Human sacrifice

[Zzyzx]

.
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.

However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."

How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"

[arian]

.
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.

However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."

How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"

Hello Zzyzx

We true Believers in the One God who is Creator of all things don't ask others to beat, torture or kill us. It's not like: "Hey, here I am, here is my family, anyone care to take us to the arenas to be eaten by lions? We are ready for martyrdom!"

But revealing the truth in religions, the hypocrisy, their senseless brutality in imposing their religions, their twisted doctrines, their corruption, their sexual abuses, their self-righteousness, now that can get anyone killed whether theist, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Satan worshiper, .. you name it.

[Divine Insight]

But revealing the truth in religions, the hypocrisy, their senseless brutality in imposing their religions, their twisted doctrines, their corruption, their sexual abuses, their self-righteousness, now that can get anyone killed whether theist, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Satan worshiper, .. you name it.

I think that would only get a person killed if they were so overly arrogant and cocky to claim to actually know the truth.

If they would simply confess that they have no clue what they are talking about and just choose to believe in something as a matter of personal faith the worst that is likely to happen to them is that they'll get laughed at.

If you're still getting crucified at that point the people who are crucifying you would probably crucify anyone for anything.

Religious "martyrdom" is actually egotistical arrogance. Arrogance that the martyr thinks they know the "truth" of God and God is on their side whilst supposedly others don't have a clue.

When people start acting like that it's even hard to feel sorry for when they are persecuted for their egotistical arrogance. All they had to do was confess that they have no clue.

[bluethread]

That said, if you are only interested in what is written in those "fables", then present them, not your biased spin on them.

I already did. I did not put any biased spin on them. Like Christian fundamentalists I'm quite content with accepting the Bible for what it literally has to say. No spin required.

Then, where does it literally say that the Scribes and Pharisees are priests? In fact, where can one find scribes or Pharisees even mentioned in HaTorah?

Well, there your are correct. The Preists are in charge of the temple and the Sanhedrin was chaired by the Cohen HaGadol. However, they were not permitted to change HaTorah. They were a multi-sectarian court that was to provide interpretation and enforcement. No one sect or trade, ie the Pharisees or the scribes, controlled it. In fact, as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the time of Yeshua the Sadducees had the most power and the Herodians the most sway with the Romans.

Irrelevant. Jesus wasn't supporting any form of orthodox Judaism. On the contrary Jesus himself was in denial of the ancient texts. He clearly rejected the judging of others and the stoning to death of sinners. He also rejected an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and instead preached to turn the other cheek. He actually did that via direct reference.

Oh, so when the point you have been arguing all along is shown for the third or fourth time to be wrong, you call that point irrelevant and change the subject.

Ok, let's look at what Yeshua supported.

Mt 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy , but to fulfil . For verily I say unto you, Till * heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till * all be fulfilled ."

Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Mt. 22:36-40 "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it * , Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Lk 16:17 "(I)t is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Here we see Yeshua supporting HaTorah. Now, your assignment should be easy. Show how these do not support HaTorah and/or present other passages where you believe that He violate HaTorah and we will examine them.

Jesus also gave them this position by honoring their temples as being the temples of God. Typically if you don't agree that someone is worshiping your God you just renounce their temples as being those of false Gods. Jesus didn't do that.

Jesus recognized the Jewish Pharisees as being the caretakers of God's temple

.

It's all in the New Testament.

Where does it say that it was the Pharisees Temple? It is my understanding that it is Adonai's Temple or if one is talking about titles, it was Herod's Temple. Last time I checked Herod was not a Pharisee, thus the Herodian sect.

If Jesus was in "harmony" with any Jewish Priests why isn't that documented in the Gospels. Nowhere in the Gospels do we see Jesus being supported by any Jewish Priests from any sect.

It seems to me that if you want to twist these ancient fables into that kind of story then the burden of proof to show evidence for that is on your shoulders, not on mine.

I'm going by what the Gospel stories actually say. And the Gospel stories don't have any temple priests coming to the defense of Jesus.

No, no, no, you referred to "their temples" and that Yeshua recognized the Pharisees as the caretakers of The Temple. Prove It! I would repeat the evidence to the contrary, but you just called it irrelevant. If it is irrelevent why are you raising the point again.

Modern day Jews and Christians can't go back and rewrite those ancient fables to suit their modern day make-believe religions.

Jesus recognized the Jewish Priests of his day to be in charge of God's temple. That's the bottom line.

Neither can you. Please, could you just follow the TOS and present some references. Yes, the Preists were in charge of the Temple, but one did not have to be a priest to be a scribe or Pharisee. You are conflating several concepts here. There is overlap, but they are different things.

And you haven't shown where any Jewish priests came to the defense of Jesus or supported him in any way. Where were these priests that you speak of when the priests referred to in the gospels were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus?

