John of Gischala, 66AD

[KrAZeD]

This includes any beef, steaks, and surely hamburgers, because it is not possible to completely drain the blood and the soul resides within the blood. So do you abstain from all forms of blood in any amounts whatsoever? or are you also an eater of souls like most here?

You went into depth defining why one was not to mix fabrics, and what the mixing of fabrics represented, but carelessly asked this jumbled hogwash......defeats the entire point you attempted to make because of pride.

The iterating of "blood" was the same during the days of exodus as was in "acts". Participation of drinking blood, and or eating raw meat. Then you want to make the self defeating claim that it's "impossible to completely drain the blood and the soul resides in the blood" so we have to "abstain" from meats with blood. Well if it's impossible then care to explain the concept of "kosher" meats. Actually I can do better, explain how NO priest NOR rabbi ever properly killed a passover lamb then, if it's a sin to "eat blood" since it's impossible to properly drain the blood, how was the lamb then eaten and not going against gen 9:4 nor lev 17:4. For your interpretation pits Gods word against Gods word, and that is where your self defeated.

An even if it is a moot point, I don't know where you reside however it's improbable for one not to come near a woman on her cycle. This day and age with women hygiene products you can't just tell from bloodstains, and women don't hide at the outskirts of a village. They stand next to you in line at the store, or work beside you at your job. Or their the ones selling you that fish with scales that your planning on eating this week.

 

[daq]

You went into depth defining why one was not to mix fabrics, and what the mixing of fabrics represented, but carelessly asked this jumbled hogwash......defeats the entire point you attempted to make because of pride.

The iterating of "blood" was the same during the days of exodus as was in "acts". Participation of drinking blood, and or eating raw meat. Then you want to make the self defeating claim that it's "impossible to completely drain the blood and the soul resides in the blood" so we have to "abstain" from meats with blood. Well if it's impossible then care to explain the concept of "kosher" meats. Actually I can do better, explain how NO priest NOR rabbi ever properly killed a passover lamb then, if it's a sin to "eat blood" since it's impossible to properly drain the blood, how was the lamb then eaten and not going against gen 9:4 nor lev 17:4. For your interpretation pits Gods word against Gods word, and that is where your self defeated.

An even if it is a moot point, I don't know where you reside however it's improbable for one not to come near a woman on her cycle. This day and age with women hygiene products you can't just tell from bloodstains, and women don't hide at the outskirts of a village. They stand next to you in line at the store, or work beside you at your job. Or their the ones selling you that fish with scales that your planning on eating this week.

If you knew anything about pride you would not have judged me by claiming my statements come from pride. None of these things came to pass for me until my pride was completely broken. Who are you to judge another? I simply asked a question and you and your friends have made it personal by posing direct questions to me concerning personal things. As for the Lamb of God have you not read that the Lamb of God is Yeshua? Show me anywhere that Yeshua ate anything other than fish when it comes to physical meat. This is even true of the Passover. You cannot drain blood completely out of any animal and perhaps, therefore, you should have listened to the teachers whom you claim to follow in Acts 15 as I quoted in this post, (which you failed to include). There is not a word about "how much blood is acceptable" or "whether the animal is properly drained" or not. It simply states to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD. It cannot be said any more clearer than it is written and Paul likewise delivered this same epistle from the elders to every congregation where he went in the very next chapter. Therefore all of his letters and epistles to the various congregations must first take this fact into consideration when reading his writings because he does not go against the Acts 15 epistle from the elders anywhere.

Acts 16:1-5 KJV
1. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
2. Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
4. And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
5. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Your judgment is meaningless and especially if you do not have the Scripture in you insomuch that you do not have and hold the Testimony of Yeshua and his Apostles in uprightness; and if you did then you would not have judged me as being prideful as you have done.

 

[KrAZeD]

If you knew anything about pride you would not have judged me by claiming my statements come from pride. None of these things came to pass for me until my pride was completely broken. Who are you to judge another?

A brother who's been in your shoes, and one that also attempts to uphold most of those mosiac laws. Not because my salvation relies on it, not because I think I can follow the law 100% either, but because it allows me to grow with my works, striving to G more like Jesus, whom is our Lord.

Pride is what the retort was regarding you following fabric laws and questioning with their failure with "blood laws". I follow "x" do you follow "y".

As for the Lamb of God have you not read that the Lamb of God is Yeshua?

No one denies this, yet have you grasped prior to our Lords sacrifice literal lambs were used for forgiveness/atonement of sins? One sacrificed and one released-lev 16:7-10.

Show me anywhere that Yeshua ate anything other than fish when it comes to physical meat.

Well we have to establish a few things first. Did Jesus follow all the mosaic laws or not? If he didn't we have a problem. Was HE an exception to them all since HE was the Son of God, if HE was then we should see Him following none. Did his parents raise him according to Jewish belief, and follow Jewish law?

We see that Jesus was circumcised Luke 2:21, Mary waiting the allotted time for her purification lev 12:1-8 and Luke 2:24 indicating their poverty with their sacrifice of birds and not a lamb. So we see the family was following jewish law, and our Lord was inducted into it.

Matt 5:23-24 Luke 5:14 Jesus instructing them to honor parts of the mosaic law.

