Is Jesus The Anti-Christ?

March 29, 2013

It's strange that I never noticed this before... but the OT seems to be quite clear that following anyone other than Yahweh is a no-no.

Isa 42:8
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Isa 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isa 45:21-22
Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

Psa 146:3-4
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Num 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Lev 17:10
And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Lev 4:13-16,21
And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;
When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.
And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.
And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood to the tabernacle of the congregation:
And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.

Lev 6:30
And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

Psa 16:4
Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god; Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer, Nor take up their names on my lips.

Deut 18:20
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

All of these passages would seem to negate Jesus... and actually put him at odds with Yahweh.

March 29, 2013

I always read those verses from the perspective of the time when they were written. Back then, there was no Jesus on the earth, and so Yahweh, was the sole means of salvation. When we read the gospel accounts, Jesus always acknowledges the Father as God, as above him in authority. He never says he is God, but rather the son of God. I assume you've quoted the 'drinking blood' verses as Jesus supposedly commanded his followers to drink his blood? We know from the gospel accounts, that there was no literal drinking of his blood, but Jesus was speaking symbolically: he was either referring to the wine that he offered up, and which represented his life that would be poured out, and/or he meant the healing effects that his shed blood would have on people who accepted his death and accepted him as their saviour- drinking in the benefits so to speak?? So he never commanded anyone to drink literal blood.

March 29, 2013

wow... that's exactly what the apologists say. But doesn't God say he never changes? Why should it be different in the NT?

think for a minute..."Jesus said"... Yahweh never said anything... and a lot of things Jesus said are diametrically opposed to what Yahweh said.

On the blood issue:

"Lev 6:30
And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

While some sin sacrifices can be eaten, any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting must not be eaten, it must be burned.

Christians will claim that the blood is just symbolic and that wine is the actual drink, but this excuse falls flat. God did not qualify what he said in Lev 17:10, but rather, said that man shall not consume any kind of blood whatsoever.

It really doesn't matter if it wasn't real blood but only wine. Drinking real or symbolic blood amounts to real or symbolic sin. Jesus urged his followers to commit symbolic sins in the eyes of God. If Jesus was really the legitimate Son of God, he should have known enough to follow his Father's laws. Jesus even preached about symbolic sin:

Matt 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Do Christians really think God would approve of someone who drinks wine pretending that it represents blood of any type? God had 3,000 Israelites killed for recognizing that a golden calf was a symbol for a god. The Bible God certainly wouldn't put up with his instructions being mocked like that.

God even commented on his attitude toward those who practiced pagan blood drinking:

Psa 16:4
Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god; Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer, Nor take up their names on my lips.

The drinking of symbolic blood is no less a sin than drinking the real thing. Symbolic sin is still sin."

March 29, 2013

They skirt this with the trinity defense. He was god lite. Low-fat diet god. One third the calories but all the godliness.

Great topic btw.

March 29, 2013

I tend not to worry about Hebrew prophecies. You could construe them to mean pretty much anything you want. Like God lives on a planet called Kolob, or something wild like that.

March 29, 2013

wow... that's exactly what the apologists say. But doesn't God say he never changes? Why should it be different in the NT?

think for a minute..."Jesus said"... Yahweh never said anything... and a lot of things Jesus said are diametrically opposed to what Yahweh said.

On the blood issue:

"Lev 6:30

And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

While some sin sacrifices can be eaten, any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting must not be eaten, it must be burned.

Christians will claim that the blood is just symbolic and that wine is the actual drink, but this excuse falls flat. God did not qualify what he said in Lev 17:10, but rather, said that man shall not consume any kind of blood whatsoever.

It really doesn't matter if it wasn't real blood but only wine. Drinking real or symbolic blood amounts to real or symbolic sin. Jesus urged his followers to commit symbolic sins in the eyes of God. If Jesus was really the legitimate Son of God, he should have known enough to follow his Father's laws. Jesus even preached about symbolic sin:

Matt 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Do Christians really think God would approve of someone who drinks wine pretending that it represents blood of any type? God had 3,000 Israelites killed for recognizing that a golden calf was a symbol for a god. The Bible God certainly wouldn't put up with his instructions being mocked like that.

God even commented on his attitude toward those who practiced pagan blood drinking:

Psa 16:4

Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god; Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer, Nor take up their names on my lips.

The drinking of symbolic blood is no less a sin than drinking the real thing. Symbolic sin is still sin."

This is interesting. Is this a case of symbolic sin? There is no drinking of blood, only wine. The wine is the sealing of the new covenant and the new covenant is based on the blood of the Lamb, not lambs or other animals anymore. So wine is a good 'prop' or 'symbol' to focus people on the new covenant sealed by Jesus' blood. The 'drinking' process is symbolic of receiving salvation. My christian friend would often pray 'cover us with your precious blood' or something like that. Did she imagine Jesus' literal blood being dripped over us, as if it had some magical properties? No, she meant 'apply the saving power that Jesus's death accomplished to this situation'. So we use the term 'drink in' to mean 'benefit from'. e.g 'I drank in the beauty of your soul and was washed with your love'- mushy romantic images. Jesus didn't intend people to literaly view wine as blood they were literally drinking. It's just symbolism. I see no problem.

I don't see a contradiction here.

March 30, 2013

Jesus is viewed by many Christians as God (one third of the trinity). Christians worship Jesus as God. But they try to reconcile the scriptures you quoted by this nebulous concept of the trinity. Jesus and the Father are the same, yet different, therefore worshipping Jesus is actually worshipping YHWY. Obvious dilemma you pointed out resolved.

However, it is not really resolved unless you are willing to employ definitions to bolster your position. What Christian's do is to define away their scriptural problems. What I say is that when a justification gets too complicated, it means the justifier is reaching way too far. So it is with Christianity!!

March 30, 2013

wow... that's exactly what the apologists say. But doesn't God say he never changes? Why should it be different in the NT?

think for a minute..."Jesus said"... Yahweh never said anything... and a lot of things Jesus said are diametrically opposed to what Yahweh said.

On the blood issue:

"Lev 6:30

And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

While some sin sacrifices can be eaten, any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting must not be eaten, it must be burned.

Christians will claim that the blood is just symbolic and that wine is the actual drink, but this excuse falls flat. God did not qualify what he said in Lev 17:10, but rather, said that man shall not consume any kind of blood whatsoever.

It really doesn't matter if it wasn't real blood but only wine. Drinking real or symbolic blood amounts to real or symbolic sin. Jesus urged his followers to commit symbolic sins in the eyes of God. If Jesus was really the legitimate Son of God, he should have known enough to follow his Father's laws. Jesus even preached about symbolic sin:

Matt 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Do Christians really think God would approve of someone who drinks wine pretending that it represents blood of any type? God had 3,000 Israelites killed for recognizing that a golden calf was a symbol for a god. The Bible God certainly wouldn't put up with his instructions being mocked like that.

God even commented on his attitude toward those who practiced pagan blood drinking:

Psa 16:4

Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god; Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer, Nor take up their names on my lips.

The drinking of symbolic blood is no less a sin than drinking the real thing. Symbolic sin is still sin."

This is interesting. Is this a case of symbolic sin? There is no drinking of blood, only wine. The wine is the sealing of the new covenant and the new covenant is based on the blood of the Lamb, not lambs or other animals anymore. So wine is a good 'prop' or 'symbol' to focus people on the new covenant sealed by Jesus' blood. The 'drinking' process is symbolic of receiving salvation. My christian friend would often pray 'cover us with your precious blood' or something like that. Did she imagine Jesus' literal blood being dripped over us, as if it had some magical properties? No, she meant 'apply the saving power that Jesus's death accomplished to this situation'. So we use the term 'drink in' to mean 'benefit from'. e.g 'I drank in the beauty of your soul and was washed with your love'- mushy romantic images. Jesus didn't intend people to literaly view wine as blood they were literally drinking. It's just symbolism. I see no problem.

I don't see a contradiction here.

