Zwaarddijk wrote:

36. Numbers 9:12...Not a bone of Him broken...John 19:31-36

As usual, let's start with the context:

The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, [and] eat it with unleavened bread and bitter [herbs].
They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it.

I have never seen anyone take the eucharist with bitter herbs, and I think the unleavened thing is even considered optional in many churches these days - at least I've seen baptists have leavened communion. Even then, extending the "prophecy" (which it isn't) to include the eucharist is all too kind even then. What it says is to eat the passover sacrifice with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Was Jesus corpse eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, none left to the morning? Sure, you can get the bitter herbs into it if you really want by referring to the wrapping in linen cloth and herbs - but who would swallow the claim that they also ate his body?

Anyway, this text basically restates the rule given in exodus 12:46, where Moses tells the Israelites to celebrate Pesach and redo the things they did in Exodus, in a ritual fashion. A group of men ask Moses - the narrative apparently takes place just before the first Pesach after Exodus would occur - whether they can observe Pesach even in a state of ritual uncleanliness (brought on by having handled a corpse, I guess they had to bury someone). Moses tells them to observe the Pesach rituals during the *next* month - when they presumably have had time to ritually purify themselves, and observe the same strictures regarding it. He also says people who are travelling can observe it during the next month. And this time, that's where he mentions the unbroken bones - that this restriction is in place even at this alternate Pesach celebration. No Christians will claim Jesus was killed during Iyar 14th, so how this commandment not to break any bones of the (alternate pesach) lamb offering in Iyar can apply to him is also kind of mysterious.

Unless, like LionIRC, you think the Bible is a jumble of sentences that don't line up to form narratives. If the OT can be read like he wants us to think, it basically also means he's abandoned the idea there's a coherent train of thought anywhere in the Bible - why think the garden of Eden story is supposed to be a story, why not just assume it's details of the Messiah's life and mission told out of order? All of the Bible, including verses like

"Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why hast thou done this? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them."
refer to Jesus?

paarsurrey wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

36. Numbers 9:12...Not a bone of Him broken...John 19:31-36

As usual, let's start with the context:

The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, [and] eat it with unleavened bread and bitter [herbs].
They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it.

I have never seen anyone take the eucharist with bitter herbs, and I think the unleavened thing is even considered optional in many churches these days - at least I've seen baptists have leavened communion. Even then, extending the "prophecy" (which it isn't) to include the eucharist is all too kind even then. What it says is to eat the passover sacrifice with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Was Jesus corpse eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, none left to the morning? Sure, you can get the bitter herbs into it if you really want by referring to the wrapping in linen cloth and herbs - but who would swallow the claim that they also ate his body?

Anyway, this text basically restates the rule given in exodus 12:46, where Moses tells the Israelites to celebrate Pesach and redo the things they did in Exodus, in a ritual fashion. A group of men ask Moses - the narrative apparently takes place just before the first Pesach after Exodus would occur - whether they can observe Pesach even in a state of ritual uncleanliness (brought on by having handled a corpse, I guess they had to bury someone). Moses tells them to observe the Pesach rituals during the *next* month - when they presumably have had time to ritually purify themselves, and observe the same strictures regarding it. He also says people who are travelling can observe it during the next month. And this time, that's where he mentions the unbroken bones - that this restriction is in place even at this alternate Pesach celebration. No Christians will claim Jesus was killed during Iyar 14th, so how this commandment not to break any bones of the (alternate pesach) lamb offering in Iyar can apply to him is also kind of mysterious.

Unless, like LionIRC, you think the Bible is a jumble of sentences that don't line up to form narratives. If the OT can be read like he wants us to think, it basically also means he's abandoned the idea there's a coherent train of thought anywhere in the Bible - why think the garden of Eden story is supposed to be a story, why not just assume it's details of the Messiah's life and mission told out of order? All of the Bible, including verses like

"Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why hast thou done this? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them."
refer to Jesus?

This is all the doings of the ignorant scribes/clergy.

This is not the core of truthful religion.

Tbickle wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

This is all the doings of the ignorant scribes/clergy.

One would think that God would have taken more care in selecting who would be responsible for delivering his message.

paarsurrey wrote:

Tbickle wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

This is all the doings of the ignorant scribes/clergy.

One would think that God would have taken more care in selecting who would be responsible for delivering his message.

The Creator God did not make the ignorant scribes/clergy responsible for delivering his message.

Shrunk wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

Tbickle wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

This is all the doings of the ignorant scribes/clergy.

One would think that God would have taken more care in selecting who would be responsible for delivering his message.

The Creator God did not make the ignorant scribes/clergy responsible for delivering his message.

So your god is not omnipotent? Or does he just not care if people receive his message accurately?

paarsurrey wrote: How do you get that?

Shrunk wrote:

paarsurrey wrote: How do you get that?

From what you wrote. They are the only two logically possible conclusions. Though I'm sure many illogical ones can be drawn....