Food for freethought
Posted on: September 20, 2008 - 2:21pm

Food for freethought
I originally posted this on your sister site, freethinkingteens.com out of ignorance. I think it may be better suited for you guys. I hope you enjoy.
As I'm sure many of you know, the Jewish people annually celebrate the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and have done so for about 3500 years now. The Passover holiday is to commemorate the story told in Exodus Chapter 12, where God sent a destroying angel to kill all the firstborn children of Egypt. God gave the people a way to get out of this horrible fate by telling them to sacrifice a lamb without blemish and rub its blood above their doorposts. Do this, He said, and the destroyer will "Passover" your house. Now, Christians like myself will tell you that this Passover lamb was a "type" of Christ, meaning something in the Old Testament that eerily reminds us of the story of Jesus. John the Baptist called Jesus the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." The Book of Revelation calls Jesus "a Lamb that appeared to have been slain." Just as the Passover lamb's blood protected all inside a house from the destroyer, so also does the blood of the Lamb of God protect all under it from the coming fiery judgment. But this is elementary. I'm sure you've heard such things before, and, because you may not believe the stories of the Bible have a foundation in the real world, you have become quite tired of hearing about it. What I want to talk about is the Passover feast itself, the one that has been celebrated for 3500 years by a people that rejects Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah foretold in their Scriptures. On the 14th day of the first month on the Jewish calendar, (which tends to be May on our calendars, theirs is based off of lunar cycles so it fluctuates) the Passover is celebrated. Aside from eating the Passover lamb, who's bones are not to be broken, they also will sit down and eat specific, traditional foods that teach things from the story in Exodus 12. For example, they'll eat a very hot horse-radish ground with beet juice to remind them of the bitterness of slavery in Egypt, then quickly eat sweet apples to take away the bitterness to symbolize the release from slavery. While many aspects of the Passover celebration directly correlate to the story of Christ, (the bitterness, in the above, would symbolize the bitterness of the death of Christ on the cross, and the sweetness would be the sweetness of the resurrection) I won't go into all of those. I'll instead skip ahead to the fourth step in the Jewish Passover feast (also called the seder) which is called the Yachatz. During the Yachatz, three pieces of unleavened bread are put before the celebrants. These pieces of unleavened bread are traditionally baked on pans with indentions and ripples on them, which gives the bread an appearance of having stripes and holes in it. As the prophet Isaiah says in Chapter 52, "He was to be pierced for our transgressions...and by His stripes we are healed." So, they put these three pieces of striped and pierced unleavened bread in a linen basket they call the "Echad" and set it in the middle of the table. This word "Echad" is used also in the Hebrew Old Testament. It means "one" or "unity" in the Hebrew (Moses says in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is Echad"
It's important to note that Jewish people are strict unitarians; they do not believe God is Triune. Now, the Yachatz proceeds as follows: the father, or head of the household, takes the middle piece of bread out of the Echad. He takes hold of the bread, which is called the Afikomen, and breaks it. He then wraps it in linen and hides it away. The children in the house then search for the Afikomen and when they find it they return it to their father. The children don't just give it to him though, the father pays a ransom to get the Afikomen back, which is typically gifts or money or the like. Everyone at the feast then eats a piece of the Afikomen. On the night Jesus Christ was betrayed, as He and His disciples ate what we call the Last Supper, they weren't just eating any old meal, they were celebrating the Passover. When Jesus picked up the piece of bread and said, "Take, eat, this is My body broken for you," He was breaking the Afikomen. The Jewish people have hardened their hearts to Jesus Christ. They've celebrated this way for 3500 years and they still reject what I'm telling you. It couldn't be more clear: the history of Christ is in their ancient tradition and Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah who takes away the sins of the world. You likewise must not harden your hearts to Christ for the sake of trivial and disputable objections. Consider what I've written, but don't take my word for it, look into it for yourself. If you really want to think freely, seek the truth and the truth will make you free.






























I can has paragraphs, plz?
If you respond in this thread, and repost all of that with paragraphs, I promise I'll read every word and respond to it. I absolutely refuse to read that monstrosity as it is.
Grammar school wasn't just to kill time until recess, folks.
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
It's not letting me edit, here:
As I'm sure many of you know, the Jewish people annually celebrate the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and have done so for about 3500 years now. The Passover holiday is to commemorate the story told in Exodus Chapter 12, where God sent a destroying angel to kill all the firstborn children of Egypt. God gave the people a way to get out of this horrible fate by telling them to sacrifice a lamb without blemish and rub its blood above their doorposts. Do this, He said, and the destroyer will "Passover" your house.
