Those of Mexican or Peruvian or Bolivian origin and all those nations where the Aztecs and the Incas once lived in South America, should not by any means take offence by this essay.
I read this essay to my husband, and had my own realization. I really did not know the vast and immense human sacrifice that went on in the world. It shocked me.
And to know Christ died on the cross for a new beginning touches my soul viscerally.
I learn so much from you Dr. Christian. Thank-you kindly. 💜🙏
Child sacrifice still is going on big time—abortion. The “gods” that these innocents are sacrificed to are convenience, self-centeredness, ideology, and now the old demonic gods are back as well. We are doomed to repeat history when we remain ignorant of it.
I am concerned that you let Christianity off the hook too easily. At the insistence of church fathers, 50k women were burned to death in medieval Europe for being 'witches', actually herbalists and midwives, but who practiced knowledge outside of church purview. The Protestant Reformation was accompanied by the killing of those who strayed. Body parts of Anabaptists were nailed to the city gates in Geneva, and there are still extant cages hanging at the top of a European cathedral, where heretics were left to die and rot, among many other examples. Christoforo Columbo in 1493 brought a flotilla of Inquisition expelled Jews to the Caribbean where they started plantations, importing the first Africans to work in the deadly heat and sun. Many of the colonists to the New World were escaping religious strife in Europe. I had Quaker ancestors put in English dungeons for refusing to pay tithes to the church of England, and then sent to exile in Holland. We later called them the Pilgrims.
I believe you are confusing religious persecution with ritual human sacrifice.
There is no doubt that religious persecution (of which all religions are guilty) has led to the incarceration, torture and death of innumerable innocent people, including in historically "Christian" nations.
However, atheism (which has its own belief system) has systematically persecuted, tortured and put to death several million more people in the twentieth century than all the religious persecutions - 30 million in the Soviet Union alone; more than 100 million, if you include China and other Communist nations.
Human sacrifice is unspeakably evil - the subject of this essay.
So is religious persecution.
War is an evil too.
They are all different types of evil in our fallen world.
While perhaps overdone, it has the tendency to solve DaWitch problem - since witchery and other outright satanic practices are now coming to the fore full time.
Karl Denninger writes regularly at his site - if we hold government agents and employees accountable by public hangings - problem solved.
Churchian tolerance for ALL our misbehavior is the FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM in our society - PERIOD!
You can start here - www.crushlimbraw.com - but you will be held accountable - by the Lord Himself.
The witch question is invariably interpreted according to modern superstition, ie that evil does not exist; and as somebody has said, these women were "healers and midwives," etc etc; and that their persecution in olden days was the expression not of the Biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," but rather, an expression of misogyny and male fear of the female ability to bear children, etc.
But I ask you - what is the primary physical characteristic of the witch, which all - even the Monty Python team - are well aware of?
"How do we know she's a witch?"
"Er ... Because she looks like one!"
Exactly,
She has a large proboscis, as do all of the tribe to which she belonged, whose sole intent is that "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed, as even the best of snakes should be killed."
These women were jewesses, and dedicated not to help, but to harm, those Gentiles amongst whom they lived.
During the Inqusition horrible torture and public burning where practiced in most of Europe .We read about the witch hunts .In some villages Women where almost completely wiped out .Men where also victims .They where accused to be Hexenmeisters .All that horror was in the name of religion ,operated by the priest class .
Where human sacrifices ended? The Deep State and Biden-Child-Sniffer-Pedo-Warmonger and Collaborators have sacrificed the lives of 500,000+ Ukrainian men with over 1.5 million estimated to be wounded so they can't go back to battle. Human Sacrifice is very much alive and well!
Look at the altar of the Pandemic with over 17 Million+ who dies of the vax poison let alone of the bio-weaponized covid-19 itself!
The author is far to blind! Human Sacrifice is very much alive and well!
Christianity doesn't involve a trinity either. There is a Father and a Son, Who are one, and a spirit which fills them both.
Shamayim, of course, does exist.
I'm not sure I see the logic of needing to explain why islam copied the notion.
Let me at least try to help you to understand.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the image of God, ie something seen at a distance which isn't the entire thing, just as an image in binoculars is an image of something binoculars can only provide a visual representation of.
They don't enable you to touch the object, or smell it, or taste it, etc - they just give you an image.
We know this is so because no man can look upon God and live - but they can look upon His beloved Son, Who took human form so we could see something of the Father.
It's quite a crude analogy, but I find it helpful to think of a lava lamp; this substance can split apart into a small piece and a large piece; they are both made of the same substance, but the small piece represents the Son, and the large piece, the Father.
In due course they will recombine into the One God attested to by the jews.