What about the Catholics? They believe in transubstantiation. As I understand it, they believe they are literally drinking the blood and eating the body of Jesus.

March 30, 2013

This is interesting. Is this a case of symbolic sin? There is no drinking of blood, only wine. The wine is the sealing of the new covenant and the new covenant is based on the blood of the Lamb, not lambs or other animals anymore. So wine is a good 'prop' or 'symbol' to focus people on the new covenant sealed by Jesus' blood. The 'drinking' process is symbolic of receiving salvation. My christian friend would often pray 'cover us with your precious blood' or something like that. Did she imagine Jesus' literal blood being dripped over us, as if it had some magical properties? No, she meant 'apply the saving power that Jesus's death accomplished to this situation'. So we use the term 'drink in' to mean 'benefit from'. e.g 'I drank in the beauty of your soul and was washed with your love'- mushy romantic images. Jesus didn't intend people to literaly view wine as blood they were literally drinking. It's just symbolism. I see no problem.

I don't see a contradiction here.

But the definition of the new covenant is itself in contradiction.

The new covenant, as defined by Yahweh is a renewal or reaffirmation of a contract.

I've never seen anything in Jer 31 that says it's based on the "blood of the Lamb".

The new covenant is where God will infuse his law directly into the hearts of his people.

I see nothing in it that mentions a dying messiah paying for sins.

It states that each person will die for their own sin.

Regarding symbolic sin and drinking blood of blood,

John 6:55

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

As noted by Ravenstar, I find it difficult to believe Yahweh would approve of a new blood drinking ritual (symbolic or otherwise) that would mock his clear instructions not to consume any manner of blood.

Paul seemed to emphasize that the blood was to be thought of as real.

1 Cor 11:29

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

If Jesus could turn water into wine, I see no reason to think he didn't want his followers to see wine as actual blood, perhaps changed through the power of transubstantiation.

Either way, symbolic or literal, the teaching Jesus gave was heresy.

March 30, 2013

wow... that's exactly what the apologists say. But doesn't God say he never changes? Why should it be different in the NT?

think for a minute..."Jesus said"... Yahweh never said anything... and a lot of things Jesus said are diametrically opposed to what Yahweh said.

On the blood issue:

"Lev 6:30

And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

While some sin sacrifices can be eaten, any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting must not be eaten, it must be burned.

Christians will claim that the blood is just symbolic and that wine is the actual drink, but this excuse falls flat. God did not qualify what he said in Lev 17:10, but rather, said that man shall not consume any kind of blood whatsoever.

It really doesn't matter if it wasn't real blood but only wine. Drinking real or symbolic blood amounts to real or symbolic sin. Jesus urged his followers to commit symbolic sins in the eyes of God. If Jesus was really the legitimate Son of God, he should have known enough to follow his Father's laws. Jesus even preached about symbolic sin:

Matt 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Do Christians really think God would approve of someone who drinks wine pretending that it represents blood of any type? God had 3,000 Israelites killed for recognizing that a golden calf was a symbol for a god. The Bible God certainly wouldn't put up with his instructions being mocked like that.

God even commented on his attitude toward those who practiced pagan blood drinking:

Psa 16:4

Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god; Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer, Nor take up their names on my lips.

The drinking of symbolic blood is no less a sin than drinking the real thing. Symbolic sin is still sin."

This is interesting. Is this a case of symbolic sin? There is no drinking of blood, only wine. The wine is the sealing of the new covenant and the new covenant is based on the blood of the Lamb, not lambs or other animals anymore. So wine is a good 'prop' or 'symbol' to focus people on the new covenant sealed by Jesus' blood. The 'drinking' process is symbolic of receiving salvation. My christian friend would often pray 'cover us with your precious blood' or something like that. Did she imagine Jesus' literal blood being dripped over us, as if it had some magical properties? No, she meant 'apply the saving power that Jesus's death accomplished to this situation'. So we use the term 'drink in' to mean 'benefit from'. e.g 'I drank in the beauty of your soul and was washed with your love'- mushy romantic images. Jesus didn't intend people to literaly view wine as blood they were literally drinking. It's just symbolism. I see no problem.

I don't see a contradiction here.

What about the Catholics? They believe in transubstantiation. As I understand it, they believe they are literally drinking the blood and eating the body of Jesus.

wow... that's exactly what the apologists say. But doesn't God say he never changes? Why should it be different in the NT?

think for a minute..."Jesus said"... Yahweh never said anything... and a lot of things Jesus said are diametrically opposed to what Yahweh said.

On the blood issue:

"Lev 6:30

And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

While some sin sacrifices can be eaten, any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting must not be eaten, it must be burned.

Christians will claim that the blood is just symbolic and that wine is the actual drink, but this excuse falls flat. God did not qualify what he said in Lev 17:10, but rather, said that man shall not consume any kind of blood whatsoever.

It really doesn't matter if it wasn't real blood but only wine. Drinking real or symbolic blood amounts to real or symbolic sin. Jesus urged his followers to commit symbolic sins in the eyes of God. If Jesus was really the legitimate Son of God, he should have known enough to follow his Father's laws. Jesus even preached about symbolic sin:

Matt 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Do Christians really think God would approve of someone who drinks wine pretending that it represents blood of any type? God had 3,000 Israelites killed for recognizing that a golden calf was a symbol for a god. The Bible God certainly wouldn't put up with his instructions being mocked like that.

God even commented on his attitude toward those who practiced pagan blood drinking:

Psa 16:4

Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god; Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer, Nor take up their names on my lips.

The drinking of symbolic blood is no less a sin than drinking the real thing. Symbolic sin is still sin."

This is interesting. Is this a case of symbolic sin? There is no drinking of blood, only wine. The wine is the sealing of the new covenant and the new covenant is based on the blood of the Lamb, not lambs or other animals anymore. So wine is a good 'prop' or 'symbol' to focus people on the new covenant sealed by Jesus' blood. The 'drinking' process is symbolic of receiving salvation. My christian friend would often pray 'cover us with your precious blood' or something like that. Did she imagine Jesus' literal blood being dripped over us, as if it had some magical properties? No, she meant 'apply the saving power that Jesus's death accomplished to this situation'. So we use the term 'drink in' to mean 'benefit from'. e.g 'I drank in the beauty of your soul and was washed with your love'- mushy romantic images. Jesus didn't intend people to literaly view wine as blood they were literally drinking. It's just symbolism. I see no problem.

I don't see a contradiction here.

What about the Catholics? They believe in transubstantiation. As I understand it, they believe they are literally drinking the blood and eating the body of Jesus.

>

wow... that's exactly what the apologists say. But doesn't God say he never changes? Why should it be different in the NT?

think for a minute..."Jesus said"... Yahweh never said anything... and a lot of things Jesus said are diametrically opposed to what Yahweh said.

On the blood issue:

"Lev 6:30

And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

While some sin sacrifices can be eaten, any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting must not be eaten, it must be burned.

Christians will claim that the blood is just symbolic and that wine is the actual drink, but this excuse falls flat. God did not qualify what he said in Lev 17:10, but rather, said that man shall not consume any kind of blood whatsoever.

It really doesn't matter if it wasn't real blood but only wine. Drinking real or symbolic blood amounts to real or symbolic sin. Jesus urged his followers to commit symbolic sins in the eyes of God. If Jesus was really the legitimate Son of God, he should have known enough to follow his Father's laws. Jesus even preached about symbolic sin:

Matt 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Do Christians really think God would approve of someone who drinks wine pretending that it represents blood of any type? God had 3,000 Israelites killed for recognizing that a golden calf was a symbol for a god. The Bible God certainly wouldn't put up with his instructions being mocked like that.

God even commented on his attitude toward those who practiced pagan blood drinking:

Psa 16:4

Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god; Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer, Nor take up their names on my lips.

The drinking of symbolic blood is no less a sin than drinking the real thing. Symbolic sin is still sin."

