What does exactly mean "through Jesus Christ"?

[Nehustan]

Not sure if this post qualifies as rational given it deals with the metaphysical, however it is on topic (this is my second attempt as my connection went down just as I posted...Agggghhh!!!!)

It is often considered that the name Jeheshuah (hellenised as Jesus) is a mystic and/or geometric construct. It occurs when the hebrew letter shin descends upon the logos semiotically represented as the dove.

The logos/word maybe considered as IHVH/Jahwweh, which proceeds from Eloah. As 'John' writes...

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' John 1:1, KJV.

which might well be rendered....

'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Eloah, and the word was Jahweh'

Thus while Jahweh is the word, Eloah may be considered Ain Soph Aur, beyond both in our perception but also in actuality, while of course the sovereignty of Eloah is present in the movement of even the smallest subatomic particle.

I think then when Jeheshuah is speaking of the father and the 'route' to 'him he is speaking in this context. If we look at some gematria for the letter shin we have the phrase 'The Spirit of God'....

Ruach Elohim​

= 300 =

and thus when the spirit descends on the logos we have what I call the Jeheshuah construct....

with the path/rememberance of Eloah indicated within the very name.

 

[may]

Not sure if this post qualifies as rational given it deals with the metaphysical, however it is on topic (this is my second attempt as my connection went down just as I posted...Agggghhh!!!!)

It is often considered that the name Jeheshuah (hellenised as Jesus) is a mystic and/or geometric construct. It occurs when the hebrew letter shin descends upon the logos semiotically represented as the dove.

The logos/word maybe considered as IHVH/Jahwweh, which proceeds from Eloah. As 'John' writes...

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' John 1:1, KJV.

which might well be rendered....

'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Eloah, and the word was Jahweh'

Thus while Jahweh is the word, Eloah may be considered Ain Soph Aur, beyond both in our perception but also in actuality, while of course the sovereignty of Eloah is present in the movement of even the smallest subatomic particle.

I think then when Jeheshuah is speaking of the father and the 'route' to 'him he is speaking in this context. If we look at some gematria for the letter shin we have the phrase 'The Spirit of God'....

Ruach Elohim​

= 300 =

and thus when the spirit descends on the logos we have what I call the Jeheshuah construct....

with the path/rememberance of Eloah indicated within the very name.

Jehovah​

​

Definition: The personal name of the only true God. His own self-designation. Jehovah is the Creator and, rightfully, the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. "Jehovah" is translated from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, יהוה, which means "He Causes to Become." These four Hebrew letters are represented in many languages by the letters JHVH or YHWH

Jesus​

Christ​

​

Definition: The only-begotten Son of God, the only Son produced by Jehovah alone. This Son is the firstborn of all creation. By means of him all other things in heaven and on earth were created. He is the second-greatest personage in the universe. It is this Son whom Jehovah sent to the earth to give his life as a ransom for mankind, thus opening the way to eternal life for those of Adam’s offspring who would exercise faith. This same Son, restored to heavenly glory, now rules as King, with authority to destroy all the wicked and to carry out his Father’s original purpose for the earth. The Hebrew form of the name Jesus means "Jehovah Is Salvation"; Christ is the equivalent of the Hebrew Ma·shi´ach (Messiah), meaning "Anointed One

 

[d.]

I believe that Christ wanted us to look deep withing ourselves to rattle our inner cages and to shake off our preconceptions about what reality is. The inner self is the doorway. It is surprising easy to grab a hold of, once one knows what they are looking for.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
what do we know what jesus would want, except for what is stated in the bible?

c.s. lewis (author of the narnia series) had an interesting approach to these questions. he couldn't accept the idea that jesus was 'a wise man' or a 'great spiritual teacher'. his argument was, jesus was either the son of god or a nut. if a person claims to be the son of god, and he isn't, he is either mentally ill or lying.

if you want a religion that encourages looking 'inside' and seeking your own path, i say don't look in christianity.

Rigid thinking is perhaps the greatest error that people make, as they sit within their self satisfied preconceptions of what should be, meanwhile ignoring any evidence of what may in fact be. A bit clumsy wordy, but I hope you get my drift.

well said. i definitely agree.

 

[Nehustan]

May, I would enter into a debate about 'Jahwists'/'Elohists' but given your stated faith is a 'JW' there doesn't seem much point to discuss this issue, which has raged through the millenia. Lets just say Elohists do not hold to your point of view.

 

[d.]

