100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Blood sacrifice | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The sacrifices were eaten, except the really burnt offerings. It was all about food. It would be a waste of life and food to slaughter an animal and then just let it rot or let the worms eat it. Where do you think the Ritual of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking the wine representing the blood came from? Ancient aliens, the Dracos, ate raw meat and drank blood and that includes humans. They were worshiped as Gods long before the time of Adam and Eve in ancient civilizations. Where do you think the Ritual of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking the wine representing the blood came from? It came from. Jesus was speaking in parables once again. They weren't eating and drinking his blood or flesh. 26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. ..you just reconfirmed what Jeannie said. (bold above) And then she went on to state such existed long before Adam and Eve.. But when they drank it they weren't drinking it as it was Jesus' blood. Jesus gave them wine for them as he gave his blood for them/us. That's why he said that. It was in symbolism of giving his blood, not them drinking it or eating of his flesh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take it there's a difference between the terms:
"Representing" and "Symbolizing" ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, king James didn't "write" the bible, he TRANSLATED it. What someone does behind closed doors is all their business. I use the king jame because it is translated from the original scriptures, the rest eg., "International, lexham english, good news translation, ect" are translated from the king james version, not the original scriptures. That is why I stick to the King James, for we all know when things are translated over and over somewhere along the line they occassionally change a little. If I knew how to read hebrew i would read the original scriptures lol. ..yeah, I know he supposedly translated it.. Peter Pan could teach you Hebrew, I'm sure. xD ..if he's got the patience, that is. :O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take it there's a difference between the terms: "Representing" and "Symbolizing" ? No, not necassarily. When Jesus said the wine was his blood, he said that because he GAVE them the wine, just as he was going to GIVE his blood for us all. Had nothing to do with cannabilism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take it there's a difference between the terms: "Representing" and "Symbolizing" ? No, not necassarily. When Jesus said the wine was his blood, he said that because he GAVE them the wine, just as he was going to GIVE his blood for us all. Had nothing to do with cannabilism. ..drinking blood itself isn't cannibalism anyway. More related to vampirism if anything. xD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take it there's a difference between the terms: "Representing" and "Symbolizing" ? No, not necassarily. When Jesus said the wine was his blood, he said that because he GAVE them the wine, just as he was going to GIVE his blood for us all. Had nothing to do with cannabilism. ..drinking blood itself isn't cannibalism anyway. More related to vampirism if anything. xD lol good point, was just the first thing that came to mind lol >.< |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take it there's a difference between the terms: "Representing" and "Symbolizing" ? No, not necassarily. When Jesus said the wine was his blood, he said that because he GAVE them the wine, just as he was going to GIVE his blood for us all. Had nothing to do with cannabilism. Some believe in "transubstantiation", which supposedly is the literal transformation of the bread and wine into flesh and blood. = real cannibalism Some believe that the bread and wine merely represent the blood and flesh. = ritualistic cannibalism Others believe that the "ritual" is merely in rememberance. = not sick and disgusting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..I forgot what the topic was now? :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take it there's a difference between the terms: "Representing" and "Symbolizing" ? No, not necassarily. When Jesus said the wine was his blood, he said that because he GAVE them the wine, just as he was going to GIVE his blood for us all. Had nothing to do with cannabilism. ..drinking blood itself isn't cannibalism anyway. More related to vampirism if anything. xD Leave my Black Pudding alone! You hear? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 02/24/12 05:50 AM
|
|
The point I am making is that long before Adam an Eve, many believe (including me) there were ancient civilizations where lowly humans worshiped strange Gods depicted as reptilian creatures and or "snake people" also known as worship of the "dragon."
