I do not wish to hurt anyone's sentiments here... but this is just my observation. It seems the people who call themselves followers of Jesus are opposing his very teachings, in favor of Paul's doctrines and teachings. As such they seem to be more of "Paulisians" rather than "Christians":

1) Many Christians relish the flesh of swine, even though it is vehemently forbidden in the Bible to do so.

"Of their flesh shall you not eat, nor touch their dead carcass." (Deut., 14:8)

"I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people who eat swine's flesh and broth of abominable things is in their vessels." (Isa., 66:2)

"Of their flesh thou shall not eat." (Mark, 5:11-16)

There is also an instance where Jesus considered swine to be of such a low category that he used them as dustbins to cast away the evil spirits. Maybe this act of the "Christians" comes from the advise of Paul to eat everything, unquestionably which a host has to offer to the guest. But surely a logical-minded Christian should examine this advise of Paul, rather than accepting it blindly and refuting all that was claimed by the earlier prophets and scriptures.

2) Jesus is considered to be divine, even an incarnation of God himself. Does the Bible really sanction that? The most often quoted verse in support of this theory is when Jesus is claimed to have said, " I and my Father are one". When a group is working together as a united team, they often claim, "we are working as one", "we are one" and so on. It means that the group is working towards the same goal, and does not mean that all the members of the group are the same person. Thus when Jesus said the above verse, he merely meant that he and the Father were one in their purpose and goal.

3) Why has Christianity been established as a seperate religion from Judaism, when Jesus said he had come to reaffirm the earlier scriptures and not destroy them?

4) Again, why do the Christians worship and pray to the crucifix and thus openly refute the ten commandments?

5) How did God sanction Jesus to die for the sins of all humanity, when God clearly states in the Old Testament that the sins of the father shall not be borne by the son and vice-versa? Should it not be easier for God to just forgive our sins by His mere will, rather than slaughtering an innocent soul for the purpose. Was God going back on his words?

6) Jesus spent all his life trying to imbibe the values of the ten commandments amongst the people. He also told his disciples to leave all worldly attachments and believe in the commandments. Why would he appear to Paul one day and tell him that all that a Christian would have to do is to believe that he (Jesus) is the Son of God and that he died for their sins, and his sins will be forgiven. Is this some kind of a shortcut for sanctioning more sin? So all that a Christian has to do is to continue sinning and then confess and ask for fogiveness.. Wouldn't it make much more sense to repent from the heart and repair that damage caused by that sin.. than just asking for forgiveness?

These questions make me raise my eyebrows and wonder whether the Christians are really following the Bible or indulging in mass hypocrasy.

All of your points are valid, IMO, except that one. The cross is not worshipped; It is just the symbol of Jesus. The force BEHIND the symbol is worshipped, not the symbol itself. A better example of your point would be rosary beads, saints, or Mary mother of Jesus.

Edit; removed redundant quote


Firstly, welcome to UM and great post.

As many of the members who know me here, they know that I also find alot of these things "non-biblical". I don't believe in the trinity, or praying to or having a crusafix. I have an old thread about the "Trinity" and I rebute alot of what is given as "evidence of a trinitarian God in the bible". I too agree, that when Jesus says "I and the Father are one", he does not mean one being.

Name me one religion that isn't hypocritical somewhere down the line.


Let me rephrase that. Name me one religion that doesn't have its hypocritical followers.

Arty are you saying they are one and the same, the follower and religon????

Freudian slip

Arty, I agree there are black sheep in every religion, intentionally, to meet their own selfish needs. But the case here is different as it is a case of misunderstanding the basic tenets of religion..

Go ahead...I'm listening

Which one came first J/K arty ha ha ha ha

Thanks for the attention Chum.. My argument in this regard is why do the Christians follow Paul (who was a vehement opposer of Jesus and his teachings earlier) and not the apostles who had direct association with the master himself, or better still, Jesus himself?

I think a lot of Christians take the parts they want to follow and apply that to their lives. Whether that's technically right or wrong I don't know. I personally believe the bible is mostly myth and only representative of the time the individual books were written, but that doesn't mean I think there aren't positive messages and lessons to be learned.

