy movement, in particular, the ideas of GRS Mead. He is no longer alive so I guess that makes me alone. Ha ha! But his spirit lives on! ?

 

[Alexander the adequate]

I feel a connection to the theosophy movement, in particular, the ideas of GRS Mead. He is no longer alive so I guess that makes me alone. Ha ha! But his spirit lives on! ?

Thanks, I know nothing of either. But nice to have someone with different ideas to discuss with

 

[docphin5]

Thanks, I know nothing of either. But nice to have someone with different ideas to discuss with

Kudos to you for being open to alternative (better) explanations. I don’t see that very often. Usually, the only feedback I hear is, you are going to burn forever. Ha ha!

 

[docphin5]

Thanks, I know nothing of either. But nice to have someone with different ideas to discuss with

Here is recommended road map to where I am at if you are interested.

Doherty, “Jesus: neither god nor man”

Demonstrates the mythical Jesus in detail (800+ pages of detail). Please note that there is a huge difference between the Gospel Jesus (mythical, esoteric) and Paul’s inner Jesus in his epistles. Therefore, do not erroneously assume Doherty is making the case for no Jesus at all. He only makes the case for the Gospel Jesus being esoteric or mythical. Doherty is 95% right in his conclusions. It doesn’t explain what the esoteric meaning of the Gospels is.​

​

Dykstra, “Mark: the Canonizer of Paul”

Posits the Gospel Jesus associated with Paul himself (iow Gospel Jesus= First century Inner Jesus of Paul) because many things attributed to Gospel Jesus were first written by inner Jesus of Paul (Gospels were written after Paul, therefore Gospels borrowed from Paul’s letters). Dykstra is right.​

​

Nag Hammadi

Provides context for meaning of Paul’s original ideas (eg the Sophia mythology) which have been corrupted by orthodoxy (translators have a lot of power to make the text say what they want it to say. They choose from a multitude of possible words with different nuanced meanings) in order to make Paul appear to be writing about the alleged historical Gospel Jesus rather than the inner Jesus of the saints.​

​

Dead Sea Scrolls

The original founder of Jewish-Christianity was the Teacher of Righteousness (TOR) around 100 BC who established ”The Way”, baptism, Lord’s Supper with wine and bread. When Paul refers to the Initiation of the Lord’s Supper he is likely referring to the inner Jesus of the TOR around 100 BC. documented in the Dead Sea Scrolls, —therefore proving beyond any doubt that formal christianity did not begin supernaturally in the first century C.E. This is huge, this is a paradigm shift! Every christian schoolhouse on the planet should be ringing the bell for a five-alarm fire, but instead are asleep dreaming of superstitions and myths under the cozy, warm blankets —while their house is on fire!​

​

GRS Mead, Thrice Greatest Hermes

Egyptian/Greek Conception of cosmic son of God paralleling Paul’s epistles and Dead Sea Scrolls suggesting the common idea circulating among religious consciousness when christianity was developing. More context for cosmic christ.​

​

That should keep you busy for a while. Welcome to the family! The family of Wisdom seekers.

 

[docphin5]

Thanks, I know nothing of either. But nice to have someone with different ideas to discuss with

One additional note and warning. Be prepared for the response from orthodoxy that the devil, in anticipation of the alleged historical Gospel Jesus of the first century, had the Teacher of Righteousness imitate 100 years before formal Christianity began, the Lord’s Supper and baptism and the Messianic expectations of the Christian faith, in order to keep YOU from believing the Gospel stories as literal, historical events, in the sense that, he is trying to confuse those who would come later.

It is absurd, I know, but it is documented as a response by the early church fathers before when confronted with similar evidence in the past, that is, christianity is actually a culmination, a synthesis of religious ideas existing before them. Some people will sometimes say anything, do anything, in the name of God, to defend what they choose to believe, in this case, myth and superstition. Wait for it.

 

[Alexander the adequate]

Here is recommended road map to where I am at if you are interested.