Not sure if this post qualifies as rational given it deals with the metaphysical, however it is on topic (this is my second attempt as my connection went down just as I posted...Agggghhh!!!!)

It is often considered that the name Jeheshuah (hellenised as Jesus) is a mystic and/or geometric construct. It occurs when the hebrew letter shin descends upon the logos semiotically represented as the dove.
[...]

very interesting. is there a name for this kind of theory? recommended further reading perhaps?

 

[YmirGF]

what do we know what jesus would want, except for what is stated in the bible?

We can't. My assertions as based on my experience of the inner self. I wouldn't dream of claiming to be "right", but it is a very deep suspicion. My theory is simply an extrapolation of those inner experiences, that are within the grasp of all living people. I dont mean to try to prove my point. My point is that anyone can prove it to themselves.

if you want a religion that encourages looking 'inside' and seeking your own path, i say don't look in christianity. well said. i definitely agree.

Thank you, kind sir. I agree. It would not occur to me to look seriously at standard Christianity or Churchianity. The well ran dry long ago. The clearest paths imho are the taoist and buddhist routes. At least they allow for what I am saying. (To touch that "something" within.) The thing is, that the essentials are there in Christianity, it is my view that they have simply become muddied and lost. I am not altogether convinced that standard church doctrine accurately reflect the words of Christ.

My last feeling on this regard, and sorry, I have to say what I feel, as I am not a scholar, nor am I highly educated, is that IF a Christ-like being returns to our sad little rock, I highly doubt he/she will come to pat ANY current religion on the head for doing a good job.

 

[Nehustan]

very interesting. is there a name for this kind of theory? recommended further reading perhaps?

Hmmm, a name...well I suppose I would have to say Mysticism as that is where the thread I was writing was moved, having originally been in the Kabbalah section. Never one to miss an opportunity at self promotion I will post a link to a thread I put together on some of this information/hocus pocus. It makes much sense to me, but life has taught me thus far this does not mean it will make any sense to others.

 

[nutshell]

In what sense do you mean this?

For clarity's sake, mind you. I believe He was the Son of God, but I think we mean two different things by that phrase "Son of God".

How exactly is God the father of Jesus of Nazareth, born to Maryam, who ws betrothed to and married Yusef? By what mechanism is the sonship made manifest? Bearing in mind that we beget children through a biochemical process where half of the genetic material of a child comes from the mother and the father.

How is this process DIFFERENT in the case of a child "begotten" by God?

I really want to know what someone means when they say that the father of Jesus is God.

Regards,
Scott

I believe Jesus was the first created spiritually by the Father and that we too were created spiritually after Jesus by the Father.

Because he was the first, he had a special responsibility: Be the Savior of the World.

I also believe that physically, Jesus is the literal Son of God, half his genetic material is from the Father. The Virgin Mary is his mother and half his genes are from her. How did this happen? All the scriptures tell us is that the Holy Ghost desended upon Mary. How did the Father's genetic material impregnanted Mary? I don't think anyone knows that answer for sure. We have the ability to create life without sexual intercourse so I think it's perfectly believable that God the Father can do the same.

So, in summary, he was the firstborn spiritually and he is the literal Son of God. Some may call this a demi-God, but I have never heard this term used in LDS teaching. I don't believe you can be "half God," you either are a God or you're not. Jesus inherited everything his Father had so he is a full God. I don't believe in demi-Gods.

I'm not sure if I answered your question, Scott. Please let me know. Thanks.

 

[nutshell]

The logos/word maybe considered as IHVH/Jahwweh, which proceeds from Eloah. As 'John' writes...

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' John 1:1, KJV.

which might well be rendered....

'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Eloah, and the word was Jahweh'

Very interesting. Would Elohim and Jehovah be interchangable with Eloah and Jahweh?

I'm asking out of ignorance.

 

[Nehustan]

I'm pretty sure that the construct 'Elohim' is infact plural, another fact which has been argued over for some time. Eloah would then be singular. Jehovah is the most common romanisation of the tetragrammaton (four lettered word) which again romanised in IHVH or as some have it Jahweh.

Hope that helps (I'm certainly no expert in this!!!!).

 

[Mister_T]

We can't. My assertions as based on my experience of the inner self. I wouldn't dream of claiming to be "right", but it is a very deep suspicion. My theory is simply an extrapolation of those inner experiences, that are within the grasp of all living people. I dont mean to try to prove my point. My point is that anyone can prove it to themselves.



