| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Truth Hunter" |
| Date: |
29 Oct 2005 07:56:20 AM |
| Object: |
Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc
Plus, his "sacrifice" did not meet any of the sacrificial requirements.
All temple sacrifices were burned, most of the sacrifices were eaten by
the priests, no sacrifice could be performed outside of temple grounds,
animals used for the sacrifice were to have no blemish or have any
bones broken (seems to me that a flogging or a crown of thorns would
leave a blemish or two).
If Jesus were truly prefigured in the old sacrifices of the Hebrews,
shouldn't he have been laid out on a sacrificial table like the goats
etc were, and burned? Why make him die by crucifixion which the Jews
never used in the Old Testament?
If God does require a bloody sacrifice, then again, why crucifixion? It
isn't the bloodiest form of execution?
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro=ADm his own
wrath!(Author unknown)=20
One God, father-son-ghost?
.
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
29 Oct 2005 01:21:20 PM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <> wrote in message ...
Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc
Plus, his "sacrifice" did not meet any of the sacrificial requirements.
You should add that Deuteronomy 12: 31, has God say that a sacrifice of a
son or a daughter to a God is an abomination unto God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 01:48:51 AM |
|
|
Zadok wrote:
Plus, his "sacrifice" did not meet any of the sacrificial requirements.
Since Zadok has already informed us that he does not care about Judaic
historical understanding of the Messiah, while still choosing to make
claims about Messianic prophecy, we can take his claims about
sacrificial requirements with a big question mark as to whether he
cares enough to look those requirements up.
You should add that Deuteronomy 12: 31, has God say that a sacrifice of a
son or a daughter to a God is an abomination unto God.
Once again Zadok's lack of familiarity with Deuteronomy betrays him.
The first time was when he was trying to fend off my crushing of his
Isaiah 7:14 arguments, where he absurdly claimed that "Jewish men had
every right to expect a virgin". Deuteronomy 25:5 says otherwise.
So what does Deuteronomy 12:31 actually say, as opposed to what Zadok
imagines it says?
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to
the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods.
Unfortunately for Zadok, it is clear that God is saying that he abhors
many practices people do in worshipping other gods, especially the
sacrifice of children burned to death by their parents. The specific
reference to fire is a clear indication of which god in particular is
being spoken of here. It is Moloch, who is referenced in Leviticus
18:21.
Since Zadok appears to have missed The Passion of the Christ, he should
know Jesus was not burned at the stake, and even if he had been burned
at the stake, we can be pretty sure it wasn't done for the benefit of
Moloch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 06:26:41 AM |
|
|
"David" <> wrote in message
You should add that Deuteronomy 12: 31, has God say that a sacrifice of
a
son or a daughter to a God is an abomination unto God.
Once again Zadok's lack of familiarity with Deuteronomy betrays him.
The first time was when he was trying to fend off my crushing of his
Isaiah 7:14 arguments, where he absurdly claimed that "Jewish men had
every right to expect a virgin". Deuteronomy 25:5 says otherwise.
Davey, don't injure yourself trying to pat yourself on the back. What I find
amazing is that Isaiah uses both the words Almah and Bethulah in his book.
But when you try to figure out his usage, you run off to a book he did not
write
Yet, you carefully avoided how I showed that the baby, born of the young
woman, was not Jesus, as the prophecy clearly shows. That baby was to see
the devastation of the two kings that Ahaz feared, between his birth and
being old enough to know right from wrong.
And in Isaiah chapter eight that devastation of the kingdoms of Syria and
Israel that Ahaz feared took place.
You must have been busy patting yourself on the back to notice.
Smile.
It's kind of like Jude Alexander pointing out a number of verses that said
God hardened Pharoah's heart. Yet your verse that said Pharoah hardened his
heart trumped all the other verses.
And it did, in your little mind.
Yet, you run off claiming to have won something!! Hehehehehehehe.
What did you win, Davey. When you have obvious contradictions, it is easy to
say one verse means something. Yet, to someone who can read, it says
something else.
Yet, you think a lot of verbage will make you seem to be right.
Here I'll give you an example.
So what does Deuteronomy 12:31 actually say, as opposed to what Zadok
imagines it says?
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to
the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods.
Unfortunately for Zadok, it is clear that God is saying that he abhors
many practices people do in worshipping other gods, especially the
sacrifice of children burned to death by their parents. The specific
reference to fire is a clear indication of which god in particular is
being spoken of here. It is Moloch, who is referenced in Leviticus
18:21.
Since Zadok appears to have missed The Passion of the Christ, he should
know Jesus was not burned at the stake, and even if he had been burned
at the stake, we can be pretty sure it wasn't done for the benefit of
Moloch.
God says that sacrificing a son or a daughter to a God is an abomination
unto him.
I must have missed that they had to be burned.
I guess the burning is the abomination?? Not the killing of the son or
daughter??
Davey, I love how you keep showing everyone what an idiot you are!!
But don't worry about it. You just pat yourself on the back and tell
yourself that you won again.