This is interesting. Is this a case of symbolic sin? There is no drinking of blood, only wine. The wine is the sealing of the new covenant and the new covenant is based on the blood of the Lamb, not lambs or other animals anymore. So wine is a good 'prop' or 'symbol' to focus people on the new covenant sealed by Jesus' blood. The 'drinking' process is symbolic of receiving salvation. My christian friend would often pray 'cover us with your precious blood' or something like that. Did she imagine Jesus' literal blood being dripped over us, as if it had some magical properties? No, she meant 'apply the saving power that Jesus's death accomplished to this situation'. So we use the term 'drink in' to mean 'benefit from'. e.g 'I drank in the beauty of your soul and was washed with your love'- mushy romantic images. Jesus didn't intend people to literaly view wine as blood they were literally drinking. It's just symbolism. I see no problem.

I don't see a contradiction here.

What about the Catholics? They believe in transubstantiation. As I understand it, they believe they are literally drinking the blood and eating the body of Jesus.

Yes, they do. Crazeeeee...........

March 30, 2013

This is interesting. Is this a case of symbolic sin? There is no drinking of blood, only wine. The wine is the sealing of the new covenant and the new covenant is based on the blood of the Lamb, not lambs or other animals anymore. So wine is a good 'prop' or 'symbol' to focus people on the new covenant sealed by Jesus' blood. The 'drinking' process is symbolic of receiving salvation. My christian friend would often pray 'cover us with your precious blood' or something like that. Did she imagine Jesus' literal blood being dripped over us, as if it had some magical properties? No, she meant 'apply the saving power that Jesus's death accomplished to this situation'. So we use the term 'drink in' to mean 'benefit from'. e.g 'I drank in the beauty of your soul and was washed with your love'- mushy romantic images. Jesus didn't intend people to literaly view wine as blood they were literally drinking. It's just symbolism. I see no problem.

I don't see a contradiction here.

But the definition of the new covenant is itself in contradiction.

The new covenant, as defined by Yahweh is a renewal or reaffirmation of a contract.

I've never seen anything in Jer 31 that says it's based on the "blood of the Lamb".

The new covenant is where God will infuse his law directly into the hearts of his people.

I see nothing in it that mentions a dying messiah paying for sins.

It states that each person will die for their own sin. This is a big subject. The whole of the mosaic system: the feasts, the different types of sacrifices, are all encompassed or fulfilled in Jesus (they are all about God's plan headed up by Jesus),so you can't make his death, 'fit' exactly into one specific part of the sacrificial 'foreshadows'. For example, the passover lambs were not killed to atone for sins and yet we are presented with Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away sins.  Jer 31 doesn't go into detail, but it does predict a renewal of a contract.

Regarding symbolic sin and drinking blood of blood,

John 6:55

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

As noted by Ravenstar, I find it difficult to believe Yahweh would approve of a new blood drinking ritual (symbolic or otherwise) that would mock his clear instructions not to consume any manner of blood. Absolutely. Yahweh wouldn't approve of such a thing, and thankfully such a thing is not what Jesus means. I found this article which explains the context surrounding Jesus' weird 'cannibalism' speech, and it explains the context and meaning very well I think. There seems no doubt that Jesus intended to shock and get people's attention, but you'll see that he certainly didn't intend it literally. http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/what-jesus-meant-when-he-said-you-must-eat-my-flesh

Paul seemed to emphasize that the blood was to be thought of as real.

1 Cor 11:29

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. So the bread and wine represented the broken body and poured out blood of jesus, and the new covenant he established.   It would be disrespectful to be drunk and take part in this commemoration. They wouldn't discern the significance of Jesus' death.

If Jesus could turn water into wine, I see no reason to think he didn't want his followers to see wine as actual blood, perhaps changed through the power of transubstantiation. If I follow your reasoning, then Jesus would turn the wine to blood, if that is what he meant?? He didn't. The wine was wine. It wasn't changed. Jesus also spoke about water that he would give to those who were thirsty. Did he literally go round giving cups of miraculous water that made you live forever? No. He was using another kind of symbolism: the water of life.

Either way, symbolic or literal, the teaching Jesus gave was heresy.   I disagree. Jesus shook up the religious establishment. He used imagery and symbolism that was not meant literally (look at the Richman and lazurus. That is not literal). Jesus used bread and wine to symbolise his body and blood, broken and poured out. You 'consume' or take in the benefits of that body and blood or rather the death, when you believe in him, not when you eat a bit of bread and drink a sip of wine. They are just symbols. If Jesus was being literal, then the act of communion: eating the bread and drinking the wine would give you eternal life. That's rubbish of course. It's like baptism. The act doesn't do anything. It's symbolic of other stuff.

March 30, 2013

It's not just the blood... it's the entire concept of human sacrifice. It doesn't jive with the Levitical law at all: The explaining away of God's law is rampant throughout the NT, while giving it lip service and claiming the authority of Yahweh.

"Did the sacrifice of Jesus comply with God's holy law regarding a sin sacrifice where an animal is killed? Jesus stated that he came to fulfill, or make full the law of God (Matt 5:17-20). If this is true, then the sacrifice of Jesus must conform with the law of God, which he was living under as a Jew.

According to the law of God (Lev 4), a valid sin sacrifice contains the following elements.

* The animal must be a designated animal type, approved of for sacrifice by Yahweh.

* The animal must be

physically unblemished

.

* The sacrifice must be

ritualized by a Levitical priest

.

* The sacrifice is

to die of blood loss

.

* The sacrifice occurs at the

officially designated place

, the Tent of Meeting/Temple.

* The

blood is poured out/sprinkled on the altar

.

The human sacrifice of Jesus did not comply with any of these regulations and Jesus scores a perfect 0 out of 6 concerning these listed requirements. (One has to wonder why Yahweh would spend so much time on details of sacrifice in the OT just to have it completely ignored by the NT. Would God's will be thwarted? He was very, very specific about sacrifice in tons of passages from Abraham on down.. and his requirements for atonement for His people.. it doesn't make sense that the ultimate sacrifice would not be as He commanded it if it was really from Yahweh. Why spend all that time and give his prophets so much information on how to properly sacrifice just to throw it out and being so specific if it really didn't matter? The entire point of a sacrifice was that it be 'perfect'.. unblemished, and be offered on an altar and burnt - no sacrifice was ever crucified, ever. It would make more sense if Jesus' throat was cut and he was burned in the Temple.)

Particularly noteworthy is that Jesus was allegedly scourged and beaten (Matt 27:26-30).
Being physically injured is reason alone for disqualification as a sacrifice in the sin atonement ritual.

Lev 22:20,24
But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you.
Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.

No Levitical priest would have considered Jesus a valid sacrifice after he had be scourged and beaten. The New Testament also claims that every human being is cursed by the taint of inherited sin from Adam. Jesus clearly states that he was human. (ie: Son of Man)

"Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If Jesus is the sin sacrifice for the entire community, then he might be better portrayed as serving the function of the scapegoat involved in the ritual known as the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5-34). The scapeGOAT (not a lamb!) was the animal upon whose head the sins of the community were placed. The scapegoat was not killed but was released in an uninhabited place.

Lev 16:21-22,30,34
And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

As the scripture states, the scapegoat involved in the ritual known as the Day of Atonement carried the sins of the community on its head but wasn't killed. Since Jesus was not a goat and was killed, he doesn't remotely fit this form of sin "sacrifice" either. This is probably just as well because it wouldn't sound nearly as fluffy and righteous for Christians to declare that Jesus was the Goat of God, especially when goats were implied to represent sinners (Matt 25:31-33).

As is often the case with cults, calculated promotion and advertising are extensively used to create and reinforce certain perceptions and images, which in turn elevate the cult above other competing beliefs. It certainly doesn't sound holy to declare: "Behold the Goat of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

In any event, the New Testament attempt to equate Jesus with a Passover lamb (which in reality wasn't a singular animal nor even a sin sacrifice), makes a shambles of God's law as specified in the Old Testament. Ironically, the New Testament character who most closely matches the scapegoat is the criminal Barabbas, who was released into the world after being locked up in prison (Matt 27:15-26).