Wrong: "Christianity doesn't involve a trinity either". Trinitarians have long insisted that there are three persons.
Wrong: "Shamayim, of course, does exist". If it does, where is it? How far away? The fact of the matter, of course, is that it doesn't exist. So even if Jesus had arisen from the dead and flown away from Earth (like Superman?), he'd never reach his heaven. Since the ascension is supposed to be the concluding work of redemption, this work must be incomplete.
Incoherent: "The Lord Jesus Christ is the image of God". All humans are supposed to be made in the image and likeness of the god. So are you saying that the common image is a mediocre facsimile which needed a supplement? This doesn't flatter your god's reputation, but there is a bigger problem with the doctrine of imago dei is idiotic. The god of Trinitarianism is supposed to be a pure spirit, but humans are not. The god exists necessarily, but humans not. The god is omnipotent, omniscient, undying, eternal, all good, infallible, and so on, but humans are none of these. Humans are capable of many petty vices, but the god, if necessarily good, is incapable of vice. (So it deserves no reverence for any apparent virtue.) It's just not true that humans are made in the image and likeness of a perfect being. Maybe what you mean by imago dei is that humans are made in the image and likeness of the fickle, jealous, petty, vindictive god of the older testament. Gnostics should be pardoned for noticing the irreconcilable contast between the hateful god of the older testament and the god of love in the slightly-less-old testament.
You're correct that "It's quite a crude analogy". It's so crude that it's doctrinally erroneous You're dividing the substance of your own god, which is a heresy, like the one committed by the dying Jesus. Another error is confounding the persons, as when you wrote that "There is a Father and a Son, Who are one".
It's obvious now that you've been made insane by Christianity and its ancestor. Or maybe you just began this way and the cult of Jesus made you worse. Whatever the case, you need to stop leaning on your own understanding so much. Humble yourself. Let others lead you to fresh, clean water for a change. And think about what must have been moving Jesus' mouth when he complained "lema sabachthani". Was it Satan? Was it a human soul? Something else? Maybe he was possessed. Maybe he did have a human soul—though there's no evidence or good argument for souls—in which case one needs to wonder how the hypoststic union is supposed to work. Does the god control the body? If so, Jesus' soul would be a captive passenger. If Jesus' human soul controls the body, then the god's spirit is a captive passenger Maybe the answer is to suppose that the body of J is like a time share condo.
Scripture teaches that we are to avoid vain and foolish disputations, that only lead to more ungodliness.
The Lord Jesus Christ, before Whom you will kneel, and to Whom you will confess, would not have spent any time on you at all, whereas at least I tried to get through, but failed, of course.
One of your remarks about the Aztecs suggests that they and Israel's priesthood had in a common an ancient delusion about human being. You wrote that...
"The Aztecs...ritually sacrificed thousands of human victims...and in each case, the abdomen of the conscious victim would be ripped open, the still beating heart plucked out by the priest."
Can you think of any reason for them to do that if they believed that the central nervous system, esp. the brain, is the seat of human consciousness and emotion? Why fetishize the human heart, as do both Israel's religion and the cult of Jesus, if you've formed some idea, however dim, that the heart is just a blood pump?
It's only too obvious that the Aztecs ripped out hearts because of some delusion about it being critical to human consciousness and emotion, or a seat of the soul, or something like this. When you read the older testament, you find again and again this same notion baked into the scriptures. Read the first few chapters of Proverbs, for example, for repeated references to the heart. That mistake has penetrated so deeply into language and culture that we've retained it in figures of speech long after figuring out the importance of the brain. Almost no one raises an eyebrow when some gasbag speaks about the importance of winning hearts and minds for this or that political program.
Israel's priesthood held also that the life is in the blood, which is an easy mistake if you've convinced yourself that the heart has the function of the brain. Possibly their mistaken reasoning ran in the other direction, though. They may have supposed that the life is in the blood, then held the heart to be special. In either case, the biological error is so extreme that it counts as evidence that the priests' theology, like their scriptures, is rubbish.
You wrote that, "Upon the Cross, the Saviour is ushering in a new destiny for mankind, a new dispensation, a new creature in Christ. The Resurrection then makes this new and abundant life eternal."
Well, 'tis not true. Jews have covered the first and most obvious problem with your christology. For help, see the website and YouTube channel of Jews For Judaism. They make it abundantly clear that Jesus failed to meet the minimum requirements of their moshiach. (They discuss your distortions of their scriptures, too.) In fact, Trinitarian scripture insists that Jesus has no human father, in which case he wasn't descended patrilineally from David, as Israel's christ must be. Jesus was neither moshiach, nor savior, nor god. Your story about him is a clumsy myth.