Hehehehehehehehehe!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 02:02:21 PM |
|
|
Zadok wrote:
"David" <> wrote in message
You should add that Deuteronomy 12: 31, has God say that a sacrifice of
a
son or a daughter to a God is an abomination unto God.
Once again Zadok's lack of familiarity with Deuteronomy betrays him.
The first time was when he was trying to fend off my crushing of his
Isaiah 7:14 arguments, where he absurdly claimed that "Jewish men had
every right to expect a virgin". Deuteronomy 25:5 says otherwise.
Davey, don't injure yourself trying to pat yourself on the back.
Don't concern yourself, there is no physical exertion in my summarizing
the facts.
What I find
amazing is that Isaiah uses both the words Almah and Bethulah in his book.
Since you find it amazing that different people give you different
answers to the same question, your definition of amazing is my
definition of unremarkable.
But when you try to figure out his usage, you run off to a book he did not
write
Heh, this from the person who, when trying to figure out Isaiah's
usage, "ran off" to a book that defined the Hebrew words, which, in
case Zadok was unaware of, was not written by Isaiah, since it was
published in 1987.
Yet, you carefully avoided how I showed that the baby, born of the young
woman, was not Jesus, as the prophecy clearly shows.
Wrong. I did address the subject. The prophecy clearly applied to that
baby as well.
That baby was to see
the devastation of the two kings that Ahaz feared, between his birth and
being old enough to know right from wrong.
Unfortunately for you, Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to say on what Ahaz
fears.
And in Isaiah chapter eight that devastation of the kingdoms of Syria and
Israel that Ahaz feared took place.
Again, Isaiah 7:14 is not part of Isaiah chapter 8.
You must have been busy patting yourself on the back to notice.
Wrong, you are too busy doing your victory dance to notice that I
refuted your arguments based on Isaiah 7:15-16 and Isaiah 8.
Smile.
It's kind of like Jude Alexander pointing out a number of verses that said
God hardened Pharoah's heart. Yet your verse that said Pharoah hardened his
heart trumped all the other verses.
Wrong. It is that the verses Jude cited were clarified by the verses I
cited.
And it did, in your little mind.
Wrong. It did so in the text.
Yet, you run off claiming to have won something!! Hehehehehehehe.
Apparently when I post it is "running off", but apparently Zadok does
not run off in his posts.
What did you win, Davey. When you have obvious contradictions,
When Zadok refers to "obvious contradictions", what he means is that
the text is beyond his reading comprehension.
it is easy to
say one verse means something.
This is true Zadok, it is easy when you just say it. It takes some
effort to research the text and show that it actually means what it
says, as I have done, while also refuting your explanations.
Yet, to someone who can read, it says
something else.
Suggesting that you can read it is one thing, suggesting that you
comprehend what you read is being overly generous.
Yet, you think a lot of verbage will make you seem to be right.
Sorry, if you lack the attention span to finish reading my posts, there
is nothing I can do.
Here I'll give you an example.
So what does Deuteronomy 12:31 actually say, as opposed to what Zadok
imagines it says?
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to
the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods.
Unfortunately for Zadok, it is clear that God is saying that he abhors
many practices people do in worshipping other gods, especially the
sacrifice of children burned to death by their parents. The specific
reference to fire is a clear indication of which god in particular is
being spoken of here. It is Moloch, who is referenced in Leviticus
18:21.
Since Zadok appears to have missed The Passion of the Christ, he should
know Jesus was not burned at the stake, and even if he had been burned
at the stake, we can be pretty sure it wasn't done for the benefit of
Moloch.
God says that sacrificing a son or a daughter to a God is an abomination
unto him.
Once again, your claim is not to be found in the text itself. It says
"other gods", there is nothing said one way or another about the Hebrew
God.
I must have missed that they had to be burned.
Yes, you did. "for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt
in the fire"
I guess the burning is the abomination?? Not the killing of the son or
daughter??
You are half right, it is the burning of the children to the other
gods, specifically Moloch.
Davey, I love how you keep showing everyone what an idiot you are!!
Zodak's incompetent evaluation of my mental abiliies suggests he should
stick to his day job.
But don't worry about it. You just pat yourself on the back and tell
yourself that you won again.
Reciting the simple facts is not patting myself on the back.
Hehehehehehehehehe!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 12:11:25 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 30 Oct 2005 00:48:51 -0700
MsgID:<1130658531.732077.73730@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Since Zadok has already informed us that he does not care about Judaic
historical understanding of the Messiah, while still choosing to make
claims about Messianic prophecy, we can take his claims about
sacrificial requirements with a big question mark as to whether he
cares enough to look those requirements up.
All this really means is there is a big question mark if you even know what
Zadok is talking about. Zadok isn't the only one partcipating in this thread, so
you can't use him as an excuse not to reply.
You should add that Deuteronomy 12: 31, has God say that a sacrifice of a
son or a daughter to a God is an abomination unto God.
Once again Zadok's lack of familiarity with Deuteronomy betrays him.
