HelenM

I think the very point of this story - which was probably not originally in John's gospel but Christians like it so they don't generally protest that it was added at some point - is that sinlessness leads a person to do what Jesus did - to do the opposite of stone throwing - to show grace, mercy and forgiveness and to protect someone from everyone else's stones.

There was someone missing from that story and he might have been more guilty than the woman was. He certainly wasn't innocent. After all, how can you 'commit adultery' by yourself? Where was the man???

But those were not days where men and women were treated at all equally so maybe it's not a surprise that they got her and let him get away.

Anyway, back to the point - perhaps you know you're getting closer to 'sinlessness' yourself when the idea of throwing a stone at a woman - or even watching others do it - appalls you...

It's a masterfully written story, with Jesus writing in the sand, but what he was writing is not disclosed...but maybe it was what he wrote that made the would-be stone-throwers leave. There is that implication in the story but it's not overtly stated that that's why they left.

HelenM

That doesn't seem fair that they cock block me (what does that mean, anyway?! ) just because they don't know what you're about! <kidding>

But didn't you know that women aren't supposed to fist fight? Especially Christian women!

After all, have you not read...

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. -- 2 Cor 10:3-4a

So, be careful...

Amos, thanks

love
Helen

Paradisedreams2

If Jesus was sinless, wouldn't he have thrown a stone?

No He wouldn't have, now lets try to get that into christians heads.

Who wants to spread the bad news, since they enjoy this so much?

Paradisedreams2

RyanS2,
Thank you so much for your reply and "yes" it was a "free for all"

Hmmm.. what atheists think... I honestly don't think that anyone can answer that. Atheists come in all shapes and creed, because there's no centralized doctrine of beliefs. (Unless we count Bertrand Russell, but I think that's stretching it.) I'm guessing this offer is extended to all in answering your questions.


So much like christians they are of different shapes and creed basically believing in that "one thing" that there is no God verses the one thing christians believe which in fact there is. That sounds simple enough and I'm clear on that.


Most atheists see denying religion as a means of affirming themselves. A means of self-empowerment, not a dictatorship based upon commandments by beings from time/space outside of this realm. The synonymous name for atheists/agnostics as "freethinkers" means just that, no holy scripture needs to be cited in defense of an idea, as if that closes the argument. Only logic and science be needed.

I kind of feel that denying "religion" is a good thing myself, I "deborged" myself twelve years ago and its done wonders in my life

The commandments and dictator thing has got to go I'm right there with you and I'm a believer, I agree totally. The back up scripture thing, I usually engage in "those" in time of war(morality fights)with the Borg when taken by force in an attempt to assimilute me, by rerouting their scriptural wires causing a short circuit in the brain cavity

I hated science in school but studying the lives of scientists are really inspiring to me now. Their thoughts amaze me especially Einstein, Gees I heard so much about the guy I thought, "what the heck buy a book will ya"? So I did. I was not dissapointed in the least. Where have I been all my life?

I myself love the scriptures alot, I love a mystery and a hide and seek game and I hit the jackpot in my experience with it. I do wish others even christians had as much fun in it. If they did church wouldn't be like inserting a tampon ya know? I look at the entire book as it testifies of Him... Anything else I consider a joke, thats why I'm always laughing see


Both Karen Armstrong and Scott Bidstrup talk about experiences from God, both growing disillusioned as they grew older. You can trigger "God" in an instant from new researches that we have done. An avatar of projection, i.e. an empowered godform is often sustaining for a lot of people, as a means of psychological dependancy. Neurophysiologists are saying it's almost one of the four things the human body seems to need: Food, water, shelter, and God. (That's in, "Why God won't go away").


Me and Karen got to do lunch! disillusioned YEPPER! I totally agree on this. And God (as I understood Him) To PLEASE GO AWAY (mostly right after a bible inoculation but filtered through the borg first. Man do I know it. This is a good way to put that feeling, I haven't heard anyone say it quite like that before... But ofcourse I wouldn't huh?


I asked you if Athiests believe in a "Soul" you said...