Matt 23:1-3 again another reference to the keeping of the mosaic law to man.

Luke 4:16 Jesus keeping the sabbath

John 7:2-10 our Lord keeping the feasts.

John 15:10- Jesus saying He has kept my (our) Fathers commandments

So that should establish Jesus knowing, following, abiding, and participating in the mosaic laws and commandments of our father. So let's move on to that meat issue.

Now for the passover Luke 2:41-42. Our lord was raised in accustom to keeping the passover. But let's establish what the passover commandment from our Father is first. Exodus 12:2-10 (notice verse 9-eat not of it RAW). Lev 23:4-5, exodus 12:14;24-25.

Now Luke 2 shows us that Jesus participated for 12 years in observing the passover, John 2:13;23 shows another in his adulthood. As well as Luke 22:15

Matt 5:17; John 8:29 fulfilling and keeping of the laws.

If Jesus was to follow the command of God in the passover feast then He logically would have eaten meat/lamb.---4 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.
All were to eat of the lamb, and strive for none to get left or they'd have to burn it.

Though that's only logic, well let's use a little bit more logic and rational.
Matt 26:17-18. Are you implying that the residents house also did not eat meat, nor any of the 12 disciples whom were all of jewish accustom, following? That sir is illogical, especially since we've established that LAMB was required in observing the Passover.

Verse 19 they made ready, well part of making ready was to kill the lamb, paint the posts and roast the lamb.

Verse 21, can you show they weren't eating lamb as was the command from God? Until 26 he hasn't broken bread. Then also we see Luke 22:15, care to explain why he's earnest in eating the passover if it's only bitter herbs and bread (which is not the full commanded meal to eat).

So while yes, your correct with stating nowhere does scripture say Jesus was sitting down to eat a T-bone steak cooked bloody rare. We can deduce that since Jesus was sinless, and followed all of Gods commands and Laws he ate at least Lamb (properly cooked) while observing 33 passovers in his lifetime.

There is not a word about "how much blood is acceptable" or "whether the animal is properly drained" or not. It simply states to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD.

You want to play semantics, or utilize a bit of understanding from scripture?

How does one stay away from blood when you go grocery shopping- their butcher constantly has blood in his department? What about that women next to you at work on her cycle? What about the doctors and nurses dealing with it? How about those pesky Mosquitos, can't get away from those blood suckers?

Tell me when you cut yourself accidentally do you go to an outside building until you heal and then have a priest confirm your clean when it's stopped? Where does your wife go when she's bleeding? Where does she dispose of those "instruments", who empties the trash containing those?

**Understanding scripture is key, the abstain from blood was about pagan rituals and practices the Greeks were engaging in. They drank blood, painted themselves with blood and other weird rituals. The same as the heathens in the Old Testament. Though I'll play one more semantic game, that fish you eat- HAS BLOOD in it, yet you eat it, is this not wrong ACCORDING to YOU- acts 15

You cannot drain blood completely out of any animal and perhaps, therefore, you should have listened to the teachers whom you claim to follow in Acts 15 as I quoted in this post, (which you failed to include).

I addressed this my first reply-"The iterating of "blood" was the same during the days of exodus as was in "acts". Participation of drinking blood, and or eating raw meat.", but I addressed it again in this post since you missed it last time (see above comment with **)

Your judgment is meaningless and especially if you do not have the Scripture in you insomuch that you do not have and hold the Testimony of Yeshua and his Apostles in uprightness;

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, apostles included. Through Jesus sacrifice we have had our sins forgiven. Because I respect everyone is familiar with scripture here, I attempt not to just flood it, it means nothing if you can not provide context,meaning and logical rational. Asserting that the scripture is not with me, that was the foul, not me calling you out for the retort of pride gal 6:1-2

 

[daq]

A brother who's been in your shoes, and one that also attempts to uphold most of those mosiac laws. Not because my salvation relies on it, not because I think I can follow the law 100% either, but because it allows me to grow with my works, striving to G more like Jesus, whom is our Lord.

Pride is what the retort was regarding you following fabric laws and questioning with their failure with "blood laws". I follow "x" do you follow "y".



No one denies this, yet have you grasped prior to our Lords sacrifice literal lambs were used for forgiveness/atonement of sins? One sacrificed and one released-lev 16:7-10.



Well we have to establish a few things first. Did Jesus follow all the mosaic laws or not? If he didn't we have a problem. Was HE an exception to them all since HE was the Son of God, if HE was then we should see Him following none. Did his parents raise him according to Jewish belief, and follow Jewish law?

We see that Jesus was circumcised Luke 2:21, Mary waiting the allotted time for her purification lev 12:1-8 and Luke 2:24 indicating their poverty with their sacrifice of birds and not a lamb. So we see the family was following jewish law, and our Lord was inducted into it.

Matt 5:23-24 Luke 5:14 Jesus instructing them to honor parts of the mosaic law.

Matt 23:1-3 again another reference to the keeping of the mosaic law to man.

Luke 4:16 Jesus keeping the sabbath

John 7:2-10 our Lord keeping the feasts.