I don't see where you have a biblical page to stand on.

Ah make a statement that presumes the point. Then, if you get a response ya or nay, you move on as if your point has been proven. Can you proviude a passage where Yeshua addresses the preists? Again, if it is not relevant that being a preist is not the same as being a scribe or Pharisee, then why are you trying to draw the preists into this discussion?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

In fact, I always ask why Jesus didn't just rebuke those Pharisees as having nothing to do with God?

The reason he didn't do that is because, as I stated, they were Jews and therefore were, as Jews, responsible for the preservation of the Scriptures.

Jesus was a Jew too, but even he didn't preserve the scriptures. He renounced the judging of others and the stoning to death of sinnners. He also renounced an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth directly and instead he preached to turn the other cheek.

If Jesus was responsible for the preservation of the scriptures he wasn't doing a very good job of it.

But that's not the biblical story. So we can't change that now. Those Jewish Priests had to be "God's Priest". In fact, that's yet another argument that I make against these ancient fables. Why in the world would an almighty God allow his own priests to become corrupt? It's utterly absurd.

The "biblical story" is that the Priest are in charge of the Temple and the copies of HaTorah in the Temple. However, the only things that the priests have in common are their tribe, the particular families, the duties assigned to each of those families and the course that they serve in. A Preist could be of any of many sects. The duties of Scribe are not listed among those of the Priests. In fact, as I have stated before, HaTorah requires the King to write his own copy of HaTorah and read it out loud once every seven years. Also, every set of parents is required to teach HaTorah to their children. So, the preservation of the Scriptures and the duties of the Priests are two different things.

Tell Jesus, don't tell me. Jesus is the one who was ranting about the scribes and Pharisees. And there is nowhere in the Gospels where Jesus commends any scribes or Jewish sect for having done anything right.

I ask you again, why is there no mention of these Jews that you claim were doing things right? Why are they not mentioned in the Gospels. It seems to me if there was a good Jewish sect who were doing right by God that would be worth pointing out by God's only begotten son.

Yet there is nothing in those scriptures to back up your unsupportable claims.

So I am not making any "accusations" toward any modern day Christians or Jews. That's your mistake. And I want no parts of it.

The written Bible and the Gospels are extreme contradictions and absurdities and there's nothing any modern day Christian or Jew can do to change that.

The accusations you are making are toward the Christian and Jewish heritage. Your penitent for speaking in generalities and only narrowing them when forced does not lend itself very well to productive discussion. It is an effective debate tactic when the listener fails to ask for specifics. However, I have repeatedly asked for specifics and you have either dropped the point or continued with other unsubstantiated statements. Just stating things like "The written Bible and the Gospels are extreme contradictions and absurdities" does not make it so. One is required, at least in this forum, to substantiate ones statements with examples and/or references. I have addressed each of your unsubstantiated points with examples and/or references. So, when you decide to discuss what is actually in the Scriptures, I stand ready to respond.

You haven't brought up anything specific to discuss. All you have offered is unsubstantiated personal opinions that there supposedly existed Jewish Priests who were in harmony with the teachings of Jesus and supported his views.

Again, I ask you. SHOW ME where your claims are stated in the scriptures.

I don't see where there were any Jewish authorities or priests taking Jesus' side in any of the Gospels stories. I don't see any Jewish Priests speaking out against the Pharisees other than Jesus himself. I don't see any Jewish Priests defending Jesus when the Pharisees are calling for his crucifixion. I don't see Pontius Pilate consulting with any Jewish priests other than these ones who called for the crucifixion of Jesus. I don't see any Jewish priests in the gospels who were in charge of the Temple who welcomed Jesus with open arms in complete agreement with his views on the religion.

So if you wish to claim otherwise the burden of producing scriptures that show that there were Jewish Priests at the Temple supporting Jesus is on your shoulders.

I can't be expected to prove that negative.

You need to show scriptural evidence for your claims.

So show me where the Scriptures have any Jewish Priests at the Jewish Temples supporting Jesus and supporting his views in any major way.

If you can't do that, then I see no reason to accept your unwarranted and non-scriptural claims.

If the story went the way you'd like for it to have gone it would have been a story where the Jewish Priests themselves were divided. Some calling for the crucifixion of Jesus on charges of blaspheme, and the other group supporting that Jesus has the correct view of the HaTorah.

But that is NOT the gospel story.

So trying to make it the Gospel story now is a bit belated.

[bluethread]

That said, if you are only interested in what is written in those "fables", then present them, not your biased spin on them.

I already did. I did not put any biased spin on them. Like Christian fundamentalists I'm quite content with accepting the Bible for what it literally has to say. No spin required.

