Jesus and the First Christians Were Vegetarians

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
Jesus was not vegetarian. He ate meat and fish. The Bible records Jesus eating fish (Luke 24:42-43) and lamb (Luke 22:8-15). Jesus miraculously fed the crowds fish and bread, a strange thing for Him to do if He was a vegetarian (Matthew 14:17-21).
He didn't eat meat and fish during his ministry. John the Baptist was also a vegetarian. Jesus, like the Essenes and the Jewish Christians after, condemned animal sacrifice.

The article addresses all the verses you mentioned. Jesus denied the Passover feast. The Aramaic texts only mention bread in Matthew 14, so fish had to have been added in later translations. I don't have to tell you about piscis and the pagan reverence for fish. Later in Matthew 16:9 and in Mark 8 Jesus only refers to multiplying bread, not fish.

Once you have an understanding of the recorded history of the Jewish Essenes and the Ebionites (the followers of Jesus's brother James) it will make more sense.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
He didn't eat meat and fish during his ministry. John the Baptist was also a vegetarian. Jesus, like the Essenes and the Jewish Christians after, condemned animal sacrifice.

The article addresses all the verses you mentioned. Jesus denied the Passover feast. The Aramaic texts only mention bread in Matthew 14, so fish had to have been added in later translations. I don't have to tell you about piscis and the pagan reverence for fish. Later in Matthew 16:9 and in Mark 8 Jesus only refers to multiplying bread, not fish.

Once you have an understanding of the recorded history of the Jewish Essenes and the Ebionites (the followers of Jesus's brother James) it will make more sense.
He didn't eat meat and fish during his ministry.
Doesn't the last supper/Passover meal count as part of Jesus' ministry? Didn't Jesus' ministry end when He was crucified and died?

John the Baptist was also a vegetarian.
John the Baptist ate locusts. Does that count as vegetarian?

Matthew 3:4, "Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey."

Jesus, like the Essenes and the Jewish Christians after, condemned animal sacrifice.
Remember there was a sanctuary system in place in the Old Covenant where animals (lambs) were killed for the remission of sins. Jesus who is God, sanctioned it Himself. Why did animals need to be sacrificed in the sanctuary services?

Hebrews 9:22, "And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission."

Matthew 26:28, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

The sacrificing of animals was necessary to help people understand that without the shedding of Jesus’ blood, their sins could never be forgiven. The sinner was to kill the animal with his own hand (Leviticus 1:4-5). It was bloody and shocking, and it impressed the sinner with the solemn reality of sin’s awful consequences (eternal death) and the desperate need of a Saviour and Substitute. Without a Saviour, no one has any hope for salvation.

That system would end when Jesus died on the cross for our sins. That is why He is known as "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

Also the Passover feast which was part of yearly ceremonial feasts celebrated by the Israelites, represented the crucifixion of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 5:7 Paul says, “For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.”

The article addresses all the verses you mentioned. Jesus denied the Passover feast.
Well the article is wrong and not based on the Bible. Jesus most definitely did not deny the Passover feast. As I've explained above using scripture, it represented His crucifixion. Its no coincidence that Jesus died during the Passover feast. His sacrifice fulfilled the Passover feast. He was the Passover Lamb.

The Aramaic texts only mention bread in Matthew 14, so fish had to have been added in later translations. I don't have to tell you about piscis and the pagan reverence for fish. Later in Matthew 16:9 and in Mark 8 Jesus only refers to multiplying bread, not fish.
I disagree. What about when Jesus was given fish and honey after He appeared to the apostles after His resurrection in Luke 24:42-43? What the pagans do wit reverencing fish has no bearing on the fact Jesus ate fish and meat.

Once you have an understanding of the recorded history of the Jewish Essenes and the Ebionites (the followers of Jesus's brother James) it will make more sense.
What makes sense is that God invented the Bible and controls what His Word says and protects it. It is the truth and it clearly shows Jesus ate fish and meat. He was not vegetarian. So I choose to believe the Bible over followers of "James" (I don't believe James would have agreed with what the Essenes and Ebionites said on the subjects we are discussing here because they contradict the Bible). I follow Jesus who is God.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
I agree with the OP in the sense that Jesus didn't eat animals of His own accord, which is consistent with the Christian idea of not feeding flesh to the flesh, but one must feed the spirit.