Interesting Arty

The part about eating the swine, refered to the Jews. I could be wrong, but the Bible/Jesus, does not meantion that his followers cannot eat swine fleash. Thats something the Jew had in their way of life.
.
.
Mark 5:11-16, which you quoted, does not say anything about eating/not eating pigs. I think you misquoted it, or meant another book in the bible.

I agree with this. I do not support the "3 in 1 god," thats a pagan idea that made it way into the Bible long after. Look at the Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma trinity in Hindu, and the Horus, Isis, and Ra (?) trinity in egyptian times.

Yes u maybe right. However, Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew. The Jewish High Priests of the time had been corrupting the commandments of God to suit their own needs. As such the faith of the people in the commandments was dwindling. In such a scenario Jesus came to reaffirm the people's faith in God and not to to alter the commandments. All through his life Jesus has been portrayed in the bible as being a devout Jew, in the real sense. Maybe the Jews of that time, broke most of the Lord's orders, but still refrained from eating swine. Hence Jesus must not have found it all that necessary to ask them to keep away from swines. But being a practising Jew himself, Jesus would have truly opposed any such actions by the people or his followers.

Moreover, it would be totally absurd to think God is so undecisive as to order some generations to keep away from pork and sanction the next generation to eat it.

Well jesus did say they would worship a dead man.

Well, Jesus, let us not forget, was also a prophet. So when he said they would worship a dead man, he was just foretelling what they would do in the future. It does not in the least sense justify what the Christians do by worshipping him. Read carefully. "they would worship a dead man" and not "they must worship a dead man".

It was a prophecy. Not a sanction.

Hi guys,

Interesting topic. I think, however, that what Jesus taught us, was not religious details, but a way of becoming personally and socially better. I believe that this is the reason the religion became so famous. Jesus was a complete "anarchist" of his time, implying a "free" society based on compassion and love for the next person.

Technicalities like fasting or praying is trivial and to my own understanding of things, irrelevant.

For the record, I am Greek-Orthodox, which is a pretty hardcore Christian order. meaning, they tend to do A LOT of useless things

Your right, it is absurd to think God ordered anyone to do anything.

Hmm...But wouldn't the cross still be considered a graven image?

Exodus 20:3-17
The 2nd commandment-Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the lord thy god am a jealous god.


~ADHD~

^^Perhaps. It depends on how it's used. Do they actively bow down and pray towards the cross? Some do, I'm sure. If they did though, it would be unbiblical. But just having a cross as a symbol - a reminder, if you will - of what Christ has done for them, I do not think that is unbiblical. Personally, I have no need for a cross emblazoned across the front of a church. In fact, the church I do attend only has one cross in the entire building - it's all of 12 inches tall and is glued to the front of the rarely used lectern

Regards, PA

You're right, but you can't blame Christians for choosing to obey parts of the bible and not others. To follow the bible as a whole would be to live as they did 2 to 5 thousand years agos.
That's not realistic.

To address a few points in this post. (An excellent subject BTW. )

Firstly, though it can not be proven, Jesus was said to be an Essene. A small Jewish sect originating in approximately the 2nd Century B.C.

Re: Graven Images, and the Crucifix in and Catholic Faith. Catholics do not, nor have they ever worshiped the Crucifix. (Link)

Re: The Second Commandment. A fascinating read, considering there are so many interpretations as to the import of that particular edict. However, with respect to the aforementioned hypocrisy of religion and believers, consider that in Genesis god says , with respect to the creation of Humans, let us create them in our image and in our likeness. Implying a polytheistic pantheon of creator god's. Further, if god were the only Deity in the myth, why would it be necessary for him to then claim to be a jealous god if he is the only god, which he can not be by "his own words", in the aforementioned Book of Genesis.
With respect to the Graven Images prohibition, I think it important to remember the history and the context of this commandment. The Jews made the exodus out of Egypt. A polytheistic culture where idols and icons were a matter of course. Consequently to liberate ones self from that past and the slavery that culture and it's god's imposed on a people, it is only natural to prohibit anything reminiscent of the practice(s) that enslaved them. (And remember when the people were frightened because Moses had not returned from the Mountain, they reverted to those old ways and melted down their gold and erected a Molten Calf (or Bull) of Aaron. Which in itself is a potent Icon of the ancient Israelites, because the Bull was a symbol and a part of an agrarian culture. ) *Some claim the ancient Israelites created a Bull Idol because of their familiarity with the Egyptian Bull God "AP". However it is highly speculative considering the Israelites had just made their exodus from a culture that enslaved them it would be redundant to then pay homage to the god of their former masters.

