America: The cursed burnt offering for the age to come.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Maigret

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

As far as I'm concerned, "the abomonation of desolation" was when Antiochos IV Epiphanes sacrificed a pig in honour of Zeus in the courtyard of the temple. It fulfilled the prophecy. Don't remember exactly when it happened, would have to look it up. first to second century BC unsure.

In the context of what the Son was talking about when he mentioned the 'Abomination of Desolation' as spoken of by Daniel, he was telling his disciples 'the signs of his coming [return] and what would happen at the end of the age', which puts it in a future timeframe.

The human sacrifice aka the crucifiction was the abomination Jesus talked about, and the temple he spoke of was himself. Try telling a Christian that...

Thing is, that the human sacrifice of Jesus turned him into a sacrificial beast, or the antichrist if you like, and there's a great bunch of Christians who only believes in him because of what his supposedly willing sacrifice of himself signifies. Something stinking of necromancy and dark magic really.

One major problem with this is that sacrifices of blemish free and a whole nature were not abominations but were a Christ type, not an antichrist type.

And yes Christ was a willing sacrifice and that receives aspect much attention but is only part of the picture. The other part is that He was able to fulfill the virtue of the pure sacrifice and was the only human ever able to do so, the son of man aspect fulfilled.

This other stuff you post is whats called "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit".

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Maigret

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

As far as I'm concerned, "the abomonation of desolation" was when Antiochos IV Epiphanes sacrificed a pig in honour of Zeus in the courtyard of the temple. It fulfilled the prophecy. Don't remember exactly when it happened, would have to look it up. first to second century BC unsure.

In the context of what the Son was talking about when he mentioned the 'Abomination of Desolation' as spoken of by Daniel, he was telling his disciples 'the signs of his coming [return] and what would happen at the end of the age', which puts it in a future timeframe.

The human sacrifice aka the crucifiction was the abomination Jesus talked about, and the temple he spoke of was himself. Try telling a Christian that...

Thing is, that the human sacrifice of Jesus turned him into a sacrificial beast, or the antichrist if you like, and there's a great bunch of Christians who only believes in him because of what his supposedly willing sacrifice of himself signifies. Something stinking of necromancy and dark magic really.

One major problem with this is that sacrifices of blemish free and a whole nature were not abominations but were a Christ type, not an antichrist type.

Are you suggesting they fancied Jebus with split hoofs and made him eat his vomit? That would be the two first criteria for any "clean" sacrifice.

And yes Christ was a willing sacrifice and that receives aspect much attention but is only part of the picture. The other part is that He was able to fulfill the virtue of the pure sacrifice and was the only human ever able to do so, the son of man aspect fulfilled.

This other stuff you post is whats called "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit".

Ho ho ho now, listen to your self and hear the devils black crimson ink bleeds over your soul's skin. Jesus did NOT want to be your messiah, and he sure didn't want to be killed. And lastly, the God you pray to HATES human sacrifice, whether it is a son of God's self-righteous suicide (Paul's version) or not. Jesus was killed because there were people like you, "Christians", listen to yourselves! You practically scream crucify! Crucify! His death is essential and vital, whipping won't do, no use his own trade against him and nail him up on a rune.

On the other hand, Jesus survived your death because there are decent people in the world, hidden in the darkest places. There was greater love than Jesus dying for your sins in motion on Cavalry that evening. But that love is but a curse to you. You mock the first saints in the world. Oh, the irony!

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Maigret

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

As far as I'm concerned, "the abomonation of desolation" was when Antiochos IV Epiphanes sacrificed a pig in honour of Zeus in the courtyard of the temple. It fulfilled the prophecy. Don't remember exactly when it happened, would have to look it up. first to second century BC unsure.

In the context of what the Son was talking about when he mentioned the 'Abomination of Desolation' as spoken of by Daniel, he was telling his disciples 'the signs of his coming [return] and what would happen at the end of the age', which puts it in a future timeframe.

