Announcement

**Spying** · 07-21-2001, 12:02 PM

Courage!

Hi Stranger,

Good Sabbath to you.

I have to admire your courage in coming back for more. No doubt, you are still black and blue from the last thumping that Old Shepherd gave you. I appeal to both of you: Hate the message, but give respect to the messenger.

Sincerely, Spying

**Stranger** · 07-21-2001, 03:08 PM

Hey Spying, did that happen in your dreams?

I thought I better come back to add a clarification before Old Shep tears me apart.

Jesus Christ said that his followers should spiritually drink of his blood and eat of his flesh. That is if anyone is to follow the NT drift where he is also the "Passover lamb" that has been sacrificed, and "God," and so on. The Passover lamb was not to be just slaughtered and left to resurrect the 3rd day or slaughtered and burnt down to ashes, but it was supposed to be slaughtered and be eaten in a family setting. The blood of the lamb is to be lawfully poured on the ground and nobody can drink of it. The Heathen of that day used to drink blood. That is probably why the NT writers thought that drinking human blood, especially of a high ranking deity was the kosher thing to do. A lot of Christians do that even today. They love to eat not only swine flesh, but also blood sausages, blood soups, and so on. In any case, nobody is supposed to eat the leftover of the sacrificed lamb after the 2nd day. Please, correct me if I am wrong up to this point.

It seems to me a clear case of Jesus Christ spiting Almighty Yahweh's commandments by getting his followers to eat lamb/human/"God" flesh and to drink lamb/human/"God" blood even after the 3rd day. And if that were not enough, to do it forever as long as you do it! As you probably know, some Christians contend that they are actually eating the real flesh of 'God' and drinking the real blood of 'God' in the ritual of the Eucharist. Other Christians assert that it is a 100% X 100% deal, while still others say that it is only symbolic. In different ways all Christians do the Eucharist (i.e. the eating of the dead flesh of 'God' when he died and the drinking of his dead blood). It was forbidden to eat the flesh of a living animal. But heck, we are talking about the flesh of a stiff one that played the role of a lamb/human/"God" person.

In my wasted years as a Christian Minister of the "Gospel" I never realized the full truth about the flesh of a sacrificed lamb that can be eaten only until the next day. On the 3rd day it should be burnt down to ashes. And here comes the Jesus Christ saying that we can go on eating him in some way shape or form, forever. This is very confusing. Obviously there was not much thought given to this kind of symbolic/spiritual writing.

Of course, I knew that drinking lamb/human blood in any way, shape or form is an abomination, but I dogmatically swallowed the story of drinking "God"s blood and eating his flesh without questioning. In fact, for a time I used to train my taste buds to recognize blood while slurping grape juice during the Eucharist. I had a harder time to do it in congregations where they serve red kosher concord wine of the Schapiro's brand at 12% or so, but hey, how Heathen can you get? You have no idea how embarrassed I feel now. I feel like spewing.

Now, if you are trying to talk me into believing that we can eat the flesh of a living human/"God" being you better watch out…

Deuteronomy 12:23 * Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh.

If I understand correctly, we cannot eat any flesh that is alive. So, are you supposed to eat the flesh of "God" when he was dead over 3 days ago? Or is it the flesh of a living "God" whose blood was not poured out to the ground? Or is it a new blood because the old blood was allegedly used to wash away sin? If we are to apply any symbolism anywhere in here we must be fair and do it consistently. I see that the eating of a human/"God"s flesh and the drinking of his blood has no connection real or symbolic with any statement found in the Tanakh, but it is an abominable invention of the Grecian NT writers. They were so used to the Heathen stuff that it is no joke.

**Spying** · 07-22-2001, 09:59 AM

Human Flesh And Blood!

Hi Stranger,

Thank you for your reply. Christians generally are rather uninformed concerning the requirements of the Law of YAHWEH. The Law is not something that has any meaning to them since Messiah died. They look upon the Law as being fulfilled by Messiah, and they consider that the Old Covenant has ended because the husband, Messiah Yahushua, has died. Therefore, they are not overly concerned about what the Law has to say about eating or drinking human flesh and blood. All those rules and regulations were of the old relationship which has ended, and now a new marriage is being proposed based upon newer and better (fewer) vows (rules and regulations) designed to foster a more lasting and more mature relationship. Now, I do not believe everything in the above statement to be true.