Firstly regarding the 'Paul' issue here is a site for you to look at;
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/paul


Firstly, Jesus did sanction the eating of any food wished in Mark 7 v 18-19. He states here:
18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

Secondly, There are many instances where Jesus claims to be God, other than the one you have mentioned, see; http://www.probe.org/content/view/90/77/

Thirdly The dying son issue, does not apply to God any way. "The sins of the father shall not be borne by the son", Well God the Father is sinless and his son Y'shua died for humanities sins and not his fathers! Also a clear understanding of the sacraficial system understood by the jews may be of benefit to you.
Quote from http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Lamb-of-God.html
Question: "What does it mean that Jesus is the Lamb of God?"
Answer: When Jesus is called the Lamb of God in John 1:29 and John 1:36 it is in reference to His being the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for sin. In order to understand who Christ was and what He did we must begin with the Old Testament, which contains prophecies concerning the coming of Christ as an “offering for sin” (Isaiah 53:10). In fact the whole sacrificial system established by God in the Old Testament set the stage for the coming Jesus Christ, who is the perfect sacrifice that God would provide as atonement for the sins of His people (Romans 8:3; Hebrews 10).

The sacrifice of lambs played a very important role in the Jewish religious life and their sacrificial system. When John the Baptist referred to Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), the Jews who heard him might have immediately thought of any one of several important sacrifices. With the time of the Passover Feast being very near the first thought might be the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb. The Passover Feast was one of the main Jewish holidays and a celebration in remembrance of when God delivered the Israelites from bondage in Egypt. In fact the slaying of the Passover lamb and the applying of blood to door posts of the houses in order for the death angel to pass over those people who are “covered by the blood” (Exodus 12:11-13) is a beautiful picture of Christ’s atoning work on the cross. See also

Also Christians do not pray to or worship a Crucifix etc they merely serve as reminders of the faith we have. They are symbols not objects of worship!

And finally no where is it implied that only asking for forgiveness absolves ones sins. Repentance from the heart is indeed required as you suggest! Merely wanting forgiveness does not mean one has repented. A clear understanding of what to 'repent' actually means is therefore required. Find it here..... http://www.theopedia.com/Repentance

A thoroughly good read and thankfully not spoiled as many threads are.

Considering myself...... I am certainly not religious in any way (to my knowledge), and any ritual I perform is purely down to OCD rather than anything else.

I agree with the two quotes above, and suggest that if a world changing event happened on the scale where the human race is forced into tribes rather than society I would try and use what skills convienience has taken away from me.

Namely I would create shelter, establish some method to gather food and look to communicate and gather friends or potential friends.

Law no longer exists, but a belief in law exists from not losing history as the generations expand, so you would presume like minded tribes would have their rules.

Writing would not be lost. The question of the dominant language should a world event happen is well..... anyone`s guess.

I would want to be known. I would like to be known now, so chances are books would be written within tribes.

Fast forward to someone collating these books into the widely (as the known world of that time) accepted model.

The majority of us have some interest in subjects such as genealogy, so this book would be similar as...... how we came to be from the start.

Of course I would submit subtle messages, my personal beliefs etc....,

Is it possible this would grow, and given the world events happening that a book some 5000 miles away would be `similar`?

Just a thought and tieing into Earth civilisation history. Something that I do have an interest in (although not an understanding).

regards,

R47

When Jesus cast out "Legion" from this one man, he sent the demon(s) into a number of pigs - that DROWNED in the ocean. That does mean he killed those pigs doesn't it?

It isn't always about one 'eating' flesh, it's using it like it's a medium to cast out evil that I was concerned about. How do you think all of the fish came to the surface that Peter was trying to come up with - when he was on the boat with Jesus?

How do you think all of those fish died?

the demon did. If you believe the text.