The human sacrifice aka the crucifiction was the abomination Jesus talked about, and the temple he spoke of was himself. Try telling a Christian that...

Thing is, that the human sacrifice of Jesus turned him into a sacrificial beast, or the antichrist if you like, and there's a great bunch of Christians who only believes in him because of what his supposedly willing sacrifice of himself signifies. Something stinking of necromancy and dark magic really.

One major problem with this is that sacrifices of blemish free and a whole nature were not abominations but were a Christ type, not an antichrist type.

Are you suggesting they fancied Jebus with split hoofs and made him eat his vomit? That would be the two first criteria for any "clean" sacrifice.

And yes Christ was a willing sacrifice and that receives aspect much attention but is only part of the picture. The other part is that He was able to fulfill the virtue of the pure sacrifice and was the only human ever able to do so, the son of man aspect fulfilled.

This other stuff you post is whats called "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit".

Ho ho ho now, listen to your self and hear the devils black crimson ink bleeds over your soul's skin. Jesus did NOT want to be your messiah, and he sure didn't want to be killed. And lastly, the God you pray to HATES human sacrifice, whether it is a son of God's self-righteous suicide (Paul's version) or not. Jesus was killed because there were people like you, "Christians", listen to yourselves! You practically scream crucify! Crucify! His death is essential and vital, whipping won't do, no use his own trade against him and nail him up on a rune.

On the other hand, Jesus survived your death because there are decent people in the world, hidden in the darkest places. There was greater love than Jesus dying for your sins in motion on Cavalry that evening. But that love is but a curse to you. You mock the first saints in the world. Oh, the irony!

Your claims lack support, and I find them to be a bit disrespectful. I would expect more from you.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Well I see I have stirred up the necrotizing fasciitis.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The story of the crucifiction and the things that lead up to it discribes a grand murder conspiracy rooted in religion and politics and you say Jesus then had to be sacrificed to wipe away your sins and free you from the horrors of death? In your dreams, pal. The use of scapegoats cannot be accepted in any enlightened society. Blessed are the meek....

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Maigret

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

As far as I'm concerned, "the abomonation of desolation" was when Antiochos IV Epiphanes sacrificed a pig in honour of Zeus in the courtyard of the temple. It fulfilled the prophecy. Don't remember exactly when it happened, would have to look it up. first to second century BC unsure.

In the context of what the Son was talking about when he mentioned the 'Abomination of Desolation' as spoken of by Daniel, he was telling his disciples 'the signs of his coming [return] and what would happen at the end of the age', which puts it in a future timeframe.

The human sacrifice aka the crucifiction was the abomination Jesus talked about, and the temple he spoke of was himself. Try telling a Christian that...

Thing is, that the human sacrifice of Jesus turned him into a sacrificial beast, or the antichrist if you like, and there's a great bunch of Christians who only believes in him because of what his supposedly willing sacrifice of himself signifies. Something stinking of necromancy and dark magic really.

Just to clarify my position, in case you've not come across it before: I understand that Jesus is Christian deity, worshipped as God at Easter and Christmas, being God the Son, second person of the Trinity, etc. etc.

Yeshua (his true name), on the other hand, is 'kosher' Jewish High Priest, who will lead in worship of our Creator, on the Sabbath and other Biblically prescribed holy days.

My understanding of the phrase 'abomination of desolation' is a 'false god or idol who causes religious desolation'. 'Nuff said!

I believe the view you stated, predominates with those who believe that God prohibited human sacrifices, which He did, but this was to prevent the futile and pagan practises, especially as regards children, amongst mankind!

Just because God prohibits human beings from sacrificing others, does this mean then that this extends to Himself? No, because if He calls for sacrifices, it is in the right circumstances, and for the right reasons!

This is the reason that Yeshua was called the 'Lamb of God', because it was in this capacity that he was sacrificed and it is his Blood which atones for the sins of those who follow him.

