Baby Jesus is a Spy and Hidden Hand Solved (almost)

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

This thread is a place for truth --- I'm so glad you're here!

And you have given me much to think upon - thank you!

Well my friends,

I see that it is time now to take my leave. I hope that you might find some value in my rantings and gentle musings. Though done with an attempt at humour --- each point made is sincere.

Please know that I have very, VERY much enjoyed reading all of your comments and want to thank everyone here for participating --- please carry on if you feel so inspired and if not, that's cool as well.
---
I look forward to seeing you out marching in the streets!

And as always:

Let us bask in the glory of Kek ---- The Bringer of Light and Truth

Sincerely,

The Old Fool

PS. Beware Beware the Ides of March:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: chr0naut

Let's see... the character of Jesus...
- The guy who drove money changers out of the temple, turning over their tables, tossing their money aside and whipping them with a rope. Matthew 21:12–17, Mark 11:15–19, and Luke 19:45–48.

That's one of my favorite things He ever did. I've spent much study into the whole "animal sacrifice" theme....which was carried into Jesus being a blood sacrifice. I believe His anger wasn't about some money changers making a few extra bucks over the selling of animals, but the very fact that innocent creatures were being slaughtered "in the name of God". If He was just ticked at the money changers, He wouldn't have driven the animals out, too.
Oh, and you don't need to quote "chapter and verse" for me. I know the Bible pretty well.

- The guy who said some pretty blunt things about the religious rulers of the time. Matthew 23.

Yes....He told them their father was the devil. Who did those religious rulers serve? Yahweh.

- The guy they killed because they feared his radical influence. Luke 23: 2 and Luke 23:5.

If you go back and read the "money changers" stories in the gospels, it was after Jesus disrupted their very lucrative temple practices of selling innocent animals for sacrifice to their "father"...the one Jesus called the devil, that they began to plot how to kill Him.
What was it Jesus taught that made Him so radical? That the Kingdom of Heaven was there, right in their midst, to love God and treat others the way you would want to be treated. He was radical alright. He went against every law that Yahweh had put in place. Jesus reached out to all those who would have been considered "unclean or rejected" and loved them, healed them, raised them from the dead, etc.". He was so radical that He taught no man had ever seen the Father but Himself.
I can see how those religious rulers were threatened....Jesus showed everyone the character of the true God. He was messing with their power and control over the common people.

originally posted by: OwenandNoelle
a reply to: chr0naut

Are you happy being snarky?

In terms of being rudely disrespectful, I don't think so, but in terms of being adversarial, absolutely.

As pointed out previously, Jesus' answers often conformed to Socratic method, posing new questions to get people to think more deeply and to draw conclusions based upon a clearer perspective. One might say He was being snarky but really He was using formalized debate that promotes open reasoning.

Questions of my personal motivations and attitude don't really contribute to the topic thread.

Because if so carry on

I enjoy you!

And I enjoy the debate, too.

Could you please answer this riddle though?

Do you not think the same secret societies that have manipulated our government, banking systems and mass media, wouldn't have also manipulated our major religion? If not, could you please explain why?

Or can you not recognize that secret societies exist and have been pulling the strings for very a long time. Quite literally in fact.

The answer is that while there undoubtedly have been and still are secret societies that have manipulated governments, that the secrecy of such societies in a democratically ruled world, is a limitation on their power.

Far more worrying are the not so secret societies that operate in the open and have agenda's that are not in the public interest. For instance, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (which fortunately seems to have fallen from grace) gave far too much power to corporations and took it away from democratic governments and their people. There are similar banking and financially based alliances which openly work against the public good.

So, yes, there are secret societies which may be evil, but I can do little against an unknown enemy, yet I do fear and oppose those who are not secret, who currently influence power and who are openly evil.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: chr0naut

Let's see... the character of Jesus...
- The guy who drove money changers out of the temple, turning over their tables, tossing their money aside and whipping them with a rope. Matthew 21:12–17, Mark 11:15–19, and Luke 19:45–48.

That's one of my favorite things He ever did. I've spent much study into the whole "animal sacrifice" theme....which was carried into Jesus being a blood sacrifice. I believe His anger wasn't about some money changers making a few extra bucks over the selling of animals, but the very fact that innocent creatures were being slaughtered "in the name of God". If He was just ticked at the money changers, He wouldn't have driven the animals out, too.
Oh, and you don't need to quote "chapter and verse" for me. I know the Bible pretty well.

- The guy who said some pretty blunt things about the religious rulers of the time. Matthew 23.

Yes....He told them their father was the devil. Who did those religious rulers serve? Yahweh.

- The guy they killed because they feared his radical influence. Luke 23: 2 and Luke 23:5.

If you go back and read the "money changers" stories in the gospels, it was after Jesus disrupted their very lucrative temple practices of selling innocent animals for sacrifice to their "father"...the one Jesus called the devil, that they began to plot how to kill Him.
What was it Jesus taught that made Him so radical? That the Kingdom of Heaven was there, right in their midst, to love God and treat others the way you would want to be treated. He was radical alright. He went against every law that Yahweh had put in place. Jesus reached out to all those who would have been considered "unclean or rejected" and loved them, healed them, raised them from the dead, etc.". He was so radical that He taught no man had ever seen the Father but Himself.
I can see how those religious rulers were threatened....Jesus showed everyone the character of the true God. He was messing with their power and control over the common people.

Nice segue away from you suggesting that it was 'unChrist-like' to debate.



I also doubt that Jesus' message was 'be kind to animals'. I think that His anger at the money changers was that genuine spiritual development had become subverted to ritual and commerce.

It is fairly plain that Jesus meticulously obeyed the laws outlined in the Torah and that he participated in normal Jewish worship, which would have included animal sacrifice. It is a matter of record that it was Jesus' custom to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath. Similarly, it is recorded that several times Jesus attended the temple with his parents who went there specifically to offer sacrifices (one of the sacrifices recorded was of two young pigeons).