Sure, before they were going to kill that man at some point or drive him insane. It was known that he was pleading Jesus for him not to send him to Hell, which (obviously wasn't him it was 'Legion'>). So, that whole thing about using pigs to cast a demon out - even though that seems like a good thing, it still means something has to die in order for there to be some form of justice.

Justice of the peace if you will...

what are you saying here?

IF a Christian is openly opposing Jesus, look at the ways it would imply that if animals/fish were used as a form of healing. Not just 'eating of the flesh' by itself, but in the ways that death has to come to something (animal/fish ect)-( remeber the story of Cain ), it has to in a way it helps.

Your words match up withthose of Stephen in Acts, when he reviews Hebrew history and points out by using quotes that God never asked for animals sacrifices or for buildings to be built for him as houses for God.

All that was given was health advice and a code of ethics and morality which was what Jeus was restoring in his teachings. That was what had been lost and replaced with rituals and religious laws that were refered to as "walls" to keep people away from the presence of God.

OK, so taking that analogy of the Demons, Legion as in "Many", so it was not just one Demon, hence the herd of swine Legion was banished into. And these swine were then drowned in the sea. However a Demon(s) is an ethereal spirit, so one can not kill the spirit by drowning it's host. (Think of mortal death and soul here as a corollary).

So if the swine were damned for hosting the demon, then when the damned swine drowned in the sea of fishes, the demon(s)/spirits , would have dispersed in the sea's with the drowning of the swine. Therefore, would not the fish be defiled as well as the swine?

The fish, ^ if I may say so ^ that were 'caught' in Peters net, when he was fishing with Jesus, I really doubt can be considered defiled. But, how did they die? It wasn't meant so they were to be some medium to cast out any demon(s), but to feed the hungry. So, being considered a miracle> if you can call it that - those fish did die.

How do you kill a school of fish to feed the hungry, without it being considered someway defiling nature???
That is more like my big question there....

[quote name='tags' date='Mar 15 2006, 08:23 PM' post='1105508']
Firstly regarding the 'Paul' issue here is a site for you to look at;
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/paul
Firstly, Jesus did sanction the eating of any food wished in Mark 7 v 18-19. He states here:
18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")[/quote]

Mark7 : 1 states "The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2 saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed." Thus when Jesus said the verse u r referring to, it was in the context of unclean hands, ie; anything eaten with unclean hands (unclean as in Jewish customs) could not make one unclean. He surely could not have sanctioned all pork (or any unlawful food) as lawful, as God had already declared it unlawful to eat. If Jesus had done so, he would have no right to criticise the Pharisees for being hypocrites and going against God, cause he would have done the same himself.

[quote]
Secondly, There are many instances where Jesus claims to be God, other than the one you have mentioned, see; http://www.probe.org/content/view/90/77/[/quote]

In all the instances, Jesus never claims to be God, but only says that he is the Christ, the long-awaited messiah. He also quotes in once instance that he of his own accord could do nothing.

"My Father is greater than I", "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father." (John 16:28) all these quotes portray that he did not equate himself with God, but considered himself to be born on earth to fulfill a mission.

Again the articles states, "In the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas and some priests and soldiers are about to take Jesus prisoner. "Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to Him, went out and asked them, 'Who is it that you want?' 'Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'I AM,' Jesus said.(John 18:4). It uses the "I AM" words to denote that God used the same words to describe himself to Moses. But it is plain to see from the above excerpt that the "I AM" stand for "I am Jesus of Nazareth". Merely writing "I AM" in capital letters does not mean Jesus claims to be God. Also in the previous instance in his life whenever he answered as "I am", it was to the question of him being the "Christ" or "Messiah"

[quote]
Thirdly The dying son issue, does not apply to God any way. "The sins of the father shall not be borne by the son", Well God the Father is sinless and his son Y'shua died for humanities sins and not his fathers! Also a clear understanding of the sacraficial system understood by the jews may be of benefit to you.
Quote from http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Lamb-of-God.html
Question: "What does it mean that Jesus is the Lamb of God?"
Answer: When Jesus is called the Lamb of God in John 1:29 and John 1:36 it is in reference to His being the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for sin. In order to understand who Christ was and what He did we must begin with the Old Testament, which contains prophecies concerning the coming of Christ as an “offering for sin” (Isaiah 53:10). In fact the whole sacrificial system established by God in the Old Testament set the stage for the coming Jesus Christ, who is the perfect sacrifice that God would provide as atonement for the sins of His people (Romans 8:3; Hebrews 10).