The author of the Book of Hebrews also gets into the act and contributes to the New Testament distortions of the Old Testament by declaring that the sin sacrifice of Jesus not only provides remission for past sins, but preemptively atones for sins yet to be committed in the future.

Heb 10:10,12,18
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

This is truly a one size fits all savior! Too bad none of it conforms with God's law. It's more creative doctrine manufacturing, which tries to wear a mask of endorsement, by basing itself loosely on the Old Testament. In reality, it writes a new script and recipe for salvation in order to elevate, advertise, and promote the new cult savior called Jesus.

Where does the Torah say that a sin sacrifice could atone for sins that were committed at some future time? According to God's law a sin sacrifice does not atone for sins that have yet to be committed. For example, God instructs that the Day of Atonement sin ritual be observed throughout all generations and is to be conducted every year.

Lev 16:34
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

If sin could be preemptively atoned for, then this ritual would only have to be performed once and not each year as God clearly instructs. The sin rituals in Lev 4 are also for the remission of past sins and do not atone for future sins.

Also contrary to the claim made by the author of Hebrews, the Old Testament states that in the messianic era, when the third Temple is built, sin sacrifices will not have been done away but will still occur (Ezek 43:21-27). Another claim made by the author of Hebrews was that the Levitical priesthood was ended by Jesus (Heb 7:11-28). This is another false claim on the part of a New Testament writer.

According to God's word from the Old Testament, the priesthood was promised exclusively to the Levites, the descendants of Aaron (Exo 29:4-9). In the messianic era, the Levites would occupy the priesthood, not Jesus.

Jer 33:18
Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

Once again, the Old Testament is ignored if it conflicts with the theological agenda of a Christian writer.

Christians will often attempt to rationalize the failure of Jesus to comply with the law by claiming that Jesus ushered in the new covenant. They also often claim that God did away with his "old" laws and that faith in Jesus as a sin sacrifice is now the new system that God put in place. This rationalization is blatantly dishonest as it attempts to rewrite the definition of the new covenant.

The definition of the new covenant is found in Jer 31:27-37, and that text says absolutely nothing about God's laws being ended or replaced by a new system which requires faith in a human "sin" sacrifice. The new covenant, as defined by Jer 31:17-37, is where God's laws will be reaffirmed under a new contract. If Christians want to claim that God's laws were to be replaced by faith in a human sacrifice, they can validate the claim by finding the verses in Jer 31 which say that. They'll be looking a long time, for there are no verses in Jer 31:27-37 to support such a claim.

In retrospect, the New Testament creation of Jesus as the "Lamb of God" and a perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity relies on embellishments that are not supported by the scripture of the Old Testament. Embellished stories tend to become more complex and more detailed as time goes on, and the evolution of Jesus is no exception. Christianity grafted itself onto the Hebrew scriptures and proceeded to construct a new religion.

The Christian attempt to mold Jesus into a one size fits all savior requires a rank dismissal of and disregard for the laws given by God. The law of God is declared perfect in Psa 19:7. The law of God is declared everlasting in Psa 119:152,160 and Psa 111:7-8.

God gave clear instructions for his followers not to tamper with his law by attempting to add qualifiers or by taking away parts that don't suit their whims.

Deut 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Yet, the desires of Christians to have for themselves a cult icon called "Jesus" as a perfect sacrifice for their sins is more important than doing the hard work of reading and obeying God's laws. The core Christian doctrine, which proclaims that Jesus was God's officially approved sin sacrifice for the world, is a manufactured, pious fraud if the Old Testament is to be taken seriously as the word of God."

~ source; http://www.losingmyreligion.com/essays/brad/lambofgod.htm

March 30, 2013

Bottom line for me-- the concept of a dying god or human sacrifice never even existed in the Jew's minds during most of the OT times --- but once a number of them were exposed to the idea through the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians as they began to hear about the "mystery religions"--- all of a sudden, Yahweh needed a "son" to die for him. A perfect example of how you can see that the bible was written by men, based on their agenda at the time.

March 30, 2013

...But the definition of the new covenant is itself in contradiction.

The new covenant, as defined by Yahweh is a renewal or reaffirmation of a contract.

I've never seen anything in Jer 31 that says it's based on the "blood of the Lamb".

The new covenant is where God will infuse his law directly into the hearts of his people.

I see nothing in it that mentions a dying messiah paying for sins.

It states that each person will die for their own sin. This is a big subject. The whole of the mosaic system: the feasts, the different types of sacrifices, are all encompassed or fulfilled in Jesus (they are all about God's plan headed up by Jesus),so you can't make his death, 'fit' exactly into one specific part of the sacrificial 'foreshadows'.

When wishful thinking takes over, Jesus can be made to "fulfill" anything.

For example, the passover lambs were not killed to atone for sins and yet we are presented with Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away sins. Jer 31 doesn't go into detail, but it does predict a renewal of a contract.

We are presented this by Christian propagandists, who practiced revisionist theology.

The renewal of the contract says absolutely nothing about a human sacrifice dying for sins.

It says absolutely nothing about God's prior laws being circumvented to accomodate a new system revolving around faith in a human sacrifice

March 30, 2013

Regarding symbolic sin and drinking blood of blood,

John 6:55

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

As noted by Ravenstar, I find it difficult to believe Yahweh would approve of a new blood drinking ritual (symbolic or otherwise) that would mock his clear instructions not to consume any manner of blood. Absolutely. Yahweh wouldn't approve of such a thing, and thankfully such a thing is not what Jesus means. I found this article which explains the context surrounding Jesus' weird 'cannibalism' speech, and it explains the context and meaning very well I think. There seems no doubt that Jesus intended to shock and get people's attention, but you'll see that he certainly didn't intend it literally. http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/what-jesus-meant-when-he-said-you-must-eat-my-flesh

So drinking wine and pretending it's blood is just fine with Yahweh.

This is the same God that ordered a man killed for gathering wood on a holy day and the same God that killed Uzzah for trying to keep the Ark from falling.

Yet, he amazingly has no problem with people drinking pretend blood after he repeatedly told them to never consume any manner of blood.

Frankly, I find these types of Jesus apologetics to be hypocritical.

You claim that Jesus "certainly" didn't mean it to be taken literally when he specifically states that his blood is real drink.

How you can be so certain is beyond me.

I can supply plenty of links that support a literal meaning for the wine being blood, which would offset the link you provided.

There's just as much evidence to support a literal meaning as a symbolic one, so it all comes down to nothing more than mere opinion.

Paul seemed to emphasize that the blood was to be thought of as real.

1 Cor 11:29

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. So the bread and wine represented the broken body and poured out blood of jesus, and the new covenant he established. It would be disrespectful to be drunk and take part in this commemoration. They wouldn't discern the significance of Jesus' death.

So once again, Jesus can do anything he wants and you automatically assume he established the new covenant as defined in Jer 31.

The verse specifically says "not discerning the Lord's body", which would imply an actual physical substance.

The believer is to discern the wine as being the blood of Christ, and not doing so is unworthy worship resulting in damnation.

Jesus told his disciples that "This is my blood", not "This represents my blood".

As I wrote earlier, there's just as much evidence to assume a literal meaning as a symbolic one.

If Jesus could turn water into wine, I see no reason to think he didn't want his followers to see wine as actual blood, perhaps changed through the power of transubstantiation. If I follow your reasoning, then Jesus would turn the wine to blood, if that is what he meant?? He didn't. The wine was wine. It wasn't changed. Jesus also spoke about water that he would give to those who were thirsty. Did he literally go round giving cups of miraculous water that made you live forever? No. He was using another kind of symbolism: the water of life.

So obviously you reject the Christian teaching of transubstantiation and all possiblity of Jesus thinking of his blood being represented by wine in anything more than a mere symbolic manner.