But He would eat what was served to Him in the house of His host, if you are welcomed (Luke 10:8), because it's not what enters the mouth that defiles, it's what comes out of it (Matt 15:11). What you eat is of little concern. More important is that you do not indulge in gluttony.

This is obviously relevant with regard to the old dietary laws, which are in Christ abandoned.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
Doesn't the last supper/Passover meal count as part of Jesus' ministry? Didn't Jesus' ministry end when He was crucified and died?
In the text he never eats of the Passover, certainly not lamb. Why did you cut off the verses that were important? Starting from Luke 22:16-

16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

There are extra-canonical verses from the Gospel of the Ebionites that quote Jesus as saying,

"I have no desire to eat this Paschal lamb with you." -(Panarion 30.22.4)

John the Baptist ate locusts. Does that count as vegetarian?

Matthew 3:4, "Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey."
:DThis is a mis-translation. If we consider the lifestyle of the Essenes, Ebionites, extra-canonical texts, and even most importantly (in this case) the early Church Fathers, eating grasshoppers makes no sense. Locust is LOCUST BEAN, also known as carob.

"There has been a longstanding confusion on the etymological origin of the word locust. The Greek word for cakes made from the flour of the carob bean is 'egkrides' and the Greek word for locust is 'akrides.'" -wiki.answers

Epiphanus wrote that John ate wild honey and manna-like cakes dipped in oil.

That system would end when Jesus died on the cross for our sins. That is why He is known as "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
Jesus (and the Essenes before him) condemned animal sacrifice while he lived. Atonement theology has nothing to do with it. The Hebrew Gospel quotes Jesus as saying:

"I have come to abolish the sacrifices and if you cease not from sacrificing, my wrath will not cease from you."- (Panarion 30.16.5)

There's a deeper narrative about abstaining from animal foods than normally taught. Jesus referenced Isaiah and then Hosea in this verse:

"But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not (animal) sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Matthew 9:13

We commonly think of Jesus overturning the money lenders' tables but don't recognize he was also condemning animal sacrifice

"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”
-John 2:13-16

So I choose to believe the Bible over followers of "James" (I don't believe James would have agreed with what the Essenes and Ebionites said on the subjects we are discussing here because they contradict the Bible). I follow Jesus who is God.
Well Jesus was called the Son of God but that's another topic. We have more information about James the Just (brother of Jesus) than any apostle or Jesus himself. I can see that you probably don't care about the writings of the church historians (which is strange because Adventist are vegetarians) but for those that do I'll post material about James later.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
In the text he never eats of the Passover, certainly not lamb. Why did you cut off the verses that were important? Starting from Luke 22:16-

16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

There are extra-canonical verses from the Gospel of the Ebionites that quote Jesus as saying,

"I have no desire to eat this Paschal lamb with you." -(Panarion 30.22.4)



:DThis is a mis-translation. If we consider the lifestyle of the Essenes, Ebionites, extra-canonical texts, and even most importantly (in this case) the early Church Fathers, eating grasshoppers makes no sense. Locust is LOCUST BEAN, also known as carob.

"There has been a longstanding confusion on the etymological origin of the word locust. The Greek word for cakes made from the flour of the carob bean is 'egkrides' and the Greek word for locust is 'akrides.'" -wiki.answers

Epiphanus wrote that John ate wild honey and manna-like cakes dipped in oil.



Jesus (and the Essenes before him) condemned animal sacrifice while he lived. Atonement theology has nothing to do with it. The Hebrew Gospel quotes Jesus as saying:

"I have come to abolish the sacrifices and if you cease not from sacrificing, my wrath will not cease from you."- (Panarion 30.16.5)

There's a deeper narrative about abstaining from animal foods than normally taught. Jesus referenced Isaiah and then Hosea in this verse:

"But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not (animal) sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Matthew 9:13

We commonly think of Jesus overturning the money lenders' tables but don't recognize he was also condemning animal sacrifice

"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”
-John 2:13-16



Well Jesus was called the Son of God but that's another topic. We have more information about James the Just (brother of Jesus) than any apostle or Jesus himself. I can see that you probably don't care about the writings of the church historians (which is strange because Adventist are vegetarians) but for those that do I'll post material about James later.