Now, Christians like myself will tell you that this Passover lamb was a "type" of Christ, meaning something in the Old Testament that eerily reminds us of the story of Jesus. John the Baptist called Jesus the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." The Book of Revelation calls Jesus "a Lamb that appeared to have been slain." Just as the Passover lamb's blood protected all inside a house from the destroyer, so also does the blood of the Lamb of God protect all under it from the coming fiery judgment.
But this is elementary. I'm sure you've heard such things before, and, because you may not believe the stories of the Bible have a foundation in the real world, you have become quite tired of hearing about it. What I want to talk about is the Passover feast itself, the one that has been celebrated for 3500 years by a people that rejects Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah foretold in their Scriptures.
On the 14th day of the first month on the Jewish calendar, (which tends to be May on our calendars, theirs is based off of lunar cycles so it fluctuates) the Passover is celebrated. Aside from eating the Passover lamb, who's bones are not to be broken, they also will sit down and eat specific, traditional foods that teach things from the story in Exodus 12. For example, they'll eat a very hot horse-radish ground with beet juice to remind them of the bitterness of slavery in Egypt, then quickly eat sweet apples to take away the bitterness to symbolize the release from slavery.
While many aspects of the Passover celebration directly correlate to the story of Christ, (the bitterness, in the above, would symbolize the bitterness of the death of Christ on the cross, and the sweetness would be the sweetness of the resurrection) I won't go into all of those. I'll instead skip ahead to the fourth step in the Jewish Passover feast (also called the seder) which is called the Yachatz. During the Yachatz, three pieces of unleavened bread are put before the celebrants. These pieces of unleavened bread are traditionally baked on pans with indentions and ripples on them, which gives the bread an appearance of having stripes and holes in it. As the prophet Isaiah says in Chapter 52, "He was to be pierced for our transgressions...and by His stripes we are healed."
So, they put these three pieces of striped and pierced unleavened bread in a linen basket they call the "Echad" and set it in the middle of the table. This word "Echad" is used also in the Hebrew Old Testament. It means "one" or "unity" in the Hebrew (Moses says in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is Echad ) It's important to note that Jewish people are strict unitarians; they do not believe God is Triune.
Now, the Yachatz proceeds as follows: the father, or head of the household, takes the middle piece of bread out of the Echad. He takes hold of the bread, which is called the Afikomen, and breaks it. He then wraps it in linen and hides it away. The children in the house then search for the Afikomen and when they find it they return it to their father. The children don't just give it to him though, the father pays a ransom to get the Afikomen back, which is typically gifts or money or the like. Everyone at the feast then eats a piece of the Afikomen.
On the night Jesus Christ was betrayed, as He and His disciples ate what we call the Last Supper, they weren't just eating any old meal, they were celebrating the Passover. When Jesus picked up the piece of bread and said, "Take, eat, this is My body broken for you," He was breaking the Afikomen.
The Jewish people have hardened their hearts to Jesus Christ. They've celebrated this way for 3500 years and they still reject what I'm telling you. It couldn't be more clear: the history of Christ is in their ancient tradition and Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah who takes away the sins of the world. You likewise must not harden your hearts to Christ for the sake of trivial and disputable objections. Consider what I've written, but don't take my word for it, look into it for yourself. If you really want to think freely, seek the truth and the truth will make you free.
Just another mindless appeal to emotion. As if telling us that one unfounded bit of fiction having some rather contrived resemblance to another book of unfounded fiction holds the slightest meaning for anyone who has not already eaten the applesauce and sipped the Koolaid.
We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society. - Thomas Jefferson
You can go to a Passover yourself and see that their tradtion is not "fiction." Ask the Rabbis, it's what they've been doing for thousands of years. You can likewise read the works of many 1st century historians and see that the crucifixtion of Jesus is not "fiction".
And you can have a look at Rook's writings on this site to discover that there is a very strong argument that there was no historical Jesus. More unfounded fiction.
We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society. - Thomas Jefferson
It's ok. You did exactly what I wanted you to do. (Read again... I asked you to repost it in this thread, not edit the original. Clever of me, no?)
from: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/kojiki.html
Maybe you haven't heard of this story. It's the Japanese Creation Myth. Would you be interested in telling me why this one is false and the one you believe is real? I mean, really... What was it... a million slaves in Egypt walk through a big rift in the sea? The firstborn of EVERY SINGLE EGYPTIAN killed in one night, and it's nowhere in the record books? Rivers turning to blood? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Hell, if I can believe in that, why couldn't I believe in Izanagi and Izanami? Sounds about as plausible to me, and damn, the Japanese have been around for a long time. Fourteen thousand years! Don't you think they'd know more about the beginning of the world than a bunch of interlopers who've just been on the block a couple thousand years?