Then, where does it literally say that the Scribes and Pharisees are priests? In fact, where can one find scribes or Pharisees even mentioned in HaTorah?

Well, there your are correct. The Preists are in charge of the temple and the Sanhedrin was chaired by the Cohen HaGadol. However, they were not permitted to change HaTorah. They were a multi-sectarian court that was to provide interpretation and enforcement. No one sect or trade, ie the Pharisees or the scribes, controlled it. In fact, as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the time of Yeshua the Sadducees had the most power and the Herodians the most sway with the Romans.

Irrelevant. Jesus wasn't supporting any form of orthodox Judaism. On the contrary Jesus himself was in denial of the ancient texts. He clearly rejected the judging of others and the stoning to death of sinners. He also rejected an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and instead preached to turn the other cheek. He actually did that via direct reference.

Oh, so when the point you have been arguing all along is shown for the third or fourth time to be wrong, you call that point irrelevant and change the subject.

Ok, let's look at what Yeshua supported.

Mt 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy , but to fulfil . For verily I say unto you, Till * heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till * all be fulfilled ."

Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Mt. 22:36-40 "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it * , Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Lk 16:17 "(I)t is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Here we see Yeshua supporting HaTorah. Now, Mr. Phelps , your assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to show how these do not support HaTorah and/or present other passages where you believe that He violate HaTorah and we will examine them. As always, should you or any of your team be caught in an error there will no doubt be a disavowal of any knowledge of your actions. (This message will self destruct in 30 seconds)

Jesus also gave them this position by honoring their temples as being the temples of God. Typically if you don't agree that someone is worshiping your God you just renounce their temples as being those of false Gods. Jesus didn't do that.

Jesus recognized the Jewish Pharisees as being the caretakers of God's temple

.

It's all in the New Testament.

Where does it say that it was the Pharisees Temple? It is my understanding that it is Adonai's Temple or if one is talking about titles, it was Herod's Temple. Last time I checked Herod was not a Pharisee, thus the Herodian sect.

If Jesus was in "harmony" with any Jewish Priests why isn't that documented in the Gospels. Nowhere in the Gospels do we see Jesus being supported by any Jewish Priests from any sect.

It seems to me that if you want to twist these ancient fables into that kind of story then the burden of proof to show evidence for that is on your shoulders, not on mine.

I'm going by what the Gospel stories actually say. And the Gospel stories don't have any temple priests coming to the defense of Jesus.

No, no, no, you referred to "their temples" and that Yeshua recognized the Pharisees as the caretakers of The Temple. Prove It! I would repeat the evidence to the contrary, but you just called it irrelevant. If it is irrelevent why are you raising the point again.

Modern day Jews and Christians can't go back and rewrite those ancient fables to suit their modern day make-believe religions.

Jesus recognized the Jewish Priests of his day to be in charge of God's temple. That's the bottom line.

Neither can you. Please, could you just follow the TOS and present some references. Yes, the Preists were in charge of the Temple, but one did not have to be a priest to be a scribe or Pharisee. You are conflating several concepts here. There is overlap, but they are different things.

And you haven't shown where any Jewish priests came to the defense of Jesus or supported him in any way. Where were these priests that you speak of when the priests referred to in the gospels were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus?

I don't see where you have a biblical page to stand on.

Ah make a statement that presumes the point. Then, if you get a response ya or nay, you move on as if your point has been proven. Can you provide a passage where Yeshua addresses the priests? Again, if it is not relevant that being a priest is not the same as being a scribe or Pharisee, then why are you trying to draw the priests into this discussion?

Jesus was a Jew too, but even he didn't preserve the scriptures. He renounced the judging of others and the stoning to death of sinnners. He also renounced an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth directly and instead he preached to turn the other cheek.


If Jesus was responsible for the preservation of the scriptures he wasn't doing a very good job of it.

He was preserving HaTorah. First, presuming you are talking about "Judge not lest you be not judged", He was not saying that there should be no courts. If that were the case, I am sure you would be finding fault with Him for not supporting justice. What Yeshua is talking about is being judgmental. This is part of the second greatest commandment. "Thou shalt not avenge , nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am Adonai."

Second, if you are referring to the woman accused of adultery, even though the trial was a violation of HaTorah, Yeshua humored them by applying the requirements of a proper trial. Since, there were not witnesses who would throw the first stone, no stoning could take place.

Third, again the eye for an eye commandment refers to judicial proceedings. What Yeshua was referring to was the actions of the victim, not the court. Yeshua was pointing out that the principle of equity in judicial judgments, does not require the victim to file suit. The turn the other cheek part has to do with applying the second greatest commandment to that fact.

So, in each of these cases He was reinforcing HaTorah by applying it properly.