In the text he never eats of the Passover, certainly not lamb. Why did you cut off the verses that were important? Starting from Luke 22:16-
Did the verses I supposedly cut off say Jesus did not eat the meat? No! Was that the first Passover meal Jesus had ever had? No! It was the last one. The animal that was killed during the Passover meal was always eaten.

Exodus 12:5; 46, "Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones."

Jesus followed these Mosaic laws until He was crucified.

There are extra-canonical verses from the Gospel of the Ebionites that quote Jesus as saying,
I'm sorry but if its not in the Bible then I don't believe it. As I told you the Bible is as it is because God is completely in control of it and what went in it. There is not one coincidence of how the Bible is and what is written in it. Those extra verses aren't meant to be in there because they contradict the Bible. Jesus ate the Lamb unless you have specific scripture from the Bible that says otherwise. I don't pick and choose from the Word of God.

This is a mis-translation. If we consider the lifestyle of the Essenes, Ebionites, extra-canonical texts, and even most importantly (in this case) the early Church Fathers, eating grasshoppers makes no sense. Locust is LOCUST BEAN, also known as carob.

"There has been a longstanding confusion on the etymological origin of the word locust. The Greek word for cakes made from the flour of the carob bean is 'egkrides' and the Greek word for locust is 'akrides.'" -wiki.answers

Epiphanus wrote that John ate wild honey and manna-like cakes dipped in oil.
I disagree and I've explained why above. Also the health laws allowed Israelites to eat locusts. Was that a mistranslation too?

Leviticus 11: 20-23, " ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you."

The unbiblical verses you keep quoting contradict the Word of God.

Jesus (and the Essenes before him) condemned animal sacrifice while he lived. Atonement theology has nothing to do with it. The Hebrew Gospel quotes Jesus as saying:

"I have come to abolish the sacrifices and if you cease not from sacrificing, my wrath will not cease from you."- (Panarion 30.16.5)

There's a deeper narrative about abstaining from animal foods than normally taught. Jesus referenced Isaiah and then Hosea in this verse:

"But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not (animal) sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Matthew 9:13
Jesus did not condemn animal sacrifices, they were essential for salvation in the Old Covenant sanctuary system. God Himself gave Moses the sanctuary’s construction specifications (Hebrews 8:1-2, 4-5), and instructions on how the sanctuary was to be used. The earthly sanctuary, and the entire ministry associated with it, reflects the ministry of Christ on our behalf.

How were animals sacrificed in the sanctuary services, and with what meaning? Here is what the Bible says:

Leviticus 1:4,11, "Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. He shall kill it on the north side of the altar before the Lord; and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall sprinkle its blood all around on the altar."

When a sinner brought a sacrificial animal to the door of the courtyard, a priest handed him a knife and a basin. The sinner laid his hands on the animal’s head and confessed his sins. This symbolized the transfer of sin from the sinner to the animal. At that point, the sinner was considered innocent and the animal guilty. Since the animal was now symbolically guilty, it had to pay sin’s wage—death. By slaying the animal with his own hand, the sinner was thus graphically taught that sin caused the innocent animal’s death and that his sin would cause the death of the innocent Messiah.

Jesus' death did abolish sacrifices. Why? The animal sacrifices represented His crucifixion for our sins. The price for sin was paid for at the cross. Justice was satisfied. After He died, there was no more need for the sacrifices of animals. So now if anyone sacrifices animals for the remission of sins, they are denying Jesus' death for us. Sacrifices are now condemned but only after Jesus' crucifixion. That is what is meant by abolishing sacrifices.

We commonly think of Jesus overturning the money lenders' tables but don't recognize he was also condemning animal sacrifice

"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”
-John 2:13-16
You are misinterpreting scripture. Jesus' actions at the Temple that day had nothing to do with condemning animal sacrifices. He hadn't been crucified yet so He had not brought an end to sacrifices. Jesus was angry because they were selling merchandise in His Temple. He said, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” John 2:16.