Are you sure that the Tanakh (Old Testament) makes no statement supporting the eating of human flesh and drinking of human blood? I am surprised that you would make such a statement. Do you ever read my posts to others, or are you now so confident in your knowledge of my views that you think it unnecessary to read them? Should we desire to go to battle with someone either we must be very confident concerning our strengths or we must thoroughly know that we understand the weaknesses and tendencies of our potential adversary if we are to have any hope of success in our struggle. It is absolutely essential to any battle that knowledge of the terrain be acquired before you attack. Good generals know what lies on the other side of the hill. What does this scripture mean to you?

Ezek 39:17-20
17 And, thou son of man, thus saith the ADONAI ELOHIM; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood.
18 Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan.
19 And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you.
20 Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the ADONAI ELOHIM. (KJV)

Does not ADONAI ELOHIM instruct the Son Of Man concerning a coming great sacrifice that will take place at HIS table (the Altar of Burnt Offering before YAHWEH)? What does ADONAI instruct the Son Of Man (Messiah Yahushua) to do? Is he not told to inform every feathered fowl and every beast of the field that there would be plenty of human flesh to eat and human blood to drink at the great sacrifice of ADONAI? Now, who did Messiah go around preaching to? Did he preach to the vultures? How about to the lions and tigers? Did he the preach to the cattle? Did he preach to the swine? How about the sheep? Did they listen to him? Were they told to eat flesh and drink blood? Do you see how easily you are put on the defensive, Stranger?

This is nonetheless a good statement that you have made so all is not lost:

If we are to apply any symbolism anywhere in here we must be fair and do it consistently.

These are my sentiments exactly. You know that I am fair and consistent. In the above scripture you can only attack the symbolism. There is no doubt that the Tanakh speaks of human sacrifice being offered upon the Altar of YAHWEH ELOHIM. It is HIS sacrifice. It is HIS table, and it is HIS food! It is HIS flesh and blood!

Have a good day!

Sincerely, Spying

**Stranger** · 07-22-2001, 08:40 PM

Let's compare apples to apples...

I hate to say it Spying, but I believe that you are insulting my intelligence. Are you saying that "the son of man" of Ezekiel is "the Jesus Christ"? Ezekiel 39 is about the end times, still in the future.

If you are telling your fellow Christians that "the son of man" in Ezekiel is "the Jesus Christ" then explain them this, too. In all fairness, let's be consistent and compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. The analogy that you are presenting to your Christian audience is as dysfunctional as Christianity itself. Please, explain them this utterance about "the son of man" spoken of in Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 4:1 * "Now, son of man, take a clay tablet, put it in front of you and draw the city of Jerusalem on it…
6 "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.
7 Turn your face toward the siege of Jerusalem and with bared arm prophesy against her.
8 I will tie you up with ropes so that you cannot turn from one side to the other until you have finished the days of your siege.
9 "Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them in a storage jar and use them to make bread for yourself. You are to eat it during the 390 days you lie on your side.
10 Weigh out twenty shekels of food to eat each day and eat it at set times.
11 Also measure out a sixth of a hin of water and drink it at set times.
12 Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel."
13 Yahweh said, "In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them." (i.e. they will eat swine flesh and other Christian meals.)

Obviously, whoever wrote the "Gospel" of John must have remembered a reference to a "son of man" in the LXX and he/she slapped it on the Jesus Christ, and you follow suit. Will you explain to your Christian audience how is it that the Jesus Christ will eat stuff cooked on human sh-t? There is no questions about it Spying, Christianity is dead on arrival.

By the way, you never answered if the flesh and the blood of the Jesus Christ are before he died? Or was it the decomposing flesh and coagulated blood in his stiff state? Or was it after his alleged resurrection? I would want to know what are we talking about. My curiosity has nothing to do with any law. Was there a specific reference to a human flesh or blood after his alleged spiritual or so resurrection? Oh wait! this gets to be more complicated yet... If "no flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom" as the Christians say, then none of them can possibly eat something that doesn't exist in Heaven... WOW!!! how dysfunctuonal can you get? the flesh and blood that is the core of the Eucharist must be mortal flesh and blood, or decomposing human flesh and coagulated blood... far out man...