When Jesus healed the leper, His instruction was for the leper to go to the temple and "do as Moses had commanded". The declaration of cleansing of a leper according to Mosaic law involves several animal sacrifices and several separate ceremonies.

Jesus paid a miraculously provided half Shekel in 'Temple tax', which was used for the upkeep of the temple, including altars and implements for sacrifices.

The passover lamb, prepared for the last supper, was slaughtered sacrificially.

Jesus prophetic references to his own death as sacrificial would be a nonsense if He opposed sacrifice.

Nowhere does Jesus speak out against animal sacrifices being offered.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: chr0naut

Let's see... the character of Jesus...
- The guy who drove money changers out of the temple, turning over their tables, tossing their money aside and whipping them with a rope. Matthew 21:12–17, Mark 11:15–19, and Luke 19:45–48.

That's one of my favorite things He ever did. I've spent much study into the whole "animal sacrifice" theme....which was carried into Jesus being a blood sacrifice. I believe His anger wasn't about some money changers making a few extra bucks over the selling of animals, but the very fact that innocent creatures were being slaughtered "in the name of God". If He was just ticked at the money changers, He wouldn't have driven the animals out, too.
Oh, and you don't need to quote "chapter and verse" for me. I know the Bible pretty well.

- The guy who said some pretty blunt things about the religious rulers of the time. Matthew 23.

Yes....He told them their father was the devil. Who did those religious rulers serve? Yahweh.

- The guy they killed because they feared his radical influence. Luke 23: 2 and Luke 23:5.

If you go back and read the "money changers" stories in the gospels, it was after Jesus disrupted their very lucrative temple practices of selling innocent animals for sacrifice to their "father"...the one Jesus called the devil, that they began to plot how to kill Him.
What was it Jesus taught that made Him so radical? That the Kingdom of Heaven was there, right in their midst, to love God and treat others the way you would want to be treated. He was radical alright. He went against every law that Yahweh had put in place. Jesus reached out to all those who would have been considered "unclean or rejected" and loved them, healed them, raised them from the dead, etc.". He was so radical that He taught no man had ever seen the Father but Himself.
I can see how those religious rulers were threatened....Jesus showed everyone the character of the true God. He was messing with their power and control over the common people.

Nice segue away from you suggesting that it was 'unChrist-like' to debate.

I also doubt that Jesus' message was 'be kind to animals'. I think that His anger at the money changers was that genuine spiritual development had become subverted to ritual and commerce.

It is fairly plain that Jesus meticulously obeyed the laws outlined in the Torah and that he participated in normal Jewish worship, which would have included animal sacrifice. It is a matter of record that it was Jesus' custom to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath. Similarly, it is recorded that several times Jesus attended the temple with his parents who went there specifically to offer sacrifices (one of the sacrifices recorded was of two young pigeons).

When Jesus healed the leper, His instruction was for the leper to go to the temple and "do as Moses had commanded". The declaration of cleansing of a leper according to Mosaic law involves several animal sacrifices and several separate ceremonies.

Jesus paid a miraculously provided half Shekel in 'Temple tax', which was used for the upkeep of the temple, including altars and implements for sacrifices.

The passover lamb, prepared for the last supper, was slaughtered sacrificially.

Jesus prophetic references to his own death as sacrificial would be a nonsense if He opposed sacrifice.

Nowhere does Jesus speak out against animal sacrifices being offered.

Well, if you look up the Greek meaning to the word "sacrifice" in the verses where He told those to offer them up to the priests, the meaning is not a "holocaust" (or burnt offering). It simply means "gift".
You really should study up on the Essenes and the Nazoreans. They were vegetarians.
Also, there are TWO Passover accounts in the gospels. Luke and John's differ dramatically. In Luke, Jesus is said to have the Passover meal AT Passover. In John, He has it before...which would mean He just might not have eaten a baby lamb.
Let me ask you something? Can you see Jesus slitting a baby lamb's throat, then cooking it and eating it?
Aren't WE supposed to be His sheep who "know His voice" and listen to no other? Good thing He doesn't want to eat us, huh?

Thing is, the Bible has been seriously "tampered with" to suit whoever's agenda. Still, Jesus' beauty and truth gets through the rigaromo. Good thing, too.

You do know the prophets were adamant about the "shedding of innocent blood", right? Study Jeremiah and Isaiah. (I won't give you chapter and verse, because you should know these). There are many places in the prophetic books that show a REAL God who is totally opposed to animal sacrifice. Even Proverbs 6, states this. It's kind of a conundrum, to have a supposed "holy god" saying he "hates the shedding of innocent blood".....then commanding his people "shed innocent blood", to atone for sin. Makes no kinda sense, bro. (enter apologetics....AGAIN, lol).

Most Christian's use apologetics and say that Yahweh was only displeased because his people brought burnt offerings to him with a wrong heart. You think? What IF, the REAL God actually HATED anyone offering an innocent animal to somehow atone for "sin"? (when you really get down to the knitty gritty...how the hell can an animal take away ANYONE'S sin? Honestly, if anything....it would add to someone (who ACTUALLY had a conscience....guilt). Taking something's life, that has NOTHING to do with what you did or somehow "sinned", does not in any way, take it away. Nope. It just makes you feel worse and the god who ordered it look like a sadistic (fill in the blank).


There's a really great book you should check out...It's called "The Holy Virus" by Lionel Christopher Parkinson.
But...you'd have to be in a place to actually be questioning much of what you have held dear.
I figure, if you don't care to actually go outside the fundamental box and read a different side to what you've been taught....someone else here will.