You don't seem to understand why animals needed to be killed for the remission of sins before Jesus died once and for all for all of us. The Bible says the wages of sin is death. Blood has to be spilled, death has to happen for sins to be forgiven. It is not pretty. The sacrificial system taught that through the symbol of the slain animal, God would give His own Son to die for their sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). Jesus would become not only their Saviour, but also their Substitute (Hebrews 9:28). In the Old Testament, people looked forward to the cross for salvation. We look back to Calvary for salvation. There is no other source of salvation (Acts 4:12).

Well Jesus was called the Son of God but that's another topic. We have more information about James the Just (brother of Jesus) than any apostle or Jesus himself. I can see that you probably don't care about the writings of the church historians (which is strange because Adventist are vegetarians) but for those that do I'll post material about James later.
Yes Jesus was called the Son of God but He is God too as He Himself made clear. Jesus had many roles too and has other names. I follow God not people. You seem to think more of James than Jesus. That is so wrong. James did not pay for your sins, Jesus died for him just as He did for you and me. Only God could sacrifice Himself for us. James knew that judging from what he wrote in his book that is part of biblical cannon.

I care about Church history but not the kind that disagrees with the Bible. The Bible is truth and if anything contradicts it, discard it.

Yes, Adventists promote vegetarianism because of the state of meat nowadays. They are not going to lie about the fact that God allowed clean animals to be eaten in the Bible. I have a forum on this that makes this point very clear from scripture. I think eating meat nowadays is dangerous unless one rears their own animals or knows the source of meat they are buying. We don't know what meat we are buying and what the animals were fed or if we are being sold diseased animals.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
When a sinner brought a sacrificial animal to the door of the courtyard, a priest handed him a knife and a basin. The sinner laid his hands on the animal’s head and confessed his sins. This symbolized the transfer of sin from the sinner to the animal. At that point, the sinner was considered innocent and the animal guilty. Since the animal was now symbolically guilty, it had to pay sin’s wage—death.
That's sooo spiritual, like.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
Yes it is. God is spiritual and so is His Word. Its also the truth. Its important to understand how serious the issue of sin is to God.
It's materialism mistaken for spirituality. The Israelites were paying off sin with blood and money. That's the nature of a cult bowing before demons, Mammon and Moloch.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
It's materialism mistaken for spirituality. The Israelites were paying off sin with blood and money. That's the nature of a cult bowing before demons, Mammon and Moloch.
Then you disagree with the Bible which is God's Word and you completely don't understand the purpose of the animal sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary system that culminated in Jesus' crucifixion for our sins. They were not paying off sin, no one can pay off sin with blood or money. And please don't compare the Word of God to paganism simply because you don't understand or agree with it.You are so wrong. I pray that you will understand why Jesus had to die on our behalf.

I'm a Bible Christian who doesn't have much tolerance for people who disrespect the Word of God because of ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
You need tolerance for things that are bad for you. I'm not bad for you. I'm a New Testament Christian, and you're clinging on to pre-Christian doctrines of and old sacrificial cult which Jesus condemned, quite physically, in the Temple. If you think it was once justified to pay money and shed blood to pardon sin, then you're liable to think the same in the future. I haven't much tolerance for that. Sacrificial cults have a tendency to spiral out of control quickly and expand the definition of things that are eligible for sacrifice.

Jesus spent His blood to defeat Satan on his terms, not as an indulgence to satisfy the indulgence of God's proclivity to smell burnt blood. The sooner you understand this, the better.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
You need tolerance for things that are bad for you. I'm not bad for you. I'm a New Testament Christian, and you're clinging on to pre-Christian doctrines of and old sacrificial cult which Jesus condemned, quite physically, in the Temple. If you think it was once justified to pay money and shed blood to pardon sin, then you're liable to think the same in the future. I haven't much tolerance for that. Sacrificial cults have a tendency to spiral out of control quickly and expand the definition of things that are eligible for sacrifice.

Jesus spent His blood to defeat Satan on his terms, not as an indulgence to satisfy the indulgence of God's proclivity to smell burnt blood. The sooner you understand this, the better.
You need tolerance for things that are bad for you. I'm not bad for you.
Oh I can tolerate a lot but not the disrespect of God and His Word. I'm at that point in my life. I haven't disrespected you or your beliefs that are so disagreeable to me so please afford me the same courtesy. We can have a discussion without being disrespectful. I am very blunt though. Just to warn you.