They are depicted in ancient drawings and sculpture. Many were meat eating, blood drinking creatures. The lowly humans were so fearful of them, they offered sacrifices -- which was actually food for these creatures. Human sacrifice was practiced by many ancient cultures. People would be ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease a god or spirit. While not widely known, human sacrifices for religious reasons still exist today in a number of nations. Sacrifice is all about food: Ritual or otherwise. Walter Burkert theory on origins of Greek sacrifice According to Walter Burkert, a scholar on sacrifice, Greek sacrifices derived from hunting practices. Hunters, feeling guilty for having killed another living being so they could eat and survive, tried to repudiate their responsibility in these rituals. The primary evidence used to suggest this theory is the Dipolieia, which is an Athenian festival, in limited circulation, during which an ox was sacrificed. The protagonist of the ritual was a plough ox, which it had, at one point, been a crime to kill in Athens. According to his theory, the killer of the ox eased his conscience by suggesting that everybody should participate in the killing of the sacrificial victim. In the expansion of the Athenian state, numerous oxen were needed to feed the people at the banquets and were accompanied by state festivals. The hecatomb (“hundred oxen”) became the general designation for the great sacrifices offered by the state. These sacrificial processions of hundreds of oxen remove the original ties, which the farmers of an earlier and smaller Athens will have felt with their one ox. ************************ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is a bit off topic, but does have to do with the blood sacrifice and then the eating of that sacrifice. Cowboy, I know most non-Catholic Christians believe that Jesus's words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were symbolic. But, the Bible is quite clear that Jesus meant it literally.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/2e.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is a bit off topic, but does have to do with the blood sacrifice and then the eating of that sacrifice. Cowboy, I know most non-Catholic Christians believe that Jesus's words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were symbolic. But, the Bible is quite clear that Jesus meant it literally. http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/2e.htm Thanks for posting that site. Gives a great verse on the explanation to the bread being his flesh and the wine being his blood. John 6:35-71 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. This is obviously speaking in spiritual form. For other then that, how would this be true? How would one literally get the food and liquids from just believing in Jesus? Would be impossible. So the only way this verse(s) could be viewed is spiritually speaking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is a bit off topic, but does have to do with the blood sacrifice and then the eating of that sacrifice. Cowboy, I know most non-Catholic Christians believe that Jesus's words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were symbolic. But, the Bible is quite clear that Jesus meant it literally. http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/2e.htm Ruth, the idea that human sacrifice is/was acceptable, as well as the drinking of blood, is based solely on the notion that we are under a new covenant which abolishes the old mosaic law. Jeremiah 31:31-34 King James Version (KJV) 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Hebrews 8:7-11 King James Version (KJV) 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. To me, it looks like we are not under the "New Covenant" yet... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is a bit off topic, but does have to do with the blood sacrifice and then the eating of that sacrifice. Cowboy, I know most non-Catholic Christians believe that Jesus's words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were symbolic. But, the Bible is quite clear that Jesus meant it literally. http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/2e.htm Thanks for posting that site. Gives a great verse on the explanation to the bread being his flesh and the wine being his blood. John 6:35-71 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. This is obviously speaking in spiritual form. For other then that, how would this be true? How would one literally get the food and liquids from just believing in Jesus? Would be impossible. So the only way this verse(s) could be viewed is spiritually speaking. ROFL!! Thanks Ruth, I needed a good chuckle this morning. More on that link you supplied in it's trying to make the bible appear to support cannabalism. One of it's verses in reference to this is Exodus 12:8 8And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. lol but if you read further up, you will know what "flesh" is being mentioned here. 5Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: 6And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 7And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is a bit off topic, but does have to do with the blood sacrifice and then the eating of that sacrifice. Cowboy, I know most non-Catholic Christians believe that Jesus's words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were symbolic. But, the Bible is quite clear that Jesus meant it literally. http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/2e.htm Ruth, the idea that human sacrifice is/was acceptable, as well as the drinking of blood, is based solely on the notion that we are under a new covenant which abolishes the old mosaic law. Jeremiah 31:31-34 King James Version (KJV) 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Hebrews 8:7-11 King James Version (KJV) 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. To me, it looks like we are not under the "New Covenant" yet... The old covenant ended with Jesus' resurrection. The old covenant "mosiac laws" can not co-exist with the laws Jesus gave us and would be contradictory of one another. That is because they are two totally separate sets of laws when one was given fulfilling the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The old covenant ended with Jesus' resurrection. The old covenant "mosiac laws" can not co-exist with the laws Jesus gave us and would be contradictory of one another. That is because they are two totally separate sets of laws when one was given fulfilling the other. Hebrews 8:10-11 King James Version (KJV) 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. Follow your heart... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The old covenant ended with Jesus' resurrection. The old covenant "mosiac laws" can not co-exist with the laws Jesus gave us and would be contradictory of one another. That is because they are two totally separate sets of laws when one was given fulfilling the other. Hebrews 8:10-11 King James Version (KJV) 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. Follow your heart... so true |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Corinthians 11:3
King James Version (KJV) 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. Are we being led by the Scribes and Pharisees? Haven't we heard enough of the requirements? Enough hate? Enough divisiveness? Enough lies? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like sacrificin' some virgins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like sacrificin' some virgins. Pffft...like you know a virgin. |
|
|
|
|