**OldShepherd** · 07-22-2001, 09:58 PM

Stranger,

Or should I say Lou? I have deliberately avoided reading or responding to your posts for the reason I stated in my last post to you some months ago. As Spying indicated, it is you, rather than Christianity, who is shown to be dysfunctional. And when I, or anyone else, point out how you deliberately, blatantly, misquote scriptures and other sources, you don't even have the integrity to acknowledge it but go ricocheting off the wall, on some unrelated issue.

See for example, this link, the topic I addressed was Jesus' justification for calling the Pharisees "vipers", you ended up babbling about pogroms, and Paul persecuting Christians, without ever addressing my point.

http://www.tzaddikim.org/forum/showt...hlight=matthew

You have used the term dysfunctional four times in this post, without once stating how, Christianity is supposedly impaired or functioning abnormally. This seems to be your stock response. If you don't like something, disagree with it, and/or can't make a meaningful reply, then its "dysfunctional".

Main Entry: dys·func·tion

Pronunciation: (")dis-'f&[ng](k)-sh&n

Function: noun

Date: circa 1916

: impaired or abnormal functioning

- dys·func·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

"I am quoting Old Shep explaining Isaiah 53:5 to illustrate how content the Christians are with anything that they can use out of the Tanakh to validate their NT faith."

Isaiah 53:5 But he (singular) was wounded for our (plural) transgressions, he (singular) was bruised for our (plural) iniquities: the chastisement of our (plural) peace was upon him; (singular) and with his (singular) stripes we (plural) are healed.)

You still have never given a direct answer to my question about this verse. Since according to what you think and believe Israel/Judah's sins were totally forgiven in Isaiah 44. Whose transgressions are these in 53:5? Who was wounded for whose transgressions?

"I'll be glad to answer you Old Shep. I didn’t go away. I am not a fair weather poster."

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. You wrote something, but it had no relation to the question I asked. My question, "If, as the original poster who is Hors De Discutere stated, all of Israel/Judah's sins had been wiped out/forgiven in Isaiah Chap. 44, reiterated again in Chap. 60. Whose transgressions are those in 53:5? Who was wounded for whose transgressions?

Although you just went off on your same old tired diatribe, without responding to the original discussion, I will respond to some your "pereh" remarks. If you do respond I would like for you to stick to your original comments and my answers to those remarks, and not go off on some unrelated tangent, if you are capable of doing that.

Yes, I did make a typo. I intended to write 53:5 but instead wrote 55:5. But I have no idea what you mean by your reference to a helpful hand. I don't see any point, whatsoever, that you made about Isa. 55:5.

Zechariah 8:23 * This is what Yahweh Almighty says: "In those days ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew (i.e. one who is obviously not a Christian or Gentile) by the hem of his robe and say, `Let us go with you, because we have heard that Elohim is with you.'"

Based on Zech 8:22, and preceding verses, the number ten, in vs. 23, very likely means "many", rather than a specific number. And what in this passage prevents it from referring to Jesus? Jesus was a Jew, many people took hold of Him, in Jerusalem, and the name "Immanuel"/"El with us", Isaiah 7:14, has been applied to him! Your "proof text" doesn't prove what you want it to.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (El with us.)

Zech 8:22 Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD.

Or Zech. 8:23 may have some reference to a man whose name means "El is with me,

Pro 30:1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

0384 ‘Iythiy’el eeth-ee-ale’

perhaps from 0837 and 0410;; n pr m

AV - Ithiel 3; 3

Ithiel = "God is with me"

1) the disciple to whom Agur gave proverbs

2) a Benjamite in Nehemiah’s time

"By the time "those days" come around Christianity will be proven to be 100% dysfunctional. In the meantime Christians like Old Shep continue to shy away from the truth."

Lou you haven't shown me any truth to shy away from. And since you have repeatedly, abysmally, failed to show how Christianity is "dysfunctional", why don't you leave YHWH's business to Him and let Him determine "in those days" who or what is dysfunctional. And don't be surprised when it is you with your, piece of this verse, piece of that verse, proof text, imitation, what feels good, religion.

"There is nothing in Isaiah 53:5 that tells me that the person or entity spoken of has died or needed to die for any of the listed causes,"

Are you so caught up in your anti-Christian hate fest that you can't even read the Tenakh? "cut off out of the land of the living", "made his grave", and "his tomb, sounds dead to me!

(JPS)Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.’

"This is definitely not the idea of salvation portrayed in the Tanakh. As you can probably tell, Jesus Christ suffering hardly amounts to a slap in the wrist compared to what the Jews have suffered under Christianity."