The "biblical story" is that the Priest are in charge of the Temple and the copies of HaTorah in the Temple. However, the only things that the priests have in common are their tribe, the particular families, the duties assigned to each of those families and the course that they serve in. A priest could be of any of many sects. The duties of Scribe are not listed among those of the priests. In fact, as I have stated before, HaTorah requires the King to write his own copy of HaTorah and read it out loud once every seven years. Also, every set of parents is required to teach HaTorah to their children. So, the preservation of the Scriptures and the duties of the Priests are two different things.

Tell Jesus, don't tell me. Jesus is the one who was ranting about the scribes and Pharisees. And there is nowhere in the Gospels where Jesus commends any scribes or Jewish sect for having done anything right.

I ask you again, why is there no mention of these Jews that you claim were doing things right? Why are they not mentioned in the Gospels. It seems to me if there was a good Jewish sect who were doing right by God that would be worth pointing out by God's only begotten son.

Yet there is nothing in those scriptures to back up your unsupportable claims.

This started with me pointing out that the Jews were the caretakers of the commandments. Admittedly, they did not observe them perfectly, and Yeshua points out where the commandments were not interpreted correctly. However, Yeshua never said that HaTorah was wrong. Just because Yeshua answered the inquiries of the Scribes and the Pharisees, and pointed out where they were applying it wrong, does not mean that HaTorah was not properly preserved. I did not claim that anyone but Yeshua observed HaTorah properly, but Yeshua never disagreed with HaTorah.

You haven't brought up anything specific to discuss. All you have offered is unsubstantiated personal opinions that there supposedly existed Jewish Priests who were in harmony with the teachings of Jesus and supported his views.

Again, I ask you. SHOW ME where your claims are stated in the scriptures.

No, I did not make that claim. First, I claimed that the Scribes and Pharisees were not necessarily priests. In fact, Paul was a Pharisee and he was a Benyamite not a Levite. (Phil. 3:4b-5) "If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;",

Second, I claimed that maintaining HaTorah is the responsibility of every Isrealite. (Deut. 6:6-9) "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down , and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates."

Third, that Yeshua never disagreed with HaTorah, though He did disagree with how certain sects interpreted them. I have explained how the passages that you appeared to be eluding to, but never referenced, were examples not of Yeshua disagreeing with HaTorah, affirming it.

Those are my assertions and the support for them.

You need to show scriptural evidence for your claims.

So show me where the Scriptures have any Jewish Priests at the Jewish Temples supporting Jesus and supporting his views in any major way.

If you can't do that, then I see no reason to accept your unwarranted and non-scriptural claims.

If the story went the way you'd like for it to have gone it would have been a story where the Jewish Priests themselves were divided. Some calling for the crucifixion of Jesus on charges of blaspheme, and the other group supporting that Jesus has the correct view of the HaTorah.

But that is NOT the gospel story.

So trying to make it the Gospel story now is a bit belated.

That was not my claim and what I do claim is not dependent upon showing that.
That is the strawman claim that you would like to argue against. I have clearly set out my claims and clearly set out my support for them. You are free to challenge them, but you are not free to require me to defend what you speculate with regard to them.

[Divine Insight]

Then, where does it literally say that the Scribes and Pharisees are priests? In fact, where can one find scribes or Pharisees even mentioned in HaTorah?

Who cares? I'm not hung up on the terms "Scribes and Pharisees". That's your argument.

I'm saying that the Jewish chief priests were the ones who condemned Jesus according to the New Testament.


Luke 23:


[1] And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
[2] And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
[3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
[4] Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.
[5] And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.
[6] When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
[7] And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
[8] And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.
[9] Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.
[10] And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.
[11] And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
[12] And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.
[13] And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,
[14] Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:
[15] No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.
[16] I will therefore chastise him, and release him.
[17] (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
[18] And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:
[19] (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)
[20] Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.
[21] But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
[22] And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.
[23] And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
[24] And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

You can find these claims of the chief priests accusing Jesus in the book of John as well. If these weren't specifically the scribes and pharisees it makes no difference.

This is the Gospel story. I don't see how you can argue for Christianity when you don't even realize that according to the New Testament it was indeed the chief priests of the Jews who were demanding the crucifixion of Jesus. There's no getting around it.

If you don't like it, then you don't like Christianity. Don't look at me I didn't write these stories.

Here we see Yeshua supporting HaTorah. Now, Mr. Phelps Cool , your assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to show how these do not support HaTorah and/or present other passages where you believe that He violate HaTorah and we will examine them. As always, should you or any of your team be caught in an error there will no doubt be a disavowal of any knowledge of your actions. (This message will self destruct in 30 seconds)

It's not mission impossible at all. On the contrary it's a piece of cake.