Either way, symbolic or literal, the teaching Jesus gave was heresy. I disagree. Jesus shook up the religious establishment. He used imagery and symbolism that was not meant literally (look at the Richman and lazurus. That is not literal). Jesus used bread and wine to symbolise his body and blood, broken and poured out. You 'consume' or take in the benefits of that body and blood or rather the death, when you believe in him, not when you eat a bit of bread and drink a sip of wine. They are just symbols. If Jesus was being literal, then the act of communion: eating the bread and drinking the wine would give you eternal life. That's rubbish of course. It's like baptism. The act doesn't do anything. It's symbolic of other stuff.

Well, you haven't established that the Eucharist isn't meant to be literal flesh and blood.

You want it to be only symbolic, tossing out all possibility that it might not be, along with Christian doctrine that says it has clear literal intent.

But that aside for the moment, you put forth the proposition that symbolism that goes directly against the instructions of Yahweh is fine as long as a character called "Jesus" teaches it.

That's what I'm seeing here.

Jesus is excused from any responsibility under the umbrella of him being Jesus and symbolism.

He taught against the food law too, so this wasn't the first time he undermined the law or added a new ritual that Yahweh never endorsed.

March 30, 2013

Ravenstar- I don't understand all the ins and outs of the Mosaic system or Jesus' 'system'. What did the animal system achieve? Did it lessen sin or take death away?

Jesus claimed to end that cycle of sin- animal sacrifice- death although to all intents and purposes nothing seems different. We still all die, so it would seem his sacrifice achieved nothing as well.

Centauri - I think we'll be going round in circles with this 'wine/blood' issue. I have no problem with the symbolism. I'm not looking at the wine and pretending it's blood . It's wine. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, not that it matters much anyway.

March 30, 2013

BC, what this all tends to outline is the obvious fiction angle involved in the gospel efforts.

When getting in-depth in Biblical criticism as most of us ex-C's tend to do, we begin to see how bloody awful these gospel attempts were in reality and why the Jews as a whole never came to accept this salvation doctrine as the fulfillment of their own ethnic scriptures. We haven't even touched on the mass of obvious midrash material surrounding this sacrificial issue. People very consciously sat down and worked out ways of quote mining the OT as well as introducing pagan type themes that were not really present in the OT in the first place and trying to pass the whole patch work off as historical and valid.

This sacrificial issue that Ravenstar has raised tends to outline bringing in certain things which were foreign to traditional Judaism and trying to pass them off as if they were part of it and do belong there.

The consuming of a God-man's flesh & blood is straight away pagan material and what it seems to suggest is that what had formerly been acted out quite literally, that is, the literal cannibalistic consummation of flesh and blood in certain cults of the world was now to be conducted symbolically instead of literally. This is a way of continuing something without having to literally do it. Take for instance the Mithraic cult practice of literally bathing in a sacrificed bulls blood. It was a literal blood bath as a mystery school rite. But now we find something similar by washed in the blood of the Lamb, but symbolically, not a literal blood bath. And a Lamb, not a Bull. And throughout history there is evidence of both animal and human sacrifice taking place in the near east which all sorts of funnels down into the situation we're considering.

It looks like some one decided to switch things up a bit and get the mystery school initiates off of literal sacrifice (human or otherwise) by suggesting that the sacrificial time was now over. Bear in mind that in astrological terms, terms that mystery school types were quite privy to, the world ages had changed from the sign of Aries the Ram / Lamb to Pisces the Fish. And that celestial transition above had occurred with respect to the seasonal spring religious festivals such as Passover held below. As above so below / 'on earth as it is in heaven...' Whereas the sun had been rising in the constellation of Aries now the sun was rising in the constellation of Pisces after the turn of the common era.

Why a Lamb to take away the sin's of the world when that has no real context in Jewish scripture?

Probably because the motif is more aimed at the end of the last Platonic Great Year in the sign of Aries and the new beginning starting off anew in the sign of Pisces with the moon in Virgo, than it is with keeping to a literal sin sacrifice as per scripture in this case. And this strikes me as one of those things which were shoe horned into the religion making process in order to satisfy a certain target audience having to do with the ancient mysteries and proselytizing that type of audience.

None of this went over very well with the Jews as a whole, though. Only the odd oblivious moron or mystic that either fell for it whole cloth or consciously decided to get on board knowing full well that it was merely a hybridizing religion that sought to satisfy popular mystery rites.

Why?

Well just look at the wealth of scripture already posted by Ravenstar that tends to suggest that the Christian message was a heretical and baseless message with respect to what is actually written in the Jewish scriptures. This is not very different than fact checking the claims of fulfillment of a virgin birth foreshadowed in Isaiah. That was not a prophecy about a future virgin girl giving birth to God on earth. Any scriptural savvy Jew could have looked up the context of the passage and seen that it was being used way out of context by Christians and that's plain as day when you're analyzing the actual passage used. Some one was quote mining scripture out of context looking for some type of remote passage that could be suggested for introducing the pagan virgin birth of a God man motif into a Judaized setting. And it's quite a hack job when you really analyze the effort.

Some one had the preconceived idea of a virgin born God man already in mind and then tried to force fit the motif into a Judaized setting by quote mining Isaiah out of context.

At the end of the day the whole thing tends to boil down to the efforts of some pretty mystical and Hellenized people with a mild understanding of Judaism trying to patch work together a way of trying to convince both Jews and Gentiles that the message they were pushing is sound and checks out according to Jewish scripture.

But it isn't any thing remotely close to sound and doesn't really check out at all, according to Jewish scripture. That's the hub of the point of this thread from my view of it anyhow.

The Gospel 'fiction' turned out to be favorable for trying to merge Judaism and Paganism though, which, centuries later was taken advantage of by the state and used in that way. But then again, the Jews didn't want to go along with this errant suggestion early on, after the state forced the issue, or even to this very day. That led into the Spanish Inquisition and other atrocities that had no other purpose than trying to force this openly and obviously errant suggestion about the Jews own ethnic scriptures upon them as valid. But it's invalid.

And no amount of Christian apologetics has ever succeeded in making it valid by brute force or otherwise, because, of course, it was never valid to begin with...

March 30, 2013

Wow-- kind of what I said!!

March 31, 2013

JoshPantera.. I love you! That's exactly the point(s) I was bringing up. If you really think about it, and look at the Torah, the concept that a man could be God as well would have been the DEEPEST blasphemy to a Jew. Pure idolatry... Yahweh was very clear about having no gods before him. It was one of his major pet peeves... he ordered genocides over it.

Yahweh doesn't ever say anything about believing either... nope, He expects more, and lays out exactly what the Israelites must do to be righteous in his eyes, and in the new covenant promises that it won't be impossible for them to do. Yahweh doesn't even care if you believe in other gods - but don't worship them! (lol)

The motif of a virgin birth is quite common in ancient mythologies..(Attis, Mithra, et al) but not Judaism. There are quite a few other motifs as well.. the 'dying god' motif, the 'resurrection' motif (which represent the sun and sun gods) even the '3 days in hell' is a pagan idea. It comes from the perception that the sun 'dies' at the winter solstice and appears to not move on the horizon for the next three days only to start moving and lengthening the days after that period. These ideas come from sun worship, astrology and paganism. These are not Jewish concepts at all and are found nowhere in the OT. As well as the ages... The world did move astrologically from the age of Taurus (bull worship - Ba'al, Mithra) to Aries..(Ram/lamb) then to Pisces at the time of Jesus. (the Fish.. whole lot of fish symbology in the story of Jesus - think about it)

BC, yes, animal sacrifice as well as the use of the 'scapegoat' did remove Israels sins and there were tons of rules and rituals to go with that. They are VERY specific. They had yearly and other such rituals (jubilees) to 'cleanse' the people of Israel, done by specific priests, with specific animals, in a specific way, for specific sins and the OT states that the law is perfect and does not change. God very specifically gave these laws to the Israelites to separate them from the heathens and he warns over and over and over for them not to follow the ways of the pagans and that HE was the only God they should worship, and He was the only 'salvation' they needed, and that He would not tolerate them worshipping any other god, EVER. He warns very strongly about false prophets and describes them, and how to recognize them... and according to God's law, Jesus is a false prophet and it's no wonder that the Jewish spiritual leaders were pissed - to them he was a heretic. Of course this all happened after the loss of many of the tribes of Israel, with Judah being the major surviving tribe after their conquest and time in Babylon. If there had been a Levite priest at the time of Jesus - he probably would have been stoned to death.