Doherty, “Jesus: neither god nor man”

Demonstrates the mythical Jesus in detail (800+ pages of detail). Please note that there is a huge difference between the Gospel Jesus (mythical, esoteric) and Paul’s inner Jesus in his epistles. Therefore, do not erroneously assume Doherty is making the case for no Jesus at all. He only makes the case for the Gospel Jesus being esoteric or mythical. Doherty is 95% right in his conclusions. It doesn’t explain what the esoteric meaning of the Gospels is.​

​

Dykstra, “Mark: the Canonizer of Paul”

Posits the Gospel Jesus associated with Paul himself (iow Gospel Jesus= First century Inner Jesus of Paul) because many things attributed to Gospel Jesus were first written by inner Jesus of Paul (Gospels were written after Paul, therefore Gospels borrowed from Paul’s letters). Dykstra is right.​

​

Nag Hammadi

Provides context for meaning of Paul’s original ideas (eg the Sophia mythology) which have been corrupted by orthodoxy (translators have a lot of power to make the text say what they want it to say. They choose from a multitude of possible words with different nuanced meanings) in order to make Paul appear to be writing about the alleged historical Gospel Jesus rather than the inner Jesus of the saints.​

​

Dead Sea Scrolls

The original founder of Jewish-Christianity was the Teacher of Righteousness (TOR) around 100 BC who established ”The Way”, baptism, Lord’s Supper with wine and bread. When Paul refers to the Initiation of the Lord’s Supper he is likely referring to the inner Jesus of the TOR around 100 BC. documented in the Dead Sea Scrolls, —therefore proving beyond any doubt that formal christianity did not begin supernaturally in the first century C.E. This is huge, this is a paradigm shift! Every christian schoolhouse on the planet should be ringing the bell for a five-alarm fire, but instead are asleep dreaming of superstitions and myths under the cozy, warm blankets —while their house is on fire!​

​

GRS Mead, Thrice Greatest Hermes

Egyptian/Greek Conception of cosmic son of God paralleling Paul’s epistles and Dead Sea Scrolls suggesting the common idea circulating among religious consciousness when christianity was developing. More context for cosmic christ.​

​

That should keep you busy for a while. Welcome to the family! The family of Wisdom seekers.

On these forums, I am interested in what the poster argues here, his ideas, his explanations and conclusions.
Additionally, my interest when I am on this site is the Bible. What does it say about the topic?
Personal experience with God is also interesting, what a person has gone thru with God.
But when it comes to outside writings and non-Biblical ideas, things I might enjoy hearing about in real life, when i post here, those are not things I want to dicsuss.
To reiterate, I have a focus here: the Bible and how people understand it

 

[Alexander the adequate]

One additional note and warning. Be prepared for the response from orthodoxy that the devil, in anticipation of the alleged historical Gospel Jesus of the first century, had the Teacher of Righteousness imitate 100 years before formal Christianity began, the Lord’s Supper and baptism and the Messianic expectations of the Christian faith, in order to keep YOU from believing the Gospel stories as literal, historical events, in the sense that, he is trying to confuse those who would come later.

It is absurd, I know, but it is documented as a response by the early church fathers before when confronted with similar evidence in the past, that is, christianity is actually a culmination, a synthesis of religious ideas existing before them. Some people will sometimes say anything, do anything, in the name of God, to defend what they choose to believe, in this case, myth and superstition. Wait for it.

If you mean Christianity is based on the Old Testament, I agree.

 

[Alexander the adequate]

Here is recommended road map to where I am at if you are interested.

Doherty, “Jesus: neither god nor man”

Demonstrates the mythical Jesus in detail (800+ pages of detail). Please note that there is a huge difference between the Gospel Jesus (mythical, esoteric) and Paul’s inner Jesus in his epistles. Therefore, do not erroneously assume Doherty is making the case for no Jesus at all. He only makes the case for the Gospel Jesus being esoteric or mythical. Doherty is 95% right in his conclusions. It doesn’t explain what the esoteric meaning of the Gospels is.​

​

Dykstra, “Mark: the Canonizer of Paul”

Posits the Gospel Jesus associated with Paul himself (iow Gospel Jesus= First century Inner Jesus of Paul) because many things attributed to Gospel Jesus were first written by inner Jesus of Paul (Gospels were written after Paul, therefore Gospels borrowed from Paul’s letters). Dykstra is right.​

​

Nag Hammadi

Provides context for meaning of Paul’s original ideas (eg the Sophia mythology) which have been corrupted by orthodoxy (translators have a lot of power to make the text say what they want it to say. They choose from a multitude of possible words with different nuanced meanings) in order to make Paul appear to be writing about the alleged historical Gospel Jesus rather than the inner Jesus of the saints.​