Now, in parts of your garbled old literature, the author(s) report that the self-appointed moshiach wailed, "eli, eli, lema sabachthani!". At the time he was dying on a cross or a pole. Was he telling the truth? If so, Jesus and his god were not one in being with each other. Perhaps Jesus had been one in being with his god, but the god changed his mind about Jesus and abandoned him, as must be possible for an omnipotent spirit to do. The "new dispensation" stops with his death.
If, on the other hand, Jesus was not telling the truth, we need to ask about the reason(s) for his dishonesty. I have suggested the first reason already. Jesus had been delusional about his status all along. He was never one in being with his own god, nor was he Israel's moshaich. Here, too, the "new dispensation" ends with the death of Israel's most famous narcissist.
Another possibility is that Jesus was lying. Can not an omnipotent god speak with intent to deceive? This seems likely given that finite, mortal beings have this trivial power. So Jesus was pulling the legs of his audience, then he died, which seems like an odd development in the life of an immortal being. Lying or not, it's self-evident that Jesus was a heretic who divided the substance of the trinity. Maybe those Arians and JW's are onto something here.
...which is evidence in each case that Trinitarianism is a hoax. Nobody goes to the so-called father but through the son, and no aborted fetus ever believed in Jesus. The god, being omniscient, must know the outcome of every abortion for the aborted. It's eternal separation in each case, but the god is supposed to be love. Would love do that if it had a better alternative?
An interesting essay that makes a clear point but misses an important reason for the rapid conversion of the indigenous people in Mexico. Following the Spanish arrival in 1519, Cortez and the Catholic missionaries made little progress in 11 years of trying to end the Aztec practice of human sacrifices and to bring the good news of Jesus Christ. That changed in 1531, when a Chichimec peasant, Juan Diego, reported that Mary, the mother of God, had spoken to him in his native language of Nahuat and told him to visit the bishop in Mexico City. There, he showed his tilmàtli (cloak) with an image of the Virgin Mary which he said had been divinely created for him. The tilmàtli gave his account much needed credibility with the Catholic hierarchy, and more importantly, with his fellow indigenous people, resulting in their remarkably quick embrace of the Christian faith. Surely, the credit for that belongs with Juan Diego, not the Spanish.
Personally, looking at the South Americans generally, I do not find them to be a Christian people. They are Catholics more likely, ie believers in idols and miracles and Days of the Dead.
Christ stated that He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel; and His Father stated "Ye only have I loved, of all the families of the earth."
Christianity is something only given to some; ie the descendants by faith of Abraham; all others are the beasts of the field, made on Day Five of creation.
The virgin Mary of course has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
When told His mother and His brethren were without, and wished to see Him, He replied that His mother and his brethren were those who do the will of God, not earthly relatives.
"He replied that His mother and his brethren were those who do the will of God, not earthly relatives."
You are reading that too literally, as pedants and sectarians are always wont to do. It's obvious hyperbole; he's not denying that his mother and brothers are indeed related by birth and ancestry. Now we can start to understand your confusion about "the descendants by faith of Abraham".
In several places Jesus insists that he has come for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. All others are dogs, like the Syro-Phoenecian woman and her crazy daughter. These get only table scraps, as the woman did after making a pest of herself. So there's no reason for any drivel about "descendants by faith". One is a descendant in the mundane way of Jacob or not. Jesus' mission, as self-appointed moshiach, is to these people only.
He was at pains to point to the kingdom of heaven as being the important place, not to any earthly variant of it.
At no time did I suggest that He was denying His physical kinship with the people mentioned - this is what we call a straw man argument, which you must learn to resist becoming party to.
Now, as a pure pedant yourself, you invoke hyperbole; but a rational person understands that His mother and brethren were indeed important - but ( sub text ) only if they do the will of God, and put Him first, not flesh and blood.
He said in another place that anyone who doesn't hate his blood relatives isn't fit for the kingdom.
Did He mean that literally, as a pedant would think?
As with everything He says, it must be interpreted spiritually, not in a fleshly way, as some here ( YOU! ) are doing.
So try to go beyond the words themselves, and get to the intended meaning.
You will find that your understanding improves way beyond the level you operate at at the moment.
If you are going to cling obstinately to a Jesus myth, consider the obvious advantages of converting to Islam. It doesn't demand that you believe obvious idolatry like the trinity. Good luck, though, with squaring the circle of the ascension myth. Not only do you have the aforementioned problem of shamayim not existing, you'll need to explain why Islam copied the ascension myth. If Jesus isn't his own god, few people would think it odd that he died and was buried permanently. Trinitarians, on the other hand, have a body to hide. If people thought that he were still on Earth, many would demand to see him, so that they could obtain the stale bread from his mouth directly. The ascension myth solves this problem, at least for the gullible, and Islam lapped it up like a dog returning to its vomit.