I'm a New Testament Christian, and you're clinging on to pre-Christian doctrines of and old sacrificial cult which Jesus condemned, quite physically, in the Temple.
You clearly haven't read much of my posts here then. I believe in the entire Word of God both Old and New Testaments. We need both Testaments to understand God. We can't do with only one Testament. That will be half truths.

The sacrifices of animals in the Old Testament represented Jesus Death in the New Testament. So exactly how am I clinging to old sacrificial cults (they weren't cults)? You still don't understand or know what you're talking about do you? I don't believe in the Temple system because its not needed any more after Jesus was crucified. I disagree vehemently with Zionists here who believe that there is going to be a third temple built and sacrifices offered like in the Old Testament sanctuary system, which is not scriptural. That would be blasphemy and denying the death of Jesus.

If you think it was once justified to pay money and shed blood to pardon sin, then you're liable to think the same in the future.
First, the Jews never paid money for the pardon of sins. No amount of money can pay for the pardon of sins. That isn't biblical at all so I don't know where you get that from. I even have a forum on Paganism and Catholicism as you know and posted about their system of Indulgences where money had to be paid. Its wrong.

Secondly, it is God that put the earthly sanctuary system in place where animals had to be sacrificed for the remission of sins. It says so in the Bible. The whole of Leviticus 4 is about the sin offering. Verses 1-8, "Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a person sins unintentionally against any of the commandments of the Lord in anything which ought not to be done, and does any of them, if the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord for his sin which he has sinned a young bull without blemish as a sin offering. He shall bring the bull to the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the Lord, lay his hand on the bull’s head, and kill the bull before the Lord. Then the anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and bring it to the tabernacle of meeting. The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the Lord, in front of the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of meeting; and he shall pour the remaining blood of the bull at the base of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. He shall take from it all the fat of the bull as the sin offering." Its best to read the whole chapter.

When I talk about the earthly sanctuary system I'm not saying it means anything any more, usually I'm explaining why God instituted it but how now after His crucifixion its not required any more. I thought I had made myself clear on this point in my reply posts to Davidson. I will add that the Bible talks about Jesus as our High Priest and advocate in the heavenly temple/sanctuary and we no longer need earthly priests any more. Paul wrote about it the book of Hebrews and He explains through the earthly sanctuary system so we can understand Jesus' role as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. I have a forum on this very subject.

I haven't much tolerance for that. Sacrificial cults have a tendency to spiral out of control quickly and expand the definition of things that are eligible for sacrifice.
If you disagree with what I posted, you disagree with the Bible not me. I'm just telling you what the Bible says. That means you don't have tolerance for the Word of God.

Jesus spent His blood to defeat Satan on his terms, not as an indulgence to satisfy the indulgence of God's proclivity to smell burnt blood. The sooner you understand this, the better.
You say you are a New Testament Christian. Well the New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ died for our sins so that we may inherit eternal life through Him.

1 Corinthians 15:3, "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,"

When Paul said that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,” he was referring to the Old Testament, which predicted that Jesus would die for the sins of humanity. Isaiah spells out the affliction and suffering that the Messiah would have to go through to atone for our sins:

Isaiah 53:3-6, "He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Do you see how the Old and New Testaments work together?

Btw Jesus' death on the cross was the beginning of a great procedure to eradicate sin from this world and from our hearts. As a result of His death and resurrection, Jesus could enter into the heavenly sanctuary to begin making atonement for our sins. Paul explains further in the book of Hebrews

Yes Jesus' death defeated Satan but that was not the primary goal. Jesus is God and was always going to defeat Satan.

The sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary system, were never about the smell of burnt blood. How can you say something so ridiculous? Please read the Bible and understand what the sacrifices meant. I've explained a little (which you don't understand either) but there is a lot more to it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
Oh I can tolerate a lot but not the disrespect of God and His Word. I'm at that point in my life. I haven't disrespected you or your beliefs that are so disagreeable to me so please afford me the same courtesy. We can have a discussion without being disrespectful. I am very blunt though. Just to warn you.



You clearly haven't read much of my posts here then. I believe in the entire Word of God both Old and New Testaments. We need both Testaments to understand God. We can't do with only one Testament. That will be half truths.