**OldShepherd** · 07-22-2001, 10:05 PM

Tell me about a "slap on the wrist" the next time you get nailed to a cross. Or better yet, nail your hand/wrist to a 50 pound plank, do about 10 sets of bicep curls, and tell us how insignificant it is. I will answer this more fully on my thread. "Persecution."

"The Christians say that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. The NT is very dysfunctional at this point. John the Baptist even claims that Jesus Christ is the "Lamb of -o- that takes the away the sin of the world."

John 1:29 (NIV) The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Paul claims that Jesus Christ is in fact the "Passover Lamb."

1 Corinthians 5:7b (NIV) …For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

"In our turf we all know that the Passover lamb has no power whatsoever to take away any sin."

Notice, here, as is your regular practice, two different verses, or parts of verses, two different authors, different audiences, different circumstances, but you try to give the impression that they are the same thing. John says nothing about "Passover" and Paul says nothing about "taking away the sins of the world." The only thing these verses have in common is the word "lamb." But, consider,

"In Leviticus 16:29-34 we have another antitype of Christ called the "goat of atonement" and the "scape-goat" The priest took two goats. The first was killed and sacrificed for the sins of the people just like Jesus was on the cross. But the imagery is gets even more interesting. In the New Testament, Hebrews 9:11 goes on to say, "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

The second goat of Lev 16, was the "scape-goat". When someone says, "I am just a scape-goat", we understand that this person is being unfairly blamed for some wrong another has committed. Again, Jesus fits the imagery. The Jewish priest placed his hands on this second goat which symbolized a transfer of all the sins of the people to the goat. Then the goat was taken out to the deep wilderness and released. In the same way Jesus suffered unfairly on the cross for sins He did not commit. He was innocent and sinless yet suffered as if He had sinned. Jesus is our scape-goat! Just as the scape-goat was driven into the wilderness. Jesus was crucified outside the gate of the city of Jerusalem."

What was the purpose of the lamb or goat which was released into the wilderness? Was it not to take away the sins of Israel?

"The Christian philosophy about salvation is a concoction of bizarre ideas about the effect of the Passover lamb in a personal saving faith.. . . The Heathen of that day used to drink blood. "

Do you have anything at all resembling historical documentation of this allegation? Or is it just more of Lou's anti-Christian fantasy.

"After he died everybody was supposed to eat of his flesh and drink his blood forever in a cannibalistic ritual known as the "Eucharist."

I assume you are referring to, Matthew, 26:26, and following. This is another of your tactics, in politics they call it "plausible deniability." You don't actually cite a specific verse, so you can later deny misquoting it.

If this is the passage you are referring to. Note, Jesus is speaking while He is alive and holding bread and wine in His hand. When his disciples ate the bread and drank the wine, His body was completely intact and His blood still flowing in His veins. So no "cannibalistic ritual", no drinking blood, no eating human flesh, whatsoever. The rest of your infantile babbling about "drinking of a stiff's blood", etc., etc. doesn't merit further response.

As for symbolism, that is nothing unusual, all the elements of the pesach seder are symbolic. For example, the bitter herbs represented the bitter slavery of the Israelites.

Matthew 26:26 And 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.

"Nowhere in the Tanakh do we see a requirement from Almighty Yahweh for a human sacrifice. . .

Genesis 22:7 And Isaac spoke unto Abraham his father, and said: ‘My father.’ And he said: ‘Here am I, my son.’ And he said: ‘Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?’
8 And Abraham said: ‘God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son.’ So they went both of them together.

"There was an idol in the form of a lamb worshipped by the Egyptians, though…"

Exodus 8:25-26 * And Pharaoh called for Moses and for Aaron, and said, Go ye, sacrifice to your Elohim in the land. And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians (i.e. one of the Egyptian idols in the form of a lamb) to Yahweh our Elohim: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians (i.e. one of the Egyptian idols in the form of a lamb) before their eyes, and will they not stone us?

The sacrifice of a lamb for the Passover event was more the show of spite to one of the Egyptian idols than the symbolism of a messiah savior."