Also, Jesus didn't do ANYTHING "Kosher" to Jewish law. He was that "radical" you mentioned...right? So answer me this, how the heck could Jesus follow Jewish law, while simultaneously NOT follow it? If you think He did...then prove it. Most of what you are trying to say "He did", is supposition. Even the gospel accounts of the Passover and many other things, contradict. (enter in "apologetics"...(translation..."poodle hoops"), lol.

I also doubt that Jesus' message was 'be kind to animals'. I think that His anger at the money changers was that genuine spiritual development had become subverted to ritual and commerce.

I just wanted to also comment on the above statement you made. Can you please explain to me, how taking a defenseless, innocent, animal....slitting it's throat, (while it's probably terrified and not understanding why it's being subjected to this)....somehow helps said person who brought it to be slaughtered unmercifully....helps their "spiritual development and growth"??? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the connection.

Take care.

originally posted by: OwenandNoelle
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You are a wise man bro --- this thread is dedicated to you!

Well, thank you...though, I don't see myself as wise, at all. Jaded a bit, lol...but, I am impressed with you and all the other's on this thread who have pretty much blown me away with your insights.
I'm also a "mam", not a "sir".
It's pretty cool to read other's thoughts, and know I'm not alone in my revelations. You all just put it so much more succinctly than I do. Thanks for broadening my ability to think on it all. Truly.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: chr0naut

- The guy who said some pretty blunt things about the religious rulers of the time. Matthew 23.

Yes....He told them their father was the devil. Who did those religious rulers serve? Yahweh.

- The guy they killed because they feared his radical influence. Luke 23: 2 and Luke 23:5.

Well, if you look up the Greek meaning to the word "sacrifice" in the verses where He told those to offer them up to the priests, the meaning is not a "holocaust" (or burnt offering). It simply means "gift".
You really should study up on the Essenes and the Nazoreans. They were vegetarians.
Also, there are TWO Passover accounts in the gospels. Luke and John's differ dramatically. In Luke, Jesus is said to have the Passover meal AT Passover. In John, He has it before...which would mean He just might not have eaten a baby lamb.

In my previous post I withheld the Bible verses but they put it most clearly, so here goes (with my emphasis for clarity):

Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it."… Luke 22:7-8.

On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover. Matthew 26:17-19.

Both accounts - same time-frame, both speak of preparing a Passover feast (which is eating lamb), one makes specific mention of a 'Passover' lamb. While the last supper was probably the evening of that first day of Unleavened Brand, it was a meal prepared according to Passover traditions and would have included a lamb that had been sacrificed.

Let me ask you something? Can you see Jesus slitting a baby lamb's throat, then cooking it and eating it?
Aren't WE supposed to be His sheep who "know His voice" and listen to no other? Good thing He doesn't want to eat us, huh?

The actual sacrifice was a Levitical priestly duty. Jesus was a Judean, not a Levite. At the most, Jesus would have had to place His hand on the head of the sacrificial animal while prayers are offered, before the animal is even placed on the altar.

In the passage where "the sheep know his voice", Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Shepherds weren't priests and did not perform sacrifices.

Jesus was the "lamb of God" and the sacrifice. If He were to be eating anyone, wouldn't it be Himself?

Thing is, the Bible has been seriously "tampered with" to suit whoever's agenda. Still, Jesus' beauty and truth gets through the rigaromo. Good thing, too.

You say that based upon what evidence. By whom, when and how? Why do we find consistency as we discover earlier and earlier texts?

You see, if your suggestion has nothing to support it, the assumption of a rational person would be that you just made it up.

You do know the prophets were adamant about the "shedding of innocent blood", right? Study Jeremiah and Isaiah. (I won't give you chapter and verse, because you should know these). There are many places in the prophetic books that show a REAL God who is totally opposed to animal sacrifice. Even Proverbs 6, states this.

In the Old Testament/Torah, "the shedding of innocent blood" usually referred specifically to the sacrifice of human babies to Moloch (context is important in understanding texts). It never referred to animals (which were traditionally treated like animals - which is, like, not unexpected?).

It's kind of a conundrum, to have a supposed "holy god" saying he "hates the shedding of innocent blood".....then commanding his people "shed innocent blood", to atone for sin. Makes no kinda sense, bro. (enter apologetics....AGAIN, lol).

Most Christian's use apologetics and say that Yahweh was only displeased because his people brought burnt offerings to him with a wrong heart. You think? What IF, the REAL God actually HATED anyone offering an innocent animal to somehow atone for "sin"? (when you really get down to the knitty gritty...how the hell can an animal take away ANYONE'S sin? Honestly, if anything....it would add to someone (who ACTUALLY had a conscience....guilt). Taking something's life, that has NOTHING to do with what you did or somehow "sinned", does not in any way, take it away. Nope. It just makes you feel worse and the god who ordered it look like a sadistic (fill in the blank).

There's a really great book you should check out...It's called "The Holy Virus" by Lionel Christopher Parkinson.
But...you'd have to be in a place to actually be questioning much of what you have held dear.
I figure, if you don't care to actually go outside the fundamental box and read a different side to what you've been taught....someone else here will.

Also, Jesus didn't do ANYTHING "Kosher" to Jewish law. He was that "radical" you mentioned...right? So answer me this, how the heck could Jesus follow Jewish law, while simultaneously NOT follow it? If you think He did...then prove it.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20.

So, proven, then.

Most of what you are trying to say "He did", is supposition. Even the gospel accounts of the Passover and many other things, contradict. (enter in "apologetics"...(translation..."poodle hoops"), lol.
Take care.

Perhaps because I have actual details and references in answer to what you suggest, it is your ideas which are built your upon supposition? (This is a clear call to support what you say with existing data - not in some sort of personal paraphrase but in true scholarly contextually accurate response.)