Also this is the reason that there are no more animal sacrifices being performed at the Temple. As High Priest, Yeshua is performing all the other Scripturally-required Temple rites for us in the heavenly realms. Do you doubt that God would permit some heathen to destroy His Temple, if He still needed it for any reason?

Psalm 44:22 says, 'Yea, for 'Yea, for Thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.' I believe this verse refers to those Israelites who will undergo the Tribulation, and this is why we are referred to as 'sheep'.

Only those who take up their execution stakes to follow Yeshua literally, will be deemed worthy of the Blood of his sacrifice; so we are to be prepared to be sacrificed too. (It is not this physical realm that is the ultimate goal.)

I'm trying to be brief, so I'm leaving information gaps all over the place here... if you need or want any filler information, then please let me know.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Maigret

Note here that Paul is specifying which members of Israel he is referring to, so obviously he doesn't mean all of Israel.

Most Bible versions translate it as people.
You are looking at just the King James.
The Greek word Sarka literally means flesh but it is usually used to mean people.
For whatever reason, the translator 400 yeas ago decided to go with a literal translation that today the translators know doesn't fit.

Or explain this verse then, 'that at that time you were without the Messiah; being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the Covenants of Promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world'? Ephesians 2:12

It probably means "Christ" in a generic way.

It still fits, even if it means 'flesh', because that's my point too. Paul is specifying those who are only flesh and blood, naturally born Israelites; not the Godly spiritual Israelites.

How can something so specific and detailed, be regarded as merely generic? Not a chance!

a reply to: Maigret

It still fits, even if it means 'flesh' . . .

The Jews distinguish between different "Israels".
There is the people of Israel, and the land of Israel, and I suppose there could be a religion of Israel too.
Paul was talking about the people of Israel.

Paul is specifying those who are only flesh and blood, naturally born Israelites; not the Godly spiritual Israelites.

You are just going back to the King James interpretation that they put into their translation.

How can something so specific and detailed, be regarded as merely generic? Not a chance!

The word "Christ"?
How specific and detailed was that before Jesus?
The Jews, before Jesus had an expectation of a soon coming messiah.
The gentiles didn't have that. That was probably what the writer of Ephesians meant, according to the context.
Even if a gentile believed there would be a messiah, he wouldn't have been able to feel like it was his, because it would have only been the messiah for the Jews.
Now, says the writer, that gentile who formerly could not claim a Christ for his own, can because of the gospel that is the current message from God.
It isn't because he can now be absorbed into Israel, it is because there is a new thing that takes in Israel and the gentiles.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The story of the crucifiction and the things that lead up to it discribes a grand murder conspiracy rooted in religion and politics and you say Jesus then had to be sacrificed to wipe away your sins and free you from the horrors of death? In your dreams, pal. The use of scapegoats cannot be accepted in any enlightened society. Blessed are the meek....

The truth is if it had been left to His disciples He wouldn't have summited to the cross. They were not the ones telling Him that He had to be the scapegoat. It was Him saying that and the disciples didn't figure it out until after His resurrection.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The story of the crucifixion is about how God used a murderous conspiracy to fulfill the Old Testament Law and sacrifice. Jesus was willing to go through the process, for it was His Father's will. Through His temporary death came Eternal Life. The scapegoat principle was part of the Law and Calendar of God. You have shown your disaproval for Jesus' willing sacrifice, but you have yet to back it up with scripture.

Unless you have scripture to cite, we need not re-address this conversation.

a reply to: Maigret

My understanding of the phrase 'abomination of desolation' is a 'false god or idol who causes religious desolation'. 'Nuff said!