Another thing... the Jews didn't really have a concept of an afterlife... not like we do. (this is also a pagan idea) Salvation was meant to be about THIS life. For an Israelite being saved from sin meant to live everlasting on this world, physically (which explains why so much emphasis on Jesus being raised bodily and also the tradition that the patriarchs lived extremely long lives) not in some aether region, or in Heaven. The new covenant is supposed to restore the original state of affairs from the Garden, not transform humans into angels (purely spiritual beings.. and even these have corporeal bodies in the OT, as does Yahweh hehe).

Looking carefully at the gospels and the NT as a whole, it is pretty easy to see the pagan ideas, the hellenization and also that Jesus was a cult leader, and not in a nice way either. It is not a continuation of the Torah at all.. and in some ways is directly opposed to many very important Jewish doctrines.

I love that Josh brought up quote mining... this is very apparent in the NT... and many passages from the Torah are taken way out of context to serve the purposes of the new cult.

Jesus can say whatever he wants, (so can you or I for that matter - doesn't make it truth) but if it disagrees with the (perfect and unchanging) law, it's dead wrong and not from Yahweh. The OT is very clear on this - there is no way to get around it.

March 31, 2013

Josh and Ravenstar- you've given me much food for thought. Here's why I am struggling to 'see' what you are claiming regarding Christianity and Jesus being a false messiah based on pagan concepts: I found out years ago that 'Christianity' as we know it, is nothing like the early movement. Christianty now bears no resemblance to the early 'ecclesia'. That was based on the Jewish teachings and law, and unless you understood how the Mosaic 'system' operated, you wouldn't be able to appreciate how the transition occurred from the temple system of animal sacrifices to the belief in the Messiah who had put an end to some of the applications of the law, but whose meaning or spiritual applications are eternal. So, all the stuff you mentioned Ravenstar about what the Israelites believed in, (no trinity, no life after death etc), I believed this too, whilst believing in Jesus, or rather Yeshua. I discovered that many pagan beliefs like 'hell' had crept into the Jewish religion. I discovered that Yeshua was a Torah observant Jew, who did not break the torah or urge others to break the torah. I did not believe he was God, as I did not believe in a trinity. He was a son of God, the foremost Son (hence only begotten Son, or in prime position). Adam was a Son of God, and hence Jesus was the second Adam. I've read many studies on Jewish objections to Jesus as the Messiah etc, to understand some of the stuff you have mentioned Ravenstar, and this is a big subject that can't be appreciated in such 'brief' replies. I checked out the objections and as I studied them I could see even more how the Tenach contained many references to the Messiah, even to the time period he would come and even to the destruction of the temple again, which we know occurred in 70AD.

Common sense told me that blood shed ie daily animal sacrifices, can't go on forever. Yeshua's sacrifice which people picuture as a human sacrifice (imagine Apocalypto) is not the same as the animal sacrifices. The animals had no say in it. They were killed against their will, so too the human sacrifices of pagan religions. Yeshua's 'sacrifice' was like that of a soldier who knows he's going to die on a mission. He has to get the job done, but will give his life in the process. Yeshua was the living torah. He lived it the way it was meant to be practised-not like how the religious leaders had made it (like how catholicism and other 'brands' of Christianity have messed up 'Christianity'. He brought the balance and spirit of the law, which should be written in your heart if you truly love the law, and not something you have to keep looking up to check if you're breaking a rule. I viewed the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, as the judgment that Yeshua had warned would come upon the generation who was alive when he was speaking. They rejected him and were thus rejecting God and he had warned them that the fires of gehenna awaited them: ie the literal fires that raged when the Romans sacked the city, many of those pious Jews literally being thrown into the rubbish dump which was Gehenna (the place Yeshua mostly referred to). The 'Mosaic' system was no longer the method for revealing God's purposes and Torah since the ultimate shedding of blood, of a human who had kept torah perfectly had rendered animal blood 'not good enough'. The temple was only a brick representation (temporary) of a spiritual truth e.g the body of believers who together like bricks, make up the 'temple'. The priests are still operating with their high priest Yeshua: all believers are priests and servants of God now. Circumcision is still operating, but spiritually of the heart. No more 'token' shedding of blood is necessary. The Sabbath will be 'kept' by all believers when they enter the Sabbath rest of the 1000 years. Yeshua did not break down the Torah, but established it. He ripped up the offence sheet not the laws. If I have a speeding fine and go to the court, the court will produce a record, a ticket of my offence. It states my violation of the law and the penalty is a fine. If the judge pronounces judgment but says, 'I've paid your fine, so I can now tear up this ticket. You're free to go.' Does that mean the judge has nullified the law? No. This was something that I could see was not understood by most Christians- those into the Hebrew roots movement, did understand this, but then many in their zealousness or misunderstanding, went back 'under' the previous applications of the law e.g getting circumcised, keeping Shabbat, etc and becoming like orthodox Jews who believed in Yeshua. They had failed to see, that the application of the Torah has changed but the Torah is summed up in 'love' - the love a man had for not only his loved ones but for his enemies too. Jesus' death I believed would touch everyone eventually- just as Adam's death did. The first Adam bought death to everyone, whereas the second Adam brought life for everyone- hence my belief in universal reconciliation: every last human will be saved. Jesus' sacrifice was completely successful.

So for me, I could reconcile Yeshua, a Jewish torah observant rabbi, with the Tanach and indeed He was surely the Messiah. He had come at the right time, according to the Tenach. I was free of the relgious stumbling blocks that prevent Jews from asking Yeshua if he is the messiah (i,e pray to ask if he is). I prayed many times 'Jesus, are you who you said you were? Are you real? Can you save me and my family - everyone?' I sometimes thought Jesus was answering those prayers, but I don't think he was. Two thousand years have passed since he was supposedly on this earth. His death doesn't seem to have made any difference, as I said before. I still want him to be real. I still occasionally have a quick chat with him and say 'why do remain so silent? can't you see I just need some feedback to bring alive my belief and love for you?' He never answers....................

I hope this explains what my position was (is?).

April 1, 2013

So that's why you were concerned about investigating the contradictory nature of the Gospel fable verses OT scripture BC?

Lingering leftover universal reconciliation apologetic's that you've been exposed to?

Just for the sake of curiosity, you do understand the folly of UR apologetics just as you've come to understand the folly of the Caldwell's and Michael Behe's IC assertions, right BC?

I think I remember you mentioning your run with UR in another thread as something that kept you hanging on to Christianity for an extended time even after learning about many of Christianity's errant doctrines. Maybe it's not completely over yet? I think BAA explained some of the main problems with UR but I don't remember the exact details.

In any event, I guess that explains why you were so apologetic with Ravenstar on this issue as it may hit sort of close to home. I'm of the understanding that any and every apologetic attempt to use the OT in order to predict anything about Jesus, whether through a UR lens or otherwise, will be exposed on a point by point basis time and again because we're talking about a fiction, a fiction that was thrown together sort of sloppy with little attention to detail in a lot of cases. It turned out very unconvincing to the Jews as a whole, and with good reason.