John 15:10- Jesus saying He has kept my (our) Fathers commandments

So that should establish Jesus knowing, following, abiding, and participating in the mosaic laws and commandments of our father. So let's move on to that meat issue.

Now for the passover Luke 2:41-42. Our lord was raised in accustom to keeping the passover. But let's establish what the passover commandment from our Father is first. Exodus 12:2-10 (notice verse 9-eat not of it RAW). Lev 23:4-5, exodus 12:14;24-25.

Now Luke 2 shows us that Jesus participated for 12 years in observing the passover, John 2:13;23 shows another in his adulthood. As well as Luke 22:15

Matt 5:17; John 8:29 fulfilling and keeping of the laws.

If Jesus was to follow the command of God in the passover feast then He logically would have eaten meat/lamb.---4 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.
All were to eat of the lamb, and strive for none to get left or they'd have to burn it.

Though that's only logic, well let's use a little bit more logic and rational.
Matt 26:17-18. Are you implying that the residents house also did not eat meat, nor any of the 12 disciples whom were all of jewish accustom, following? That sir is illogical, especially since we've established that LAMB was required in observing the Passover.

Verse 19 they made ready, well part of making ready was to kill the lamb, paint the posts and roast the lamb.

Verse 21, can you show they weren't eating lamb as was the command from God? Until 26 he hasn't broken bread. Then also we see Luke 22:15, care to explain why he's earnest in eating the passover if it's only bitter herbs and bread (which is not the full commanded meal to eat).

So while yes, your correct with stating nowhere does scripture say Jesus was sitting down to eat a T-bone steak cooked bloody rare. We can deduce that since Jesus was sinless, and followed all of Gods commands and Laws he ate at least Lamb (properly cooked) while observing 33 passovers in his lifetime.



You want to play semantics, or utilize a bit of understanding from scripture?

How does one stay away from blood when you go grocery shopping- their butcher constantly has blood in his department? What about that women next to you at work on her cycle? What about the doctors and nurses dealing with it? How about those pesky Mosquitos, can't get away from those blood suckers?

Tell me when you cut yourself accidentally do you go to an outside building until you heal and then have a priest confirm your clean when it's stopped? Where does your wife go when she's bleeding? Where does she dispose of those "instruments", who empties the trash containing those?

**Understanding scripture is key, the abstain from blood was about pagan rituals and practices the Greeks were engaging in. They drank blood, painted themselves with blood and other weird rituals. The same as the heathens in the Old Testament. Though I'll play one more semantic game, that fish you eat- HAS BLOOD in it, yet you eat it, is this not wrong ACCORDING to YOU- acts 15



I addressed this my first reply-"The iterating of "blood" was the same during the days of exodus as was in "acts". Participation of drinking blood, and or eating raw meat.", but I addressed it again in this post since you missed it last time (see above comment with **)



All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, apostles included. Through Jesus sacrifice we have had our sins forgiven. Because I respect everyone is familiar with scripture here, I attempt not to just flood it, it means nothing if you can not provide context,meaning and logical rational. Asserting that the scripture is not with me, that was the foul, not me calling you out for the retort of pride gal 6:1-2

Your entire argument is based in the eyes of the flesh and the logic of man, even a man who loves to eat meat, pure and simple. The Nazar-Essenes did not eat meat yet upheld Torah of Moshe. Paul was accused of being the new "ringleader" of the same and did not deny it. You have simply picked the wrong side to come down on if you think you can keep the commandments according to the flesh because it is not possible. Again you should have listened to Paul when he clearly tells you the Law is SPIRIT. Likewise Yeshua clearly tells us that the flesh profits nothing and his words are SPIRIT and LIFE. For this reason also the words of Yeshua can never pass away. How then do you imagine yourself to be attempting to keep the commandments according to the flesh if the inside of the cup is not first cleansed? Cleanse the inside of the cup first.

John 6:62-63 KJV
62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Did they in fact see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? One must actually believe the Testimony of Yeshua before he can begin to live it and none of it passed away in 70AD because his words are SPIRIT.

 

[KrAZeD]

Your entire argument is based in the eyes of the flesh and the logic of man, even a man who loves to eat meat, pure and simple. The Nazar-Essenes did not eat meat yet upheld Torah of Moshe.

I just showed you exactly where SCRIPTURE commanded those to observe the passover, how to observe it, and under GODS authority to do so. Their was not a single aspect from man in it, it was all Gods commands, I used logic to show where Jesus would have eaten meat since it was commanded of those under the LAW TO DO SO. Jesus did not come to abolish but to fulfill. He had to ABIDE IN THE FULL LAW/curse, or else HE could not have been able to Fulfill all.

Though what I'm familiar with your entire "sect" horrible failed with the law, they didn't even provide animal sacrifices to atone their sins which was required yearly. Meaning they ignored Gods word, period. They rejected Gods servant Moses, and his sayings books because they thought they were FALSE. They picked and choose what they wanted to believe and Follow.

You fail at keeping the same attributes your accusing others of, you eat fish, fish contains blood- that makes you a hypocrite.

Paul was accused of being the new "ringleader" of the same and did not deny it.

How can Paul get accused of being a new ringleader when your supposed sect was founded in 2nd century bce if not hundreds of years before? Your sects roots were already deeply established.