You suggest that YHWH was a false God and that the true God was hidden in the Hebrew and Christian texts - support it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: chr0naut

- The guy who said some pretty blunt things about the religious rulers of the time. Matthew 23.

Yes....He told them their father was the devil. Who did those religious rulers serve? Yahweh.

- The guy they killed because they feared his radical influence. Luke 23: 2 and Luke 23:5.

Well, if you look up the Greek meaning to the word "sacrifice" in the verses where He told those to offer them up to the priests, the meaning is not a "holocaust" (or burnt offering). It simply means "gift".
You really should study up on the Essenes and the Nazoreans. They were vegetarians.
Also, there are TWO Passover accounts in the gospels. Luke and John's differ dramatically. In Luke, Jesus is said to have the Passover meal AT Passover. In John, He has it before...which would mean He just might not have eaten a baby lamb.

In my previous post I withheld the Bible verses but they put it most clearly, so here goes (with my emphasis for clarity):

Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it."… Luke 22:7-8.

On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover. Matthew 26:17-19.

Both accounts - same time-frame, both speak of preparing a Passover feast (which is eating lamb), one makes specific mention of a 'Passover' lamb. While the last supper was probably the evening of that first day of Unleavened Brand, it was a meal prepared according to Passover traditions and would have included a lamb that had been sacrificed.

Let me ask you something? Can you see Jesus slitting a baby lamb's throat, then cooking it and eating it?
Aren't WE supposed to be His sheep who "know His voice" and listen to no other? Good thing He doesn't want to eat us, huh?

The actual sacrifice was a Levitical priestly duty. Jesus was a Judean, not a Levite. At the most, Jesus would have had to place His hand on the head of the sacrificial animal while prayers are offered, before the animal is even placed on the altar.

In the passage where "the sheep know his voice", Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Shepherds weren't priests and did not perform sacrifices.

Jesus was the "lamb of God" and the sacrifice. If He were to be eating anyone, wouldn't it be Himself?

Thing is, the Bible has been seriously "tampered with" to suit whoever's agenda. Still, Jesus' beauty and truth gets through the rigaromo. Good thing, too.

You say that based upon what evidence. By whom, when and how? Why do we find consistency as we discover earlier and earlier texts?

You see, if your suggestion has nothing to support it, the assumption of a rational person would be that you just made it up.

You do know the prophets were adamant about the "shedding of innocent blood", right? Study Jeremiah and Isaiah. (I won't give you chapter and verse, because you should know these). There are many places in the prophetic books that show a REAL God who is totally opposed to animal sacrifice. Even Proverbs 6, states this.

In the Old Testament/Torah, "the shedding of innocent blood" usually referred specifically to the sacrifice of human babies to Moloch (context is important in understanding texts). It never referred to animals (which were traditionally treated like animals - which is, like, not unexpected?).

It's kind of a conundrum, to have a supposed "holy god" saying he "hates the shedding of innocent blood".....then commanding his people "shed innocent blood", to atone for sin. Makes no kinda sense, bro. (enter apologetics....AGAIN, lol).

Most Christian's use apologetics and say that Yahweh was only displeased because his people brought burnt offerings to him with a wrong heart. You think? What IF, the REAL God actually HATED anyone offering an innocent animal to somehow atone for "sin"? (when you really get down to the knitty gritty...how the hell can an animal take away ANYONE'S sin? Honestly, if anything....it would add to someone (who ACTUALLY had a conscience....guilt). Taking something's life, that has NOTHING to do with what you did or somehow "sinned", does not in any way, take it away. Nope. It just makes you feel worse and the god who ordered it look like a sadistic (fill in the blank).

There's a really great book you should check out...It's called "The Holy Virus" by Lionel Christopher Parkinson.
But...you'd have to be in a place to actually be questioning much of what you have held dear.
I figure, if you don't care to actually go outside the fundamental box and read a different side to what you've been taught....someone else here will.

Also, Jesus didn't do ANYTHING "Kosher" to Jewish law. He was that "radical" you mentioned...right? So answer me this, how the heck could Jesus follow Jewish law, while simultaneously NOT follow it? If you think He did...then prove it.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20.

So, proven, then.

Most of what you are trying to say "He did", is supposition. Even the gospel accounts of the Passover and many other things, contradict. (enter in "apologetics"...(translation..."poodle hoops"), lol.
Take care.

Perhaps because I have actual details and references in answer to what you suggest, it is your ideas which are built your upon supposition? (This is a clear call to support what you say with existing data - not in some sort of personal paraphrase but in true scholarly contextually accurate response.)

You suggest that YHWH was a false God and that the true God was hidden in the Hebrew and Christian texts - support it.

On my phone right now, so limited in responding.
Go read the Passover account in John's gospel. It's different.

You also have not shown how Jesus upheld Yahweh's laws. He violated every one of them.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: chr0naut

- The guy who said some pretty blunt things about the religious rulers of the time. Matthew 23.

Yes....He told them their father was the devil. Who did those religious rulers serve? Yahweh.

- The guy they killed because they feared his radical influence. Luke 23: 2 and Luke 23:5.

Well, if you look up the Greek meaning to the word "sacrifice" in the verses where He told those to offer them up to the priests, the meaning is not a "holocaust" (or burnt offering). It simply means "gift".
You really should study up on the Essenes and the Nazoreans. They were vegetarians.
Also, there are TWO Passover accounts in the gospels. Luke and John's differ dramatically. In Luke, Jesus is said to have the Passover meal AT Passover. In John, He has it before...which would mean He just might not have eaten a baby lamb.

In my previous post I withheld the Bible verses but they put it most clearly, so here goes (with my emphasis for clarity):

Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it."… Luke 22:7-8.

On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover. Matthew 26:17-19.

