Originally posted by plague
Hinduism my friend is not thousands of years old. The Vedic tradition on the other hand is 100s of thousands of years old but is not
1) It most certainly is a few thousand years old. One of many
. This link also briefly mentions Vishnu as a chief god of Hinduism and not Krishna. Seriously, nobody in the world would love to believe
Hinduism isn't thousands of years old more than me. If this were true, I could simply tell anyone who claims Christianity is a plagiarism of Hinduism
that this is impossible because Christianity (which does happen to be thousands of years old) precedes Hinduism. Alas! I cannot use this argument
because it simply isn't true.
2) I cannot possibly believe the Vedic tradition is hundreds of thousands of years old. Especially since writing is about 6,000 years old. Do you
believe they were passed on by oral tradition before being penned? This would make a lot more sense and justify the theological breakdown you state.
However, I don't even believe the existence of life on earth is that old, nevertheless writing or oral tradition.
And that's all I'm going to worry about for now because like I said, I'm just not that interested in Hindu theology. No offense but it's not what
I believe so I have no interest in defending it!
But if you really want to keep talking about, let me know and I will rejoin the discussion.
But onto the subject I love...
"But flesh with the life there of , which is the blood there of shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require at the hand of
every beast will I require it".
First of all, take the context into consideration. Just a few verses above God says "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I
gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Oops! God is saying it's permissible to eat meat. Then comes the verse you provide. This
means do not eat a live animal or an animal that still has its blood in it. This requires an understanding of antiquity. Many pagans ate living
animals and drank the blood out of living and recently dead animals as part of their rituals. God was saying this pagan tradition was not allowed.
"He that killeth an ox is as if he sleuth a man".
Again, look at the context. This isn't even referring to eating meat. It talks about the condition of the heart of man who lives in sin but worships
God at the same time. Like in modern times what we refer to as "Sunday morning Christians." They show up on Sunday morning to pay lip service to God
but then Monday-Saturday they live as heathens. This verse is the same thing- it refers to the man who participates in temple rituals then goes right
back out and sins again.
"It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings that ye eat niether fat nor blood" and no Kosher doesnt exist
because there is no way to get every bit of blood out of your meat.
Cross reference this with Leviticus 17:11. The context of this is talking about the fellowship offering. Also, because blood was a sin atonement, it
was never to be consumed. Not to mention, like we note above, this was a common pagan practice that God forbid.
Also, don't forget all the verses that mention meals where meat is indeed required to be eaten. This alone shows enough evidence the Bible does not
" and the same John had his rainment of camel hair and a girdle around his loins and his nourishment was locust beans and honey"
First of all, I'm not sure how locusts would technically be vegetarian food in the strictest sense but that is beside the point. This was not a
dietary law for anyone- it was simply a description of John the Baptist's lifestyle.
"butter and honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good"
Read the entire context. This is not a law to eat butter (curds in some translations) and honey or a veiled reference to vegetarianism. It is a
metaphor for abundance vs. desolation. Just like oil and wine often represents wealth, milk and honey often represents abundance. When we read the
entire chapter we see that the "milk and honey" (abundance) is destroyed and only thorn and thistles (desolation) remain. This is referring to the
Assyrian invasion about to take place where the abundance Jewish land will be desolated (and also how the Jews will be desolated spiritually when they
reject the future Messiah).
now in Luke 24:41-43
"And while they believed not for joy and wondered he said onto them have ye any eatable. And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish and a
honeycomb, and he took IT (singular meaning one) and did eat before them.
I must be missing something because I read: "They gave him a piece of broiled fish and he took it and ate it in their presence." See:
(NASB) for the two most accurate English translations. I
think you are reading from the KJV which is fine, of course, but even the KJV specifically mentions Jesus asking for meat to eat. See:
. I think you are concerning yourself too much with semantics and
not taking the entire context of the Bible.
These are just a few, but im curious to where we are condemned for not eating meat?
I Timothy 4. Most of the chapter talks about the false teachers who say we should abstain from certain foods (meat included) because all things were
declared permissible to eat.
So how is any of this remotely important? Just another chink in the armor of the "Jesus was preaching another philosophy" claim. I'm not even about
to go through and quote all the dozens of references that show Biblical figures eating meat so this will have to do.
[edit on 1/2/2008 by AshleyD]