Thirty five hundred years? That would put it at around 1500 BCE. Are you sure about that?
Serious question: Will they be under a curse or something if they break one of the bones? Will they die a horrible death from the plague? Will their testicles shrink?
Beets are awesome. I like beet greens, sauteed, and layered with marscapone cheeze and beet slices on fancy crackers. Yum.
So... eating crackers with stripes is good because Jesus got hit with a whip, but eating chocolate Jesus is bad because it's a graven image.
Out of curiosity, do you wear any cross jewelry?
http://www.cracked.com/article_16619_7-things-from-pop-culture-that-apparently-piss-jesus-off.html
It is kind of a silly idea. I mean, being your own dad and a ghost at the same time? Who thought up that nonsense?
Sounds like a lovely ceremony.
Wow... it's like... wow... It's almost like the people who wrote the story of Jesus had heard of the Passover Feast!
I hear they've also infiltrated Hollywood and the New York Stock Market. Filthy Christ Killers! Somebody should gas the lot of them.
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
Thanks for reading all of that. Couple things:
The story of Jesus wasn't just made up. Even if you ignore the gospel accounts, you can read the works of many first century historians and get attestation to the life, death, and alleged empty tomb of Jesus. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliney the Younger, and others attest to Jesus as a man that actually lived in history. You're putting on blinders if you think Jesus didn't exist at all.
And yes, I did say 3500 years. 1400ish BC is the generally accepted date of the writing of Exodus. It really isn't amazing that the Bible wouldn't be written until so "late" in human history, we didn't start writing anything down at all until 3000 BC. Creation stories would have passed by word of mouth until this time.
Josephus: Please read here and then respond
Tacitus: Please read here and then respond
Pliny the younger: Should be mentioned in the 2 above threads... (Pliny btw)
"Inaction breeds doubt and fear. Action breeds confidence and courage.
If you want to conquer fear, do not sit home and think about it.
Go out and get busy."
~ Dale Carnegie, Author
Oh really? Sounds made up to me. I mean... walking on water? Coming back to life after being dead three days? Getting mad at fig trees for being out of season? Really?
Josephus and the Testimonium: Is it Evidence of Jesus?
What is the Jesus Mythicist's Position?
An Example of Jewish Fiction Writing in Antiquity
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus)
Tacitus, Lucian and Josephus
The 'Gospels' are 'Midrash'
The Gospels are Anonymous Works - and None are Eyewitness Accounts
The self refuting nature of "Hermeneutics"
Funny. I was under the impression that the earliest known combination of the three commonly accepted sources of Exodus was around 400BCE. Shows what I get for trusting those pesky historians instead of preachers. I could be wrong about this, and it's not a huge point, but I'm just not sure I've seen any archaeology suggesting that the feast is that old. I think maybe people have just always assumed it was without actually checking. Maybe Rook can answer this question more definitively. I'll leave him a note to look at this thread.
Curious. I just reread my post, and I didn't say anything about the date the Bible was written or compiled. (You know it wasn't compiled until well into the first millenium CE, right? There was no such thing as the Bible before that.) After thoroughly examining my sentences for clarity and meaning, I've come to the conclusion that you are either avoiding my question or were having a momentary problem with reading comprehension. If it's the former, I wish you wouldn't do that. If it's the latter, no biggie. We all have bad days. I'm going to ask it again, and try to be more clear.
Can you explain to me why a VERY OLD creation story, older than writing itself, believed by the Japanese long before there was such a thing as Israel, is less credible than a story cooked up by a tribe of nomads that didn't even exist until maybe three or four thousand years ago?
While we're on the subject, did you know that the Mayans had a creation story? So did the Aztecs. The Chinese have a really interesting one. Pangu awoke after 18,000 years of slumber, and the act of his rising from sleep separated the heavens and the earth permanently. At Pangu's death, creation sprang forth. His last breath became the wind. His voice was thunder. One of his eyes became the moon, and so on, and so forth. Interestingly, the fleas and lice on his body jumped off and eventually became humans. Pretty neat, huh?
So, please explain this to me. I'm trying to be fair about this. On the one hand, I'm supposed to believe that humans were shaped out of mud, and then Yahweh breathed into them, and they magically came to life. On the other, I'm supposed to believe that when Pangu died, fleas jumped off of him and magically became people. Honestly, they both sound pretty far fetched, but apparently there's some compelling reason that you believe one and not the other.
