Biblical things that aren't a part of the greater Christian paradigm.

[Master M]

(When I quote scripture or mention what it says, I will not cite chapters, verses or versions for many reasons)

I'm curious if any of you have been on a similar path exploring the concepts the Bible presents. I find that the Bible presents things to be both blatantly obvious and subtly hidden.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. It is the glory of kings to seek a matter out."

When I studied the Bible, I found that I could not relate my findings with most other Christians, because it is more common for them to write off what they don't know (specifically about what the bible doesn't say or explain outright) than to explore it, for fear of being blasphemous.

"Don't focus on the things that are seen, for these are temporary. Focus on those things which are unseen, for they are eternal."

From this verse I intuited that if we cannot see the soul, who we truly are, then it is eternal, and that eternal meant no beginning and no end, meaning we existed before we came here. So I asked the question, "Where were we and where are those memories?" The only thing that made sense was reincarnation. As a conceptual thinker and one who learned much from nature, the concept of birth, death and rebirth being everywhere, including in the life of Jesus only served that interpretation. Never mind how a crazy old coot me and a good friend knew keyed us into where the Bible talks about using newborn sacrifices to open up a portal to the matrix. That one wasn't even as subtle. The Bible even uses the word matrix. Even if you switch to versions where it says womb, if you know that a womb and a matrix are often synonymous, you can make connections to the void.

That's one of many personal findings that is way outside of the box of how the Bible is normally interpreted, but I also studied history, and found that the roots of Christianity is Gnosticism, and their interpretations of the Bible were way more satisfying for me. They interpreted everything less on the matter of it being fact or fiction and more on the matter on how it related to each individuals journey as a living soul, which offered much in the way of application. Before a cross, the symbols were a fish and a lamp. Before the apocrypha was condemned, they were widely accepted and studied by believers.

Even as far as what the Bible does not say, it goes outside of the normal Christian paradigm. The bible never claims to be the only inspired Word of God. It even clearly said that the Word is written all throughout creation, so it was surely recorded by many in different texts. None of the three members of the Christian Trinity ever claimed that they themselves, or the three of them together were the only forms of God.

I also love how mysterious and deep Melchizidek was. An immortal priest of an order that even Jesus was in. You have to wonder.

I could write a book about all of the mysterious and outlandish things I've discovered as they relate to the Bible, and maybe I will one day, but for now, I restate my inquiry in the form of a question. Has anyone else been on a similar path of diving into Biblical things that aren't accepted or taught by mainstream Christianity, and what are your findings if so?

[Morpheus]

After viewing the Wachowski's cinematic illustration of The Matrix several times, I came to a greater realization of things.
This, involving my interest from childhood of out of body, and Near Death Experience accounts. Also, regarding what science has been indicating since Einstein.
I've posted about this in the Inter-faith sub forum.

But, this doesn't mean what the Bible tells us isn't true. It's largely a problem of filtering through Ego, regarding understanding.

Origins?
As I've stated, The Almighty was referred to as both Savior and Redeemer in the old testament. This having to do with the atoning practices established by God, after the perfect law was given through Moses.
Because no one can keep His perfect law, perfectly, (which is His standard for perfection, and a relationship with God).
Hence, salvation is necessary for peace with God.
This is the foundation upon which the prophesied Messiah wrought salvation and redemption for all who would hear and seek Him. (Whom He knows, apart from time).
Through the shed blood of The Atoning Lamb. Who Jesus is, for the whole world.
So... why you say the scriptures are founded on Gnostic teachings, I cannot say.

Concerning reincarnation...
It becomes apparent involving both what science is telling us, and regarding the illustration of The Matrix, that eternity and the "timeless" is the greater reality and truth.
Which is the domain of the Almighty.
So, how should reincarnation actually be perceived?
From the successive and linear sense, in illusory time, (space/time)?
Or from the greater truth of the timeless? In which case should be seen in a sense of "emanation" of the true personage of the soul, (or "angel")?
Like spokes around the hub of a wheel.
This aligns with the multidimensional, multi worlds theory in science today.

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

After viewing the Wachowski's cinematic illustration of The Matrix several times, I came to a greater realization of things.
This, involving my interest from childhood of out of body, and Near Death Experience accounts. Also, regarding what science has been indicating since Einstein.
I've posted about this in the Inter-faith sub forum.

But, this doesn't mean what the Bible tells us isn't true. It's largely a problem of filtering through Ego, regarding understanding.