Both accounts - same time-frame, both speak of preparing a Passover feast (which is eating lamb), one makes specific mention of a 'Passover' lamb. While the last supper was probably the evening of that first day of Unleavened Brand, it was a meal prepared according to Passover traditions and would have included a lamb that had been sacrificed.

Let me ask you something? Can you see Jesus slitting a baby lamb's throat, then cooking it and eating it?
Aren't WE supposed to be His sheep who "know His voice" and listen to no other? Good thing He doesn't want to eat us, huh?

The actual sacrifice was a Levitical priestly duty. Jesus was a Judean, not a Levite. At the most, Jesus would have had to place His hand on the head of the sacrificial animal while prayers are offered, before the animal is even placed on the altar.

In the passage where "the sheep know his voice", Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Shepherds weren't priests and did not perform sacrifices.

Jesus was the "lamb of God" and the sacrifice. If He were to be eating anyone, wouldn't it be Himself?

Thing is, the Bible has been seriously "tampered with" to suit whoever's agenda. Still, Jesus' beauty and truth gets through the rigaromo. Good thing, too.

You say that based upon what evidence. By whom, when and how? Why do we find consistency as we discover earlier and earlier texts?

You see, if your suggestion has nothing to support it, the assumption of a rational person would be that you just made it up.

You do know the prophets were adamant about the "shedding of innocent blood", right? Study Jeremiah and Isaiah. (I won't give you chapter and verse, because you should know these). There are many places in the prophetic books that show a REAL God who is totally opposed to animal sacrifice. Even Proverbs 6, states this.

In the Old Testament/Torah, "the shedding of innocent blood" usually referred specifically to the sacrifice of human babies to Moloch (context is important in understanding texts). It never referred to animals (which were traditionally treated like animals - which is, like, not unexpected?).

It's kind of a conundrum, to have a supposed "holy god" saying he "hates the shedding of innocent blood".....then commanding his people "shed innocent blood", to atone for sin. Makes no kinda sense, bro. (enter apologetics....AGAIN, lol).

Most Christian's use apologetics and say that Yahweh was only displeased because his people brought burnt offerings to him with a wrong heart. You think? What IF, the REAL God actually HATED anyone offering an innocent animal to somehow atone for "sin"? (when you really get down to the knitty gritty...how the hell can an animal take away ANYONE'S sin? Honestly, if anything....it would add to someone (who ACTUALLY had a conscience....guilt). Taking something's life, that has NOTHING to do with what you did or somehow "sinned", does not in any way, take it away. Nope. It just makes you feel worse and the god who ordered it look like a sadistic (fill in the blank).

There's a really great book you should check out...It's called "The Holy Virus" by Lionel Christopher Parkinson.
But...you'd have to be in a place to actually be questioning much of what you have held dear.
I figure, if you don't care to actually go outside the fundamental box and read a different side to what you've been taught....someone else here will.

Also, Jesus didn't do ANYTHING "Kosher" to Jewish law. He was that "radical" you mentioned...right? So answer me this, how the heck could Jesus follow Jewish law, while simultaneously NOT follow it? If you think He did...then prove it.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20.

So, proven, then.

Most of what you are trying to say "He did", is supposition. Even the gospel accounts of the Passover and many other things, contradict. (enter in "apologetics"...(translation..."poodle hoops"), lol.
Take care.

Perhaps because I have actual details and references in answer to what you suggest, it is your ideas which are built your upon supposition? (This is a clear call to support what you say with existing data - not in some sort of personal paraphrase but in true scholarly contextually accurate response.)

You suggest that YHWH was a false God and that the true God was hidden in the Hebrew and Christian texts - support it.

On my phone right now, so limited in responding.
Go read the Passover account in John's gospel. It's different.

You also have not shown how Jesus upheld Yahweh's laws. He violated every one of them.

You haven't shown how he broke any one of the 614 Levitical laws. So..

a reply to: chr0naut

Like I said... I'm on my phone and also at the rodeo watching my son play. How bout you prove what laws of Yahweh Jesus upheld. Name ONE.

a reply to: chr0naut

In the Old Testament/Torah, "the shedding of innocent blood" usually referred specifically to the sacrifice of human babies to Moloch (context is important in understanding texts). It never referred to animals (which were traditionally treated like animals - which is, like, not unexpected?).

You sure about that? And if you think you are...then prove it (in your supposed "context"). Cause the prophets went up against the priests that weren't serving "Moloch", but "Yahweh".
WHY were the prophets outcasts and also murdered? They were basically sent by the True God to speak to the people (the people that were supposed to be serving Yahweh). So, why would the "priests" of those temples have blood lust to kill "said prophets"?? Were the Israelites all serving Moloch? Don't think so.
Jeremiah spoke out against the temple sacrifices...and it wasn't babies, bro.
Even in Isaiah it says....

KJ21

“He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol— yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.


ASV

He that killeth an ox is as he that slayeth a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as he that breaketh a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as he that offereth swine’s blood; he that burneth frankincense, as he that blesseth an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations:


What abominations would that be? Just sacrificing babies to Moloch? Or....could it "possibly" be, the REAL GOD HATES the sacrifice of animals "in His name".? OR...you have a "wanna be god", that wants sacrifices (just according to his rules...yea, don't sacrifice a PIG, but sacrifice a lamb or goat..with certain rules and stipulations). Good grief. And you LOVE A "god" that would not only order that, but actually say he ENJOYS it??? Can you not see the complete disgusting sickness and repulsiveness of that? Probably not, since you eat them yourself.
(first off...just have to throw this in here..ANIMALS (esp. the ones that are used for food or prey, have WAY more capacity for humanity than HUMANS do).