The sacrifices of animals in the Old Testament represented Jesus Death in the New Testament. So exactly how am I clinging to old sacrificial cults (they weren't cults)? You still don't understand or know what you're talking about do you? I don't believe in the Temple system because its not needed any more after Jesus was crucified. I disagree vehemently with Zionists here who believe that there is going to be a third temple built and sacrifices offered like in the Old Testament sanctuary system, which is not scriptural. That would be blasphemy and denying the death of Jesus.



First, the Jews never paid money for the pardon of sins. No amount of money can pay for the pardon of sins. That isn't biblical at all so I don't know where you get that from. I even have a forum on Paganism and Catholicism as you know and posted about their system of Indulgences where money had to be paid. Its wrong.

Secondly, it is God that put the earthly sanctuary system in place where animals had to be sacrificed for the remission of sins. It says so in the Bible. The whole of Leviticus 4 is about the sin offering. Verses 1-8, "Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a person sins unintentionally against any of the commandments of the Lord in anything which ought not to be done, and does any of them, if the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord for his sin which he has sinned a young bull without blemish as a sin offering. He shall bring the bull to the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the Lord, lay his hand on the bull’s head, and kill the bull before the Lord. Then the anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and bring it to the tabernacle of meeting. The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the Lord, in front of the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of meeting; and he shall pour the remaining blood of the bull at the base of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. He shall take from it all the fat of the bull as the sin offering." Its best to read the whole chapter.

When I talk about the earthly sanctuary system I'm not saying it means anything any more, usually I'm explaining why God instituted it but how now after His crucifixion its not required any more. I thought I had made myself clear on this point in my reply posts to Davidson. I will add that the Bible talks about Jesus as our High Priest and advocate in the heavenly temple/sanctuary and we no longer need earthly priests any more. Paul wrote about it the book of Hebrews and He explains through the earthly sanctuary system so we can understand Jesus' role as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. I have a forum on this very subject.



If you disagree with what I posted, you disagree with the Bible not me. I'm just telling you what the Bible says. That means you don't have tolerance for the Word of God.



You say you are a New Testament Christian. Well the New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ died for our sins so that we may inherit eternal life through Him.

1 Corinthians 15:3, "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,"

When Paul said that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,” he was referring to the Old Testament, which predicted that Jesus would die for the sins of humanity. Isaiah spells out the affliction and suffering that the Messiah would have to go through to atone for our sins:

Isaiah 53:3-6, "He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Do you see how the Old and New Testaments work together?

Btw Jesus' death on the cross was the beginning of a great procedure to eradicate sin from this world and from our hearts. As a result of His death and resurrection, Jesus could enter into the heavenly sanctuary to begin making atonement for our sins. Paul explains further in the book of Hebrews

Yes Jesus' death defeated Satan but that was not the primary goal. Jesus is God and was always going to defeat Satan.

The sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary system, were never about the smell of burnt blood. How can you say something so ridiculous? Please read the Bible and understand what the sacrifices meant. I've explained a little (which you don't understand either) but there is a lot more to it.
When two people have opposing convictions, it is better to draw the other in by means of appealing to the commonalities between both beliefs, to drop sugar cubes in front of the horse to tame it. That's how Christ converted both Jewish and Gentile pagans, not by destroying their erroneous and sinful traditions or beliefs, but by either transforming them into something good, or by making them believe they are no longer necessary.

BUT, the only time that Jesus was violent, physically violent, was when He saw that the temple of His Father had turned into a market where living beings were butchered against a pocket full of denarii to pardon the sins of men. I'm sorry if you felt offended, but some beliefs deserve to be overthrown with a certain degree of harshness. I take Jesus' actions in the temple as a sign that blood sacrifice is a grave sin. (No, I don't think this makes Jesus' own blood sacrifice ironic)

If you are a Christian, you no longer need the Old Testament. Its meanings and symbols become clear in light of the New. What you're doing is interpreting the New Testament in light of the Old. You can interpret Jesus' mission in both senses. You say blood sacrifice was necessary (because it was holy) until the sacrifice of Jesus, or Jesus' sacrifice was necessary to stop blood sacrifice (because it was sinful).