It's still true that your fake moshiach badmouthed most of humanity with his comment about "dogs". While reprehensible, it's completely in character for pious Israelites in ancient times and for their remanants alive today. (Nutanyahoo's theocratic allies are good examples of the latter.) Psalms 2, Isaiah 66:22-24, and numerous other passages reveal the chauvinism, greed, and libido dominandi of Israel. There is little left for the imagination to fill in.
Now, "As with everything He says, it must be interpreted spiritually, not in a fleshly way, as some here ( YOU! ) are doing."
Well, no, and your remark about "the kingdom of heaven" remaindse of something else you're not understanding.
Jesus, if he was honest about his stance on torah, would have believed that "heaven" is a place overhead to which a human body can ascend if his god so wills it. This is a straightforward interpretation based in part on Genesis 1, the wording of which indictates that a literal interpretation is intended. It does not matter that another (figurative) interpretation may have been intended by the author(s).
Since we know—and have known for at least a century—that there is no firmament, the thing to which Moon, Sun, and other stars are supposed to be attached, it follows that Jesus was delusional about shamayim, as Israel's supremacist scriptures calls the alleged rakia. The ascension story about Jesus, which is supposed to be taken literally, is therefore a lie, like the assertion about Jesus' god becoming man, which implies that an unchangeable, necessary being, allegedly a pure spirit, had human nature incorporated into itself.
The covenant was between Him, and the faithful, as exemplified by Abraham, and carried on down to us as Christians today.
We are a peculiar people, a royal priesthood.
Not all can lay claim to this high calling in Christ Jesus.
But heaven, I believe, and there is no reason not to, is overhead, "in the sides of the north."
But as "no man hath ascended into heaven; but the Son of Man which came down from heaven," then the words mean what they say, although Paul was caught up into heaven, and saw things there which are not lawful for a man to disclose.
As to not believing there is a firmament, I would beg to differ.
As far as I can tell, it is about 70 miles up, and is impenetrable - this is why the "Operation Fishbowl" nuclear tests were commissioned, to try to blow a hole through it.
The CSXT amateur rocket tests also slammed into it.
By calling the Son of God a liar, of course, you are treading on extremely perilous territory; and in due course, you will be held to account, and required to confess before Him that it is you who are the liar, as is your father, Lucifer.
".......where we offered numerous historical proofs that the vast majority of European pagans freely accepted Christianity without the use of force — and even more proofs were presented by our readers in the comments section.
The reason these early pagan Europeans, such as the Druids, so readily accepted Christianity and its Hebrew roots is that many of them were descendants of the “lost” Ten Tribes of Israel from the Assyrian captivity who — over many centuries — had lost their conscious connection to those tribes, but had nevertheless retained many of the pagan religious practices and traditions they had learned during the Assyrian captivity and then brought with them when they migrated up into Europe.
Recall that God had “divorced” the ten northern tribes of Israel and sent them into captivity because they had turned their backs on Him — breaking the First Commandment — by embracing the pagan religions of the surrounding nations — such as Baal worship, and sacrificing their children to Molech.
It should come as no surprise that when these “lost” ten tribes migrated up into Europe, they would retain these pagan practices and practice them in their new European homelands with local added color mixed in."
The above is from one of the articles I found from a word search in DaLimbraw Library on the subject of of Lost Tribes of Israel -
We prefer to say 'Amen brother', rather than be challenged on what we already 'know' - and I can personally attest to my own previous 'unchallengable truths' which I discovered were not only challengable, but based on poor logic and reason - and unbiblical.
Anyone interested in digging deeper? Lots to read. Let's admit it - our current state of mind of what is commonly called Christianity......ain't!
"My sheep hear My voice and follow Me," and they follow Him, irrespective of what foolishness they were lost in previously, because as He said, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear," the implicit message being that you either have these ears or you don't; and you were given them before you were even born, as a direct consequence of predestination.
Remember what the Lord God said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations."
It is all about Him - not about us.
People don't get converted, they respond to the Shepherd's voice - but only if they were not only called, as all are, but CHOSEN.
I read this essay to my husband, and had my own realization. I really did not know the vast and immense human sacrifice that went on in the world. It shocked me.
And to know Christ died on the cross for a new beginning touches my soul viscerally.
I learn so much from you Dr. Christian. Thank-you kindly. 💜🙏
Your writing is always so deep and I always learn so much from you. Thank you.