​

Dead Sea Scrolls

The original founder of Jewish-Christianity was the Teacher of Righteousness (TOR) around 100 BC who established ”The Way”, baptism, Lord’s Supper with wine and bread. When Paul refers to the Initiation of the Lord’s Supper he is likely referring to the inner Jesus of the TOR around 100 BC. documented in the Dead Sea Scrolls, —therefore proving beyond any doubt that formal christianity did not begin supernaturally in the first century C.E. This is huge, this is a paradigm shift! Every christian schoolhouse on the planet should be ringing the bell for a five-alarm fire, but instead are asleep dreaming of superstitions and myths under the cozy, warm blankets —while their house is on fire!​

​

GRS Mead, Thrice Greatest Hermes

Egyptian/Greek Conception of cosmic son of God paralleling Paul’s epistles and Dead Sea Scrolls suggesting the common idea circulating among religious consciousness when christianity was developing. More context for cosmic christ.​

​

That should keep you busy for a while. Welcome to the family! The family of Wisdom seekers.

Paul wrote about Jesus in both situations. Jesus when He walked the earth as a man, and Jesus indwelling us.

 

[docphin5]

On these forums, I am interested in what the poster argues here, his ideas, his explanations and conclusions.
Additionally, my interest when I am on this site is the Bible. What does it say about the topic?
Personal experience with God is also interesting, what a person has gone thru with God.
But when it comes to outside writings and non-Biblical ideas, things I might enjoy hearing about in real life, when i post here, those are not things I want to dicsuss.

To reiterate, I have a focus here: the Bible and how people understand it

How are you going to understand the Bible if you only read the Bible? If ideas mentioned briefly in the Bible were expounded elsewhere then you will never know what the Bible means. Moreover, the only way to know what the Bible means is by trying to understand what it meant to those who wrote it. And if you do not avail yourself of the cultural, religious ideas circulating in the time of the author existing in nonBiblical writings then you have tied your hands behind your back.

 

[docphin5]

Paul wrote about Jesus in both situations. Jesus when He walked the earth as a man, and Jesus indwelling us.

If that is your dogma, then you have already failed in your search for what is true. When the mind closes to better explanations because it does not fit the chosen dogma then…the mind is closed.

 

[docphin5]

If you mean Christianity is based on the Old Testament, I agree.

I mean that Judaism and Christianity parallel Egyptian, Persian, Chaldean, and Greek religious concepts of creation, god, and gods. Where do you think the “Logos” term comes from, eg, “the Logos became flesh”,but Greek concepts described by Greek natural/moral philosophers. If you have nothing to learn from them because its extra-biblical then you have consigned yourself to ignorance and error.

 

[Alexander the adequate]

How are you going to understand the Bible if you only read the Bible? If ideas mentioned briefly in the Bible were expounded elsewhere then you will never know what the Bible means. Moreover, the only way to know what the Bible means is by trying to understand what it meant to those who wrote it. And if you do not avail yourself of the cultural, religious ideas circulating in the time of the author existing in nonBiblical writings then you have tied your hands behind your back.

I am always interested in knowing about the culture and the times and anything that helps to understand the word.
What i was talking about are writers who are not interested in the Bible and so develope their own ideas. instead of seeking to understand the Bible

 

[Alexander the adequate]

I mean that Judaism and Christianity parallel Egyptian, Persian, Chaldean, and Greek religious concepts of creation, god, and gods. Where do you think the “Logos” term comes from, eg, “the Logos became flesh”,but Greek concepts described by Greek natural/moral philosophers. If you have nothing to learn from them because its extra-biblical then you have consigned yourself to ignorance and error.

I wonder why you think Judaism and Christianity which are monotheistic, parallel religeous patterns that are multi-theistic.
The two are at odds.

 

[Alexander the adequate]

If that is your dogma, then you have already failed in your search for what is true. When the mind closes to better explanations because it does not fit the chosen dogma then…the mind is closed.

You talk about a search for what is true. I have accepted the Bible as ultimate written truth.
Therefore studying it and increasing my understanding of the truth there is my goal.
When you claim to know spiritual truth that contradicts the Bible, I will be interested in talking about it, but in this arena, only as the conversations are directed toward understanding scripture.