The sacrifice of lambs played a very important role in the Jewish religious life and their sacrificial system. When John the Baptist referred to Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), the Jews who heard him might have immediately thought of any one of several important sacrifices. With the time of the Passover Feast being very near the first thought might be the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb. The Passover Feast was one of the main Jewish holidays and a celebration in remembrance of when God delivered the Israelites from bondage in Egypt. In fact the slaying of the Passover lamb and the applying of blood to door posts of the houses in order for the death angel to pass over those people who are “covered by the blood” (Exodus 12:11-13) is a beautiful picture of Christ’s atoning work on the cross.[/quote]

The quote "The sins of the father shall not be borne by the son", is a specification of a more generic sense, that each person is responsible for his own sin and also its repentance. The term does not just apply to the Father-Son relationship. Why would the all-merciful God let an innocent soul be killed for all our sins? If God did that, do u think it would be fair to call him impartial, just and merciful?

It is often preached that the only means of salvation is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that he died for our sins. Even if we agree that this may be true, what about all the people who lived before the birth of Jesus, including the prophets? Do they not receive salvation, however good work they may have done?


[quote]
Also Christians do not pray to or worship a Crucifix etc they merely serve as reminders of the faith we have. They are symbols not objects of worship![quote]

Then why is the Cross placed inside a church? Why do Christians burn candles and incense in front of a crucifix? Why do they kiss the feet of the body of christ on the cross and pray?

[quote]
And finally no where is it implied that only asking for forgiveness absolves ones sins. Repentance from the heart is indeed required as you suggest! Merely wanting forgiveness does not mean one has repented. A clear understanding of what to 'repent' actually means is therefore required. Find it here..... http://www.theopedia.com/Repentance[/quote]

Third to last paragraph ^ How is it people before Jesus really knew what salvation truly meant if there were no other 'son of God' back then? You think it would take one? I doubt it - because there was a lot of trials / tribualtions, lessons, ect being taught back then enough that some would absolutely have to know what true salvation really is....

So your asking if they had one - a son of God then - what is it they truly meant about having salvation?

How is it defiling nature? We do as all the animals do, we survive. We as humans have perfected the art of nuance in constrast to most animal species. We overthink our natural instincts and add words like evil or good. The scriptures were created on those principles.

Jeusus was not an Essene. He was a member of the Nazarene sect that was centered in the Galillee area. There was no city of Nazareth at that time. He was Jesus of the Nazarene, not Jesus of Nazareth. Some try to expolate that the term Nazarene mearly meant one put aside separately, not the same as the sect of the Nazarene, which is splitting hairs since they are in essence saying the same as that if someone who is refered to as practicing Judaism it does not mean that person is a Jew.

The most prominent and powerful Essenes were called the Herodians by the Nazarenes because they were Herod's favored pet sect.

These Essenes disliked Jesus as much as the Pharisee sect and plotted together with the Pharisees against the Nazarene. The Essenes embraced hereditary rule through religion like the Sadducees, but considered themselves the true rulers and the Sadducee sect as imposters put into place by the Maccabee rulers.

“Beware the leaven of the Sadducees and Herodians,” Jesus said.

There were no Jews at this point in time.
They considered themselves Hebrews. Those who lived in Judea were called Judeans and not Jews.
The Pharisees were the founders of the modern Jewish faith.
So technically Jesus was never a Jew, as he was never a Pharisee or in his time even considered a true Judean.
Calling Jesus a Jew is commonly used to remind people that he did not practice anything remotely resembling todays mainstream Christian religions, and to avoid antisemitic slander against modern Jews.

Sumzworld

I can only give my opinion here because I feel its usually a circular arguement at times where scripture is concerned.

Genesis: 9:3
"Every moving thing that lives shall be meat for you; even in the same way as the green herbs I have given you all things."

Its my opinion that the Jews were forbidden from eating certain things only because of the affects those particular foods might have on them. When your living in the searing heat I would say that pork and such things could most certainly make you sick. Certain food very possibly could have caused them die.