Child sacrifice still is going on big time—abortion. The “gods” that these innocents are sacrificed to are convenience, self-centeredness, ideology, and now the old demonic gods are back as well. We are doomed to repeat history when we remain ignorant of it.
I am concerned that you let Christianity off the hook too easily. At the insistence of church fathers, 50k women were burned to death in medieval Europe for being 'witches', actually herbalists and midwives, but who practiced knowledge outside of church purview. The Protestant Reformation was accompanied by the killing of those who strayed. Body parts of Anabaptists were nailed to the city gates in Geneva, and there are still extant cages hanging at the top of a European cathedral, where heretics were left to die and rot, among many other examples. Christoforo Columbo in 1493 brought a flotilla of Inquisition expelled Jews to the Caribbean where they started plantations, importing the first Africans to work in the deadly heat and sun. Many of the colonists to the New World were escaping religious strife in Europe. I had Quaker ancestors put in English dungeons for refusing to pay tithes to the church of England, and then sent to exile in Holland. We later called them the Pilgrims.
Thank you for your comment.
I believe you are confusing religious persecution with ritual human sacrifice.
There is no doubt that religious persecution (of which all religions are guilty) has led to the incarceration, torture and death of innumerable innocent people, including in historically "Christian" nations.
However, atheism (which has its own belief system) has systematically persecuted, tortured and put to death several million more people in the twentieth century than all the religious persecutions - 30 million in the Soviet Union alone; more than 100 million, if you include China and other Communist nations.
Human sacrifice is unspeakably evil - the subject of this essay.
So is religious persecution.
War is an evil too.
They are all different types of evil in our fallen world.
One has to keep in mind there is a difference between christanity and churchanity. One is love and the other is dogma.
While perhaps overdone, it has the tendency to solve DaWitch problem - since witchery and other outright satanic practices are now coming to the fore full time.
Karl Denninger writes regularly at his site - if we hold government agents and employees accountable by public hangings - problem solved.
Churchian tolerance for ALL our misbehavior is the FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM in our society - PERIOD!
You can start here - www.crushlimbraw.com - but you will be held accountable - by the Lord Himself.
The witch question is invariably interpreted according to modern superstition, ie that evil does not exist; and as somebody has said, these women were "healers and midwives," etc etc; and that their persecution in olden days was the expression not of the Biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," but rather, an expression of misogyny and male fear of the female ability to bear children, etc.
But I ask you - what is the primary physical characteristic of the witch, which all - even the Monty Python team - are well aware of?
"How do we know she's a witch?"
"Er ... Because she looks like one!"
Exactly,
She has a large proboscis, as do all of the tribe to which she belonged, whose sole intent is that "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed, as even the best of snakes should be killed."
These women were jewesses, and dedicated not to help, but to harm, those Gentiles amongst whom they lived.
During the Inqusition horrible torture and public burning where practiced in most of Europe .We read about the witch hunts .In some villages Women where almost completely wiped out .Men where also victims .They where accused to be Hexenmeisters .All that horror was in the name of religion ,operated by the priest class .
Where human sacrifices ended? The Deep State and Biden-Child-Sniffer-Pedo-Warmonger and Collaborators have sacrificed the lives of 500,000+ Ukrainian men with over 1.5 million estimated to be wounded so they can't go back to battle. Human Sacrifice is very much alive and well!
Look at the altar of the Pandemic with over 17 Million+ who dies of the vax poison let alone of the bio-weaponized covid-19 itself!
The author is far to blind! Human Sacrifice is very much alive and well!
What is Israel doing right now, if not human sacrifice? It isn't war. Maybe they are just sacrificing their humanity, over and over, like the Passion.
Christianity doesn't involve a trinity either. There is a Father and a Son, Who are one, and a spirit which fills them both.
Shamayim, of course, does exist.
I'm not sure I see the logic of needing to explain why islam copied the notion.
Let me at least try to help you to understand.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the image of God, ie something seen at a distance which isn't the entire thing, just as an image in binoculars is an image of something binoculars can only provide a visual representation of.
They don't enable you to touch the object, or smell it, or taste it, etc - they just give you an image.
We know this is so because no man can look upon God and live - but they can look upon His beloved Son, Who took human form so we could see something of the Father.
It's quite a crude analogy, but I find it helpful to think of a lava lamp; this substance can split apart into a small piece and a large piece; they are both made of the same substance, but the small piece represents the Son, and the large piece, the Father.
In due course they will recombine into the One God attested to by the jews.
Wrong: "Christianity doesn't involve a trinity either". Trinitarians have long insisted that there are three persons.