The first time was when he was trying to fend off my crushing of his
Isaiah 7:14 arguments, where he absurdly claimed that "Jewish men had
every right to expect a virgin". Deuteronomy 25:5 says otherwise.
So what does Deuteronomy 12:31 actually say, as opposed to what Zadok
imagines it says?
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to
the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods.
Unfortunately for Zadok, it is clear that God is saying that he abhors
many practices people do in worshipping other gods, especially the
sacrifice of children burned to death by their parents. The specific
reference to fire is a clear indication of which god in particular is
being spoken of here. It is Moloch, who is referenced in Leviticus
18:21.
God hates Moloch and the sacrifice of a son or daughter, so either way it means
God hates the sacrifice of a son or daughter. Or maybe God loves it when people
do it for Him but not for other "false" Gods?
Since Zadok appears to have missed The Passion of the Christ, he should
know Jesus was not burned at the stake, and even if he had been burned
at the stake, we can be pretty sure it wasn't done for the benefit of
Moloch.
Temple sacrifices were burned, not crucified, and Jesus was the Lamb of God,
sacrficed per the foreshadowing of the Temple sacrifices...not!
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 01:46:11 PM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 30 Oct 2005 00:48:51 -0700
MsgID:<1130658531.732077.73730@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Since Zadok has already informed us that he does not care about Judaic
historical understanding of the Messiah, while still choosing to make
claims about Messianic prophecy, we can take his claims about
sacrificial requirements with a big question mark as to whether he
cares enough to look those requirements up.
All this really means is there is a big question mark if you even know what
Zadok is talking about.
This is true, since it is unclear if Zadok even knows what he is
talking about.
Zadok isn't the only one partcipating in this thread, so
you can't use him as an excuse not to reply.
I won't.
You should add that Deuteronomy 12: 31, has God say that a sacrifice of a
son or a daughter to a God is an abomination unto God.
Once again Zadok's lack of familiarity with Deuteronomy betrays him.
The first time was when he was trying to fend off my crushing of his
Isaiah 7:14 arguments, where he absurdly claimed that "Jewish men had
every right to expect a virgin". Deuteronomy 25:5 says otherwise.
So what does Deuteronomy 12:31 actually say, as opposed to what Zadok
imagines it says?
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to
the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods.
Unfortunately for Zadok, it is clear that God is saying that he abhors
many practices people do in worshipping other gods, especially the
sacrifice of children burned to death by their parents. The specific
reference to fire is a clear indication of which god in particular is
being spoken of here. It is Moloch, who is referenced in Leviticus
18:21.
God hates Moloch and the sacrifice of a son or daughter,
Wrong. He specifically refers the sacrifice of sons and daughters by
fire to Moloch.
so either way it means
God hates the sacrifice of a son or daughter.
This position has no support in the Biblical text.
Or maybe God loves it when people
do it for Him but not for other "false" Gods?
If you have a verse to support your suppostion, feel free to share.
Since Zadok appears to have missed The Passion of the Christ, he should
know Jesus was not burned at the stake, and even if he had been burned
at the stake, we can be pretty sure it wasn't done for the benefit of
Moloch.
Temple sacrifices were burned, not crucified, and Jesus was the Lamb of God,
sacrficed per the foreshadowing of the Temple sacrifices...not!
Your understanding of the reference "Lamb of God" falls short.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 07:50:03 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 30 Oct 2005 11:46:11 -0800
MsgID:<1130701571.393211.253860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Since Zadok has already informed us that he does not care about Judaic
historical understanding of the Messiah, while still choosing to make
claims about Messianic prophecy, we can take his claims about
sacrificial requirements with a big question mark as to whether he
cares enough to look those requirements up.
All this really means is there is a big question mark if you even know what
Zadok is talking about.
This is true, since it is unclear if Zadok even knows what he is
talking about.
Yes, just as it is unclear if you even know what Zadok is talking about too.
Zadok isn't the only one partcipating in this thread, so
you can't use him as an excuse not to reply.
I won't.
You just did. What are the OT sacrificial requirements? Let's compare them to
the sacrifice of Jesus and see if Jesus was a valid sacrifice.
You should add that Deuteronomy 12: 31, has God say that a sacrifice of a
son or a daughter to a God is an abomination unto God.
Once again Zadok's lack of familiarity with Deuteronomy betrays him.
The first time was when he was trying to fend off my crushing of his
Isaiah 7:14 arguments, where he absurdly claimed that "Jewish men had
every right to expect a virgin". Deuteronomy 25:5 says otherwise.
So what does Deuteronomy 12:31 actually say, as opposed to what Zadok
imagines it says?
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to
the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods.
Unfortunately for Zadok, it is clear that God is saying that he abhors
many practices people do in worshipping other gods, especially the
sacrifice of children burned to death by their parents. The specific
reference to fire is a clear indication of which god in particular is
being spoken of here. It is Moloch, who is referenced in Leviticus
18:21.
God hates Moloch and the sacrifice of a son or daughter,
Wrong. He specifically refers the sacrifice of sons and daughters by
fire to Moloch.
