Animals in the Bible.

So, don't get indigestion here.

But how about 34 references to dragons? Are they symbolic? Are we supposed to believe they exist? And how would this have seemed to people back in Christianity's heyday, the middle ages?

Is it possible to have any real insight into the human condition without knowledge of the brain? I just can't see how it would be. You only have to tweek the neuro transmitters a tiny bit and you have a completely different awareness of the universe.

 

I think the word "brain" was replaced with "heart" which is the inner self

 

34 dragon tao.

 

I'm pert nigh certain about dragons. My math teacher.....elder she dragon...

 

The Roman Catholics hijacked the writings, picked a selection and call it "bible". Easter is wholly non-biblical in origen and created by people who suppress bible truths inconvenient to their goals. Jesus was dead three hundred years before that...

Bible is the law, the prophets and the writings, with the addition of brit chadesha (new covenant) It was never a "set" until Rome needed a religion by which to rule.

 

Ok, good one! Ahaha!

 

Yes! and then the Crusades started..believe or be killed!

 

Easter was based on pagan fertility rites so they say. The Christians adopted many such pagan festivals and sites as they spread through Europe.

 

Pretty sure the crusades were about a thousand years give or take a century after all that. The roman emperor who convened the council at nicea to create the roman catholic church stated that he did so to "conquer", but waaaay before the crusades.

 

Question, since rabbits/hares are treyfah (טְרֵפָה) is that why Jews don't celebrate Easter?

 

Technically, one is supposed to study the Bible and learn the language and have a genuine love for God. Says right in the book, no love for God .. no understanding. There are Prerequisites.

Scripture is a language. Simple as that.

Most people can't understand science without studying that language, right? Same with Scripture.

 

There was a period in which priests were advised to allow the people their festivals but to above all preserve the eucharist. But the "new" "universal" church replaced bible feasts with their own intentionally. "Replacement" religion.

 

Not really. It is because it is not a jewish or even biblical event. A harmless joy of the goyim. Who are they hurting? Is g-d not glorified?
Easter is more about the kids these days and the only people who insist anything "holy" about it are the catholics, because they say it is.

 

your right...

also, there is a huge difference between what is in the bible and man made traditions of the church..

 

Indeed. Now you remind me of that story about seeking out a woman professor at the mishnah (college) because there was something they needed to know. Catholics would not suffer woman professors, while we note the jew's college had them and remarkable ones that men sought the council of.

 

<<I am actually quite familiar with the Bible, and don't really wish to get any more familiar, because I
think it's something which is outmoded and basically untrue.>>

Apparently not? And you say you want answers without having to learn anymore. I'm pretty sure scholars find it relevant and outmoded has not happened yet, but eventually will.

But I think you have graced me the freedom to my garden in peace, for if you do not want to learn and have no use of tanakh or brit chadeshah, then we have found a end ~

 

I can't answer your question but I have a joke. I don't know if I'll get in trouble or not for telling it though.

 

OK but what if using the language of scripture, we wanted to talk about cats, rabbits, crows, rats or the brain?

Might seem like a very limited language.