Wrong: "Shamayim, of course, does exist". If it does, where is it? How far away? The fact of the matter, of course, is that it doesn't exist. So even if Jesus had arisen from the dead and flown away from Earth (like Superman?), he'd never reach his heaven. Since the ascension is supposed to be the concluding work of redemption, this work must be incomplete.
Incoherent: "The Lord Jesus Christ is the image of God". All humans are supposed to be made in the image and likeness of the god. So are you saying that the common image is a mediocre facsimile which needed a supplement? This doesn't flatter your god's reputation, but there is a bigger problem with the doctrine of imago dei is idiotic. The god of Trinitarianism is supposed to be a pure spirit, but humans are not. The god exists necessarily, but humans not. The god is omnipotent, omniscient, undying, eternal, all good, infallible, and so on, but humans are none of these. Humans are capable of many petty vices, but the god, if necessarily good, is incapable of vice. (So it deserves no reverence for any apparent virtue.) It's just not true that humans are made in the image and likeness of a perfect being. Maybe what you mean by imago dei is that humans are made in the image and likeness of the fickle, jealous, petty, vindictive god of the older testament. Gnostics should be pardoned for noticing the irreconcilable contast between the hateful god of the older testament and the god of love in the slightly-less-old testament.
You're correct that "It's quite a crude analogy". It's so crude that it's doctrinally erroneous You're dividing the substance of your own god, which is a heresy, like the one committed by the dying Jesus. Another error is confounding the persons, as when you wrote that "There is a Father and a Son, Who are one".
It's obvious now that you've been made insane by Christianity and its ancestor. Or maybe you just began this way and the cult of Jesus made you worse. Whatever the case, you need to stop leaning on your own understanding so much. Humble yourself. Let others lead you to fresh, clean water for a change. And think about what must have been moving Jesus' mouth when he complained "lema sabachthani". Was it Satan? Was it a human soul? Something else? Maybe he was possessed. Maybe he did have a human soul—though there's no evidence or good argument for souls—in which case one needs to wonder how the hypoststic union is supposed to work. Does the god control the body? If so, Jesus' soul would be a captive passenger. If Jesus' human soul controls the body, then the god's spirit is a captive passenger Maybe the answer is to suppose that the body of J is like a time share condo.
Scripture teaches that we are to avoid vain and foolish disputations, that only lead to more ungodliness.
The Lord Jesus Christ, before Whom you will kneel, and to Whom you will confess, would not have spent any time on you at all, whereas at least I tried to get through, but failed, of course.
One of your remarks about the Aztecs suggests that they and Israel's priesthood had in a common an ancient delusion about human being. You wrote that...
"The Aztecs...ritually sacrificed thousands of human victims...and in each case, the abdomen of the conscious victim would be ripped open, the still beating heart plucked out by the priest."
Can you think of any reason for them to do that if they believed that the central nervous system, esp. the brain, is the seat of human consciousness and emotion? Why fetishize the human heart, as do both Israel's religion and the cult of Jesus, if you've formed some idea, however dim, that the heart is just a blood pump?
It's only too obvious that the Aztecs ripped out hearts because of some delusion about it being critical to human consciousness and emotion, or a seat of the soul, or something like this. When you read the older testament, you find again and again this same notion baked into the scriptures. Read the first few chapters of Proverbs, for example, for repeated references to the heart. That mistake has penetrated so deeply into language and culture that we've retained it in figures of speech long after figuring out the importance of the brain. Almost no one raises an eyebrow when some gasbag speaks about the importance of winning hearts and minds for this or that political program.
Israel's priesthood held also that the life is in the blood, which is an easy mistake if you've convinced yourself that the heart has the function of the brain. Possibly their mistaken reasoning ran in the other direction, though. They may have supposed that the life is in the blood, then held the heart to be special. In either case, the biological error is so extreme that it counts as evidence that the priests' theology, like their scriptures, is rubbish.
You wrote that, "Upon the Cross, the Saviour is ushering in a new destiny for mankind, a new dispensation, a new creature in Christ. The Resurrection then makes this new and abundant life eternal."
Well, 'tis not true. Jews have covered the first and most obvious problem with your christology. For help, see the website and YouTube channel of Jews For Judaism. They make it abundantly clear that Jesus failed to meet the minimum requirements of their moshiach. (They discuss your distortions of their scriptures, too.) In fact, Trinitarian scripture insists that Jesus has no human father, in which case he wasn't descended patrilineally from David, as Israel's christ must be. Jesus was neither moshiach, nor savior, nor god. Your story about him is a clumsy myth.