Origins?
As I've stated, The Almighty was referred to as both Savior and Redeemer in the old testament. This having to do with the atoning practices established by God, after the perfect law was given through Moses.
Because no one can keep His perfect law, perfectly, (which is His standard for perfection, and a relationship with God).
Hence, salvation is necessary for peace with God.
This is the foundation upon which the prophesied Messiah wrought salvation and redemption for all who would hear and seek Him. (Whom He knows, apart from time).
Through the shed blood of The Atoning Lamb. Who Jesus is, for the whole world.
So... why you say the scriptures are founded on Gnostic teachings, I cannot say.

Concerning reincarnation...
It becomes apparent involving both what science is telling us, and regarding the illustration of The Matrix, that eternity and the "timeless" is the greater reality and truth.
Which is the domain of the Almighty.
So, how should reincarnation actually be perceived?
From the successive and linear sense, in illusory time, (space/time)?
Or from the greater truth of the timeless? In which case should be seen in a sense of "emanation" of the true personage of the soul, (or "angel")?
Like spokes around the hub of a wheel.
This aligns with the multidimensional, multi worlds theory in science today.

the atonement is hard to make sense of to me
i recon the original Christians had a balanced view that didn't over emphasise the blood sacrifice aspect, his blood is the holy spirit really it seems to me but something just doesn't fit comparing it all back to old testament sacrifices

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by Master M

(When I quote scripture or mention what it says, I will not cite chapters, verses or versions for many reasons)

I'm curious if any of you have been on a similar path exploring the concepts the Bible presents. I find that the Bible presents things to be both blatantly obvious and subtly hidden.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. It is the glory of kings to seek a matter out."

When I studied the Bible, I found that I could not relate my findings with most other Christians, because it is more common for them to write off what they don't know (specifically about what the bible doesn't say or explain outright) than to explore it, for fear of being blasphemous.

"Don't focus on the things that are seen, for these are temporary. Focus on those things which are unseen, for they are eternal."

From this verse I intuited that if we cannot see the soul, who we truly are, then it is eternal, and that eternal meant no beginning and no end, meaning we existed before we came here. So I asked the question, "Where were we and where are those memories?" The only thing that made sense was reincarnation. As a conceptual thinker and one who learned much from nature, the concept of birth, death and rebirth being everywhere, including in the life of Jesus only served that interpretation. Never mind how a crazy old coot me and a good friend knew keyed us into where the Bible talks about using newborn sacrifices to open up a portal to the matrix. That one wasn't even as subtle. The Bible even uses the word matrix. Even if you switch to versions where it says womb, if you know that a womb and a matrix are often synonymous, you can make connections to the void.

That's one of many personal findings that is way outside of the box of how the Bible is normally interpreted, but I also studied history, and found that the roots of Christianity is Gnosticism, and their interpretations of the Bible were way more satisfying for me. They interpreted everything less on the matter of it being fact or fiction and more on the matter on how it related to each individuals journey as a living soul, which offered much in the way of application. Before a cross, the symbols were a fish and a lamp. Before the apocrypha was condemned, they were widely accepted and studied by believers.

Even as far as what the Bible does not say, it goes outside of the normal Christian paradigm. The bible never claims to be the only inspired Word of God. It even clearly said that the Word is written all throughout creation, so it was surely recorded by many in different texts. None of the three members of the Christian Trinity ever claimed that they themselves, or the three of them together were the only forms of God.

I also love how mysterious and deep Melchizidek was. An immortal priest of an order that even Jesus was in. You have to wonder.

I could write a book about all of the mysterious and outlandish things I've discovered as they relate to the Bible, and maybe I will one day, but for now, I restate my inquiry in the form of a question. Has anyone else been on a similar path of diving into Biblical things that aren't accepted or taught by mainstream Christianity, and what are your findings if so?

roots of Christianity Gnosticism?
i think its the other way around more like

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

the atonement is hard to make sense of to me
i recon the original Christians had a balanced view that didn't over emphasise the blood sacrifice aspect, his blood is the holy spirit really it seems to me but something just doesn't fit comparing it all back to old testament sacrifices

That's contrary to everything we read in the Gospels.

God Almighty was dealing with conscience and guilt long before the disciplines of psychiatry and psychology were established.

If you don't see this it's because you don't want to.

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

That's contrary to everything we read in the Gospels.

God Almighty was dealing with conscience and guilt long before the disciplines of psychiatry and psychology were established.