Let me ask you something, and just put your thinking hat on for one moment (without your fundamental approach).
IF, "God" requires blood for the remission of sins, then why? You don't think God could come up with some other alternative? Why would He allow thousands of years of innocent animals to be slaughtered...for naught. It did nothing for anyone, except to supposedly prove a point...to WHO? Do you or anyone else with half a brain think that all that heartless slaughter accomplished ANYTHING?? Nope.
If that is what your god thinks matters, then he's an **&^%. Not only that, but the very attitude coming from most fundamental Christians is the exact same attitude coming from the "creator" you believe to be the real one.
We "become what we behold".....which is why many Christians are so incorrigible.
I don't label all that way, but I also know that the indoctrination goes deep....WAY deep. I feel sorry for them. I was once there. They are still good people. Oh, and they are "good people" just because they are GOOD PEOPLE.
I honestly have come to the conclusion that there are good people in this world...with or WITHOUT CHRIST.
Just because you claim to "know Jesus" and follow the bible as your guide, doesn't automatically make you a good person. In most instances, it can turn a person into a total a-hole.
Now, truly knowing Jesus and following HIM, is another story.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: chr0naut

- The guy who said some pretty blunt things about the religious rulers of the time. Matthew 23.

Yes....He told them their father was the devil. Who did those religious rulers serve? Yahweh.

- The guy they killed because they feared his radical influence. Luke 23: 2 and Luke 23:5.

Well, if you look up the Greek meaning to the word "sacrifice" in the verses where He told those to offer them up to the priests, the meaning is not a "holocaust" (or burnt offering). It simply means "gift".
You really should study up on the Essenes and the Nazoreans. They were vegetarians.
Also, there are TWO Passover accounts in the gospels. Luke and John's differ dramatically. In Luke, Jesus is said to have the Passover meal AT Passover. In John, He has it before...which would mean He just might not have eaten a baby lamb.

In my previous post I withheld the Bible verses but they put it most clearly, so here goes (with my emphasis for clarity):

Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it."… Luke 22:7-8.

On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover. Matthew 26:17-19.

Both accounts - same time-frame, both speak of preparing a Passover feast (which is eating lamb), one makes specific mention of a 'Passover' lamb. While the last supper was probably the evening of that first day of Unleavened Brand, it was a meal prepared according to Passover traditions and would have included a lamb that had been sacrificed.

Let me ask you something? Can you see Jesus slitting a baby lamb's throat, then cooking it and eating it?
Aren't WE supposed to be His sheep who "know His voice" and listen to no other? Good thing He doesn't want to eat us, huh?

The actual sacrifice was a Levitical priestly duty. Jesus was a Judean, not a Levite. At the most, Jesus would have had to place His hand on the head of the sacrificial animal while prayers are offered, before the animal is even placed on the altar.

In the passage where "the sheep know his voice", Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Shepherds weren't priests and did not perform sacrifices.

Jesus was the "lamb of God" and the sacrifice. If He were to be eating anyone, wouldn't it be Himself?

Thing is, the Bible has been seriously "tampered with" to suit whoever's agenda. Still, Jesus' beauty and truth gets through the rigaromo. Good thing, too.

You say that based upon what evidence. By whom, when and how? Why do we find consistency as we discover earlier and earlier texts?

You see, if your suggestion has nothing to support it, the assumption of a rational person would be that you just made it up.

You do know the prophets were adamant about the "shedding of innocent blood", right? Study Jeremiah and Isaiah. (I won't give you chapter and verse, because you should know these). There are many places in the prophetic books that show a REAL God who is totally opposed to animal sacrifice. Even Proverbs 6, states this.

In the Old Testament/Torah, "the shedding of innocent blood" usually referred specifically to the sacrifice of human babies to Moloch (context is important in understanding texts). It never referred to animals (which were traditionally treated like animals - which is, like, not unexpected?).

It's kind of a conundrum, to have a supposed "holy god" saying he "hates the shedding of innocent blood".....then commanding his people "shed innocent blood", to atone for sin. Makes no kinda sense, bro. (enter apologetics....AGAIN, lol).

Most Christian's use apologetics and say that Yahweh was only displeased because his people brought burnt offerings to him with a wrong heart. You think? What IF, the REAL God actually HATED anyone offering an innocent animal to somehow atone for "sin"? (when you really get down to the knitty gritty...how the hell can an animal take away ANYONE'S sin? Honestly, if anything....it would add to someone (who ACTUALLY had a conscience....guilt). Taking something's life, that has NOTHING to do with what you did or somehow "sinned", does not in any way, take it away. Nope. It just makes you feel worse and the god who ordered it look like a sadistic (fill in the blank).

There's a really great book you should check out...It's called "The Holy Virus" by Lionel Christopher Parkinson.
But...you'd have to be in a place to actually be questioning much of what you have held dear.
I figure, if you don't care to actually go outside the fundamental box and read a different side to what you've been taught....someone else here will.

Also, Jesus didn't do ANYTHING "Kosher" to Jewish law. He was that "radical" you mentioned...right? So answer me this, how the heck could Jesus follow Jewish law, while simultaneously NOT follow it? If you think He did...then prove it.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20.

So, proven, then.

Most of what you are trying to say "He did", is supposition. Even the gospel accounts of the Passover and many other things, contradict. (enter in "apologetics"...(translation..."poodle hoops"), lol.
Take care.

Perhaps because I have actual details and references in answer to what you suggest, it is your ideas which are built your upon supposition? (This is a clear call to support what you say with existing data - not in some sort of personal paraphrase but in true scholarly contextually accurate response.)

You suggest that YHWH was a false God and that the true God was hidden in the Hebrew and Christian texts - support it.

Oh, and if you hold to Jesus saying He didn't come to abolish the Law or prophets, but to fulfill them.... until heaven and earth pass away... Then how do you rectify that with Paul's teaching that the law had been done away with?
Last I noticed... Heaven and earth were here stil

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: chr0naut

Like I said... I'm on my phone and also at the rodeo watching my son play. How bout you prove what laws of Yahweh Jesus upheld. Name ONE.