Now, in parts of your garbled old literature, the author(s) report that the self-appointed moshiach wailed, "eli, eli, lema sabachthani!". At the time he was dying on a cross or a pole. Was he telling the truth? If so, Jesus and his god were not one in being with each other. Perhaps Jesus had been one in being with his god, but the god changed his mind about Jesus and abandoned him, as must be possible for an omnipotent spirit to do. The "new dispensation" stops with his death.
If, on the other hand, Jesus was not telling the truth, we need to ask about the reason(s) for his dishonesty. I have suggested the first reason already. Jesus had been delusional about his status all along. He was never one in being with his own god, nor was he Israel's moshaich. Here, too, the "new dispensation" ends with the death of Israel's most famous narcissist.
Another possibility is that Jesus was lying. Can not an omnipotent god speak with intent to deceive? This seems likely given that finite, mortal beings have this trivial power. So Jesus was pulling the legs of his audience, then he died, which seems like an odd development in the life of an immortal being. Lying or not, it's self-evident that Jesus was a heretic who divided the substance of the trinity. Maybe those Arians and JW's are onto something here.
Enter abortion
...which is evidence in each case that Trinitarianism is a hoax. Nobody goes to the so-called father but through the son, and no aborted fetus ever believed in Jesus. The god, being omniscient, must know the outcome of every abortion for the aborted. It's eternal separation in each case, but the god is supposed to be love. Would love do that if it had a better alternative?
Gibberish
An interesting essay that makes a clear point but misses an important reason for the rapid conversion of the indigenous people in Mexico. Following the Spanish arrival in 1519, Cortez and the Catholic missionaries made little progress in 11 years of trying to end the Aztec practice of human sacrifices and to bring the good news of Jesus Christ. That changed in 1531, when a Chichimec peasant, Juan Diego, reported that Mary, the mother of God, had spoken to him in his native language of Nahuat and told him to visit the bishop in Mexico City. There, he showed his tilmàtli (cloak) with an image of the Virgin Mary which he said had been divinely created for him. The tilmàtli gave his account much needed credibility with the Catholic hierarchy, and more importantly, with his fellow indigenous people, resulting in their remarkably quick embrace of the Christian faith. Surely, the credit for that belongs with Juan Diego, not the Spanish.
Personally, looking at the South Americans generally, I do not find them to be a Christian people. They are Catholics more likely, ie believers in idols and miracles and Days of the Dead.
Christ stated that He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel; and His Father stated "Ye only have I loved, of all the families of the earth."
Christianity is something only given to some; ie the descendants by faith of Abraham; all others are the beasts of the field, made on Day Five of creation.
The virgin Mary of course has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
When told His mother and His brethren were without, and wished to see Him, He replied that His mother and his brethren were those who do the will of God, not earthly relatives.
"He replied that His mother and his brethren were those who do the will of God, not earthly relatives."
You are reading that too literally, as pedants and sectarians are always wont to do. It's obvious hyperbole; he's not denying that his mother and brothers are indeed related by birth and ancestry. Now we can start to understand your confusion about "the descendants by faith of Abraham".
In several places Jesus insists that he has come for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. All others are dogs, like the Syro-Phoenecian woman and her crazy daughter. These get only table scraps, as the woman did after making a pest of herself. So there's no reason for any drivel about "descendants by faith". One is a descendant in the mundane way of Jacob or not. Jesus' mission, as self-appointed moshiach, is to these people only.
It's exactly what He meant, though.
He was at pains to point to the kingdom of heaven as being the important place, not to any earthly variant of it.
At no time did I suggest that He was denying His physical kinship with the people mentioned - this is what we call a straw man argument, which you must learn to resist becoming party to.
Now, as a pure pedant yourself, you invoke hyperbole; but a rational person understands that His mother and brethren were indeed important - but ( sub text ) only if they do the will of God, and put Him first, not flesh and blood.
He said in another place that anyone who doesn't hate his blood relatives isn't fit for the kingdom.
Did He mean that literally, as a pedant would think?
As with everything He says, it must be interpreted spiritually, not in a fleshly way, as some here ( YOU! ) are doing.
So try to go beyond the words themselves, and get to the intended meaning.
You will find that your understanding improves way beyond the level you operate at at the moment.
If you are going to cling obstinately to a Jesus myth, consider the obvious advantages of converting to Islam. It doesn't demand that you believe obvious idolatry like the trinity. Good luck, though, with squaring the circle of the ascension myth. Not only do you have the aforementioned problem of shamayim not existing, you'll need to explain why Islam copied the ascension myth. If Jesus isn't his own god, few people would think it odd that he died and was buried permanently. Trinitarians, on the other hand, have a body to hide. If people thought that he were still on Earth, many would demand to see him, so that they could obtain the stale bread from his mouth directly. The ascension myth solves this problem, at least for the gullible, and Islam lapped it up like a dog returning to its vomit.