I hate to sound like a broken record, but do you have any documentation for an Egyptian lamb idol? Even assuming you are correct, how would that prove that the lamb was not also a symbol of the Messiah? There was nothing wrong with sheep or lambs to YHWH. The Israelites were permitted to live apart from the Egyptians because they were sheepherders, which happened to be an abomination to the Egyptians. (Gen 46:34) Do you suppose lambs, sheep, and shepherds were part of YHWH's plan all along? There is a lot of lamb and sheep symbolism throughout the Tenakh. What is the symbolism of the Pesach lamb not having a bone broken? And being roasted on a cross shaped spit of sycamore limbs?

"A lot of Christians do that even today. They love to eat not only swine flesh, but also blood sausages, blood soups, and so on."

I wondered how long it would take. You haven't called anyone a "swine eating Christian," in a day or two. How does this relate to Isaiah 53:5 and the suffering servant, which was the topic I was discussing?

"In my wasted years as a Christian Minister of the "Gospel". . . You have no idea how embarrassed I feel now. I feel like spewing."

I have told you before what makes me want to puke is people with a pseudo-phony-wannabe Jew, pathetically pious, "Oh those terrible Christians" attitude. Especially someone who finds it impossible to correctly quote scripture, to say nothing of other sources. How many times did you get hammered over Augustine? And to this date you still have never corrected any of it.

I cannot speak to your situation, but in my experience, most ministers I know of who, after many years, suddenly realize they have "wasted" their lives, that their particular denomination now "is wrong", who "jump ship", and switch denominations, or even switch faiths, as you did, do so after being fired or otherwise disciplined for misconduct. And that misconduct usually took the form of sexual misconduct or misuse of funds.

Strange how some folks blame "the church", when they get caught and try to justify their shenanigans by misquoting, misinterpreting, and misapplying scriptures. I'd be less inclined to think that of you if I could get a reasonable, in context, quote and exegesis of scripture.

**Sandy** · 07-23-2001, 07:12 PM

Something Stinks

Old Shepherd wrote:

I cannot speak to your situation, but in my experience, most ministers I know of who, after many years, suddenly realize they have "wasted" their lives, that their particular denomination now "is wrong", who "jump ship", and switch denominations, or even switch faiths, as you did, do so after being fired or otherwise disciplined for misconduct. And that misconduct usually took the form of sexual misconduct or misuse of funds.

Strange how some folks blame "the church", when they get caught and try to justify their shenanigans by misquoting, misinterpreting, and misapplying scriptures. I'd be less inclined to think that of you if I could get a reasonable, in context, quote and exegesis of scripture.

This is intolerable. As far as I am concerned Old Shepherd has lost the last shred of crediblity that he may have had.

Spying, I hope you will be closing this thread as well.

**Stranger** · 07-23-2001, 08:24 PM

I'm trying to document myself as much as I can

Hi Old Shep,

I must say that you always have a way of interpreting the NT to favor the Christian religion. Let me tell you briefly that my conviction as a responsible "minister of the gospel" was to work for free because I was gifted with a productive lay profession also. So I was never on salary while discharging my duties as "minister of the gospel" or "assistant pastor." I was a pain in the lower rear end of the BJ University graduate PhD senior pastor who loved to pull the "stewardship" card on the congregation far above and beyond the reasonable line. The church inbcome was in the 1 Megadollar range. Personally I was able to afford giving up to 27 per cent of my income to "the Lord". I had no marital dysfunction, either, but I can tell you of others who had and we covered up. None of these were my reason for bailing out, either, please get this clear. I know I am not a pure bred Jew, but there is a Jewish connection in my family tree. So lets forget about any "wannabe" pretense on my part, if you will. There was a time when I wanted to look as Jew as I could, but that is not important at all! I resign myself to be just a reasoning human being seeking accommodation in the Olam HaBa.

For the Egyptians the shepherds were an abomination and nobody really knows why. There is nothing written about the sheep being the abomination to the Egyptians, though. By the way, it is believed among the Christian mythologists that "the abomination of the Egyptians" was the view that the Hebrews had of the idols in form of animals that the Egyptians worshiped. The Treasure Scripture Key footnote on Exodus 8:26 says that.