Thank you, kind sir. I agree. It would not occur to me to look seriously at standard Christianity or Churchianity. The well ran dry long ago. The clearest paths imho are the taoist and buddhist routes. At least they allow for what I am saying. (To touch that "something" within.) The thing is, that the essentials are there in Christianity, it is my view that they have simply become muddied and lost. I am not altogether convinced that standard church doctrine accurately reflect the words of Christ.

My last feeling on this regard, and sorry, I have to say what I feel, as I am not a scholar, nor am I highly educated, is that IF a Christ-like being returns to our sad little rock, I highly doubt he/she will come to pat ANY current religion on the head for doing a good job.

I tend to agree with this for the most part. It's all about that "inner struggle". I used to teach Martial Arts, so I apply things like meditation and reflection with prayer. I feel that a lot of eastern religions are very in touch with making that spiritual connection. Which is something a lot of Christians should look into practicing instead of following the crowd. I agree that a lot churches cloud Christ's message. But I also do believe Christ to be the Son of God. That's just my personal conviction.

 

[Mister_T]

"Through Christ" means our once broken relationship with God was restored through Jesus' sacrifice. And because of that, there are no longer only a select few with that privledge. Now anybody can have a realtionship with God regardless.

 

[Halcyon]

We don't assume squat. It is what is directly stated in scripture.

:biglaugh: You call it scripture. I call it the deranged ramblings of a murderous psychopath.
Saul of Tarsus was nothing more than a religious nut. He wanted to be seen as a big important man, so he took the life and teachings of Yeshua and used them to forge a brand new Gentile religion based entirely on his own insane imagination.

I am greatly ammused that one can take a purely scriptural idea, by that I mean one that is generated and fully explained in scripture, and then decide to believe whatever pops into their head as to what it means. I suppose if it feels warm and fuzzy.....

Actually the feeling i get is cold and smooth.

I offered an alternative interpretation of what it is to be saved through Jesus Christ, if you find it amusing that's fine - your loss...

 

[Anastasios]

Saul of Tarsus was nothing more than a religious nut. He wanted to be seen as a big important man, so he took the life and teachings of Yeshua and used them to forge a brand new Gentile religion based entirely on his own insane imagination.

Very Good point, even further, not all the letters belonged to him, but just compiled under the name of Paul. The Greek usage in the letters of Paul doesn't suggets a single author.

 

[Mister_T]

We don't assume squat. It is what is directly stated in scripture

Agreed.

I am greatly ammused that one can take a purely scriptural idea, by that I mean one that is generated and fully explained in scripture, and then decide to believe whatever pops into their head as to what it means. I suppose if it feels warm and fuzzy.....

I do agree with you on this as well. But I will be quick to point out that this works both ways.

 

[may]

f

if you want a religion that encourages looking 'inside' and seeking your own path, i say don't look in christianity.

yes i agree with this , and i think i am right in saying that most people look for a religion that goes along with their own thoughts , rather than asking them selves.......... what does God require of me.............. i am not getting at anyone it was just a thought

 

[may]

May, I would enter into a debate about 'Jahwists'/'Elohists' but given your stated faith is a 'JW' there doesn't seem much point to discuss this issue, which has raged through the millenia. Lets just say Elohists do not hold to your point of view.

thats ok.

 

[shema]

I have a different interpretation.

It is often said "We are saved through Jesus Christ."

Most Christians assume it is through his death, his sacrifice, that we are saved as this act washes away our sins.

I say that it is through his teachings that we are saved. Like Shakyamuni Buddha, Yeshua clears a path for us to know truth - its up to us to follow that path.

I agree, The bible says we are to be doers of the word and not hearers. when we submit our own carnal desires, and follow what was taught, It more or less transforms our souls

 

[may]

h

My last feeling on this regard, and sorry, I have to say what I feel, as I am not a scholar, nor am I highly educated, is that IF a Christ-like being returns to our sad little rock, I highly doubt he/she will come to pat ANY current religion on the head for doing a good job.

Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings matthew 24;45-47 i think that the bible says the master ,Jesus christ ,will appoint a faithful slave class over all Jesus belongings .and why? because they have been faithful to Jesus and fed the people in a spiritual way.

 

[Smoke]

c.s. lewis (author of the narnia series) had an interesting approach to these questions. he couldn't accept the idea that jesus was 'a wise man' or a 'great spiritual teacher'. his argument was, jesus was either the son of god or a nut. if a person claims to be the son of god, and he isn't, he is either mentally ill or lying.

However, a first century Jew claiming to be the son of God would not be claiming to be God.

Lewis is vastly overrrated.