I admit, our disagreement is rooted in my disagreement with the Bible, or parts of it at least. There's no need to explain the orthodox teachings of the sacrifice. I'm aware of them as much as you are. I think we can agree that sacrifices and sacrificial priests are a thing of the past (or at least, they should be and remain so), but I'm of the opinion that evil is always evil, and good always good.

Btw Jesus' death on the cross was the beginning of a great procedure to eradicate sin from this world and from our hearts. As a result of His death and resurrection, Jesus could enter into the heavenly sanctuary to begin making atonement for our sins.
This is well said.

With regard to Catholic Indulgences:

I'm afraid you've adopted the distortions about them. The indulgences followed voluntary contribution of the sinner in supplement to the punishment of his sin. A proper analogy would be that I steal your wallet, spend all your money, get caught, am forced by law to pay the money back, I am forgiven, but then decide, from my own initiative to buy you a drink, because I didn't just want to clean my slate, I wanted to do something more because I recognize the error I made and harm I had done to someone else. That something more, that drink I bought you, is what "buys" off (not with money, but with good works) temporal punishment and the remission of sin, when given by the Church, following this good work, this charity, and is what's understood as an indulgence. Your idea about the indulgences stems from a lie promoted by Protestants to justify stealing Church property.
 
Last edited:

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
When two people have opposing convictions, it is better to draw the other in by means of appealing to the commonalities between both beliefs, to drop sugar cubes in front of the horse to tame it. That's how Christ converted both Jewish and Gentile pagans, not by destroying their erroneous and sinful traditions or beliefs, but by either transforming them into something good, or by making them believe they are no longer necessary.

BUT, the only time that Jesus was violent, physically violent, was when He saw that the temple of His Father had turned into a market where living beings were butchered against a pocket full of denarii to pardon the sins of men. I'm sorry if you felt offended, but some beliefs deserve to be overthrown with a certain degree of harshness. I take Jesus' actions in the temple as a sign that blood sacrifice is a grave sin. (No, I don't think this makes Jesus' own blood sacrifice ironic)

If you are a Christian, you no longer need the Old Testament. Its meanings and symbols become clear in light of the New. What you're doing is interpreting the New Testament in light of the Old. You can interpret Jesus' mission in both senses. You say blood sacrifice was necessary (because it was holy) until the sacrifice of Jesus, or Jesus' sacrifice was necessary to stop blood sacrifice (because it was sinful).

I admit, our disagreement is rooted in my disagreement with the Bible, or parts of it at least. There's no need to explain the orthodox teachings of the sacrifice. I'm aware of them as much as you are. I think we can agree that sacrifices and sacrificial priests are a thing of the past (or at least, they should be and remain so), but I'm of the opinion that evil is always evil, and good always good.

This is well said.

With regard to Catholic Indulgences:

I'm afraid you've adopted the distortions about them. The indulgences were voluntary and supplementary to the punishment of a sin. A proper analogy would be that I steal your wallet, spend all your money, get caught, am forced by law to pay the money back, but then decide, from my own initiative to buy you a drink, because I didn't just want to clean my slate, I wanted to do something more because I recognize the error I made and harm I had done to someone else. That something more, that drink I bought you, that is what's understood as an indulgence. Your idea about the indulgences stems from a lie promoted by Protestants to justify stealing Church property.
When two people have opposing convictions, it is better to draw the other in by means of appealing to the commonalities between both beliefs, to drop sugar cubes in front of the horse to tame it. That's how Christ converted both Jewish and Gentile pagans, not by destroying their erroneous and sinful traditions or beliefs, but by either transforming them into something good, or by making them believe they are no longer necessary.
Jesus always told the truth lovingly but frankly. For example the woman who was caught committing adultery and the Jewish leaders. They didn't like hearing the truth so they plotted and planned His death. We have to be respectful always but its best to be direct and some won't like that.

BUT, the only time that Jesus was violent, physically violent, was when He saw that the temple of His Father had turned into a market where living beings were butchered against a pocket full of denarii to pardon the sins of men. I'm sorry if you felt offended, but some beliefs deserve to be overthrown with a certain degree of harshness. I take Jesus' actions in the temple as a sign that blood sacrifice is a grave sin. (No, I don't think this makes Jesus' own blood sacrifice ironic)
I don't mind feeling offended, all of us get offended at one time or another (its part of life) but I feel you took it too far. Paganism in the Bible is banned and it shows us the consequences of being involved in it. The Bible even mentions Moloch in Leviticus 18:21, 20:1-2. God told the Israelites it was an abomination to worship or take part in their rituals.