Treasury Scripture Key - Exodus 8:26
* the abomination. i.e. The animals which they worshipped; for an account of which, see note on ch. 9:3.
# 1Ki 11:5-7 2Ki 23:13

Treasury Scripture Key - Exodus 9:3
* murrain.
We may observe a particular scope and meaning in this calamity, if we consider it in regard to the Egyptians, which would not have existed in respect to any other people. They held in idolatrous reverence almost every animal, but some they held in particular veneration; as the ox, cow, and ram. Among these, Apis} and Mnevis} are well known; the former being a sacred bull, worshipped at Memphis, as the latter was at Heliopolis. A cow or heifer had the like honours at Momemphis; and the same practice seems to have been adopted in most of the Egyptian nomes.} By the infliction of this judgment, the Egyptian deities sank before the God of the Hebrews. See Bryant, pp. 87-93.

2 Kings 23:13 * And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.

So, you should know, "abomination" is synonym to "idol."

In the case of Genesis 22:7 it is obvious that Almighty Yahweh doesn’t require human sacrifice, but that Abraham learned a lesson. Instead of the prevalent Heathen practice of human sacrifice Yahweh points out in a very graphic way that if there is to be any sacrifice then animal sacrifice is his delight. This is as plain as it is. Yahweh made it plain also that everyone will die for his/her own sin. Yahweh hates to see the righteous dying for the unjust. So the bit on human sacrifice in any way, shape or form is out as far as he is concerned.

Exodus 23:7 * Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

Proverbs 17:15 * He that justifies the wicked, and he that condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh.

Deuteronomy 24:16 * Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

As you know, Christianity is built on all the opposite. They believe that the Almighty justifies the wicked, and that all humanity must pay for the sin of Adam, our first father. Another Christian invention is, "The Almighty's perfect justice demands a human sacrifice in the form of a son to pacify his wrath." Nowhere is it written anything like that in the Tanakh. You are still trying to convert the Jews to a wicked religion like Christianity and I certainly hope that you fail. Paul was a total failure as far as luring Jews into the Christian religion. Barely a handful responded.

Colossians 4:10 (NIV) My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)
11 Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me.

**Stranger** · 07-23-2001, 09:04 PM

Sorry...

Sorry, Old Shep, I didn’t know that you answered in a 2 part post. I had only the second part in view. I will answer your first part at another session. Before the week ends.

**OldShepherd** · 07-23-2001, 11:33 PM

Sandy,

“This is intolerable. As far as I am concerned Old Shepherd has lost the last shred of crediblity that he may have had.”

Sandy, I’m not aware of any response, by you, to any post that I have ever made, in any forum. So I’m not aware of any credibility issues concerning you.

What do you see as intolerable? Everything I said was the truth. As I said “most ministers I know of” who changed faiths or denominations did so for the reasons I stated. In fact, thinking further on it I don’t personally know of any minister who did so for any other reason. I can name several well-known media “ministers” who have bailed after getting caught. Jim and Jimmy to name only two. What is it exactly about my comments you find intolerable?

As for locking and deleting threads, and blocking posters those are the tactics of other forums, which are deathly afraid of and will not tolerate, any posts in opposition their views.

Stranger often disparages his years as a Christian minister. I’m trying to comprehend how someone who earns a Master’s degree from a major theological seminary, after at least three years of intense study, without learning that Christianity is “dysfunctional” and serves as an independent Baptist and a Pentecostal minister for a number of years still without learning how “dysfunctional” Christianity is, suddenly wakes up one day and realizes all this. You will note Stranger even admitted, “I was a pain in the lower rear end of the BJ University graduate PhD senior pastor. . .” Which indicates some problems with the church.

I mentioned “misquoting, misinterpreting, and misapplying scriptures. And I stated, “I'd be less inclined to think that of you [Stranger] if I could get a reasonable, in context, quote and exegesis of scripture.” Now if Stranger disagrees with and/or objects to what I have said, he is a big boy, let him present his own arguments.

**don** · 07-24-2001, 06:11 AM

quote:

You have used the term dysfunctional four times in this post, without once stating how, Christianity is supposedly impaired or functioning abnormally. This seems to be your stock response. If you don't like something, disagree with it, and/or can't make a meaningful reply, then its "dysfunctional".

===================

Well dogone Old shepherd my Jesuit friend I see you have found yourself a New home.

The fact that Christianity is rooted in paganism is NO secret.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/monstr.htm

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/wheel.htm

When you consider these documented facts about this pagan religion,i would have to say the religion itself is pretty "dysfunctional".

And its certianly FAR from the TRUTH,and by the way THE TRUTH in Scripture is the TORAH.