The Old Testament has God commanding the men are to judge others and stone sinners to death. You can't get stone someone to death for being a sinner if you don't first judge them to be a sinners.

It is well known that Jesus taught people not to judge others.

Matt.7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

How in the world are you supposed to judge other people to be sinners so that you can condemn them by stoning them to death if Jesus is teaching you not to judge or condemn others?

This is a direct blaspheme against the God of the Old Testament that commands that we are to judge sinners and stone them to death.

It's also well known that Jesus taught that we are not to cast the first stone. He rebuked the practice commanded by the Old Testament at the parable of the woman at the well.

Also, Jesus said the following which is a direct refutation of the Old Testament.

Matthew 5:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Well, where have we heard it said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? It's all through the Old Testament Scriptures. The WORD OF GOD.

Yet here Jesus is rebuking the word of God directly. He was committing blaspheme against the HaTorah.

Jesus was a blasphemer against the teachings of the HaTorah just as the Jewish chief priests rightfully accused him of doing.

And so here we have a fairytale where the supposed Son of God is an extreme blasphemer against the word of his own father. And we see this God's very own chief priests calling for the crucifixion of this God's son.

Something's drastically wrong.

My guess is that none of this has anything at all to do with any God and the whole thing is just superstitious religious baloney. That solves all problems.

If you want to try to keep this religion afloat, then you're the one who has a Mission Impossible to pull off.

[bluethread]

Then, where does it literally say that the Scribes and Pharisees are priests? In fact, where can one find scribes or Pharisees even mentioned in HaTorah?

Who cares? I'm not hung up on the terms "Scribes and Pharisees". That's your argument.

Well, when you hang your hat on Yeshua's responses to the Scribes and Pharisees and insist that He was apposing HaTorah, because you say they were preists, that is more than a matter of terminology. What the Scribes and Pharisees say is not Torah and what the priests say is not Torah. What HaTorah says is Torah.

I'm saying that the Jewish chief priests were the ones who condemned Jesus according to the New Testament.


Luke 23:


[1] And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
[2] And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
[3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
[4] Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.
[5] And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.
[6] When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
[7] And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
[8] And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.
[9] Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.
[10] And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.
[11] And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
[12] And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.
[13] And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,
[14] Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:
[15] No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.
[16] I will therefore chastise him, and release him.
[17] (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
[18] And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:
[19] (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)
[20] Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.
[21] But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
[22] And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.
[23] And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
[24] And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

You can find these claims of the chief priests accusing Jesus in the book of John as well. If these weren't specifically the scribes and pharisees it makes no difference.


This is the Gospel story. I don't see how you can argue for Christianity when you don't even realize that according to the New Testament it was indeed the chief priests of the Jews who were demanding the crucifixion of Jesus. There's no getting around it.

If you don't like it, then you don't like Christianity. Don't look at me I didn't write these stories.

See, you can post references after all. Now, I agree that the chief priests were corrupt and were involved in Yeshua's execution. However, I think that was because He was interfering with the partisan power structure, not because He was apposing HaTorah.

Here we see Yeshua supporting HaTorah. Now, Mr. Phelps Cool , your assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to show how these do not support HaTorah and/or present other passages where you believe that He violate HaTorah and we will examine them. As always, should you or any of your team be caught in an error there will no doubt be a disavowal of any knowledge of your actions. (This message will self destruct in 30 seconds)

It's not mission impossible at all. On the contrary it's a piece of cake.

The Old Testament has God commanding the men are to judge others and stone sinners to death. You can't get stone someone to death for being a sinner if you don't first judge them to be a sinners.

It is well known that Jesus taught people not to judge others.

Matt.7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

How in the world are you supposed to judge other people to be sinners so that you can condemn them by stoning them to death if Jesus is teaching you not to judge or condemn others?

This is a direct blaspheme against the God of the Old Testament that commands that we are to judge sinners and stone them to death.

Ok, let's finally get to it. Yeshua was clearly not saying that there should not be a court system. Just as here in these United States, there are many laws some of refer to capital crimes and many do not. Yeshua was not calling for anarchy, Hew was referring to the attitude of the victim. The Mt. 7 passage is not as clear, but the verse just before the one you quote in Luke make it clear that He is referring to thew golden rule and not the rule of law. In fact the golden rule is right there in verse 31. So, here He is not opposing HaTorah but applying the second greatest commandment to personal interaction.

It's also well known that Jesus taught that we are not to cast the first stone. He rebuked the practice commanded by the Old Testament at the parable of the woman at the well.

The woman at the well? You might want to check your reference on that. If you are referring to the woman accused of adultery, that was an illegal trial, but in spite of that, after being badgered, Yeshua went ahead and followed the commandments regarding due process. I can go through that in detail with you, if you like. Either way, He did not say that no one was to cast the first stone. He said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." He was clearly talking to the "witnesses", because according to HaTorah, it is they who must throw the first stone. No stone was thrown, so there were no reliable witnesses. Case closed, Torah preserved.