However you're wrong about why Jesus got angry at the Temple. The sacrificial system was installed by God, to teach people and bring them a better understanding on the story of salvation. It was meant to be as solemn as anything but somewhere, some how, the Jews lost the plot, and lost the meaning, and its solemnity. The temple built for the glory of God became a place of business and self-centred businesses. The very ground that was meant to be holy was not regarded as such.

Jesus' actions had nothing to do with animal sacrifices. He instituted the earthly sanctuary system Himself and I explained why using scripture.

If you are a Christian, you no longer need the Old Testament. Its meanings and symbols become clear in light of the New. What you're doing is interpreting the New Testament in light of the Old. You can interpret Jesus' mission in both senses. You say blood sacrifice was necessary (because it was holy) until the sacrifice of Jesus, or Jesus' sacrifice was necessary to stop blood sacrifice (because it was sinful).
We do need the Old Testament as much as we need the New Testament. There are so many reasons why. The OT introduces God to us. In the OT there are persons (Joseph, David, Daniel), places (Jerusalem, temple, tabernacle), events (exit from Egypt), sacrifices (Day of Atonement), things (scapegoat, laver, mercy seat), and direct statements (Psalms 2) that prepare us for the coming of Christ and help us interpret his work. This was how he taught his disciples to read the Old Testament (Luke 24:44-45). We must also learn that such truths have application in every area of our lives. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:11, "Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come."

The OT makes up 3/4 of the Bible. That is no coincidence. There are no coincidences with God and His Word.

The OT is "Part One" of a unique two-part epic. Jesus, Peter and Paul, Matthew and John, and numerous others in the New Testament, frequently quoted from the Old Testament. Without the Old, the New would be adrift, cut off from its roots. And as we all know cutting anything off from its roots will soon wither and die.

The Old and New Testaments harmonise. They tell the awesome truth of God’s plan to accomplish His marvellous salvation through Christ for fallen humanity.

I admit, our disagreement is rooted in my disagreement with the Bible, or parts of it at least. There's no need to explain the orthodox teachings of the sacrifice. I'm aware of them as much as you are. I think we can agree that sacrifices and sacrificial priests are a thing of the past (or at least, they should be and remain so), but I'm of the opinion that evil is always evil, and good always good.
Yeah lets agree to that. I agree too that evil is always evil, and good always good. I think most people agree with that.

I'm afraid you've adopted the distortions about them.
No I haven't. Read about indulgences in the dark ages. Its one of the reasons Protestantism began. Martin Luther's theses mention indulgences. He accused the Catholic Church of its corrupt practice of selling indulgences to absolve sin. He as a former monk knew about this more than most people.

God bless.
 
Last edited:

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
The law required the Passover lamb to be eaten. There was no vegetarian option..

Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
...
And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
@phipps, I‘m glad we can both agree that Jesus would never have broken the law.
John literally says Jesus has broken the law:

John 5
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
If we were to compare the teachings of Jesus he is closely aligned to the Essenes in many respects. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees (Rabbinical/Talmudic Judaism) who were obvious enemies. The Essenes gave grain as as an offering (though they didn't enter the temples) and had long ended blood sacrifice. Their ritual for purification (as well as for John, Jesus, and the Hebrew Christians who followed) was in bathing (baptism).

The Essenes including Jesus are considered reformers, this is accepted as fact.

Anyone who thinks Jesus followed Talmudic law has lost the plot.

"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." -Hosea 6:6
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
John literally says Jesus has broken the law:

John 5
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Oh? And which laws was he found guilty of breaking by the Jewish authorities at his trials? He was brought before the current high priest, the previous high priest, and the Sanhedrin. What did they miss?

If John is literally saying Jesus broke the law of the Sabbath, he's also literally saying that Jesus blasphemed by making himself equal with God, isn't he?

Any time Jesus "broke" a law, it was to illustrate a point. Had he actually broken any laws, he wouldn't have been able to die for our sins.
 
Top