The abomination of desolation in Daniel is directly connected to the ceasing of the daily sacrifice.
The daily sacrifice happens for a reason, which is that according to the religion, sacrifices must happen every day at the temple.
To not have daily sacrifices would then be an abomination, which would exist if a temple didn't exist, where instead you had desolation.
Mark 13:14 says the abomination that causes desolation, so there is a reinterpretation here that detaches itself from the basic concept in Daniel that makes the "daily" central.
Of course from a Christian point of view, the continuation of the "daily" was not the point in this prophecy of Jesus.
Also, the daily sacrifice went on right up to the end, when the temple caught on fire and everyone in it was killed.
The term used here in Mark seems to rather come from the Book of Maccabees.
My guess is that the thing that Jesus meant was when the Tower Antonia, at one of the corners of the temple square, was garrisoned by Roman troops.

Prior to the First Jewish–Roman War, the Antonia housed some part of the Roman garrison of Jerusalem.
en.wikipedia.org...

The tower was attacked by the rebels who came to Jerusalem, to get the soldiers out of it.
When Titus came, they had to retake the tower from the rebels.

originally posted by: Maigret

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Maigret

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

As far as I'm concerned, "the abomonation of desolation" was when Antiochos IV Epiphanes sacrificed a pig in honour of Zeus in the courtyard of the temple. It fulfilled the prophecy. Don't remember exactly when it happened, would have to look it up. first to second century BC unsure.

In the context of what the Son was talking about when he mentioned the 'Abomination of Desolation' as spoken of by Daniel, he was telling his disciples 'the signs of his coming [return] and what would happen at the end of the age', which puts it in a future timeframe.

The human sacrifice aka the crucifiction was the abomination Jesus talked about, and the temple he spoke of was himself. Try telling a Christian that...

Thing is, that the human sacrifice of Jesus turned him into a sacrificial beast, or the antichrist if you like, and there's a great bunch of Christians who only believes in him because of what his supposedly willing sacrifice of himself signifies. Something stinking of necromancy and dark magic really.

Just to clarify my position, in case you've not come across it before: I understand that Jesus is Christian deity, worshipped as God at Easter and Christmas, being God the Son, second person of the Trinity, etc. etc.

Yeshua (his true name), on the other hand, is 'kosher' Jewish High Priest, who will lead in worship of our Creator, on the Sabbath and other Biblically prescribed holy days.

My understanding of the phrase 'abomination of desolation' is a 'false god or idol who causes religious desolation'. 'Nuff said!

And you don't se the idolised Romanized Jesus, the sacrificial beast as the very fulfillment of this? The story told in the Gospel is a very beautiful one and is very seducing, but the truth is that the Church has boiled it down to "guy killed, mission accomplished, all hail the Jesus lamb at the butcher's hands, so they all can see what happens if you mess with us". Jesus didn't want blood sacrifice he served crackers and water and told us to sacrifice that instead of flesh and blood. Exactly where is it you guys fall off here? I mean the guy is begging for mercy in the garden, while you guys keep messing everything up claiming he has to die for your sins! "Paulus says so!"

I believe the view you stated, predominates with those who believe that God prohibited human sacrifices, which He did, but this was to prevent the futile and pagan practises, especially as regards children, amongst mankind!

Just because God prohibits human beings from sacrificing others, does this mean then that this extends to Himself? No, because if He calls for sacrifices, it is in the right circumstances, and for the right reasons!

This is the reason that Yeshua was called the 'Lamb of God', because it was in this capacity that he was sacrificed and it is his Blood which atones for the sins of those who follow him.

The Blood of the Lamb is the same thing you wash your white linen in. WATER. It's what they drank in the end at his wedding, and that is the reason why the Blood of the Lamb is so vital. We need water to survive. You don't serve a Lamb flesh to eat and blood to drink? I may be provincial, but I don't get it, and I'm tired of all this crying for blood and sacrifice. It's disgusting and it's what dooms every living Christian to hell. Mark of the beast right there. Their own story, their own necromantical magic, their own words, one big cross for the lot of them to suck them all straight into oblivion.