You have simply picked the wrong side to come down on if you think you can keep the commandments according to the flesh because it is not possible. Again you should have listened to Paul when he clearly tells you the Law is SPIRIT. Likewise Yeshua clearly tells us that the flesh profits nothing and his words are SPIRIT and LIFE. For this reason also the words of Yeshua can never pass away. How then do you imagine yourself to be attempting to keep the commandments according to the flesh if the inside of the cup is not first cleansed? Cleanse the inside of the cup first.

Just plain rubbish from you at this stage. Prior to Jesus death, the law was the way to righteousness. The sacrifices were the only way to atone for mans sins. Yes, none but Jesus could heed and stay within the law, however that wasn't the issue, and you know it. Part of the laws were passover, eating meat, that contained BLOOD. Part of your faith is completely derived from choosing only certain things to adhere to, and IGNORING the rest.

One must actually believe the Testimony of Yeshua before he can begin to live it and none of it passed away in 70AD because his words are SPIRIT.

I'd ask what are you saying here, however the only aspect of 70ad is the destruction, and it appears your imposing that no one in 70ad died or some weird belief of yours. JESUS DIED roughly 33ad- he would have ascended after coming back again in 33ad. Though do not explain.
-------------

Now is this true, YES or NO-
The Church Father Epiphanius (writing in the 4th century CE) seems to make a distinction between two main groups within the Essenes:[31] "Of those that came before his [Elxai, an Ossaean prophet] time and during it, the Ossaeans and the Nazarean."[55] Epiphanius describes each group as following:

The Nazarean – they were Jews by nationality – originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan… They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws – not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nazarean and the others…[56]


Gen3:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Animal sacrifices were what's required from the time of Abel and Cain, they were required for passover.

Though I'm not going any further with you, I disagree with your sects overall beliefs and advanced teachings. Using Dead Sea scrolls, and not believing in all 66 books as the inerrant word of God doesn't fit with me. If we can't agree that all of the bible is The word of God then were not reading the same scripture. I pray that you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and savior, but your sects principals and beliefs that your pushing are not even in the same league as mine.

 

[daq]

I just showed you exactly where SCRIPTURE commanded those to observe the passover, how to observe it, and under GODS authority to do so. Their was not a single aspect from man in it, it was all Gods commands, I used logic to show where Jesus would have eaten meat since it was commanded of those under the LAW TO DO SO. Jesus did not come to abolish but to fulfill. He had to ABIDE IN THE FULL LAW/curse, or else HE could not have been able to Fulfill all.

Though what I'm familiar with your entire "sect" horrible failed with the law, they didn't even provide animal sacrifices to atone their sins which was required yearly. Meaning they ignored Gods word, period. They rejected Gods servant Moses, and his sayings books because they thought they were FALSE. They picked and choose what they wanted to believe and Follow.

You fail at keeping the same attributes your accusing others of, you eat fish, fish contains blood- that makes you a hypocrite.



How can Paul get accused of being a new ringleader when your supposed sect was founded in 2nd century bce if not hundreds of years before? Your sects roots were already deeply established.



Just plain rubbish from you at this stage. Prior to Jesus death, the law was the way to righteousness. The sacrifices were the only way to atone for mans sins. Yes, none but Jesus could heed and stay within the law, however that wasn't the issue, and you know it. Part of the laws were passover, eating meat, that contained BLOOD. Part of your faith is completely derived from choosing only certain things to adhere to, and IGNORING the rest.



I'd ask what are you saying here, however the only aspect of 70ad is the destruction, and it appears your imposing that no one in 70ad died or some weird belief of yours. JESUS DIED roughly 33ad- he would have ascended after coming back again in 33ad. Though do not explain.
-------------

Now is this true, YES or NO-
The Church Father Epiphanius (writing in the 4th century CE) seems to make a distinction between two main groups within the Essenes:[31] "Of those that came before his [Elxai, an Ossaean prophet] time and during it, the Ossaeans and the Nazarean."[55] Epiphanius describes each group as following:

The Nazarean – they were Jews by nationality – originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan… They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws – not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nazarean and the others…[56]


Gen3:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Animal sacrifices were what's required from the time of Abel and Cain, they were required for passover.

Though I'm not going any further with you, I disagree with your sects overall beliefs and advanced teachings. Using Dead Sea scrolls, and not believing in all 66 books as the inerrant word of God doesn't fit with me. If we can't agree that all of the bible is The word of God then were not reading the same scripture. I pray that you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and savior, but your sects principals and beliefs that your pushing are not even in the same league as mine.