So you are claiming God loves the sacrifice of a son or daughter, which means
there is no difference between what Moloch requires and what your God requires.
Both are immoral, inhumane, and barbaric. God must have really really loved the
Crusaders then, since they murdered millions of sons and daughters in the name
of your God (300,000 just in the Children's Crusade alone).
With a God like that, who needs a Satan?
so either way it means God hates the sacrifice of a son or daughter.
This position has no support in the Biblical text.
Wrong. Try this on for size:
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than
burnt offerings" (Hsa 6:6)
Hmmm, this makes one wonder why God even bothered with a sacrifice when He
simply could have just mercifully said, "I forgive you".
"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which [is] in the valley of
the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I
commanded [them] not, neither came it into my heart (Jer 7:31)
It didn't even occur to God to burn children alive, it seemed so heartless to
Him. I wonder how the idea of giving permission in God's Universe for a Hell to
exist came into His heart?
How about God is love? How about doing good unto your enemies?
Or maybe God loves it when people do it for Him but not for other "false" Gods?
If you have a verse to support your suppostion, feel free to share.
Done. When are you going to start sharing verses in support of your viewpoint?
Let me guess: never! Am I right or am I right?
Since Zadok appears to have missed The Passion of the Christ, he should
know Jesus was not burned at the stake, and even if he had been burned
at the stake, we can be pretty sure it wasn't done for the benefit of
Moloch.
Temple sacrifices were burned, not crucified, and Jesus was the Lamb of God,
sacrficed per the foreshadowing of the Temple sacrifices...not!
Your understanding of the reference "Lamb of God" falls short.
So you say without a shred of evidence. Why don't you try supporting your blind
faith assertions with some Bible verses? Feel free to share, you know?
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
31 Oct 2005 05:09:37 PM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 30 Oct 2005 11:46:11 -0800
MsgID:<1130701571.393211.253860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Since Zadok has already informed us that he does not care about Judaic
historical understanding of the Messiah, while still choosing to make
claims about Messianic prophecy, we can take his claims about
sacrificial requirements with a big question mark as to whether he
cares enough to look those requirements up.
All this really means is there is a big question mark if you even know what
Zadok is talking about.
This is true, since it is unclear if Zadok even knows what he is
talking about.
Yes, just as it is unclear if you even know what Zadok is talking about too.
Right, because if Zadok doesn't know what he is talking about, how can
I know? I don't read minds.
Zadok isn't the only one partcipating in this thread, so
you can't use him as an excuse not to reply.
I won't.
You just did.
I just did reply.
What are the OT sacrificial requirements? Let's compare them to
the sacrifice of Jesus and see if Jesus was a valid sacrifice.
How about first we check and see if you and I are on the same page as
to exactly which sacrifice we are talking about?
You should add that Deuteronomy 12: 31, has God say that a sacrifice of a
son or a daughter to a God is an abomination unto God.
Once again Zadok's lack of familiarity with Deuteronomy betrays him.
The first time was when he was trying to fend off my crushing of his
Isaiah 7:14 arguments, where he absurdly claimed that "Jewish men had
every right to expect a virgin". Deuteronomy 25:5 says otherwise.
So what does Deuteronomy 12:31 actually say, as opposed to what Zadok
imagines it says?
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to
the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods.
Unfortunately for Zadok, it is clear that God is saying that he abhors
many practices people do in worshipping other gods, especially the
sacrifice of children burned to death by their parents. The specific
reference to fire is a clear indication of which god in particular is
being spoken of here. It is Moloch, who is referenced in Leviticus
18:21.
God hates Moloch and the sacrifice of a son or daughter,
Wrong. He specifically refers the sacrifice of sons and daughters by
fire to Moloch.
So you are claiming God loves the sacrifice of a son or daughter,
Wrong, I am claiming that God abhors the sacrifice of sons and
daughters to Moloch.
which means
there is no difference between what Moloch requires and what your God requires.
Wrong. It means that the matter of what God likes/loves/prefers as a
sacrifice is not addressed at all, at least not in Deuteronomy 12:31.
To say that if God does not hate the sacrifice of a son or daughter,
that He must love the sacrifice of son or daughter, is a False Dilemma
fallacy.
Both are immoral, inhumane, and barbaric.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I agree with half of your
statement.
God must have really really loved the
Crusaders then, since they murdered millions of sons and daughters
Your math is way off.
in the name
of your God (300,000 just in the Children's Crusade alone).
Heh, way, way off. Most of the children probably ended up as slaves in
Constantinople or the Middle East.
With a God like that, who needs a Satan?
Is that a rhetorical question?
so either way it means God hates the sacrifice of a son or daughter.
This position has no support in the Biblical text.
Wrong. Try this on for size:
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than
burnt offerings" (Hsa 6:6)
You left out the verse which specifically says, "God hates the
sacrifice of a son or daughter." Whether God desires/prefers mercy and
desires/prefers knowledge of Him more than burnt offerings in no way
supports your statement above.
Your statement is too general to find support in the Bible,
particularly since the point of the Passion in the Gospels is sacrifice
of a son.