Also this is the reason that there are no more animal sacrifices being performed at the Temple. As High Priest, Yeshua is performing all the other Scripturally-required Temple rites for us in the heavenly realms. Do you doubt that God would permit some heathen to destroy His Temple, if He still needed it for any reason?

Psalm 44:22 says, 'Yea, for 'Yea, for Thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.' I believe this verse refers to those Israelites who will undergo the Tribulation, and this is why we are referred to as 'sheep'.

Only those who take up their execution stakes to follow Yeshua literally, will be deemed worthy of the Blood of his sacrifice; so we are to be prepared to be sacrificed too. (It is not this physical realm that is the ultimate goal.)

I'm trying to be brief, so I'm leaving information gaps all over the place here... if you need or want any filler information, then please let me know.

What is it with you Christians and your totems and animal analogies. Jesus was a human being, not a fish, not a lamb, not a lion and not the ibis, they are but primitive totems from a time long gone. For all I care, the Lamb of God is just that. His choice lamb in the flock, gonna be perfect for the Passover dinner. Unfortunately, humans can't handle such trivialities, so they turn Passover into a dreadful display of torture and human sacrifice, complete with disclaimers, a sign made readable in four languages and a timeless mob of idiots screaming "crucify the bastard!" Instead of treating people like sheep and dogs, how about treating eachother as fellow human beings.

a reply to: Maigret

. . . I understand that Jesus is Christian deity . . .

Are you implying that you are not "Christian"?

Yeshua (his true name), on the other hand, is 'kosher' Jewish High Priest, who will lead in worship of our Creator, on the Sabbath and other Biblically prescribed holy days.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Not from the Bible.
Also this "his true name" thing, that's just a theory of wishful thinkers who want to pretend that the "real New Testament" was written in Hebrew. It turns out now that the Qumran documents date back to before Herod, so there is no reason to think that people spoke Hebrew in Judea at the time of Christ outside of reading the Torah. Even when some parts of Daniel was written, the knowledge of Hebrew had deteriorated to the point that the editor was basically cutting and pasting from earlier books of the Bible.

This is the reason that Yeshua was called the 'Lamb of God', because it was in this capacity that he was sacrificed and it is his Blood which atones for the sins of those who follow him.

Another thing that doesn't come from the Bible.
John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God.
The Greek word used here in John is the same as in the Septuagint version of Isaiah 53 in the Suffering Servant story, where it says "like a sheep dumb before its shearers".
There isn't a verse that says, "his Blood which atones for the sins of those who follow him".
1 John 2:2 says "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
(English Standard Version)
That is talking about Jesus himself, not his blood.
Jesus was given to us by God to reconcile us to God.

As High Priest, Yeshua is performing all the other Scripturally-required Temple rites for us in the heavenly realms.

Another thing not in the Bible.
The book of Hebrews creates an analogy for what Jesus did, with the work of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.
It goes on to say that it was a one time event, never needing to be repeated.

Only those who take up their execution stakes to follow Yeshua literally, will be deemed worthy of the Blood of his sacrifice; so we are to be prepared to be sacrificed too.

You inserted "of the Blood of his sacrifice" to create your own verse.

Maigret: Yeshua (his true name), on the other hand, is 'kosher' Jewish High Priest, who will lead in worship of our Creator, on the Sabbath and other Biblically prescribed holy days.

jmdewey60: How did you arrive at that conclusion? Not from the Bible.

Open Book of Hebrews for starters. She is quite right. Some serious researchers argue that Hebrews may actually have been written by Jesus himself.

In the other encampment, the human sacrifice worshippers' camp, Paul is their teacher, who was a Roman Pharicee infiltrator and his letters and doctrines are part of a plan to undermine Christianity from it's ground up and lead the carpenter's son's followers into a worshipping what Jesus with his Law and Prophets explicitly said they shouldn't. Who'd believe that?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

She is quite right.

That is not a women's name, it is a French last name.

Some serious researchers argue that Hebrews may actually have been written by Jesus himself.