Also, Jesus said the following which is a direct refutation of the Old Testament.

Matthew 5:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Well, where have we heard it said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? It's all through the Old Testament Scriptures. The WORD OF GOD.

Yet here Jesus is rebuking the word of God directly. He was committing blaspheme against the HaTorah.

Jesus was a blasphemer against the teachings of the HaTorah just as the Jewish chief priests rightfully accused him of doing.

And so here we have a fairytale where the supposed Son of God is an extreme blasphemer against the word of his own father. And we see this God's very own chief priests calling for the crucifixion of this God's son.

Something's drastically wrong.

Yes, something is wrong and it is the fact that you did not include the entire quote. This is an other example of you applying a commandment regarding judicial proceedings and applying it to interpersonal relationships. To be fair, that is probably what some of the Pharisees were doing, since this is in the middle of a list of rabbinic interpretations. The verses following what you quoted makes this clear,

[40] And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
[41] If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
[42] Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

The fact that He refers to being sued shows that it is not implied in the principle to begin with. So, He is telling the victim to avoid trouble, including judicial proceedings, if at all possible. This is not a violation of HaTorah since HaTorah does not require the victim to sue or retaliate. It just gives judicial instructions.

My guess is that none of this has anything at all to do with any God and the whole thing is just superstitious religious baloney. That solves all problems.

If you want to try to keep this religion afloat, then you're the one who has a Mission Impossible to pull off.

The religion of the Scribes and the Pharisees, No. As Yeshua said, Mt. 5:20 "I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Now religion that is in accordance with HaTorah and the teachings Of Yeshua, that is a different story, and it is not impossible. In fact, HaTorah says, Deut. 30:11-14 "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."

[Divine Insight]

See, you can post references after all. Now, I agree that the chief priests were corrupt and were involved in Yeshua's execution. However, I think that was because He was interfering with the partisan power structure, not because He was apposing HaTorah.

And my position is vindicated. It doesn't matter what the motivations were. The story still has this God's chief priests calling for the crucifixion of his own son.

So this is still a God who can't even keep his own temple and chief priests in order.

This is a religion where a God sends his only begotten son to the change his own commandments (i.e. violate the HaTorah) something that this God himself proclaimed to be an act of blaspheme. And he has his own corrupt priests of his own temples and his own religion calling for the crucifixion.

As far as I'm concerned this is an absolutely absurd religion. It's a story of a God who can't keep his own church under control. Moreover, even if there were any truth to the fables of this inept God why should anyone believe that any church or priests can be trusted? This story of Jesus tells us that God's own temples and priests are corrupt and untrustworthy. If the Jewish Priests are corrupt then why should anyone trust the Catholic Papacy? And if the Catholic Papacy is corrupt why should anyone trust the Protestants who not only protest against the papacy but also protest against each others completely divisive views and claims about what this God supposedly wants?

In short, this is a God that no one can trust. Especially in terms of trusting anyone who preaches this religion or claims to speak for God.

This God would necessarily be the greatest fool that ever existed. And he would be completely untrustworthy and obviously inept. He can't even keep his own house in order.

The woman at the well? You might want to check your reference on that. If you are referring to the woman accused of adultery, that was an illegal trial, but in spite of that, after being badgered, Yeshua went ahead and followed the commandments regarding due process. I can go through that in detail with you, if you like. Either way, He did not say that no one was to cast the first stone. He said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." He was clearly talking to the "witnesses", because according to HaTorah, it is they who must throw the first stone. No stone was thrown, so there were no reliable witnesses. Case closed, Torah preserved.

I'm sorry bluethread but this case is nowhere near closed in the way that you have just imagined.

If the trial of the woman was an illegal trial why didn't Jesus just point that out? That would have been the intelligent thing to do and it would have made it perfectly clear what Jesus was talking about.

You say:

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." He was clearly talking to the "witnesses", because according to HaTorah, it is they who must throw the first stone. No stone was thrown, so there were no reliable witnesses. Case closed, Torah preserved.

This actually violates your claim that he was objecting to the trial being legitimate. Why would he tell anyone to cast the first stone if the trial was illegitimate? Even a person without sin would be out of line if the trial was illegitimate. So your apology here makes no sense.

Secondly you say, "No stone was thrown, so there were no reliable witnesses. Case closed, Torah preserved."

I say baloney. In fact, when I first read this parable it caused me to stop and think. Suppose I was actually there, and Jesus said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Would I pick up a stone and cast it at the woman? I consider myself to be without sin. But here is the irony. I would not pick up a stone and cast it at the woman precisely because I'm not the kind of person who would do something like that. That's when I realized how utterly stupid these words of Jesus truly are. People who are without sin don't go around accusing others of being sinners and wanting to stone them to death in the first place.