In regards to the symbolism of the cross; it is my opinion that it was strickly symbolism.
Jesus says in Matt16:24 "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his own cross and follow me."
I see his crucifixtion as a symbol of death of the spirit and the resurrection as a symbol of new life in spirit. It is something we can all achieve through ourselves by bearing our own cross in this life.

Originally I believe there were 610 commandments. I can't imagine trying to follow all those. Jesus raised the playing field as far as the commandments are concerned. He said if one even thinks about adultery he has already commited it. He also says at one point, "it is not what goes in the mouth that defiles a man it is what comes out, this is what defiles a man." Its just my opinion that he was showing people that it isn't about simply following commandments physically its about transforming your mind and heart.

Even when I was a Christian I never took Paul's words over Jesus. He was inconsistent with Jesus's teachings. However now that I am an ex-Christian I see Jesus's life as inspiring but I don't think the bible should be the holy grail of anyone's life. There are too many questionable things and inconsistencies. You mentioned possible inconsistencies in perception, inconsistencies in the written word are abundant in the bible as well. Just my thoughts. But to each his own as long as he does not harm another or enforce it on another.

Yes.
They did not want to be sent back to where they had come from, so they were put into pigs to live out the rest of the pigs' lives trapped within them, a humbling taste of what it feels like to be powerless, helpless, creature who is slaughtered and fed on by more powerful creatures, much as they choose to treat mankind.
They chose death and to drown the animals they were trapped inside of to escape rather than face even a few prolonged moments of that type of existence.

Much like the wealthy who were happy to cause mass poverty among averge folks before the stock market crash of 1929, but chose suicide rather than share the same fate of poverty when the crash came.

I agree But as far as swine go, I'm sure the people of those times were practiced at the art of curing meat. Wild swine eat anything and are visibly dirty and knarly looking, not to mention mean, its not suprising they chose not to eat it.

No. Nothing has to die for there to be justice. That is primitive ritualistic thinking that has no relationship to applied law and justice based upon ethics and morality.

Yeah it doesn't suprise me either...when I see them trouncing around in the mud, yucky. Even though my mother was Jewish and did make pork in our house my grandparents used to serve it. I never liked it anyway. I thought it was yucky and yucky was enough for me.

Well I love it, modern day pig anyway. Can you say BABY BACK RIBS!

Whos ethics and morality,- are you speaking for God or from your own point of view here?
Because God states that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, hence the sacrificial system.

What is the similarity between Jews slaughtering animals as repentence for their sin, Christians believing Jesus had to die for their sins to be forgiven and the primitive Hindu practice of slaughtering animals and sometimes even humans to appease Goddess Kali and atone for their sins? All three believe in using sinless, innocent people or animals as proxy, to save their own skins. And while the former two are hailed as noble acts, the latter is paraded as barbarism. It is high time we realise that the only sacrifice that God asks from us is the sacrifice of our immoral thoughts, words and deeds. God can forgive our sins by his mere will. Why will He want any blood shed to redeem sins? Is God answerable to anyone else? If Jesus could tell a person that his sins are forgiven, isn't it logical to think that God can do so too, even more easily?

Youckyyyyy. However in all fairness my fiancee thinks I'm a sicko for eating crawfish and sushi! He cringes. I can't help it...I don't know what I would do without the seafood buffet so just call me a heretic.... Actually I am allergic to shell fish and shouldn't eat it but over the years I've grown a resistence. Mind over matter.

Bella, I'm not about to pick apart everything you assert in post #37 because I agree with some of the claims. However, there are a few things you wrote that I would challenge and debate based upon what I've learned from studying the culture of that time. There are many prominent scholars who focus their research on this topic. Two who would be at the top of that list are L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program @ University of Texas- Austin, and Shaye I.D. Cohen: Samuel Ungerleider Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies @ Brown University.

- Michael

Have you actually read Mark Chapter 5 verses 1 through 20 in the King James Bible?
The Demons Legion besought, (pleaded, entreated), Jesus not to send them out of the land of Gadara (The land of the "Gadarenes", referenced in verse 1) . The man that hosted the Demons Legion was a Troglodite, or a cave dweller in the cemetery of the Gadarenes, where to this day there are limestone sarcophagi in residence in what is today known as, Um-Keis.