It doesn't really matter which purist or elitist position and type of Christian apologetics we turn to - whether the Seventh Day Adventism I was raised on, the modern day Yahwist's preaching to denounce "pagan" names like Jehovah and Jesus in favor of Yahweh and Yahshua, or even this UR group who apparently use Yeshua in stark contrast to the former Yahwists mentioned from Bethel Pennsylvania that swear up and down that "Yahshua" is the best transliteration and "Yeshua" is to be dropped altogether - at the end of the day each and every one of these purists and elitists will fall apart under close analytical scrutiny because they're all houses of cards built up from sand foundations. I only say this as one who has subscribe to these assertions and who has witnessed the houses of cards come crashing down time and again.

You enjoyed the deconversion series I posted on the Caldwells thread about the evolution of God and so forth, so I wonder if you just didn't catch the main thrust of the implications or what? Because what you've described above doesn't seem to account for the implications that a sound understanding of the history of God would have on something like UR.

]

Just to refresh a little bit, at the end of the day Yahweh started out as a pagan, polytheistic deity in the Elohim pantheon of "Gods" which evolved over time to become the only God worthy of worship for Israel (monolatry), then the only God period (monotheism), and then finally a triune Godhead (trinitarianism) that sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself, err, to himself as an offering for sin?

Whether we take Jesus as a freaky failed cult leader, the actual Son of God representing God on earth, or simply a completely literary character fabricated out many different myths combined with numerous historical and pseudo-historical biographies; at the end of the day his very NAME (Yeshua means YHWH saves, or YHWH is Salvation) merely calls attention to a deity figure that we know good and well evolved from primitive, polytheistic foundations not unlike those of the surrounding pagan gentile nations. In fact YHWH grew up with the Israelites as they transitioned from lower class people (probably serfs and slaves) within the Canaanite city-state system to eventually taking over the region after the final collapse of the Egyptian run city-state system and eventually gathered together in the hill country (refer to Israel Finkelstein). The paganism of ancient Judaism eventually became monotheism for mainly political power consolidation purposes after Israel evolved out of the local Canaanite population which is quite up front and evident to many secular archaeologists.

And it looks like Christianity merely re-introduced the pagan origins of YHWH by hybridizing the Jewish mythos once again with more modern and up to date polytheistic and Hellenistic motifs of the time, well into it's monotheistic evolution mind you. I see old paganism misconstrued into monotheism for political reasons and then becoming paganized all over again years later as people brought polytheistism back into it again, all while people denying ever doing such a thing. It's one big cluster f@#ck from this view, which is basically the story of the first 3 or 4 centuries of Christian apologetics. It's like the guy getting caught in bed cheating on his wife standing up and declaring boldly to her face, "honey, I didn't do it!" lol

So when you speak favorably of UR I have to wonder whether we're talking about belief in the reality of this ancient pagan God and also belief in the reality of someone on earth claiming to be that ancient pagan God, or at least some one claiming to be the son of that God or simply a follower of that God at the very minimum, as real and true reality?

Is that where you're trying to take us BC?

Are we to believe that an ancient pagan deity will reconcile everything in the end?

If not, then where is this leading?

April 1, 2013

Interesting,

The Ugarit texts themselves blow the entire thing out of the water... the original 'creator' god wasn't even Yahweh, but the Canaanite high god, El, (El Elyon, El Shaddai, et al) Yahweh was one of his 70 sons, along with Ba'al (fertility god) [which explains a lot of the rivalry obvious in the OT between Yahweh and Ba'al] Yahweh even took El's consort for his own (and it seems Ba'al did as well at one point, Asherah).

I'm not up on the UR stuff too much, but it seems to me that all apologetics are an exercise in sophistry, what I am familiar with anyway. Still, I believe that if you take ONLY scripture - it is apparent that Jesus is a false prophet, maybe the worst. It takes way to much twisting to make Jesus fit scripture... nope, it doesn't wash, and as Josh has said, it's actually a pretty shoddy job. (and think of all the editing time.. and they still mucked it up)

The modern myth of Jesus is pretty amazing actually... it doesn't even match scripture all that much as the majority of his questionable sayings are downplayed, and the disparity between what he preached and the OT is pretty much either ignored or explained away with feel good apologetics. Like it's blasphemous to even inquire into this stuff because his image might be sullied?

Well, like any public figure I think it's important to take a good hard look at this person who has won the hearts and minds of so many and see what's behind the curtain... because the truth of the matter is he wasn't all that nice, and his claims are against Yahweh's scripture and laws.

Of course since I don't subscribe to a god/man, or to Yahweh... it's an intellectual exercise for me... but I do empathize with those for whom this is hard to hear... even in the midst of, or early into deconversion... because the myth is pretty powerful... I know.

I delved into gnosticism for a while so this isn't really news to me, at least the concept that the 'god' we think we know may not be the right one (The Nag Hammadi has more on this, quite fascinating - but it seems to me a derivative of Zoroastrianism, still it's an intriguing concept).

The reason I started this thread was because I felt (don't have 'proof', just a hunch) that Jesus could actually be identified by scripture as an anti-christ (or at least a false prophet) and wanted to explore this possibility. I don't have a problem going there.. but I can see and understand that some might.

I'm interested to see where this goes.

Peace!

April 1, 2013

You know what's interesting Ravenstar?

In I and II John the word anti-christ is used, however in Revelation appears the anti-trinity consisting of the Dragon, Beast, and False Prophet. That may be worth exploring with respect to Jesus as a false prophet and supposedly a member of a trinity.

April 1, 2013

So that's why you were concerned about investigating the contradictory nature of the Gospel fable verses OT scripture BC? Not quite. I'd never perceived any contradictions in the NT, that contradict the OT. My studies confirmed that the NT was in harmony with the OT.

Lingering leftover universal reconciliation apologetic's that you've been exposed to? It's not so much 'UR' that lingers, but rather the force of the 'bible' story OT and NT, as a whole. As for UR, that's not important to this discussion. I was never fully convinced of UR. I think the Bible as a whole, gives the impression that only 'some' will be saved (the rest being annihilated). There does seem plenty of verses that do suggest 'all' in the long run, but not in the short run- but that's another big topic.

Just for the sake of curiosity, you do understand the folly of UR apologetics just as you've come to understand the folly of the Caldwell's and Michael Behe's IC assertions, right BC? UR is not folly from a human and philosophical point of view (hence why it's no doubt gaining popularity within 'mainstream' Christianity). It's considered 'folly' when comparing some verses with other verses, but I can put UR to one side and not let that be a 'deal breaker'.

I think I remember you mentioning your run with UR in another thread as something that kept you hanging on to Christianity for an extended time even after learning about many of Christianity's errant doctrines. To clairfy, the 'errant' doctrines were man-made: products of mistranslation or misunderstanding of the Bible and traditions of cultures. UR, seemed to make the best sense of what I had learned from the Bible. Maybe it's not completely over yet? I think BAA explained some of the main problems with UR but I don't remember the exact details. No, BAA didn't join in on that discussion.

In any event, I guess that explains why you were so apologetic with Ravenstar on this issue as it may hit sort of close to home. Yes, it does hit home.   I'm of the understanding that any and every apologetic attempt to use the OT in order to predict anything about Jesus, whether through a UR lens or otherwise, will be exposed on a point by point basis time and again because we're talking about a fiction, a fiction that was thrown together sort of sloppy with little attention to detail in a lot of cases. It turned out very unconvincing to the Jews as a whole, and with good reason. As my 'default position' was that the OT was true, then you can assess the claims in the NT and see if they marry up. Having spent years studying how these two 'stories' meet or collide, I cam to be fully convinced that they married beautifully, although I didn't understand a lot of the finer details. If the OT can be proved to be a load of bull, then that would automatically rule out the NT. I am currently considering the OT with the help of the web site on Bible contradictions.