Hmmm, this makes one wonder why God even bothered with a sacrifice when He
simply could have just mercifully said, "I forgive you".
Your answer is in the Gospels.
"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which [is] in the valley of
the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I
commanded [them] not, neither came it into my heart (Jer 7:31)
As noted in verse Jer 7:30, "The people of Judah have done what is evil
in my eyes, says the LORD. They have defiled the house which bears my
name by setting up in it their abominable idols."
I am not contesting that God find the sacrifice of children to other
gods abhorrent. I am contesting the sweeping statement that "God always
finds a sacrifice of a son(or daughter) an abomination." as well as
the sweeping statement "God always loves the sacrifice of a son or
daughter."
It didn't even occur to God to burn children alive, it seemed so heartless to
Him.
Very true. But what does burning children alive have to do with a
sweeping statement that God would never accept the sacrifice of a
son(or daughter)?
I wonder how the idea of giving permission in God's Universe for a Hell to
exist came into His heart?
I cannot even answer how ideas get into the heads of mortals, so I
cannot help you here.
How about God is love? How about doing good unto your enemies?
I see you do have some familiarity with the Gospels.
Or maybe God loves it when people do it for Him but not for other "false" Gods?
If you have a verse to support your suppostion, feel free to share.
Done.
Wrong. Your examples above were to justify the opposite statement. You
have not provided a verse to support that God loves it when people burn
children as a sacrifice for Him.
When are you going to start sharing verses in support of your viewpoint?
Whenever you like.
Let me guess: never! Am I right or am I right?
You are wrong.
Since Zadok appears to have missed The Passion of the Christ, he should
know Jesus was not burned at the stake, and even if he had been burned
at the stake, we can be pretty sure it wasn't done for the benefit of
Moloch.
Temple sacrifices were burned, not crucified, and Jesus was the Lamb of God,
sacrficed per the foreshadowing of the Temple sacrifices...not!
Your understanding of the reference "Lamb of God" falls short.
So you say without a shred of evidence.
You speak too soon.
Why don't you try supporting your blind
faith assertions with some Bible verses? Feel free to share, you know?
You mistake what is behind my assertions, it is not blind faith.
While applying Lamb of God to the idea of Temple sacrifices works as a
general analogy, it does not fit all the specifics because you are
looking at the wrong sacrifice. If the sacrifice of Jesus was
specifically to replace Temple sacrifices alone, it would, indeed, have
theoretically been possible to refer to Jesus as "Goat of God" or "Bull
of God or "Pigeon of God".
But there is, in fact, a more specific sacrifice which the sacrifice in
the Gospels finishes and replaces. I can tell you that sacrifice
happens every year, and all the details are found in Exodus chapter 12.
That is why your reference to Lamb of God falls short, you are not
making the right comparison.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
31 Oct 2005 07:49:03 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 31 Oct 2005 15:09:37 -0800
MsgID:<1130800177.913858.12700@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Since Zadok has already informed us that he does not care about Judaic
historical understanding of the Messiah, while still choosing to make
claims about Messianic prophecy, we can take his claims about
sacrificial requirements with a big question mark as to whether he
cares enough to look those requirements up.
All this really means is there is a big question mark if you even know what
Zadok is talking about.
This is true, since it is unclear if Zadok even knows what he is
talking about.
Yes, just as it is unclear if you even know what Zadok is talking about too.
Right, because if Zadok doesn't know what he is talking about, how can
I know? I don't read minds.
That is not the point. You are still dodging and evading the issue that you know
nothing about the OT requirements for a legitimate sacrifice.
Zadok isn't the only one partcipating in this thread, so
you can't use him as an excuse not to reply.
I won't.
You just did.
I just did reply.
You didn't respond to the topic, you dodged and evaded it.
What are the OT sacrificial requirements? Let's compare them to
the sacrifice of Jesus and see if Jesus was a valid sacrifice.
How about first we check and see if you and I are on the same page as
to exactly which sacrifice we are talking about?
Nope, you are are just another damn liar. You are so full of lame excuses for
why you can't respond in an intelligent manner to a reasonable request for the
OT sacrificial requirements. There is no point in going on with your transparent
charade, because clearly you are never going to answer it. You can't because you
don't know. You are calling Zadok a pot and you are a kettle.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
01 Nov 2005 02:31:25 PM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 31 Oct 2005 15:09:37 -0800
MsgID:<1130800177.913858.12700@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Since Zadok has already informed us that he does not care about Judaic
historical understanding of the Messiah, while still choosing to make
claims about Messianic prophecy, we can take his claims about
sacrificial requirements with a big question mark as to whether he
cares enough to look those requirements up.
All this really means is there is a big question mark if you even know what
Zadok is talking about.
This is true, since it is unclear if Zadok even knows what he is
talking about.
Yes, just as it is unclear if you even know what Zadok is talking about too.
Right, because if Zadok doesn't know what he is talking about, how can
I know? I don't read minds.
That is not the point.
Yes it is.