If one realizes the first book of the Apostles was not written until 40 years after Jesus alleged crucifixion, and not by the actual Apostles themselves, one may understand that the books of the Apostles are parables, meant to communicate deeper understanding through the medium of story telling.

The Demons Legion did not want to leave the land of their fathers. They, Legion, being considered "Daemons" in that time and in the language of Aramaic, would have referred to the "Nephesh." or "life, person and/or spirit". In the context of this passage it could be inferred then that this man was possessed of the earth bound souls of the ancestors of the Gadarenes. Which would have been considered an "unclean" spirit or "Demon" by those who later translated the story and would regard earth bound spirits as such because they were neither attendant to heaven or hell.

Another consideration is the allegory of the regions political structure at the time. "Legion" being a term referencing the Roman Provincial Armies. The "Man" in the story could represent the king of the Gadarenes that, per the passages in the Book of Mark referring to his un-assailable demeanor and that: "he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him." (Mark 5 - Verse 4)

In any respect, per the original context of this discussion; In the book of Mark the Demon's Legion ask to be sent into the Pigs so that they might survive outside the man and remain in on the land, and Jesus gave them leave to do so!
It was not the Demon that caused the *2000 swine to enter the sea and drown because they did not want to attend a lowly animal, when all the while residing in the human host they were aware of the Swines predicament as animals being herded by the people in the land the Demon begged Jesus not to banish them from.

(*The other corollary to the Roman army reference is the number of Swine the passage claims to have been entered into. (About 2000). This is in keeping with the number of soldiers that would be engaged into a Roman Military "Legion" during that period. )




I have no clue , save a personal issue, how this analogy is relevant to this discussion.





Perhaps you are unaware of the New Testament's Book of Hebrews, Chapter 9 verses 20 through 30. Not to mention the Old Testaments many references to God's requisite of blood in homage or as sacrifice to his worship. The sacrifice of Jesus blood in the New and the subsequent Communion of spirit with the blood of his blood (wine/grape juice) and flesh, is reminiscent of the actual blood sacrificial practices, amended to attend contemporary cultures. This is what leads many scholars to decipher the old and new testament histories from the inception of the scripture, to describe the Judeo-Christian faiths as necromantic blood cults. Not unusual in the history of ritual practice generally.

As for your assertion concerning the Jews and how Jesus could not have been Essene, and that the Essenes hated Jesus as much as Pharisee sect. and besides the fact that you contradict your own affirmation further down the reply, I would suggest you actually read of the history of the Jews before making such an assertion. (The History of the Jews Book 1) Perhaps that will provide the education as to how the Jews, Essenes and Nazared/Nazarene, relate to the issue.

Think u missunderstood me. I wasnt sanctioning it. Just saying what jesus said they would do.

Jesus said alot of things most christians have no idea about or just ignore.
He even said you can blasphamy the son and the father and its no biggey. And he always hinted that the cross wasnt the sacrifice but the coming under the curse was. As in he striped the garments of the spirit and put on the garments flesh.
Not to die on the cross but to show us the way. To show us it is possible.
Notice how he always says im the truth the light the way.

Jesus's whole message was about becoming a spirit and not dying with the flesh. He didnt even care how you did. You could be Hindu and use his teacings as a tool to cut thru the BS and get the secret knowledge, or even a pagan Roman (dont worry im not picking on hindus i love ya). It all was corrupted, perverted and hidden it wasnt just the rabbi leaders it was all religious leaders.

He was the truth the light the way. Nothing more nothing less. He didnt come here to give you a free ride. You still have to earn it like you always did its just god gave you all a trail of bread crumbs. Doesnt matter what you believe or how long it takes just as long as you finish the race.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (Philippians 2).

Jesus was humble, and though he was God, he did not strive to seek equality with God. Rather, as the rest of Phillipians 2 states, he is obedient to death. And it is with this humble spirit that God raises Christ up to sit at his right hand - THEREFORE, God exalted him to the highest place....., read Philippians 2 sometime

Just a thought.

Regards, PA