There more! I'm not done yet.

Jesus says, "He who is without sin cast the first stone"

If that was a criteria for stoning sinners to death, then this God should have never commanded men to stone sinners to death in the first place. Didn't this God know that there is no such thing as a sinless man in this religion?

So it comes full-circle. You can't claim that Jesus is clarifying God's Law when this law would make no sense in any case. If the only men who are permitted to stone someone to death in this religion that it would have been utterly foolish for God to have commended sinful men to stone anyone to death.

In fact, if you stop and think about this in the context of the entire bible and religious philosophy why would any omniscient perfect God who knows what's in the hearts and mind of reallocate the duty of judging men and stoning them to death to mere mortal humans who are themselves supposed to be sinner and certainly can't know what's in the hearts or minds of their fellow man.

This God should have never commanded men to pass judgments on each other in the first place. Much less to kill other men because of these judgements.

And isn't this the same God who had commanded men, "Thou shalt not kill?"

This religion is nothing but a complex web of extreme contradictions and absurdities. And clearly Jesus was trying to put an end to this absurd ideals.

If it was Jesus position that this trial was simply informal and needed to be done formally then he could have just said that. He could have just told this mob that if they want to press charges against the woman they would need to do so formally in a court of law and that would have been the end of it. To say, "He who is without sin cast the first stone" would have been an utterly foolish thing to say in this situation.

The religion of the Scribes and the Pharisees, No. As Yeshua said, Mt. 5:20 "I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

And this too is an extremely stupid thing for Jesus to have said. Jesus sat around and accused the Scribes and Pharisees of all many of sins and proclaimed them to be hypocrites of the highest order. Therefore what would it take for someone to surpass the righteousness of these corrupt hypocrites?

Not much.

And therefore telling someone that their righteousness needs to surpass the righteousness of this Pharisees that Jesus himself ranted against is hardly saying much.

Now religion that is in accordance with HaTorah and the teachings Of Yeshua, that is a different story, and it is not impossible. In fact, HaTorah says, Deut. 30:11-14 "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."

But according to Jesus no man can stone anyone to death ever unless they are completely without sin.

So Jesus just made it impossible to obey the HaTorah unless they are completely without sin.

In fact, I just showed how utterly absurd that is.

If I am to judge my neighbors to be sinners and cast the first stone because I am the accuser (even if done in a formal court of law), then two things are necessarily true.

1. I would myself need to be a sinner in order to obey this commandment. Therefore I should be stoned to death myself.

OR

2. Being without sin I could qualify to obey this commandment of God, but I would refuse to obey it. I have no desire to judge other people and stone them to death and I refuse. But now I have just become a sinner because I have refused to obey the command of God.