False accusations do not help your case. Just as Paul I believe after the Way which you call heresy, and so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. It is you who nullifies what portions you care not to observe. Paul clearly speaks of the "Law of God" and says that he serves the Law of God with his mind, (Romans 7:25) in the same context where he has just stated that the Law is spiritual, (Romans 7:14). Do you have any clue where "the Law of God" is actually mentioned in the Scripture? It is not even found in Torah but rather the first place it is found is in Joshua 24:26. Then after that the phrase does not appear again until Nehemiah 8 where it is used to reference the book of Leviticus concerning the feast of Sukkot, (Leviticus 23). Do you not understand what the book of Leviticus concerns? It concerns ALL the sacrifices. How then does Paul, being a Pharisee of Pharisees, serve Torat Elohim with his mind??? Or do you think that Paul, being a Pharisee of Pharisees, does not mean Torah of Moshe at all when he mentions the Law of God which he serves with his mind? Do you suppose he now simply means "love" so that you can make it mean pretty much anything you desire it to mean? In addition Torah is one great Scroll; you cannot separate one book from the rest and take what you want to suit your fancy, and even if you could Leviticus is not one of them you can separate because it is called the Law of God in Nehemiah and Paul uses the phrase in his own writings.

As for animals you already have what is stated to Noah and in the Ten Words: "Thou shalt not murder-kill." Again, like the abstention from blood commandment from the elders, "thou shalt not murder-kill" does not specify whether it speaks of people or animals. Therefore if you love God and his creation it speaks of every living creature having a soul. Are animals living souls according to the Scripture? Yes, they are, but fish with scales that swarm in schools are not, or do not have, living souls. The reason they are not a soul is because the Most High made them as FOOD for the greater sea creatures which are indeed living souls. It is basic common sense because a whale cannot come up onto land and harvest wheat to make bread, (lol) so the Most High made lesser fish for them to EAT as FOOD. If you say this is not true then you are basically saying that the Creator made one less powerful living soul simply to be devoured and eaten by a greater and more powerful living soul. If you believe this then you are the one with a perverted view of the Almighty and no wonder you do and say the things you do. Even Rashi says that fish are exempt from the blood prohibition. You obviously have not done much if any homework on this subject. In addition the Essenes did indeed uphold Torah of Moshe, if you have done a quick search and found sites that say they did not then likely what you chanced were upon alternative sites that use the DSS and distortions of the Essenes for their own bent theology. In addition fish and locust were eaten by the Essenes, (which is who and what Yochanan the Immerser was being that he was raised in the deserts at Dammashek-Qumran "until his showing unto Yisrael"). However, according to their own theology, (the Damascus Document) even the blood of fish was to be shed while it was alive. You do not know what you speak of and as for all the list of false accusations that is between you and my Master-Teacher Yeshua: I believe everything written both in Torah and Prophets, and I also believe that not one jot or horn of it has passed away, because it is all SPIRIT as understood through the Testimony of Yeshua.

 

[KrAZeD]

Do you not understand what the book of Leviticus concerns? It concerns ALL the sacrifices.

Apparently you don't because I've shown exactly how passover was to get celebrated-with a literal sacrificed and devoured Lamb-which is meat. An yet you believe not eating the lamb was ok with God when he commanded it-ok.
Passover (Pesach). Leviticus 23:5 specifies that the festival year begins with Passover on "the fourteenth day of the first month" (Nisan 15). Passover is the Feast of Salvation. In both testaments, the blood of the Lamb delivers from slavery – the Jew from Egypt, the Christian from sin.

As for animals you already have what is stated to Noah and in the Ten Words: "Thou shalt not murder-kill."

Show me the cannon scripture verse your pulling this from. Either you have found an undeniable biblical contradiction, or are completely wrong. Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Verse 4 is talking about cannabilism, shown and understood by verse 5 & 6.

Now that: thou shalt not murder-kill was given by MOSES in exodus 20:13

"thou shalt not murder-kill" does not specify whether it speaks of people or animals.

Well um care to explain gen 9:3 where noah is told he can eat from animals, REMEMBER AND OBSERVING PASSOVER, SACRIFICE LAMBS FOR SIN OFFERINGS, wait let's go deeper- WHO KILLS YOUR FISH BECAUSE ITS STILL AN ANIMAL. You can not eat an animal unless you kill it, don't believe me, go attempt to bite into a live tuna or bass. It will die before your finished. I'd refrain from trying it with a live chicken, trust me those beaks aren't just for show.

Thou shall not kill- humans backed by gen 3:6

The reason they are not a soul is because the Most High made them as FOOD for the greater sea creatures which are indeed living souls.

NO. Jews were allowed to eat fish with scales and fins because God said they were allowed in lev 11:9, though you would have to G ignorant or purposely lead astray to not read the rest of the entire passage dictating what is and isn't allowed under the food laws.I'll post the other allowable foods and what nots. You can argue all day, Gods word supersedes your notions and beliefs.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;15 Every raven after his kind;16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

If you say this is not true then you are basically saying that the Creator made one less powerful living soul simply to be devoured and eaten by a greater and more powerful living soul. If you believe this then you are the one with a perverted view of the Almighty and no wonder you do and say the things you do.

What I'm saying is WHAT SAITH SCRIPTURE. Gods Devine word says what we "were" able to eat and what we "were not" able to eat (quotations in respect to those who interpret peters dream as allowing all foods cleaned) under the old mosaic law.

Even Rashi says that fish are exempt from the blood prohibition.

Well good for that MANS opinion, GOD already had said in scripture they were already good to eat, as well as lamb, cows, chickens. Leviticus 11.

Rashi is about as useful as Calvin is vs Luther. Great in what they did, but agreeably MAN and Mans interpretation. Wrong on some venues arguably great with others.