Jesus was sinless, everyone who spoke about Him said so.

If Jesus had broken even one of the laws, he would not be sinless.

You said Jesus "violated every law" - all 614 laws. Have you considered how difficult such a task might be?

You are accusing Jesus of being a murderer, thief, perjurer, liar, traitor against his tribe, traitor against his nation, homosexual, briber of judges, blasphemer of God, paedophile, necromancer, bestialist, prostitute, intentional spreader of disease, who coveted the goods owned by others, stockpiled his stolen wealth and did not render a tithe.

Plainly, the Jesus recorded in the New Testament did not have the opportunity to commit many of those infractions. His actions and His words were plainly counter to most of them.

If Jesus had been guilty of ANY of these infractions, then the religious rulers would have been able to use the accusation against Him at His trial. Instead, the only accusation that they could level was "He makes Himself equal with God" (which is not blasphemous if He actually was the incarnation of God, and God's only begotten Son).

So, that is why I am very sure that Jesus did not break ANY of the Levitical laws.

Again, please provide sources and references to authenticate your assertion. Not some made up and unsupported notion, something with an objective basis in the facts that we know.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, and if you hold to Jesus saying He didn't come to abolish the Law or prophets, but to fulfill them.... until heaven and earth pass away... Then how do you rectify that with Paul's teaching that the law had been done away with?
Last I noticed... Heaven and earth were here stil.

Even though it is beside the point we were discussing. Paul never said the entire law was totally abolished, anywhere. He did outline certain conditions where specific parts of the Law was no longer applicable because of the incarnation and death of Jesus.

Please provide a reference from Paul's writings that suggests that all the Law was abolished, along with a reference that outlines Jesus breaking an Old Testament law, along with some sort of proof that YHWH was not the one and only true God, and the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob.

You have still not provided a single supportive reference for any of those notions.

Indeed! Why the need for messengers, when we possess all we need to know within our mind's eye?

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: chr0naut

You sure about that? And if you think you are...then prove it (in your supposed "context"). Cause the prophets went up against the priests that weren't serving "Moloch", but "Yahweh".

Please provide a reference for when the priests of YHWH went up against a prophet (apart from Jesus).

WHY were the prophets outcasts and also murdered? They were basically sent by the True God to speak to the people (the people that were supposed to be serving Yahweh). So, why would the "priests" of those temples have blood lust to kill "said prophets"??

The prophets weren't killed by priests they were killed by people who were NOT serving YHWH (because "thou shall not kill").

There was also only one 'official' Jewish Temple of YHWH at any one time - if the reference is for 'temples', they weren't priests of YHWH's Temple.

Were the Israelites all serving Moloch? Don't think so.

No, they weren't all serving Moloch, just a vocal majority, and no-one was speaking out against the practices, except the prophets (and some priests of YHWH, who nearly everyone ignored).

Jeremiah spoke out against the temple sacrifices...and it wasn't babies, bro.
Even in Isaiah it says....

KJ21

“He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol— yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.


ASV

He that killeth an ox is as he that slayeth a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as he that breaketh a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as he that offereth swine’s blood; he that burneth frankincense, as he that blesseth an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations:

Like I said before, context is important. Isaiah 66:3, the passage you just quoted, is about people who went through the motions of sacrificing in the Temple, but are not like the "poor and contrite man" of the previous verse. God is saying that unless you have the correct attitude of heart, your sacrifices aren't holy and are, therefore, abominations. Jeremiah said the same thing.

In fact, Isaiah and Jeremiah both had the message that after 490 years of Israel's hypocrisy and NOT actually obeying God's laws, even though a few of them 'did the ceremonies', that Israel was going to have to suffer slavery under Babylonian domination (that 70 times 7 bit that Jesus said about forgiveness suddenly carries greater significance here, too).

Also, note that it is specifically 'YHWH' that is named as speaking in this passage in Isaiah 66:3, so if this is being said by the true God, that God must be YHWH.

What abominations would that be? Just sacrificing babies to Moloch? Or....could it "possibly" be, the REAL GOD HATES the sacrifice of animals "in His name".?

Then why doesn't this secret God ever say that. Plainly and in clear speech?

OR...you have a "wanna be god", that wants sacrifices (just according to his rules...yea, don't sacrifice a PIG, but sacrifice a lamb or goat..with certain rules and stipulations). Good grief. And you LOVE A "god" that would not only order that, but actually say he ENJOYS it??? Can you not see the complete disgusting sickness and repulsiveness of that? Probably not, since you eat them yourself.

Well, he did make them of yummy meat. Not to mention that he specifically gave us permission to eat certain animals way back in Genesis 9:3-4.

Or was that the bad guy God, not the secret good guy God - I mean, how could you ever know?

(first off...just have to throw this in here..ANIMALS (esp. the ones that are used for food or prey, have WAY more capacity for humanity than HUMANS do).

So do most automobiles (who only kill out of necessity, if they are forced into it).



Actually, I've seen a cow step on and kill its own calf just to get a handful of grass, when it was in a field entirely made of the same grass. They are stupid, selfish and careless beasts. My guess is that you have an idealized imagining of animals, and little actual real world experience apart from urban areas and domesticated pets.

Let me ask you something, and just put your thinking hat on for one moment (without your fundamental approach).
IF, "God" requires blood for the remission of sins, then why? You don't think God could come up with some other alternative? Why would He allow thousands of years of innocent animals to be slaughtered...for naught. It did nothing for anyone, except to supposedly prove a point...to WHO? Do you or anyone else with half a brain think that all that heartless slaughter accomplished ANYTHING?? Nope.