So the whole thing is an oxymoronic absurdity.

~~~~~~

Yes, something is wrong and it is the fact that you did not include the entire quote. This is an other example of you applying a commandment regarding judicial proceedings and applying it to interpersonal relationships. To be fair, that is probably what some of the Pharisees were doing, since this is in the middle of a list of rabbinic interpretations. The verses following what you quoted makes this clear,

[40] And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
[41] If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
[42] Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

The fact that He refers to being sued shows that it is not implied in the principle to begin with. So, He is telling the victim to avoid trouble, including judicial proceedings, if at all possible. This is not a violation of HaTorah since HaTorah does not require the victim to sue or retaliate. It just gives judicial instructions.

No. You're trying to make this into a modern legal matter and trying to claim that a person simply doesn't need to press charges if they don't want to. But that's not what the HaTorah says:

Leviticus 24:
[19] And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
[20] Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
[21] And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
[22] Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus isn't saying, "Hey you can be lenient on people if you want to, I'm just making some suggestions here concerning what you can ask for if you sue someone.

No, no, no.

This God is demanding that these things be done. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, no exceptions. Because this is the justice that this God is demanding.

It's not up to you do decide that you'll be more lenient than God.

So Jesus is flat-out rejecting the HaTorah here.

He is rejecting the commandments of the Jewish God, and instead he's preaching forgiveness and leniency.

How can you obey both? You can't obey both Jesus and the God of the HaTorah simultaneously. You can only follow the directives of one of them.

Jesus is telling you not to press charges at all and to even to the criminals favors. The God of the HaTorah is demanding consistent justice and does not leave any room for you to decide for a lesser action to take.

So I disagree with your apology.

Jesus was a blasphemer. He rejected the directives of the God of the HaTorah and instead preached leniency and forgiveness. Just the opposite of the God of the HaTorah.

Here's another example from the HaTorah to confrim my case:

Deuteronomy 19
[19] Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
[20] And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
[21] And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

"so shalt thou put the evil away from among you" and "And thine eye shall not pity". This is flat-out denying Jesus' plea for leniency and forgiveness. The idea being preached in the HaTorah is that you can't let people get away with things because you need to "Put the evil away from among you".

Jesus is rebelling against Deuteronomy 19:21.

Jesus refuses to obey the HaTorah and instead preaches leniency and forgiveness. Thus allowing the evil to continue to exist among you.

Jesus was preaching blaspheme against the HaTorah.

On a personal note I actually agree with the philosophy or Jesus above the philosophy of the HaTorah, but that's a totally moot point. Jesus was preaching against the teachings of the HaTorah and that is blaspheme against the word of God.

[1213]

.
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.

However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."

How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"

It is often said that soldier sacrificed his life for the country when he defended the country in battlefield. How is that different from the “pagan� sacrifices? I think same way as the sacrifice that Jesus and many his disciples have done.

[Divine Insight]

.
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.

However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."

How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"

It is often said that soldier sacrificed his life for the country when he defended the country in battlefield. How is that different from the “pagan� sacrifices? I think same way as the sacrifice that Jesus and many his disciples have done.

Unless you are willing to reduce God and Jesus to being as impotent and inept as mortal men this analogy can't be made to work.

To begin with very few soldiers go to war with the intention of dying. A rare case of that was the Kamikaze pilots of Japan. But that was an act of extreme desperation. What God that desperate?

Humans go to war because they are from from perfect, omnipotent and omniscience. They simply don't know how to solve problems diplomatically and peacefully. Shouldn't and omniscient God be above those mortal failings?

There should be no reason at all that an omnipotent omniscient God should need to do something as desperate as "sacrificing" his own son to win some imagined battle against sin for humans.

Who was this formidable enemy that forced this God to jump through such hoops of desperation? Satan? Is Satan so powerful that God had to have Jesus desperately become a Kamikaze pilot to save mankind?

Moreover, that's not even the biblical story. Jesus isn't saving us from Satan. On the contrary he's supposedly saving us from damnation by his own Fatherly God.

Here we have a God desperately sacrificing his own son to himself to appease himself of his own wrath.

Why should any rational person believe in such an absurd tale as this?

Why couldn't this God just simply forgive people of their sins straight-away. Why would he need to have them butcher his son on a pole first?

Some apologists argue that God had made promises that and laws that he has to honor, and therefore this was necessary for God to keep his promises and uphold his very own laws.

But think about that apology for a moment. This would be a God who painted himself into this corner of desperation where he is left with no other options but to sacrifice his only begotten son to pay for the sin of mankind.

Also, this is supposed to be an unchanging God. A God who can be trusted to never change in character. Yet in the Old Testament this God had absolutely no problem just drowning sinners out with a Great Flood. But now he has changed so dramatically that he now wants to sacrifice his only begotten son to save men.

There is absolutely no rational justification for this religion.

None whatsoever.

Comparing Jesus to human soldiers who go to war because it's the only option their limited mentality can deal with, is to do nothing other than proclaim that Jesus and God are just as inept as mortal men.

I would hope that if we send a solider off to war it's only because we have failed at every attempt to solve the problem wisely.

But with a supposedly all-wise God, there is no excuse for this God not to be able to solve his problems wisely.

So comparing Jesus with humans desperation to do war doesn't do the Biblical God any justice anyway.

IMHO, there is no sane divine apology for the crucifixion of Jesus. Period.

This religion is clearly nothing other than man-made fables that truly does express the desperation of men. Not any divine solution of a supposedly all-wise God.

If this were God's solution to this problem this God would be anything but intelligent.

[1213]

To begin with very few soldiers go to war with the intention of dying.

Yes, and yet it is said that they sacrificed their life. It does not mean that they intentionally wanted to kill themselves, I think it means they wanted to use their life for their nation and so they sacrificed it by going to defend their country and unfortunately died. Same is with Jesus; he came to use his life for us, by preaching the Gospel.

A rare case of that was the Kamikaze pilots of Japan. But that was an act of extreme desperation. What God that desperate?

No, the idea was not to get killed, but to preach the words of life. The death was expected side effect that fortunately helped, because it showed that death is not the end. Jesus knew God will raise him from death and therefore the death was just unpleasant temporary thing that cave to his disciples the courage to continue without fear.

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

Death served the cause, but it was not needed for forgiveness.

Why couldn't this God just simply forgive people of their sins straight-away. Why would he need to have them butcher his son on a pole first?

It seems to me that you have not even read the Bible, because it says:

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

So, it was possible to forgive sins even before Jesus died and therefore your claims seem to be absurd.