But let's go further- show that exact verse in scripture that says fish are exempt from blood prohibition- I want a biblical verse, not a mans rendition of non contextual passages.

In addition the Essenes did indeed uphold Torah of Moshe

Either you uphold every book and verse used in cannon regards to Moses or you don't. Historically depending on which of the 7 sects your derived from, they did not uphold 100% of Moses verses/passages/books. As also reiterated by your belief that it is wrong to eat meat and sacrifice animals-yet God commanded Moses to inform the children of Egypt to always observe and honor the passover (pre Jesus' sacrifice on the cross). If you don't know this, then you should research your sects starting practices and beliefs.

You do not know what you speak of and as for all the list of false accusations that is between you and my Master-Teacher Yeshua: I believe everything written both in Torah and Prophets, and I also believe that not one jot or horn of it has passed away, because it is all SPIRIT as understood through the Testimony of Yeshua.

How can you claim to believe everything written when I've shown scripture showing the command to observe passover, Jesus observing passover, what the passover meal had to include yet you speak against killing and eating lamb. I've shown God giving commands on what we can't eat to Moses, and noah allowed to eat from all that moves and lives except human. I've shown God excepting Abel's offering of animal verse cains rejected offer of fruit/grain, yet killing lambs/cows is wrong.

No I'm not going against Gods word, nor Jesus teachings, I'm going with what's in scripture. I'm believing all of scripture for exactly what it says.
Here's a great way to go with scripture- God is infallible, he is not the author of confusion. If a bible verse appears to contradict anywhere in scripture, read it in full context, it will show the true meaning that does not contradict. If a view you hold or another holds goes against or contradicts scripture, it's wrong, the view must get changed to follow all scripture.

 

[daq]

Apparently you don't because I've shown exactly how passover was to get celebrated-with a literal sacrificed and devoured Lamb-which is meat. An yet you believe not eating the lamb was ok with God when he commanded it-ok.
Passover (Pesach). Leviticus 23:5 specifies that the festival year begins with Passover on "the fourteenth day of the first month" (Nisan 15). Passover is the Feast of Salvation. In both testaments, the blood of the Lamb delivers from slavery – the Jew from Egypt, the Christian from sin.



Show me the cannon scripture verse your pulling this from. Either you have found an undeniable biblical contradiction, or are completely wrong. Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Verse 4 is talking about cannabilism, shown and understood by verse 5 & 6.

Now that: thou shalt not murder-kill was given by MOSES in exodus 20:13



Well um care to explain gen 9:3 where noah is told he can eat from animals, REMEMBER AND OBSERVING PASSOVER, SACRIFICE LAMBS FOR SIN OFFERINGS, wait let's go deeper- WHO KILLS YOUR FISH BECAUSE ITS STILL AN ANIMAL. You can not eat an animal unless you kill it, don't believe me, go attempt to bite into a live tuna or bass. It will die before your finished. I'd refrain from trying it with a live chicken, trust me those beaks aren't just for show.

Thou shall not kill- humans backed by gen 3:6



NO. Jews were allowed to eat fish with scales and fins because God said they were allowed in lev 11:9, though you would have to G ignorant or purposely lead astray to not read the rest of the entire passage dictating what is and isn't allowed under the food laws.I'll post the other allowable foods and what nots. You can argue all day, Gods word supersedes your notions and beliefs.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;15 Every raven after his kind;16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.



What I'm saying is WHAT SAITH SCRIPTURE. Gods Devine word says what we "were" able to eat and what we "were not" able to eat (quotations in respect to those who interpret peters dream as allowing all foods cleaned) under the old mosaic law.



Well good for that MANS opinion, GOD already had said in scripture they were already good to eat, as well as lamb, cows, chickens. Leviticus 11.

Rashi is about as useful as Calvin is vs Luther. Great in what they did, but agreeably MAN and Mans interpretation. Wrong on some venues arguably great with others.

But let's go further- show that exact verse in scripture that says fish are exempt from blood prohibition- I want a biblical verse, not a mans rendition of non contextual passages.



Either you uphold every book and verse used in cannon regards to Moses or you don't. Historically depending on which of the 7 sects your derived from, they did not uphold 100% of Moses verses/passages/books. As also reiterated by your belief that it is wrong to eat meat and sacrifice animals-yet God commanded Moses to inform the children of Egypt to always observe and honor the passover (pre Jesus' sacrifice on the cross). If you don't know this, then you should research your sects starting practices and beliefs.



How can you claim to believe everything written when I've shown scripture showing the command to observe passover, Jesus observing passover, what the passover meal had to include yet you speak against killing and eating lamb. I've shown God giving commands on what we can't eat to Moses, and noah allowed to eat from all that moves and lives except human. I've shown God excepting Abel's offering of animal verse cains rejected offer of fruit/grain, yet killing lambs/cows is wrong.

No I'm not going against Gods word, nor Jesus teachings, I'm going with what's in scripture. I'm believing all of scripture for exactly what it says.
Here's a great way to go with scripture- God is infallible, he is not the author of confusion. If a bible verse appears to contradict anywhere in scripture, read it in full context, it will show the true meaning that does not contradict. If a view you hold or another holds goes against or contradicts scripture, it's wrong, the view must get changed to follow all scripture.

You see all of it according to the flesh and the physical in rejection of the Testimony of Yeshua. Are you going to eat his flesh and drink his blood if he returns in physical form? That is what you will be required to do if you desire to keep his commandments. Are you going to go literally plucking out your right eye or cutting off your right hand when they offend you? The commandments are intentionally given in such a way that one cannot possibly fulfill them all according to the physical world of the flesh because God is SPIRIT and uses temporal and physical things to expound and explain supernal things to his people. But apart from this all these things have nothing to do with the thread topic and rather only came about because you and your friends want to make everything personal so that you may commit the character assassination that you love to work against those who disagree with your religious theories. Go back and read the first page of this thread: do you also reject the words of Peter and Paul? Have you answered anything from the first page of this thread? Do you also believe some guy from almost two thousand years ago may have been the antichrist or son of perdition? Apparently you prefer to think it is me.

 

[KrAZeD]

You see all of it according to the flesh and the physical in rejection of the Testimony of Yeshua

Again, your making a complete false claim with absolutely zero proof. I've used Gods Devine word to prove all points addressed, you have stuck to an interpretation from rashi-whom is not an apostle,Jesus, nor our Father. I reject nothing of or from Gods word or my savior and Lord Jesus.

Are you going to eat his flesh and drink his blood if he returns in physical form? That is what you will be required to do if you desire to keep his commandments.

Sheer ignorance from you, and abuse of scripture. - scriptural context is always key to reading and understanding. Does it not self define the bread representing his body, and the drink representing his blood- both CLEARLY defined in the TRUTH of the ACTUAL verses.

Matt 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.27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Are you going to go literally plucking out your right eye or cutting off your right hand when they offend you?

Again ignorance of the context of the passages, but hey why not, if it could help me from going astray, it's better to enter the kingdom maimed then burn for eternity with an intact body. Is that not what scripture says...ignoring that part of context indicating that we must shed our flesh that is engaging in sin; ignoring the context of not letting our flesh stumble us in striving to live as children in seeking in earnest desire to appease and honor our Father at all times.

The commandments are intentionally given in such a way that one cannot possibly fulfill them all according to the physical world of the flesh because God is SPIRIT and uses temporal and physical things to expound and explain supernal things to his people.

So are you saying all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God or are you saying Jesus in the flesh was not able to fulfill them because they were impossible?
Or are you implying a justification for a belief of choosing to purposely ignore the word of God and not participate exactly in what he outlined with participating in upholding the law of passover- eating of the sacrificed Lamb?

Though I can agree that the law helped show man that we all fall short of the Glory of God, and are not righteous.

rather only came about because you and your friends want to make everything personal so that you may commit the character assassination that you love to work against those who disagree with your religious theories.

Wrong, I chimed in because you properly outlined the INTENT of not mixing fabrics as God had commanded those in that time. Then turned right around and carelessly threw together rubbish about "blood/meat" laws that was not scriptural sound, whilst asking the person were they an eater of souls (quoted in post#21) I will stand up to the proper usage of scripture, and will correct those astray when I can back it with scripture, as I pray any would do for me if I should go astray or misuse scripture for ones own agenda.

do you also reject the words of Peter and Paul?

Do you accept God commanding Hebrews and later Jews through Moses to observe the passover and eat the lamb they had to sacrifice, do you accept God telling Noah he could eat of any living moving thing except humans? I accept all 66 books as the divine inspired word of God. I most likely do not follow your spiritualized belief concepts.

Do you also believe some guy from almost two thousand years ago may have been the antichrist or son of perdition?

Nope, sure everyone already knows that.

Apparently you prefer to think it is me.

have you accepted Jesus as your absolute Lord and savior and repented of your sins, if you have you can most likely rule your self out of that role by default, no need to assume what I think, trust in our Lord and know your saved if you truly repent.

For the record, I never implied that, so how you assumed that I'd gather is through spiritualization of my words, right?

 

[daq]

Again, your making a complete false claim with absolutely zero proof. I've used Gods Devine word to prove all points addressed, you have stuck to an interpretation from rashi-whom is not an apostle,Jesus, nor our Father. I reject nothing of or from Gods word or my savior and Lord Jesus.



Sheer ignorance from you, and abuse of scripture. - scriptural context is always key to reading and understanding. Does it not self define the bread representing his body, and the drink representing his blood- both CLEARLY defined in the TRUTH of the ACTUAL verses.

Matt 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.27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.



Again ignorance of the context of the passages, but hey why not, if it could help me from going astray, it's better to enter the kingdom maimed then burn for eternity with an intact body. Is that not what scripture says...ignoring that part of context indicating that we must shed our flesh that is engaging in sin; ignoring the context of not letting our flesh stumble us in striving to live as children in seeking in earnest desire to appease and honor our Father at all times.



So are you saying all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God or are you saying Jesus in the flesh was not able to fulfill them because they were impossible?
Or are you implying a justification for a belief of choosing to purposely ignore the word of God and not participate exactly in what he outlined with participating in upholding the law of passover- eating of the sacrificed Lamb?

Though I can agree that the law helped show man that we all fall short of the Glory of God, and are not righteous.



Wrong, I chimed in because you properly outlined the INTENT of not mixing fabrics as God had commanded those in that time. Then turned right around and carelessly threw together rubbish about "blood/meat" laws that was not scriptural sound, whilst asking the person were they an eater of souls (quoted in post#21) I will stand up to the proper usage of scripture, and will correct those astray when I can back it with scripture, as I pray any would do for me if I should go astray or misuse scripture for ones own agenda.



Do you accept God commanding Hebrews and later Jews through Moses to observe the passover and eat the lamb they had to sacrifice, do you accept God telling Noah he could eat of any living moving thing except humans? I accept all 66 books as the divine inspired word of God. I most likely do not follow your spiritualized belief concepts.



Nope, sure everyone already knows that.



have you accepted Jesus as your absolute Lord and savior and repented of your sins, if you have you can most likely rule your self out of that role by default, no need to assume what I think, trust in our Lord and know your saved if you truly repent.

For the record, I never implied that, so how you assumed that I'd gather is through spiritualization of my words, right?

The reason I do not feel compelled to answer your accusations any more is because it simply is not possible to explain supernal things to the carnal minded man. Your accusations only prove that you seek to justify yourself before men at the expense of those around you with whom you disagree. I have already been over most everything that you have raised and certainly have no duty to repeat "all teachings" right here and now in a thread not my own just because you demand it. You have Moshe and the Prophets and they wrote of Yeshua: if you do not understand them it is because you do not understand the one who was raised from the dead who interprets Moshe and the Prophets for us and paid for his Testimony with his own blood. There is no love in anything you have to say unless you happen to be saying it to those with whom you are in agreement and even that is in violation of the teachings of the Master-Teacher Yeshua. Your own willingness to take a verbal hatchet to your brother so as to "justify yourself before men" is even a fulfillment of those very same words of Messiah from Luke 16:15.

Both wonderful and terrible things take place in the heart. The most terrible of all is the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by Daniel the prophet. The word in the Greek New Testament translated as "abomination" appears only three times in the Gospel accounts. Two of those occurrences are found in the companion chapters Matthew 24 and Mark 13. This means that technically speaking the word is only used on two occasions by the Master in the Gospel accounts because Matthew and Mark record the same statement from the Olivet Discourse. After the Gospel accounts it occurs only in the Book of the Revelation of Yeshua.

Matthew 24:15 KJV
15. When ye therefore shall see the abomination [GSN#946 bdelugma] of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Mark 13:14 KJV
14. But when ye shall see the abomination [GSN#946 bdelugma] of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand), then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Original Strong's Ref. #946
Romanized bdelugma
Pronounced bdel'-oog-mah
from GSN0948; a detestation, i.e. (specially) idolatry:
KJV--abomination.

The KJV word for "abomination" in the Greek is the same GSN#946 "bdelugma" in all three instances. Yeshua then only uses it twice, (or possibly the Hebrew-Aramaic equivalent) because Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are companion passages. Thus Yeshua only used the word for "abomination" on two separate occasions and because one of them is a direct quote from Daniel, whom Yeshua clearly states to be a prophet, we can be certain that the other occasion is highly significant in regards to the true meaning of the "abomination of desolation" written in the Book of Daniel. The usage the same word only twice, as recorded in the Gospel accounts, strongly implies that both instances denote the very same meaning as interpreted by the Master himself.

The question then becomes whether or not one is willing to accept the teaching and doctrine of Messiah in this regard, that is, if the same word is found elsewhere and does not agree with the eschatology of the modern prophecy scholars and shepherds? Yeshua clearly states in the second usage of "bdelugma" that the abomination concerns men and the condition of the heart. And we know from the Strong's definition above that the word means idolatry just as does the Hebrew word used in Daniel for "abomination", (HSN#8251 "shiqquwts") in the passages concerning the abomination of desolation. The passage in Luke is the only other place in the Gospel record where the word is employed.

And the passage from Luke should be sobering to any true disciple of Yeshua:

Luke 16:13-15 KJV
13. No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
14. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination [GSN#946 bdelugma] in the sight of God.

The same word does not occur again until the Revelation:

Revelation 17:4-5 KJV
4. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations [GSN#946 bdelugma] and filthiness of her fornication:
5. And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS [GSN#946 bdelugma] OF THE EARTH.

Revelation 21:27 KJV
27. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, [GSN#946 bdelugma] or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

According to the usage of "bdelugma" in the Gospel accounts the Greek word concerns individual people and the idolatrous condition of the heart. This is according to the Testimony of Yeshua. According to the usage of the same "bdelugma" found in the Book of the Revelation of Yeshua it still concerns individual people and the idolatrous condition of the heart. And it is Yeshua himself who states that it is he that searches the reins and hearts of us all.

The abomination of desolation is therefore most certainly an event which every true disciple of Yeshua will one day be forced to deal with if not already, (each in his or her own appointed times and none shall be alone in his appointed times) and we are given the supernal signs to watch for when the appointed time approaches because the man is the temple. The same supernal signs are given in the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 companion passages . . .

Mortify that carnal man Esau . . .