Right. So.... Hebrews, even if you are generous (and ignore a lot of archaeology) are only three or four thousand years old. Their story looks suspiciously like an amalgam of creation myths from older cultures that the Hebrews were geographically near. Why should I believe that one in particular? There are plenty of magical stories of creation, and they all sound pretty ridiculous.
P.S. Actually, tortoise shell carvings in China date back about 8000 years. People in Egypt didn't start writing until about 3200 BC.
P.P.S. Oh, one more thing. Why should I believe any really old story of creation when scientists are demonstrably more knowledgable than bronze age mystics about so many things?
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
You guys are downright militant. All your articles prove is that there is a way to look at human history under the assumption that Jesus didn't exist and that the disciples were all a bunch of liars. Showing me your worldview doesn't help. You can read the words of the early historians yourself and make an unbiased assessment.
No need to be rude, catwithagun, I had trouble trying to figure out what you seriously wanted me to respond to. You catch more flies with honey, btw.
Why do you think I appeal to the Genesis account of creation over the other accounts? Because Jesus believed it, because it's written in the word of God, what other reason do I need other than "God said so?"
You guys are going way off topic, I'm sorry you're not interested in what I had to say.
What? Disagreeing with you is militant? Actually calling us militant is the act of a militant!
You are incorrect. There is no evidence that jesus was an historical individual.
There is no evidence that the disciples were historical individuals either.
Obviously
We have many times. It is you who have not read the links posted above. Do so now.
Rude? Where the hell do you see rude behavior?
Because you want people to blindly believe as you do.
Who?
What jesus?
What god?
Have you read the links above?
§§That fact that I cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing called god is inconsequential and nugatory because nonexistence cannot be proven of anything.§§
Are you just pissed, or are you trying to say that militant = wrong?
No, actually all the articles prove is that it's more likely that Jesus didn't exist than that he did.
That's the thing about theism that's so dangerous. Dogma is pretty bad like that. Now, me on the other hand, you show me some credible evidence that Jesus was more likely to have existed than not, and if it's more convincing than the current evidence, I'll change my belief. Granted, you'd still have a pretty strong uphill battle to convince me that there is a god and that it was some guy in a po-dunk town who got himself killed, but that's another issue. The point is, you won't change your mind regardless of the facts, and mine is contingent on the facts as I am aware of them.
I have. The evidence points clearly away from anything remotely approaching the Gospel accounts being in any way factual.
Monday is my honey day. Today, it's vinegar.
Seriously, most people actually do rate honey with me, believe it or not. Ask anybody. I'm one of the nicest people here. You earned my ridicule by presenting a particularly ridiculous argument and avoiding my questions entirely. I still don't know why you expect me to believe one creation myth over another. That's really important. If the Chinese or the Japanese have it right, then there's no reason for me to expect the Christians to be right when they've adopted the Hebrew creation myth as a foundation for their religion.
We've given you really clear evidence that Jesus probably didn't exist. I've challenged you to justify belief in one story with magic while rejecting another. You haven't.
Would you like to get mad at us some more, or is it time for you to slink back to church to pray away all the bad feelings the big, mean old atheists gave you?
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
Civil discussion can be had without insulting one another, in fact, I think that was one of the rules in this forum. I admit I only skimmed the articles you linked; it's not anything I haven't heard before. The writer comes at the facts of history with a preconcieved bias against what is written and with the assumption that it's all a big conspiracy. That's bad scholarship. There are plenty of unbiased (many unChristian) historians that would say Jesus existed and was crucified without a doubt in their minds.
Here's something for you to chew on: can natural processes come about by natural processes? If you say no, you're appealing to the supernatural. If you say yes, you're asserting that natural processes existed before natural processes.
I grew up in a fundamentalist christian church with heavy emphasis on the OT. We cleaned our houses every spring to get all the leavening/sin out and celebrated Passover under the name The Days of Unleavened Bread. So, I do very much understand the point you are trying to make. However, I disagree.
The NT was written to try to conform to Jewish mythology regarding the Messiah. That's why the Jesus legend seems to conform to their idea of Messiah. They did not accept him as Messiah because the Jews had been dealing with Messiah claimants for a long time. I have looked at the evidence. Personally, I lean towards Jesus being a myth.
I would suggest you search the archived posts and essays for terms like "jesus myth" and such. Also, the movie The God Who Wasn't There is quite an interesting place to start if you want to seek the truth. As you note, the truth will set you free.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible got stoned.
If you are, then please understand that a question like "what was there before the universe?" has the same meaning as "What's north of the north pole?"
Here's something for you to chew on: If there is something outside nature, meaning it has no location and no mass and no energy, then what is it? How would we detect it? How could it have an effect on the natural universe?
We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society. - Thomas Jefferson