You are still dodging and evading the issue
Wrong. Zadok is dodging and evading the issue. Notice how he has
abandoned you? This is not the first time he has let others fight his
battle for him. You can still back out if you want to Sage, there is a
reason Zadok has no taste for fighting me.
that you know
nothing about the OT requirements for a legitimate sacrifice.
You are mistaken.
Zadok isn't the only one partcipating in this thread, so
you can't use him as an excuse not to reply.
I won't.
You just did.
I just did reply.
You didn't respond to the topic,
Yes I did.
you dodged and evaded it.
Wrong, Zadok dodged and evaded it. Let him respond with his criteria to
show he knows what the sacrificial requirements are. I give him no free
gifts.
What are the OT sacrificial requirements? Let's compare them to
the sacrifice of Jesus and see if Jesus was a valid sacrifice.
How about first we check and see if you and I are on the same page as
to exactly which sacrifice we are talking about?
Nope, you are are just another damn liar.
So now Sage thinks that clarifying fundamental premises is lying?
You are so full of lame excuses
Seeking to clarify fundamental premises is not making lame excuses.
for
why you can't respond in an intelligent manner
Making sure we share fundamental premises is responding in an
intelligent matter.
to a reasonable request for the
OT sacrificial requirements.
Seeking to clarify fundamental premises is a reasonable request.
There is no point in going on with your transparent
charade,
Seeking to clarify fundamental premises is no charade.
because clearly you are never going to answer it.
Your vision is too fogged to see clearly.
You can't
Yes I can.
because you
don't know.
Yes I do know.
You are calling Zadok a pot and you are a kettle.
Zadok is no pot, and I am no kettle.
The Sage
Let the record show that Sage abandoned his assertion that the Bible
shows God hates all sacrifices of sons and daughters, and Sage
abandoned his assertion that the Bible shows God loves all sacrifices
of sons and daughters if they are to Him. Let it also be clear that
Sage has not responded on whether the title of Jesus as Lamb of God
fits with the sacrifice detailed in Exodus chapter 12.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
02 Nov 2005 08:47:06 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 1 Nov 2005 12:31:25 -0800
MsgID:<1130877085.724370.57250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Since Zadok has already informed us that he does not care about Judaic
historical understanding of the Messiah, while still choosing to make
claims about Messianic prophecy, we can take his claims about
sacrificial requirements with a big question mark as to whether he
cares enough to look those requirements up.
All this really means is there is a big question mark if you even know what
Zadok is talking about.
This is true, since it is unclear if Zadok even knows what he is
talking about.
Yes, just as it is unclear if you even know what Zadok is talking about too.
Right, because if Zadok doesn't know what he is talking about, how can
I know? I don't read minds.
That is not the point.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
You are still dodging and evading the issue
Wrong. Zadok is dodging and evading the issue.
Completely wrong. You haven't listed the requirements and you never will because
you don't know what they are.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
03 Nov 2005 04:25:12 PM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 1 Nov 2005 12:31:25 -0800
MsgID:<1130877085.724370.57250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Since Zadok has already informed us that he does not care about Judaic
historical understanding of the Messiah, while still choosing to make
claims about Messianic prophecy, we can take his claims about
sacrificial requirements with a big question mark as to whether he
cares enough to look those requirements up.
All this really means is there is a big question mark if you even know what
Zadok is talking about.
This is true, since it is unclear if Zadok even knows what he is
talking about.
Yes, just as it is unclear if you even know what Zadok is talking about too.
Right, because if Zadok doesn't know what he is talking about, how can
I know? I don't read minds.
That is not the point.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
You are still dodging and evading the issue
Wrong. Zadok is dodging and evading the issue.
Completely wrong.
Really? Then perhaps you can point me to the post where Zadok answered.
You haven't listed the requirements
This is true.
and you never will
This is not.
because
you don't know what they are.
Your attempts at reading my mind are faulty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
04 Nov 2005 07:54:14 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 3 Nov 2005 14:25:12 -0800
MsgID:<1131052486.850370.204050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
You haven't listed the requirements
This is true.
Because you don't know what they are.
and you never will
This is not.
This is...
because you don't know what they are.
Your attempts at reading my mind are faulty.
No they aren't. You don't know what they are. Prove me wrong. I predict you will
fail to do that. Again.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
04 Nov 2005 08:11:07 PM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 3 Nov 2005 14:25:12 -0800
MsgID:<1131052486.850370.204050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
You haven't listed the requirements
This is true.
Because you don't know what they are.
and you never will
This is not.
This is...
?
because you don't know what they are.
Your attempts at reading my mind are faulty.
No they aren't.
So you actually claim to read minds?
You don't know what they are.
I know something on your side is faulty when you tell me I don't know
something I know.
Prove me wrong. I predict you will
fail to do that. Again.
Sorry Sage, I don't read minds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
05 Nov 2005 07:53:39 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 4 Nov 2005 18:11:07 -0800
MsgID:<1131156667.442755.241180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
You haven't listed the requirements
This is true.
Because you don't know what they are.
and you never will
This is not.
This is...
because you don't know what they are.
Your attempts at reading my mind are faulty.