If you don't see this it's because you don't want to.

I don't have a problem with anyone who see's Jesus saving through an atonement, i just think it wasn't what the original Christians believed. I think they saw him as a saviour through the sacraments like baptism and his teachings and so on. His birth and the cross would have been highly symbolic but I think Paul's gospel added the atonement idea for sins and he was one of the many preachers, but his ideas won out
I'm not making a big thing of it, its just thats what i believe

[jojo50]

Originally Posted by Master M

When I studied the Bible, I found that I could not relate my findings with most other Christians, because it is more common for them to write off what they don't know (specifically about what the bible doesn't say or explain outright) than to explore it, for fear of being blasphemous.

when Paul spoke these words at ,(2Cor. 4:18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal). he was referring to things of this world vs the future world that is not in sight yet. in which Jehovah God through Jesus had told us to pray for ,(Matt. 6:10 "Your kingdom come, Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven"). it had nothing to do with "SOUL" in which you believe one can't see.

we ALL see "SOULS", because the "SOUL" is a living being, NOT something within us ,(Gen. 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living "SOUL"). see also (Ezek. 18:20 The soul that sin, it shall die). humans and animals die, not something in us that we can not see. you said "The bible never claims to be the only inspired Word of God." NOT true, it says just that ,(2Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness).

Jehovah God, used his righteous servants to write down words ,(2Cor.3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God). see also (2Pet. 1:20,21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost). for me, I notice MANY don't teach that some righteous humans will live on Earth. though Jesus said so ,(Matt. 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth).

when we quote scriptures, we need to post them. because someone can easily say... and MANY have "those are your words! MANY "write off" what they don't know, because they really don't want to know. I personally tried to refer a scripture to a "christian." the responses was ..."yeah ,yeah" and "OH god!", as to say i don't want to hear it. a "Christian" should ALWAYS welcome words from God. it should be part of their life ,(Psa. 119:105 Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path). we must be taught, so that we can understand. like the Ethiopian ,(Acts 8:30,31). again, some don't want it. peace

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

I don't have a problem with anyone who see's Jesus saving through an atonement, i just think it wasn't what the original Christians believed. I think they saw him as a saviour through the sacraments like baptism and his teachings and so on. His birth and the cross would have been highly symbolic but I think Paul's gospel added the atonement idea for sins and he was one of the many preachers, but his ideas won out
I'm not making a big thing of it, its just thats what i believe

"Through an atonement", dm?
Don't get it do you.

In Mathew 20:20, and Mark 10:35, Jesus Himself stated His purpose to His disciples regarding the atoning work.
Again... as prophesied ages before in the writings.

"The Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for the many."

How do you miss this?

Leviticus 17:11
"The life of the creature is in the blood. I have given it to you upon the alter to make atonement for your souls..."

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

"Through an atonement", dm?
Don't get it do you.

In Mathew 20:20, and Mark 10:35, Jesus Himself stated His purpose to His disciples regarding the atoning work.
Again... as prophesied ages before in the writings.

"The Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for the many."

How do you miss this?

Leviticus 17:11
"The life of the creature is in the blood. I have given it to you upon the alter to make atonement for your souls..."

He gave his life to us. That's it for me i see nothing beyond that, all the rest is doctrinal stuff that i don't care about.
I don't really trust Paul either to represent original Christianity. His gospel was one of many. No-one cares or thinks about the first Christians because they get panned so much in scripture. First in the gospels they are stupid, then Paul rips them as well. Why? Because they had their own beliefs that differed. Not by much, but I recon they never saw Jesus as an animal sacrifice a la Leviticus, but as a saviour and the messiah and an amazing person to know the earthly, living Jesus
Like I said, I don't have a problem with the atonement giving life except when it develops into a law that you have to believe it strays far away from what Jesus was about, IMO of course

[Morpheus]

Well, what good is it then?

So, I've made the point "Master M", that the atoning practices and work that God had established early on, is the very foundation upon which Christ wrought Salvation for all of humanity.

Which you say your not interested in, and don't care about.
But, this is the very core of Christianity.

Again also, the Father Almighty was called "Savior", and "Redeemer" through the old testament scriptures, and due to the atoning sacrifices established for His people.

Guess you have formed something in your mind regarding the "original" Christians which Paul supposedly contrasts with, but Paul, having been converted by the risen Christ, was martyred for the faith, eventually, after going through many trials during his life as a believer.
Having spread the good news, establishing and building up the churches.