It's still true that your fake moshiach badmouthed most of humanity with his comment about "dogs". While reprehensible, it's completely in character for pious Israelites in ancient times and for their remanants alive today. (Nutanyahoo's theocratic allies are good examples of the latter.) Psalms 2, Isaiah 66:22-24, and numerous other passages reveal the chauvinism, greed, and libido dominandi of Israel. There is little left for the imagination to fill in.
Now, "As with everything He says, it must be interpreted spiritually, not in a fleshly way, as some here ( YOU! ) are doing."
Well, no, and your remark about "the kingdom of heaven" remaindse of something else you're not understanding.
Jesus, if he was honest about his stance on torah, would have believed that "heaven" is a place overhead to which a human body can ascend if his god so wills it. This is a straightforward interpretation based in part on Genesis 1, the wording of which indictates that a literal interpretation is intended. It does not matter that another (figurative) interpretation may have been intended by the author(s).
Since we know—and have known for at least a century—that there is no firmament, the thing to which Moon, Sun, and other stars are supposed to be attached, it follows that Jesus was delusional about shamayim, as Israel's supremacist scriptures calls the alleged rakia. The ascension story about Jesus, which is supposed to be taken literally, is therefore a lie, like the assertion about Jesus' god becoming man, which implies that an unchangeable, necessary being, allegedly a pure spirit, had human nature incorporated into itself.
It's the simple statement of God.
The covenant was between Him, and the faithful, as exemplified by Abraham, and carried on down to us as Christians today.
We are a peculiar people, a royal priesthood.
Not all can lay claim to this high calling in Christ Jesus.
But heaven, I believe, and there is no reason not to, is overhead, "in the sides of the north."
But as "no man hath ascended into heaven; but the Son of Man which came down from heaven," then the words mean what they say, although Paul was caught up into heaven, and saw things there which are not lawful for a man to disclose.
As to not believing there is a firmament, I would beg to differ.
As far as I can tell, it is about 70 miles up, and is impenetrable - this is why the "Operation Fishbowl" nuclear tests were commissioned, to try to blow a hole through it.
The CSXT amateur rocket tests also slammed into it.
By calling the Son of God a liar, of course, you are treading on extremely perilous territory; and in due course, you will be held to account, and required to confess before Him that it is you who are the liar, as is your father, Lucifer.
Is there more to this?
".......where we offered numerous historical proofs that the vast majority of European pagans freely accepted Christianity without the use of force — and even more proofs were presented by our readers in the comments section.
The reason these early pagan Europeans, such as the Druids, so readily accepted Christianity and its Hebrew roots is that many of them were descendants of the “lost” Ten Tribes of Israel from the Assyrian captivity who — over many centuries — had lost their conscious connection to those tribes, but had nevertheless retained many of the pagan religious practices and traditions they had learned during the Assyrian captivity and then brought with them when they migrated up into Europe.
Recall that God had “divorced” the ten northern tribes of Israel and sent them into captivity because they had turned their backs on Him — breaking the First Commandment — by embracing the pagan religions of the surrounding nations — such as Baal worship, and sacrificing their children to Molech.
It should come as no surprise that when these “lost” ten tribes migrated up into Europe, they would retain these pagan practices and practice them in their new European homelands with local added color mixed in."
The above is from one of the articles I found from a word search in DaLimbraw Library on the subject of of Lost Tribes of Israel -
https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Christians+truth+lost+tribes&updated-max=2023-06-12T10:28:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=0&by-date=false&m=1 - Christians for Truth has become a very informative site for me to fill in the gaps of knowledge which inhibit our learning. As Hosea wrote - "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge!"
We prefer to say 'Amen brother', rather than be challenged on what we already 'know' - and I can personally attest to my own previous 'unchallengable truths' which I discovered were not only challengable, but based on poor logic and reason - and unbiblical.
Anyone interested in digging deeper? Lots to read. Let's admit it - our current state of mind of what is commonly called Christianity......ain't!
As they say, "Booom!"
You have hit the nail on the head.
"My sheep hear My voice and follow Me," and they follow Him, irrespective of what foolishness they were lost in previously, because as He said, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear," the implicit message being that you either have these ears or you don't; and you were given them before you were even born, as a direct consequence of predestination.
Remember what the Lord God said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations."
It is all about Him - not about us.
People don't get converted, they respond to the Shepherd's voice - but only if they were not only called, as all are, but CHOSEN.
Your - "It's all about Him and not about us"......talk about nailing it!!!!!!