For an agrarian economy, livestock are extremely valuable. The concept of sacrifice is not to achieve dead animals. there are a lot more efficient ways to do that. It is about the attitude of heart of someone who gives something of nearly essential life-sustaining value up, as a gift.

Without sacrifice, there is nothing sacrificial. There is nothing sacred. There is nothing holy.

What is intended and accomplished by sacrifice is spiritual. Giving beyond the limits of what you can afford. Giving that hurts, knowing that it can never be taken back. Compared to that intensity, "be kind to animals" is just trite.

I also would never want an animal to suffer, that's just awful. But there are times and reasons that make it a necessity to take an animals life. It is not something that anyone with a humane heart does lightly. If you had been in that situation, you might understand what you must give up to sacrifice.

If that is what your god thinks matters, then he's an **&^%. Not only that, but the very attitude coming from most fundamental Christians is the exact same attitude coming from the "creator" you believe to be the real one.
We "become what we behold".....which is why many Christians are so incorrigible.
I don't label all that way, but I also know that the indoctrination goes deep....WAY deep. I feel sorry for them. I was once there.

They are still good people. Oh, and they are "good people" just because they are GOOD PEOPLE.
I honestly have come to the conclusion that there are good people in this world...with or WITHOUT CHRIST.
Just because you claim to "know Jesus" and follow the bible as your guide, doesn't automatically make you a good person. In most instances, it can turn a person into a total a-hole.
Now, truly knowing Jesus and following HIM, is another story.

I totally agree with your last paragraph!

Being a Christian doesn't mean you are morally better, just forgiven.

Leviticus 20:10
"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

John 8: 3-5
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”

Just passing through…thought I’d post these verses for some reason lol


- JC

a reply to: chr0naut

Then why doesn't this secret God ever say that. Plainly and in clear speech?

For I spoke not unto your fathers nor commanded them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. Jeremiah 7:22

So, can you explain to me why God would say He DIDN'T tell them to offer burnt offerings or sacrifices, then tell them to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings? Like I've said, there is a mixture of two voices going on throughout the OT.

Also, YHWH was not the Most High God. The true Father of Jesus was not YHWH.

Or was that the bad guy God, not the secret good guy God - I mean, how could you ever know?

I know by the character and the fruits of "said God", which Jesus said to pay attention to. Also, the HS is the Spirit of TRUTH, and that's how I see it. For YHWH to command animals to be sacrificed for him, condone slavery, order his people to kill, treat women as subservient to men, ok taking women or girls (only the virgins, of course) as spoils of war, and numerous other atrocities.....is plain evil.

So do most automobiles (who only kill out of necessity, if they are forced into it).

Seriously? You think patronizing me makes you look better, don't you?

Actually, I've seen a cow step on and kill its own calf just to get a handful of grass, when it was in a field entirely made of the same grass. They are stupid, selfish and careless beasts. My guess is that you have an idealized imagining of animals, and little actual real world experience apart from urban areas and domesticated pets

I do not know how to put up a video here, but the above comment you made just shows how "stupid and selfish" YOU are.
Cows aren't stupid. They may not be as smart as a human, but they have the desire to LIVE just like you do.
Not only that, but humans kill for many more nefarious reasons than an animal will....should we treat humans like animals are at factory farms? You know, cause humans are so selfish, stupid and careless...not to mention heartless much of the time.
I have "little actual real world experience apart from urban areas and domesticated pets??" Huh. You know me so well, do you? Whatever, bro.
I have a challenge for you. Watch "Earthlings" on YouTube. I bet you won't, though. All you fundies talk a good game, but when it really comes down to actually SEEING what your attitude towards animals does to them, you don't have the balls to investigate it. Until you do, you have nothing to say. You really, really, don't.

What is intended and accomplished by sacrifice is spiritual. Giving beyond the limits of what you can afford. Giving that hurts, knowing that it can never be taken back. Compared to that intensity, "be kind to animals" is just trite.

LOL....yea. Let me see you go without eating an animal for the rest of your life (you know...out of "sacrifice and compassion and giving of yourself beyond your limits, because you actually CARE for something else's life, even if it's not a human). THEN see how "trite" it is. Oh, and I promise you....it will HURT. (it will hurt your taste buds, your belly, and your dignity...because most people will treat you like you have the plague. Know why? Cause anytime you stand up for something defenseless (that most people feel it's in their "right" to use and abuse)...they will feel guilty, and will attack you with patronizing, crap comments, such as you yourself have done. It just shows a GUILTY conscience. But hey, find those juevos of yours and watch the video I mentioned. Oh, and if you can stomach that one, I have a few more to point you to that will show you how "unstupid" cows actually are. Did you know pigs are smarter than dogs? Would you eat a dog? Probably not. Especially if you own one. But, I bet you sure love that bacon, don't ya?
Now to bring all this back to the original points I made that YHWH (Yahweh), Jehovah, Cornhoolio if you want, is an a-hole of a god....then LOOK at what we've gotten to in this world...not just with the horrific abuse of animals, but the suffering that people on this planet endure daily....and are supposed to give thanks for it. Yea, whatever.
By the way, Jesus never said He was a "sacrifice". He said, "sinful men are going to kill me" (my paraphrase). HE ALSO said that someone who truly loves, "lays down their life for their friends". THAT was His sacrifice. He came to show us the TRUTH. He abhorred animals being slaughtered in the name of His Father. Your "bible commenters" and apologetics have made you and all other Christians believe that the only thing Jesus was concerned about was the "money changers". Nope. Jesus made a whip and kicked some serious arse....and I love Him even more for it. I truly believe He was standing up for the defenseless. You should try it some time.

originally posted by: Joecroft

Leviticus 20:10
"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

John 8: 3-5
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”

Just passing through…thought I’d post these verses for some reason lol


- JC

LOL...thanks, Joe. That would be just one of the one's I was thinking of.