It doesn't really matter which purist or elitist position and type of Christian apologetics we turn to - whether the Seventh Day Adventism I was raised on, the modern day Yahwist's preaching to denounce "pagan" names like Jehovah and Jesus in favor of Yahweh and Yahshua, or even this UR group who apparently use Yeshua (no, sorry if I misled there. URists are found in all 'brands' of Christianity. They don't really make up a separate sect, so most I know use 'Jesus'. There are separate UR sects, but they don't have a monopoly on UR. There are trinity believing URists, and non trinity ones too. in stark contrast to the former Yahwists mentioned from Bethel Pennsylvania that swear up and down that "Yahshua" is the best transliteration and "Yeshua" is to be dropped altogether - at the end of the day each and every one of these purists and elitists will fall apart under close analytical scrutiny because they're all houses of cards built up from sand foundations. Yes, 'if' the foundation is sand. I only say this as one who has subscribe to these assertions and who has witnessed the houses of cards come crashing down time and again. I've witnessed Christian groups crashing down, but is this the same as the foundation? People have weird ideas and can become fanatical, not just with religion. Do I throw the baby out with the bathwater?

You enjoyed the deconversion series I posted on the Caldwells thread about the evolution of God and so forth, so I wonder if you just didn't catch the main thrust of the implications or what? I did, but I've already forgotten that 'thrust' and hence I'll rewatch that series, which you've posted below. The years of Bible knowledge comes very easy to the surface and new stuff I learn very easily disappears.......Because what you've described above doesn't seem to account for the implications that a sound understanding of the history of God would have on something like UR. I'll have to get down to reading that Karen Armstrong book.......

]

Just to refresh a little bit, at the end of the day Yahweh started out as a pagan, polytheistic deity in the Elohim pantheon of "Gods" which evolved over time to become the only God worthy of worship for Israel (monolatry), then the only God period (monotheism), and then finally a triune Godhead (trinitarianism) that sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself, err, to himself as an offering for sin?   Here's where I'm struggling. Yes, certain people at certain times, believed all these things, but maybe buried in all that is some truth about 'God'. The truth that Jesus reveals about his Father (El?) is that God is love. That seems to cut through all the bull.

Whether we take Jesus as a freaky failed cult leader, the actual Son of God representing God on earth, or simply a completely literary character fabricated out many different myths combined with numerous historical and pseudo-historical biographies; at the end of the day his very NAME (Yeshua means YHWH saves, or YHWH is Salvation) merely calls attention to a deity figure that we know good and well evolved from primitive, polytheistic foundations not unlike those of the surrounding pagan gentile nations. So if we look at this man Yeshua, who claims to be the exact likeness of the real God, not the God you thought he was, maybe that is where we should begin our analysis of God, not from previous understandings or accounts??? Jesus upholds parts of the previous system that was no doubt errant in many ways, but maybe he estabishes the gold from the shit?? In fact YHWH grew up with the Israelites as they transitioned from lower class people (probably serfs and slaves) within the Canaanite city-state system to eventually taking over the region after the final collapse of the Egyptian run city-state system and eventually gathered together in the hill country (refer to Israel Finkelstein). The paganism of ancient Judaism eventually became monotheism for mainly political power consolidation purposes after Israel evolved out of the local Canaanite population which is quite up front and evident to many secular archaeologists. I never saw this as a problem. When I read the OT, I saw traces of how people were not in receipt of the full truth. They still had pagan ideas and practices. It seems the process of refining this understanding of God culminated in Jesus, who claimed to be God in human form i.e if you want to really know what God is like, I am exactly like Him. (In actions and personality- not physically of course).

And it looks like Christianity merely re-introduced the pagan origins of YHWH by hybridizing the Jewish mythos once again with more modern and up to date polytheistic and Hellenistic motifs of the time, well into it's monotheistic evolution mind you. I see old paganism misconstrued into monotheism for political reasons and then becoming paganized all over again years later as people brought polytheistism back into it again, all while people denying ever doing such a thing. It's one big cluster f@#ck from this view, which is basically the story of the first 3 or 4 centuries of Christian apologetics. It's like the guy getting caught in bed cheating on his wife standing up and declaring boldly to her face, "honey, I didn't do it!" lol

Yes, much of the old shit has been rehashed and repackaged into a new religion called 'Christianity'. It's nothing like the 'way' that Jesus proclaimed, or the early disciples.

So when you speak favorably of UR I have to wonder whether we're talking about belief in the reality of this ancient pagan God (and also belief in the reality of someone on earth claiming to be that ancient pagan God, or at least some one claiming to be the son of that God or simply a follower of that God at the very minimum, as real and true reality? So if I speak favourably of Jesus really (UR is a secondary issue), it's because I'm holding out hope there is a God, however he/it has been understood throughout human history. If this God was real, then as humans developed and evolved, their understanding of 'him' would alter with time. I see Jesus as the culmination of 'explaining' this God.  He sums God up in 'love'.

Is that where you're trying to take us BC?

Are we to believe that an ancient pagan deity will reconcile everything in the end? No, If there is a God who saves, then I doubt he's changed. Our understanding changes. Jesus called God 'Father'. That surely bridges all peoples?

If not, then where is this leading?   It seems to be leading to the idea that I can be a follower of Jesus in principle. That's why I couldn't mock Jesus. Even if he isn't real, I love him as a person who might have lived and died for loving people, healing them, feeding them and trying to comfort them and give them a hope and a future.

April 1, 2013

Interesting,

The Ugarit texts themselves blow the entire thing out of the water... the original 'creator' god wasn't even Yahweh, but the Canaanite high god, El, (El Elyon, El Shaddai, et al) Yahweh was one of his 70 sons, along with Ba'al (fertility god) [which explains a lot of the rivalry obvious in the OT between Yahweh and Ba'al] Yahweh even took El's consort for his own (and it seems Ba'al did as well at one point, Asherah).

I'm not up on the UR stuff too much, but it seems to me that all apologetics are an exercise in sophistry, what I am familiar with anyway. Still, I believe that if you take ONLY scripture - it is apparent that Jesus is a false prophet, maybe the worst. It takes way to much twisting to make Jesus fit scripture... nope, it doesn't wash, and as Josh has said, it's actually a pretty shoddy job. (and think of all the editing time.. and they still mucked it up)

The modern myth of Jesus is pretty amazing actually... it doesn't even match scripture all that much as the majority of his questionable sayings are downplayed, and the disparity between what he preached and the OT is pretty much either ignored or explained away with feel good apologetics. Like it's blasphemous to even inquire into this stuff because his image might be sullied?

Well, like any public figure I think it's important to take a good hard look at this person who has won the hearts and minds of so many and see what's behind the curtain... because the truth of the matter is he wasn't all that nice, and his claims are against Yahweh's scripture and laws.

Of course since I don't subscribe to a god/man, or to Yahweh... it's an intellectual exercise for me... but I do empathize with those for whom this is hard to hear... even in the midst of, or early into deconversion... because the myth is pretty powerful... I know.

I delved into gnosticism for a while so this isn't really news to me, at least the concept that the 'god' we think we know may not be the right one (The Nag Hammadi has more on this, quite fascinating - but it seems to me a derivative of Zoroastrianism, still it's an intriguing concept).

The reason I started this thread was because I felt (don't have 'proof', just a hunch) that Jesus could actually be identified by scripture as an anti-christ (or at least a false prophet) and wanted to explore this possibility. I don't have a problem going there.. but I can see and understand that some might.

I'm interested to see where this goes.

Peace!

Interesting post Ravenstar. I'll reply asap. Got to go now...

Is Jesus The Anti-Christ?

Recommended Posts

Ravenstar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

par4dcourse

Ravenstar

Ravenstar

BlackCat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ravenstar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

par4dcourse

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SquareOne

Link to comment

Share on other sites

BlackCat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Overcame Faith

Link to comment

Share on other sites

duderonomy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

centauri

Link to comment

Share on other sites

BlackCat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

BlackCat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ravenstar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Kris

Link to comment

Share on other sites

centauri

Link to comment

Share on other sites

centauri

Link to comment

Share on other sites

BlackCat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Joshpantera

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Kris

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ravenstar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

BlackCat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Joshpantera

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ravenstar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Joshpantera

Link to comment

Share on other sites

BlackCat