Let me see now---- what was that definitions again????

dys*func*tion (noun)

First appeared circa 1916

: impaired or abnormal functioning

-- dys*func*tion*al (adjective)

I would say that as far as the TORAH of YHWH goes that SUN worship and the worship of the Ba'alim is pretty dys*func*tion*al (adjective)

**don** · 07-24-2001, 06:19 AM

Shalom Sandy

quote:

This is intolerable. As far as I am concerned Old Shepherd has lost the last shred of crediblity that he may have had.

===========================

Sandy for those that know the history of our friend here,he has no crediblity at all and never has and never will!

**Spying** · 07-24-2001, 07:40 AM

A Long Lost Friend!

Hi Don,

Well

, well

, where have you been?

Welcome to this table, my friend. I want everyone to know that I write using the Sacred Names solely due to the powers of persuasion of one man, and that one man's name is DON.

When the Tzaddikim opened this forum, Don was included in a short list of a number of individuals who had been banned from the EliYah Forums for whom this forum was designed as a refuge (Sandy was also on that list), but we could not find Don to invite him to participate here. For awhile we actually feared that he was dead. Forgive us such thoughts, Don. I did see that you were posting again at Qumran Bet, and I was very happy to know and see that you were alive and kicking. I did not invite you here because of my respect for Sis, but I am delighted that you have found your way here anyway. A hearty welcome to you!

Oh, by the way, my Mommy is still doing just great, Ha, Ha

!

Sincerely, Spying

**Sandy** · 07-24-2001, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Sandy,

“This is intolerable. As far as I am concerned Old Shepherd has lost the last shred of crediblity that he may have had.”

Sandy, I’m not aware of any response, by you, to any post that I have ever made, in any forum. So I’m not aware of any credibility issues concerning you.

I have read many of your posts here as well as at Eliyahs forum, where I was known as Torah. I do not remember if either you or I had responded to each others posts, but I do remember the debates between you and Don.

What do you see as intolerable? Everything I said was the truth. As I said “most ministers I know of” who changed faiths or denominations did so for the reasons I stated. In fact, thinking further on it I don’t personally know of any minister who did so for any other reason. I can name several well-known media “ministers” who have bailed after getting caught. Jim and Jimmy to name only two. What is it exactly about my comments you find intolerable?

You attack a fellow poster in such a way and then ask why I find it intolerable? You think you are off the hook simply because you added “most ministers I know of” to your accussation.

As for locking and deleting threads, and blocking posters those are the tactics of other forums, which are deathly afraid of and will not tolerate, any posts in opposition their views.

Spying wrote on the "Isaiah's 53rd chapter in the context of its own time"

So let it be written, so let it be!

Hi Old Shepherd,

Sir, please allow me to apologize to you in behalf of the Tzaddikim for the treatment that you have just received on this thread. You know how I abhor deleting posts... Should you make a reply, your post will be the last post on this thread, and then I am going to lock it up.

Sincerely, Spying

Well I personally feel that the nature of the personal attach that you have made against a fellow poster is far worse than someone deleting a post.

Stranger often disparages his years as a Christian minister. I’m trying to comprehend how someone who earns a Master’s degree from a major theological seminary, after at least three years of intense study, without learning that Christianity is “dysfunctional” and serves as an independent Baptist and a Pentecostal minister for a number of years still without learning how “dysfunctional” Christianity is, suddenly wakes up one day and realizes all this. You will note Stranger even admitted, “I was a pain in the lower rear end of the BJ University graduate PhD senior pastor. . .” Which indicates some problems with the church.

I have never been a minister, but I WAS a Christian until I began to read the bible on my own. It didn't take any time at all to see through the lies and deception of the church and christianity.

I mentioned “misquoting, misinterpreting, and misapplying scriptures. And I stated, “I'd be less inclined to think that of you [Stranger] if I could get a reasonable, in context, quote and exegesis of scripture.” Now if Stranger disagrees with and/or objects to what I have said, he is a big boy, let him present his own arguments.

My response has nothing to do with whether Stranger can answer on his own behalf or not (I know he is perfectly capable), it has to do with the nature of YOUR PERSONAL ATTACK on a fellow poster.

Attacking and debating the message is one thing, but to personally attack another poster is not right.

Announcement

The "Lamb of -o-" that takes away the sin of the world

The "Lamb of -o-" that takes away the sin of the world

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment