Why doesn't the Bible condemn cannibalism?

[sojourner]

Perhaps one should know themselves internally a little better,

Perhaps one shouldn't try to spiritually evaluate those with whom one is not at all familiar.

 

[Unification]

1) "Greater truth" has no consciousness of its own, so doesn't "realize" anything.
2) I believe I already pointed out that human beings are human beings.
3) By definition, what we share is partial, for God is greater than the sum of our parts.

We all have a brain, consciousness, 12 nerves around our brain that regulate every which way we perceive things, senses, a mind, every other component of the brain, every other component of the human body, a heart, blood, water, flesh, skin, bones, dna, all of the same exact sources needed for survival, a physical body we reside in, a physical earth we all live on, the exact same earth, the exact same sun, the exact same moon, the exact same universe, the exact same environment of perfection to live, our physical aspects all decay and die, we all came from a womb of a woman, we all live now and our lives are in a series of presents, never living in the past or future, many more. Anything else you can think of or these all partial and/or subjective?

 

[Wharton]

The Passover was established between God and the Jews who were slaves in Egypt.They were to slaughter a 1 year old male lamb or goat,gut it,and roast it whole.It was to be eaten with bitter greens so they would remember the bitter times they had in Egypt.This was the covenant God made with His people.Moses led Gods people in the Exodus and was their Messiah.Their Christ.
(I will explain in detail in another comment later)

Anyway.... much later.Jesus, a Jew, followed the customs.He participated in the Passover with his disciples on Nisan 14th 33C.E.After this he dismissed Judas Iscariot, and then established the new covenant,the last supper, with the remaining 11. This ritual is not called the Eucharist.This is a false claim.The Greek word eukhariste΄sas means to give thanks.To be grateful,show gratitude.This is what Jesus did after he passed the emblems.The ritual itself is not called The Eucharist.Many are mislead by those who use their own understanding and reasoning.Thats what I meant when I said the Word The Eucharist does not exist in the holy scriptures.This is just a group taking a word and running with it to mean what they want.It was called the last supper.The new covenant.Not the Eucharist.It is not The Thanksgiving.Thanksgiving, or prayer, is done after every meal.This sanctifies the emblems.

1 Timothy 4:3,4. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Everything that is taught about this by the RCC does not match with what the holy scriptures says.So the last supper was established, and it was consecrated by the word of God and prayer.So if we go with what you are you are saying, The Eucharist was then consecrated with The Eucharist.The Thanksgiving with the Thanksgiving.That makes no sense at all.If we read and study thoroughly it is easy to see the truth.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus was just giving thanks after passing the emblems.

A) Jesus wasn't doing Passover with his disciples as you stated. Read the scriptures. The lambs were not yet slain, even as Jesus was before Pilate.
B) Scripture states, they were reclining at table. You stand at table for Passover.
C) It's called the Last Supper but Jesus was leading a Jewish todah at the Last Supper.

See if you can follow this rabbi's thoughts.

"Being Saved From Grave Danger

By Rabbi Z. Sklar

וזאת תורת זבח השלמים אשר יקריב…
“If he shall offer it for a thanksgiving offering…” (Leviticus 7:11).

The Hebrew word todah means thank you. In the times of the Temple, when a person survived a life-threatening situation, he or she brought a korban todah — a thanksgiving offering. This offering, which consisted of a cow, sheep, or goat, was brought together with thirty matzahs and ten loaves of bread. One tenth of this was given to the kohen (priest), and the rest was to be eaten within one day and a night.

The Netziv (an acronym for Rabbi Naftail Zvi Yehuda Berlin) asks how the Torah can require a person to eat an entire animal plus a tableful of matzah and bread — all within 24 hours (Ha’emek Davar, 7:13). In fact, it is nearly impossible. The person bringing the todah offering therefore had no choice but to invite family and friends to take part in his meal. At this meal, he would explain to all of his guests what had transpired to require him to bring the todah, publicly acknowledging G-d’s help in saving him from a dangerous situation. All those present would hear a moving, firsthand account of G-d’s benevolence.

Hearing a story — even a certifiably true story — third- or fourth-hand can be uplifting, even inspiring, but it doesn’t compare to hearing a first-person account of how G-d clearly saved the day. Everyone present at such a meal would hopefully reflect on the role G-d plays in their own lives and realize that, when the chips are down, G-d can come to my aid. If He helped that person, He can do the same for me.

The Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 9:7) explains that when the Messiah comes, there will no longer be a need for sacrifices to atone for sin; as there will be no evil inclination, sin will no longer exist. However, not all sacrifices will cease. The todah sacrifice will still be offered. Why? According to Rabbi Henoch Zundel (a commentator on the Midrash known as the Eitz Yosef), there will be no illness and no grave perils after the Messiah arrives. What evil can G-d save a person from, that he would be required to offer a todah sacrifice?

The Eitz Yosef understands that the todah will no longer be an obligatory offering when the Messiah comes. Rather, it will be brought voluntarily, as a way for people to express their utter appreciation for everything G-d does. And when it is shared, as it must be, with a large group of people, the whole group will develop a greater appreciation for G-d’s goodness.

The todah offering teaches us the value of thanking G-d not only when He saves us from grave danger, but for everything He does. It also teaches us the need to express our gratitude to anyone who has done something for our benefit — even for something as trivial as emptying our trash can. How much more so must we express our appreciation for those who do much greater things for us! How about our parents? Or spouses? It wouldn’t hurt to ask ourselves whether there are things we’ve taken for granted over the years.

Thanking people not only prevents us from taking favors for granted, but it also helps us realize all the good we actually do have in our lives.


So todah means "thank you."

The definition of Eucharist is:
Eucharist(noun)

the act of giving thanks; thanksgiving

So whether you want to tap dance about what was going on at the Last Supper, it doesn't matter.

Passover is the communal Jewish todah or eucharist.

The Last Supper was a private Jewish todah or eucharist.

 

[sojourner]

We all have a brain, consciousness, 12 nerves around our brain that regulate every which way we perceive things, senses, a mind, every other component of the brain, every other component of the human body, a heart, blood, water, flesh, skin, bones, dna, all of the same exact sources needed for survival, a physical body we reside in, a physical earth we all live on, the exact same earth, the exact same sun, the exact same moon, the exact same universe, the exact same environment of perfection to live, our physical aspects all decay and die, we all came from a womb of a woman, we all live now and our lives are in a series of presents, never living in the past or future, many more. Anything else you can think of or these all partial and/or subjective?

These are all facts. Truth is how we perceive those facts.

 

[Nada]

@Wharton
Everything I showed you is true.Your (A) statement is based on a misconception.The lamb that Jesus and his disciples prepared was slain.There were also differences in opinion between some of the Jews.Some did it at Twilight, and some after.This was known as the two evenings.Jesus and his disciples began at twilight.Here is the time order and preparation order.I will send the actual scripture and answer in another comment for this is lengthy.

What is meant by the expression “between the two evenings”?

The Israelites measured their day from sundown to sundown. So Passover day would begin at sundown at the end of the 13th day of Abib (Nisan). The animal was to be slaughtered “between the two evenings.” (Ex 12:6) There are differences of opinion as to the exact time meant. According to some scholars, as well as the Karaite Jews and Samaritans, this is the time between sunset and deep twilight. On the other hand, the Pharisees and the Rabbinists considered the first evening to be when the sun began to descend and the second evening to be the real sunset. Due to this latter view the rabbis hold that the lamb was slaughtered in the latter part of the 14th, not at its start, and therefore that the Passover meal was actually eaten on Nisan 15.

On this point Professors Keil and Delitzsch say: “Different opinions have prevailed among the Jews from a very early date as to the precise time intended. Aben Ezra agrees with the Caraites and Samaritans in taking the first evening to be the time when the sun sinks below the horizon, and the second the time of total darkness; in which case, ‘between the two evenings’ would be from 6 o’clock to 7.20. . . . According to the rabbinical idea, the time when the sun began to descend, viz. from 3 to 5 o’clock, was the first evening, and sunset the second; so that ‘between the two evenings’ was from 3 to 6 o’clock. Modern expositors have very properly decided in favour of the view held by Aben Ezra and the custom adopted by the Caraites and Samaritans.”—Commentary on the Old Testament, 1973, Vol. I, The Second Book of Moses, p. 12; see DAY.

From the foregoing, and particularly in view of such texts as Exodus 12:17, 18, Leviticus 23:5-7, and Deuteronomy 16:6, 7, the weight of evidence points to the application of the expression “between the two evenings” to the time between sunset and dark. This would mean that the Passover meal was eaten well after sundown on Nisan 14, for it took considerable time to slaughter, skin, and roast the animal thoroughly. Deuteronomy 16:6 commands: “You should sacrifice the passover in the evening as soon as the sun sets.” Jesus and his apostles observed the Passover meal “after evening had fallen.” (Mr 14:17; Mt 26:20) Judas went out immediately after the Passover observance, “And it was night.” (Joh 13:30) When Jesus observed the Passover with his 12 apostles, there must have been no little conversation; then, too, some time would have been occupied by Jesus in washing the apostles’ feet. (Joh 13:2-5) Hence, the institution of the Lord’s Evening Meal certainly took place quite late in the evening.—See LORD’S EVENING MEAL.



The Preparation

On Preparation the people prepared meals for the next day, the Sabbath, and completed any other pressing work that could not wait until after the Sabbath. (Ex 20:10) The Law stipulated that the body of a man executed and hung on a stake “should not stay all night on the stake.” (De 21:22, 23; compare Jos 8:29; 10:26, 27.) Since Jesus and those impaled with him were on stakes on the afternoon of Preparation, it was important to the Jews that their deaths be hastened if necessary so that they could be buried before sunset. This was especially so since the day soon to begin at sundown was a regular Sabbath (the seventh day of the week) and also a Sabbath because of being Nisan 15 (Le 23:5-7), hence it was a “great” Sabbath. (Joh 19:31, 42; Mr 15:42, 43; Lu 23:54) Josephus quoted a decree of Caesar Augustus that said the Jews “need not give bond (to appear in court) on the Sabbath or on the day of preparation for it (Sabbath Eve) after the ninth hour,” indicating that they began to prepare for the Sabbath at the ninth hour on Friday.—Jewish Antiquities, XVI, 163 (vi, 2).

Regarding the morning of Jesus’ trial and appearance before Pilate, which was in the morning period of Nisan 14 (the Passover day having begun the evening before), John 19:14 says: “Now it was preparation of the passover.” (NW, KJ, Da) Some commentators have understood this to mean “preparation for the passover,” and certain translations so render the verse. (AT, We, CC) This, though, suggests that the Passover had not yet been celebrated, whereas the Gospel accounts explicitly show that Jesus and the apostles had celebrated it the night before. (Lu 22:15; Mt 26:18-20; Mr 14:14-17) Christ perfectly carried out the regulations of the Law, including the requirement to celebrate the Passover on Nisan 14. (Ex 12:6; Le 23:5; see PASSOVER.) The day of Jesus’ trial and death could be viewed as the “preparation of the passover” in the sense that it was the preparation for the seven-day Festival of Unfermented Cakes that began the next day. Because of their closeness on the calendar, the entire festival itself was often included in the term “Passover.” And the day after Nisan 14 was always a Sabbath; additionally, in 33 C.E., Nisan 15 fell on the regular Sabbath, making the day a “great” or double Sabbath.

jw.wol

 

[Nada]

@Wharton
Questions as toTime Order.

It was a question of defilement that gave rise to the words: “They themselves did not enter into the governor’s palace, that they might not get defiled but might eat the passover.” (Joh 18:28) These Jews considered it a defilement to enter into a Gentile dwelling. (Ac 10:28) This statement was made, however, “early in the day,” hence after the Passover meal had taken place. It is to be noted that at this time the entire period, including Passover day and the Festival of Unfermented Cakes that followed, was at times referred to as “Passover.” In the light of this fact, Alfred Edersheim offers the following explanation: A voluntary peace offering was made on Passover and another, a compulsory one, on the next day, Nisan 15, the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Cakes. It was this second offering that the Jews were afraid they might not be able to eat if they contracted defilement in the judgment hall of Pilate.—TheTemple, 1874, pp. 186, 187.

Passover — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[jtartar]

Does Christianity view cannibalism as objectively immoral?

Christians will sometimes claim that they have the benefit of "Objective Morality." By "objective morality" they typically mean that morality is as unambiguous as "1+1=2" and that they know this to be objectively true by virtue of divine revelation from their deity.

However, the Christian Bible appears to be suspiciously silent when it comes to unequivocally condemning the horrific act of cannibalism. Even Christian sources will recognize this:

“Although there is no direct statement such as, 'Thou shalt not eat human flesh,' the obvious indication from Scripture is that cannibalism is a terrible evil.” ~ from gotquestions.org

Is that true? "Evil" as in "no human enjoys being devoured by other humans" (read: subjective morality) or "Evil" as in "God has revealed it to be against His Will (read: objective morality)?"

...

Shall we examine the scriptures cited by gotquestions.org to support its claim that the Bible views cannibalism as a terrible (and presumably "objective") evil?

“Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” ~ Genesis 9:3

Everything? Really?

Before any Christians can start sharpening their knives, the site goes on to qualify on behalf of the Bible:

“However, God specifies that the “food for you” does not include fellow human beings." ~ from gotquestions.org

As evidence, they apparently felt that the following verse was conclusive:

"Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” ~ Genesis 9:6

If we assume that “shed blood” is a euphemism for cannibalism, then rather than establishing that cannibalism is wrong, this verse merely asserts that those who shed blood will have their blood shed.

Doesn't this sound rather more like “dog eat dog” than “don't eat each other?”

...

The site goes on to say:

“But what about cannibalizing someone who is already dead (necro-cannibalism) in order to prevent starvation? This is not an entirely hypothetical question, as “survival cannibalism” has indeed occurred. Those who have resorted to cannibalism to stave off starvation include the Donner party in 1846 and the survivors of a 1972 plane crash in the Andes. However, given the Bible’s wholly negative portrayal of cannibalism, it would seem that self-preservation cannot justify such barbarism. Even in the direst and most desperate circumstances, cannibalism should not be a consideration.” ~ from gotquestions.org

However, the Bible clearly (and repeatedly) indicates that even in the direst and most desperate circumstance, cannibalism is a consideration and it acknowledges that it will happen:

"You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters." ~ Leviticus 26:29

Doesn't that sound suspiciously like an order? Although this verse indicates that God can punish people by reducing them to cannibalism, it fails to condemn the practice outright. In fact, rather than condemn the act of cannibalism, the Bible appears to indicate that God utilizes it as a method of instruction.

"Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you." ~ Deuteronomy 28:53

Again, the lack of a prohibition against cannibalism is conspicuously absent.

"I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them." ~ Jeremiah 19:9

Cannibalism is apparently recognized as a by-product of war. However, as the gotquestions website concedes, it isn't condemned. The scriptures are silent even when the question is asked directly:

"Look, LORD, and consider: Whom have you ever treated like this? Should women eat their offspring, the children they have cared for? Should priest and prophet be killed in the sanctuary of the Lord? ~ Lamentations 2:20

Again, this question is essentially posed directly to God himself: Should women eat their offspring? Yet the question remains unanswered. Why is that?

"With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed." ~ Lamentations 4:10

Compassionate women can cook and eat their own children? Seriously? Would any sane person characterize such behavior as "compassionate?"

...

"Therefore in your midst parents will eat their children, and children will eat their parents. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds." ~ Ezekiel 5:10

It appears that the best that the Bible can do is describe cannibalism as a punishment sent by God.

...

Q - Is the Bible silent on the morality of cannibalism because God knew that one day he'd be urging his followers to eat human flesh (in the literal sense or not) in remembrance of him?

Who knows?

...

“Scripture gives no explicit command against cannibalism.” ~ from gotquestions.org

...

Suggestion: The next time a Christian gets up on their high horse and proclaims that they have received a clear and objective morality via their religion, ask them to explain why their holy scriptures are so nebulous on the issue of cannibalism. If they agree that cannibalism is objectively wrong, but they cannot cite a biblical source to account for their morality, ask them if it might be that they're in fact obtaining their morality from a non-biblical source.

It might even be the case that they'll actually be able to cite a bit of scripture that does unequivocally condemn the practice. However, if they're obliged to concede that their scriptures are indeed silent on the issue, allow me to suggest that you extend a sincere invitation to have them over for dinner some time.

NulliuSinVerba,
It is true that the eating of human flesh is not addressed in the Holy Scriptures. There are some things that are so very wrong that a law is not necessary to a follower of God or Christ, 1Tim 1:5-11.
We have several scriptures about not eating blood of any creature, to a reasonable person this would certainly apply to a human, Gen 9:3,4, Deut 12:23-25, Lev 17:10-14, Acts 15:20,29.
Many people believe in, what is called, Innateness Hypothesis, which means that we all have, at least the rudiments of a conscience. This would exclude the eating of human flesh, by another human, Matt 7:12.

 

[jtartar]

Does Christianity view cannibalism as objectively immoral?

Christians will sometimes claim that they have the benefit of "Objective Morality." By "objective morality" they typically mean that morality is as unambiguous as "1+1=2" and that they know this to be objectively true by virtue of divine revelation from their deity.

However, the Christian Bible appears to be suspiciously silent when it comes to unequivocally condemning the horrific act of cannibalism. Even Christian sources will recognize this:

“Although there is no direct statement such as, 'Thou shalt not eat human flesh,' the obvious indication from Scripture is that cannibalism is a terrible evil.” ~ from gotquestions.org

Is that true? "Evil" as in "no human enjoys being devoured by other humans" (read: subjective morality) or "Evil" as in "God has revealed it to be against His Will (read: objective morality)?"

...

Shall we examine the scriptures cited by gotquestions.org to support its claim that the Bible views cannibalism as a terrible (and presumably "objective") evil?

“Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” ~ Genesis 9:3

Everything? Really?

Before any Christians can start sharpening their knives, the site goes on to qualify on behalf of the Bible:

“However, God specifies that the “food for you” does not include fellow human beings." ~ from gotquestions.org

As evidence, they apparently felt that the following verse was conclusive:

"Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” ~ Genesis 9:6

If we assume that “shed blood” is a euphemism for cannibalism, then rather than establishing that cannibalism is wrong, this verse merely asserts that those who shed blood will have their blood shed.

Doesn't this sound rather more like “dog eat dog” than “don't eat each other?”

...

The site goes on to say:

“But what about cannibalizing someone who is already dead (necro-cannibalism) in order to prevent starvation? This is not an entirely hypothetical question, as “survival cannibalism” has indeed occurred. Those who have resorted to cannibalism to stave off starvation include the Donner party in 1846 and the survivors of a 1972 plane crash in the Andes. However, given the Bible’s wholly negative portrayal of cannibalism, it would seem that self-preservation cannot justify such barbarism. Even in the direst and most desperate circumstances, cannibalism should not be a consideration.” ~ from gotquestions.org

However, the Bible clearly (and repeatedly) indicates that even in the direst and most desperate circumstance, cannibalism is a consideration and it acknowledges that it will happen:

"You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters." ~ Leviticus 26:29

Doesn't that sound suspiciously like an order? Although this verse indicates that God can punish people by reducing them to cannibalism, it fails to condemn the practice outright. In fact, rather than condemn the act of cannibalism, the Bible appears to indicate that God utilizes it as a method of instruction.

"Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you." ~ Deuteronomy 28:53

Again, the lack of a prohibition against cannibalism is conspicuously absent.

"I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them." ~ Jeremiah 19:9

Cannibalism is apparently recognized as a by-product of war. However, as the gotquestions website concedes, it isn't condemned. The scriptures are silent even when the question is asked directly:

"Look, LORD, and consider: Whom have you ever treated like this? Should women eat their offspring, the children they have cared for? Should priest and prophet be killed in the sanctuary of the Lord? ~ Lamentations 2:20

Again, this question is essentially posed directly to God himself: Should women eat their offspring? Yet the question remains unanswered. Why is that?

"With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed." ~ Lamentations 4:10

Compassionate women can cook and eat their own children? Seriously? Would any sane person characterize such behavior as "compassionate?"

...

"Therefore in your midst parents will eat their children, and children will eat their parents. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds." ~ Ezekiel 5:10

It appears that the best that the Bible can do is describe cannibalism as a punishment sent by God.

...

Q - Is the Bible silent on the morality of cannibalism because God knew that one day he'd be urging his followers to eat human flesh (in the literal sense or not) in remembrance of him?

Who knows?

...

“Scripture gives no explicit command against cannibalism.” ~ from gotquestions.org

...

Suggestion: The next time a Christian gets up on their high horse and proclaims that they have received a clear and objective morality via their religion, ask them to explain why their holy scriptures are so nebulous on the issue of cannibalism. If they agree that cannibalism is objectively wrong, but they cannot cite a biblical source to account for their morality, ask them if it might be that they're in fact obtaining their morality from a non-biblical source.

It might even be the case that they'll actually be able to cite a bit of scripture that does unequivocally condemn the practice. However, if they're obliged to concede that their scriptures are indeed silent on the issue, allow me to suggest that you extend a sincere invitation to have them over for dinner some time.

NulliuSinVerba,
It is true that the eating of human flesh is not addressed in the Holy Scriptures. There are some things that are so very wrong that a law is not necessary to a follower of God or Christ, 1Tim 1:5-11.
We have several scriptures about not eating blood of any creature, to a reasonable person this would certainly apply to a human, Gen 9:3,4, Deut 12:23-25, Lev 17:10-14, Acts 15:20,29.
Many people believe in, what is called, Innateness Hypothesis, which means that we all have, at least the rudiments of a conscience. This would exclude the eating of human flesh, by another human, Matt 7:12.

 

[Unification]

These are all facts. Truth is how we perceive those facts.

Then perception comes from the mind of the individual, a battle within one's head .

 

[RabbiO]

Did you ever notice that when you buy flatware it does not come with instructions about abstaining from shoving a knife into your dog's anus. Come to think about it, I don't recall any instructions about not taking the 8 tablespoons and shoving them simultaneously down your throat or......

More seriously, the question is how exactly one understands this from Genesis 9:3
כל רמש אשר הוא חי לכם יהיה לאכלה

 

[sojourner]

Then perception comes from the mind of the individual, a battle within one's head .

Battle? Or, perception can be a communal activity -- a community truth.

 

[Nada]

@Wharton
As far as eating while standing with your sandals and staff in hand is concerned,this instruction was given to the Israelites because they were about to be delivered and needed to be ready.

Exodus 12:11 This is how you shall eat it: with your belt on your waist, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is Yahweh's Passover.

Here is how you must eat it: you must be dressed for travel, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. You are to eat it in a hurry; it is the LORD's Passover."

11 Here is how you must eat it: you must be dressed for travel, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. You are to eat it in a hurry; it is the Lord’s Passover.


So it is obvious that these specific eating instructions were given because flight was about to take place.They were about to be instructed to leave Egypt.These instructions do not apply to Jesus and his disciples.They did not need to tuck their belts,stand or have a staff in hand.They did everything according to tradition as far as preparations.

Jesus followed the traditions,being a Jew,and did it correctly.After all,he is the one foreshadowed by the lamb in Exodus 12.

Both the lamb and Jesus did not have any bones broken as spoken of in holy scriptures.
Both the lamb and Jesus were totally consumed.The lamb was to be burned before morning came in the book of Exodus.Jesus body was not found in the tomb.It was consumed by God as a sacrifice.

OK...now.My point is that if you pay attention to what took place during the passover,one can see that this is foreshadowing the coming of the Christ.The lamb was slaughtered in Egypt to save the firstborn males lives by spilling its blood.Jesus was the firstborn of God and was slaughtered to save all of mankind's lives by the shedding of his blood.Jesus was known as the lamb of God.He was the sacrificial lamb.The lamb in Egypt was not to have any of its bones broken.Remember when Jesus was on the stake he was already dead when the Roman soldiers came to check on him? The soldiers broke the legs of the two men,one on either side of Jesus,but not Jesus,for he was dead already.This was prophesied in Psalms 34:20,also quoted in John 19:36.
"Not a bone of him shall be broken"

Notice too how when the Jews in Egypt were done eating the lamb or goat,they were to burn all of the left overs before morning.It was to be totally consumed.When Jesus was in the tomb, and the women came to tend to the body in the morning,there was no body of Jesus in the tomb.It was gone.This coincides with the consuming of the passover lamb or goat. Jehovah God consumed it,just as he did with Moses body also.

Another thing is, remember when Jesus was on the stake, and they did not break his legs ,for he was dead already,they pierced him with a spear? Ok..this was also
prophesied in Zechariah 12:10.It was also quoted in John 19:37. "And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."

AMAZING RIGHT?

 

[metis]

Did you ever notice that when you buy flatware it does not come with instructions about abstaining from shoving a knife into your dog's anus.

How about when it comes to doing that to rabbis?

 

[Nada]

@Wharton
There is no tap dancing here Wharton.I have explained to you already.You have been mislead by misconceptions based on wrong interpretations.Using your own reasoning you do not see the obvious.Another thing.You should ask yourself whether or not you state what you do because you want to prove God right, or is it to satisfy your own ego? You approached me with," Wow. A bible student that doesn't know that the Passover is the Jewish communal todah or in the Greek, Eucharist." And also, "So whether you want to tap dance about what was going on at the Last Supper, it doesn't matter.Passover is the communal Jewish todah or eucharist."

You were incorrect on both matters.

 

[Unification]

Battle? Or, perception can be a communal activity -- a community truth.

Where does anyone's perception, individually or collectively derive from?

 

[sojourner]

Where does anyone's perception, individually or collectively derive from?

It depends.

 

[RabbiO]

How about when it comes to doing that to rabbis?

You are apparently unfamiliar with Fruit of the Loom iron mesh briefs.

As Isaac Mayer Wise would have said, if he had thought of it, "Some day you're going to drop a pencil. Why take chances?"

 

[Unification]

It depends.

Only objective and rational place is within the head, the mind and the brain, which creates ones individual reality and perception.

 

[sojourner]

Only objective and rational place is within the head, the mind and the brain, which creates ones individual reality and perception.

Of course, "one's own mind" isn't objective -- it's subjective.

 

[Unification]

Of course, "one's own mind" isn't objective -- it's subjective.

So there is a greater truth that we are all part of which one should seek, perceived in the mind, and then a subjective truth that one perceives in the mind. Two elements, one greater and one lesser. One higher and one lower. One objective, and one subjective... Both in the same human's individual mind.