 

[docphin5]

I wonder why you think Judaism and Christianity which are monotheistic, parallel religeous patterns that are multi-theistic.
The two are at odds.

Except for the fact that every time the word “elohim” is written it actually means gods. The word for god in a singular sense, is “El.” There is so much that you do not know and will never learn unless you broaden your sources of information. If you rely solely on information provided by orthodoxy then you will only think like orthodoxy. There is a whole larger world out there, to include, the perspective of the Qumran community found only in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[docphin5]

You talk about a search for what is true. I have accepted the Bible as ultimate written truth.

Let’s be accurate. You have no idea what the Bible means except what it literally says to you, to include talking snakes, dragons, chariots ascending to heaven. Cool stories right? You probably cannot wait until you get to ride in one.

Therefore studying it and increasing my understanding of the truth there is my goal.

not if your mind is closed to better explanations existing outside your chosen dogma. How do I have insight into these things? Because I follow truth wherever it leads even if the journey takes me beyond my comfort zone.

When you claim to know spiritual truth that contradicts the Bible,

wrong. I contradict a literal meaning of the Bible. If it was meant to be allegorized as Paul does then I am only doing what Paul did himself, to include, the TOR.
“Now this may be interpreted allegorically:” (gal 4:24)

I will be interested in talking about it, but in this arena, only as the conversations are directed toward understanding scripture.

Sorry, but I do not limit my sources of information to the Bible only. If that is your requirement then I will not spin my wheels with you. Orthodoxy will gladly tell you what you want to hear if that is what you seek.

The OP is about vicarious atonement through human sacrifice. It is an absurd interpretation of scripture. But it is the orthodox position (based on a literal interpretation of esoteric stories), not mine.

 

[Alexander the adequate]

Let’s be accurate. You have no idea what the Bible means except what it literally says to you, to include talking snakes, dragons, chariots ascending to heaven. Cool stories right? You probably cannot wait until you get to ride in one.

not if your mind is closed to better explanations existing outside your chosen dogma. How do I have insight into these things? Because I follow truth wherever it leads even if the journey takes me beyond my comfort zone.

wrong. I contradict a literal meaning of the Bible. If it was meant to be allegorized as Paul does then I am only doing what Paul did himself, to include, the TOR.
“Now this may be interpreted allegorically:” (gal 4:24)

Sorry, but I do not limit my sources of information to the Bible only. If that is your requirement then I will not spin my wheels with you. Orthodoxy will gladly tell you what you want to hear if that is what you seek.

The OP is about vicarious atonement through human sacrifice. It is an absurd interpretation of scripture. But it is the orthodox position (based on a literal interpretation of esoteric stories), not mine.

What stands out to me here is I said my interest is in understanding the Bible and your response to that you do not limit your sources to the Bible.
Your response was not a direct response to what I said.
Do you understand the difference between "understanding what the Bible teaches" as opposed to limiting your sources, as you said?

 

[docphin5]

What stands out to me here is I said my interest is in understanding the Bible and your response to that you do not limit your sources to the Bible.
Your response was not a direct response to what I said.
Do you understand the difference between "understanding what the Bible teaches" as opposed to limiting your sources, as you said?

You said in post #27,

”But when it comes to outside writings and non-Biblical ideas, things I might enjoy hearing about in real life, when i post here, those are not things I want to dicsuss.
To reiterate, I have a focus here: the Bible and how people understand it”

You explicitly say that you do not want to discuss “outside writings” right after I suggested outside writings in order to demonstrate the ideas I had shared. If you intend to limit my sources of information then I have no time for you. Keep reading the same stuff you have been reading and you will keep believing what you have always believed.

 

[Alexander the adequate]

You said in post #27,

”But when it comes to outside writings and non-Biblical ideas, things I might enjoy hearing about in real life, when i post here, those are not things I want to dicsuss.
To reiterate, I have a focus here: the Bible and how people understand it”

You explicitly say that you do not want to discuss “outside writings” right after I suggested outside writings in order to demonstrate the ideas I had shared. If you intend to limit my sources of information then I have no time for you. Keep reading the same stuff you have been reading and you will keep believing what you have always believed.

I think after a while I was clear about what I meant. "outside writings" studied for themselves that are not directed at undertsanding the Bible.
I will grant that you may have not followed the gist of it thru the thread, but that is what was meant,