That's news to me. Hebrews sets up the context internally, which was the experience of some of the leading Christians who had converted from among the Jews and had been kicked out of Rome when there was violence going on because of different Jewish factions.

In the other encampment, the human sacrifice worshipers' camp, Paul is their teacher . . .

Paul never says that Jesus paid for sins.
That idea comes from Augustine.

who was a Roman Pharisee infiltrator . . .

That is from Acts that was written a hundred years after the fact and the writer creates a mythos about Paul that is not based on what Paul himself said.

. . . his letters and doctrines are part of a plan to undermine Christianity from it's ground up . . .

It is arguable that the gospels are based on Paul's teachings, so this assertion could not be true.
What needs to be taken into consideration is the later books attributed to Paul but are really pseudonymous.
Those could be better claimed to work against the earlier form of Christianity. Mainly in that it starts to establish an institution with a hierarchy.

. . . what Jesus with his Law and Prophets explicitly said. . .

Jesus reinterpreted the Law and Prophets to suite his own needs.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
That is from Acts [U: Paul being a Roman Pharicee] that was written a hundred years after the fact and the writer creates a mythos about Paul that is not based on what Paul himself said.

Err. Acts was written by the same person that wrote Luke, a Roman physician named "Lukas the companion of Paul" (named in Colossians 4:14), and the book refered to in the opening of Acts is the gospel according to Luke.


Edit to add Maigret French, not female. Check.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Err. Acts was written by the same person that wrote Luke, a Roman physician "Lukas the companion of Paul" (named in Colossians 4:14), and the book refered to in the opening of Acts is the gospel according to Luke.

That is according to a mythology begun in the pseudonymous Pauline books, taking a name actually mentioned by Paul, then adding the "physician" part since there was also this idea that Paul suffered a permanent ailment as the result of some earlier event that comes from Acts too.
The idea was to build up this character in order to pass Acts through the canonization process of being "Apostolic".
You already had this idea creeping in that this apostolic quality could be passed from one person to another, so if you had this long time companion of Paul who wrote a history of him, it could be considered inspired and included in the NT canon.
It may have been purposely written to mimic Luke, the gospel.

Edit to add Maigret French, not female. Check.

I think there was a series of novels written with an Inspector Maigret, as the main character.
Googleing tells me it was made into a BBC series (see image above).

a reply to: jmdewey60

I'm amazed you show signs of critical thought and hermeneutics here. A good thing. Shaking the canon is one thing, but there are quite a few other trees to shake and bark up at. You can't proove any of these books origins anyway, they are poor copies copied from even poorer ones and there were many books in circulation carrying identical names but with completely different authors and contents, so we can never really be sure it's the same book we know of when Iraeneus mentions a gospel of Mark. Most NT manuscripts that are used to translate this pile of mss were written nearly a millennium after the stories supposedly happened. Most of what is older is highly fragmented and often they have been dated judging by references in other literature, like correspondance between certain gurus when the first congregations were formed and words like kyriakos were backwards engeneered into the texts, the story of "cast the first stone" was added, as well as notions of the Trinity and the ascencion. The books we know as bibles is the bile squeezed out of thousands of manuscripts that are all different and full of errors and forgeries.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

. . . the story of "cast the first stone" was added . . .

I think it was the other way around.
Some scribes left it out.
There are manuscrips with a blank space big enough to add it in.
It is like they look at it and it sounds too weird to be true, so they leave it out until they can get some confirmation from an authority that it really belongs.
See Fourth Gospel and the Jews: A Study in R. Akiba, Esther, and the Gospel of John, by John Bowman for a good explanation of why it is original and belongs in the gospel of John.
A short explanation by me of Bowman's theses is that the gospel was written to counter the inclusion of the Book of Esther in the canon, where a key plot point is that she allows her enemy to be wrongly executed for attempted adultery when he was found having a private conversation with her in her bed chamber.