No they aren't.
So you actually claim to read minds?
Nope, just yours. Not much there to read, it is all talk and no action.
You don't know what they are.
I know something on your side is faulty when you tell me I don't know
something I know.
No you don't know.
Prove me wrong. I predict you will
fail to do that. Again.
Sorry Sage, I don't read minds.
You also can't prove me wrong.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
17 Nov 2005 09:20:34 PM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 4 Nov 2005 18:11:07 -0800
MsgID:<1131156667.442755.241180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
You haven't listed the requirements
This is true.
Because you don't know what they are.
and you never will
This is not.
This is...
because you don't know what they are.
Your attempts at reading my mind are faulty.
No they aren't.
So you actually claim to read minds?
Nope, just yours.
I see, so you can read my mind.
Not much there to read, it is all talk and no action.
Hmmm..now I am not so sure you can even read my posts, let alone my
mind.
You don't know what they are.
I know something on your side is faulty when you tell me I don't know
something I know.
No you don't know.
Yes I do.
Prove me wrong. I predict you will
fail to do that. Again.
Sorry Sage, I don't read minds.
You also can't prove me wrong.
I don't need to prove you wrong.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 02:57:23 AM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> astounded us with:
news:1130590580.179115.189730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Jesus was not
--
Phÿltêr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
29 Oct 2005 04:30:50 PM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130590580.179115.189730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc
Plus, his "sacrifice" did not meet any of the sacrificial requirements.
All temple sacrifices were burned, most of the sacrifices were eaten by
the priests, no sacrifice could be performed outside of temple grounds,
animals used for the sacrifice were to have no blemish or have any
bones broken (seems to me that a flogging or a crown of thorns would
leave a blemish or two).
If Jesus were truly prefigured in the old sacrifices of the Hebrews,
shouldn't he have been laid out on a sacrificial table like the goats
etc were, and burned? Why make him die by crucifixion which the Jews
never used in the Old Testament?
If God does require a bloody sacrifice, then again, why crucifixion? It
isn't the bloodiest form of execution?
They wanted a really interesting and spectacular story to tell their
followers.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation from his own
wrath!(Author unknown)
One God, father-son-ghost?
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 05:56:34 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:30:50 -0400, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc
Plus, his "sacrifice" did not meet any of the sacrificial requirements.
That's old covenant. Heb 8:7-13.
All temple sacrifices were burned, most of the sacrifices were eaten by
the priests, no sacrifice could be performed outside of temple grounds,
animals used for the sacrifice were to have no blemish or have any
bones broken (seems to me that a flogging or a crown of thorns would
leave a blemish or two).
If Jesus were truly prefigured in the old sacrifices of the Hebrews,
shouldn't he have been laid out on a sacrificial table like the goats
etc were, and burned? Why make him die by crucifixion which the Jews
never used in the Old Testament?
If God does require a bloody sacrifice, then again, why crucifixion? It
isn't the bloodiest form of execution?
Where does it say the "bloodiest of sacrifices" was required?
They wanted a really interesting and spectacular story to tell their
followers.
We now have redemption from sin and restoration of salvation of our souls
returned to us. What more can we ask?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 07:46:08 AM |
|
|
in article 82d9m1h4fulpa7gsp8b9709c7pejhoeufc@4ax.com, duke at
duckgumbo32@cox.net wrote on 10/30/05 6:56 AM:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:30:50 -0400, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc
Plus, his "sacrifice" did not meet any of the sacrificial requirements.
That's old covenant. Heb 8:7-13.
All temple sacrifices were burned, most of the sacrifices were eaten by
the priests, no sacrifice could be performed outside of temple grounds,
animals used for the sacrifice were to have no blemish or have any
bones broken (seems to me that a flogging or a crown of thorns would
leave a blemish or two).
If Jesus were truly prefigured in the old sacrifices of the Hebrews,
shouldn't he have been laid out on a sacrificial table like the goats
etc were, and burned? Why make him die by crucifixion which the Jews
never used in the Old Testament?
If God does require a bloody sacrifice, then again, why crucifixion? It
isn't the bloodiest form of execution?
Where does it say the "bloodiest of sacrifices" was required?
They wanted a really interesting and spectacular story to tell their
followers.
We now have redemption from sin and restoration of salvation of our souls
returned to us. What more can we ask?
Lots ond lots of money...for real, not pretending to have--the way
Duke does.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 01:09:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:46:08 -0500, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote:
We now have redemption from sin and restoration of salvation of our souls
returned to us. What more can we ask?
Lots ond lots of money...for real, not pretending to have--the way
Duke does.
I have what I have. And I am happy.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 09:41:11 PM |
|
|
in article th6am1l97b783q05pebm4p4lq7dehpd3gn@4ax.com, duke at
duckgumbo32@cox.net wrote on 10/30/05 2:09 PM:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:46:08 -0500, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote:
We now have redemption from sin and restoration of salvation of our souls
returned to us. What more can we ask?
Lots ond lots of money...for real, not pretending to have--the way
Duke does.
I have what I have. And I am happy.
My mother is...because she has my dead father's money.
Who croaked to make you happy on the only terms YOU care about?
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
01 Nov 2005 12:01:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:41:11 -0500, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote:
I have what I have. And I am happy.
My mother is...because she has my dead father's money.
Who croaked to make you happy on the only terms YOU care about?
Paul
Jesus Christ.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
02 Nov 2005 06:30:55 AM |
|
|
in article q8bfm1tfccit0hk8loeacfhjubhdk5oth9@4ax.com, duke at
duckgumbo32@cox.net wrote on 11/1/05 1:01 PM:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:41:11 -0500, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote:
I have what I have. And I am happy.
My mother is...because she has my dead father's money.
Who croaked to make you happy on the only terms YOU care about?
Paul
Jesus Christ.
A nice thought to hold on to while waiting in line at the food
pantry...
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
03 Nov 2005 05:06:01 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:30:55 -0500, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote:
Who croaked to make you happy on the only terms YOU care about?
Paul
Jesus Christ.
A nice thought to hold on to while waiting in line at the food
pantry...
Jesus Christ is the Bread of Life.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
03 Nov 2005 05:12:50 AM |
|
|
"duke" wrote
: Jesus Christ is the Bread of Life.
That's what the pagans said about their gods.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
03 Nov 2005 05:43:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 06:12:50 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:
"duke" wrote
: Jesus Christ is the Bread of Life.
That's what the pagans said about their gods.
Which ones.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nog" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
30 Oct 2005 08:46:57 AM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130590580.179115.189730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc
Plus, his "sacrifice" did not meet any of the sacrificial requirements.
All temple sacrifices were burned, most of the sacrifices were eaten by
the priests, no sacrifice could be performed outside of temple grounds,
animals used for the sacrifice were to have no blemish or have any
bones broken (seems to me that a flogging or a crown of thorns would
leave a blemish or two).
If Jesus were truly prefigured in the old sacrifices of the Hebrews,
shouldn't he have been laid out on a sacrificial table like the goats
etc were, and burned? Why make him die by crucifixion which the Jews
never used in the Old Testament?
If God does require a bloody sacrifice, then again, why crucifixion? It
isn't the bloodiest form of execution?
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation from his own
wrath!(Author unknown)
One God, father-son-ghost?
If he were born today he would probably become a proctologist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AnonMoos" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
29 Oct 2005 10:25:18 AM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc
But he's symbolized as a lamb, vine, etc. (among many others).
All temple sacrifices were burned, most of the sacrifices were eaten
by the priests,
That's complete nonsense -- ordinary LARGE animal sacrifices offered
by individual believers had only the fat of the entrails and kidneys
burned, and priests ate only the breast and the right thigh, so that
the rest of the animal was available to be eaten by non-priests.
Sacrifices in which most of the animal was burned or eaten by priests
were either a limited number of sacrifices offered as part of the
fixed ritual of the temple liturgy (i.e. not by ordinary believers),
or involved small animals such as pigeons, or were extraordinary
"burnt offerings" (which went beyond the norm).
You really shouldn't venture too boldly into areas where you lack the
expertise to make well-informed comments, Abu Truthhunter.
%!
/m{moveto}def/O{show}def/L{rlineto}def/c{57 0 360 arc gsave 1 setgray
fill grestore stroke}def/Times-Roman 25 selectfont/f{-128 102 m 257 0
L -104 -60 L 0 -55 L 125 72 L 0 90 L -347 0 L 3 setlinewidth stroke
-56 117 m(NON EST)O 30 rotate 79 -8 m(EST)O 90 rotate 0}def 300 484
translate f f f newpath 176 102 c c -176 102 c -202 c -34 137 -216 96
m(FILIUS)O 96 m(PATER)O -7 m(DEUS)O -54 -210 m(SPIRITUS)O showpage%PS
http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/shield-trinity.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc |
29 Oct 2005 09:18:14 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com>
Date written: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:25:18 -0500
MsgID:<4363945E.AE1E7AD4@io.com>
Jesus was not a goat, lamb, bull, pigeon, grain, etc
But he's symbolized as a lamb, vine, etc. (among many others).
All temple sacrifices were burned, most of the sacrifices were eaten
by the priests,
That's complete nonsense -- ordinary LARGE animal sacrifices offered
by individual believers had only the fat of the entrails and kidneys
burned, and priests ate only the breast and the right thigh, so that
the rest of the animal was available to be eaten by non-priests.
Sacrifices in which most of the animal was burned or eaten by priests
were either a limited number of sacrifices offered as part of the
fixed ritual of the temple liturgy (i.e. not by ordinary believers),
or involved small animals such as pigeons, or were extraordinary
"burnt offerings" (which went beyond the norm).
So why didn't this apply to Jesus again? Animal sacrifices and all Temple
rituals were supposed to be foreshadows of things to come, but Jesus didn't
conform to any of the foreshadows.
You really shouldn't venture too boldly into areas where you lack the
expertise to make well-informed comments, Abu Truthhunter.
Neither should you.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