In general, no. I think a few select atheists might believe in reincarnation, or have a definition of "soul" that is something more tangible, (i.e. "Self") that they consider their soul, but if you mean an ethereal thing that can translocate itself beyond time/space and wind up on a seperate dimension which is based on occularity, (i.e. I see gold bricks, I feel heat, etc. Things which are part of "eyeball" psychology, just like dreams are), no.


Ok, so there are various different "beliefs" within Athiesm but not one in the God direction? I wasn't sure if "belief" itself was in direct opposition to everything an Athiest is.

Similiarly I don't believe in a demention outside of time (though I wonder what it would be like). I don't envision pestering angels with overly sized wings buzzing around with harps or whatever. No castle in the sky project and no eternal barbeque It is odd I classify myself as a christian at all and read the same darn book.

You know... I'm totally for this "freethinker" thing to tell you the truth. I think even the scriptures validate that in many places.

example: You need not that any man teach you
and
The annioting teaches you all things
blah blah bla... you see? I find more in common with a basic athiest then I myself being a christian can with christians. Odd but amusing at the same time.

I asked you if science and the bible clash?

In general, yes. This doesn't really pose a problem, it's just the thoughts of a group of people, who disagreed with each other, (see Old and New Testament), each clammoring their idea was better than the ones before them. It's hard for atheists to think that a book in which numerous authors have written, expressing different ideas, is somehow supposed to be the divine word of a celestial being. We accept it for what it's worth, it's a partially historical book that is used to express different people's interpretation of God. That neither validates nor disposes of God, but that simple statement goes a long way in understanding the scripture and human nature

Can you tell me where you or others have found such disputes in the case of "bible verses science"? Could it possibly be the verses that christian sciencephobic freaks pulled out in their defense in order to stand on ground that was not theirs to stand on? I really don't see the problem with science in accordance to whats written in the book.

I do see a book with numerous authors. I don't see (any longer) that the authors were expressing numerous "ideas" (don't know if I'd call them that) The differing expressions are different pictures of the same event. So in the light of that I suppose its all how you look at the book.


Your reply is just what I needed. I'm happy to know I'm on my way to understanding as soon as I "assimilate" this "myself"

Thank you so much you were very helpful!

Paradisedreams2

RyanS2,


I forgot one Ryan (may I call you that?) So the issue of the "Soul" is also divide on but the majority of Athiests believe in no soul.

But to some Athiests there is what they call a "Self" which is basically the same thing am I correct?

Man you posted alot for me thanks again, your too helpful!

aikido7

The "point" of a story does rise above its literal meaning sometimes, doesn't it?

NOGO

You are amazingly perceptive. If you understood anything so far you must have figured out that you alone hold the truth. And the whole bible and God himself back you up. Why then waste your time beating the damn thing into us ignorant atheists.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Amos

I am here for my pleasure and not "beating you" but "testing my argument" is my aim.

nixon

to: Paradisedreams2

You mentioned none of the athiest responses included believing in "dimensions outside of time. Actually I myself (athiest) believe this is quite possible, in fact probable that we are in a universe that is a "ball of time". That is an outside universe "birthed" (for lack of a better word, and certainly not in a biological sense) our universe at the instant of the big bang. Before the "bang" had mass (When in it's infinate energy state), time as we know it didn't exist, but as soon as mass displaced energy, a byproduct was given off called "time". I believe (And of course there is lots of debate on the closed VS open theory of universe) that someday in the far future, when the energy from our "bubble is expended, that everything in our universe will collapse back down to the infinate energy state. At this time, I believe 1 basic unit of time will have passed in the "mother" universe. (something on the order of .00000001 second) Of course no one knows what will happen after that, but then it hardly matters to either us or the people in the "mother" universe (assuming there are people of course)

Or in a more artistic sense, just picture our universe as a drop of rain in a thunderstorm just in the instant where it hits the ground. See the expansion (in a sphere) of the water flying out from the impact. Thats us...

RyanS2

This is going to be kind of long, so bare with me.

"Can you tell me where you or others have found such disputes in the case of "bible verses science"? Could it possibly be the verses that christian sciencephobic freaks pulled out in their defense in order to stand on ground that was not theirs to stand on? I really don't see the problem with science in accordance to whats written in the book."

Some obvious ones that come to mind are "Sun stand thou still", (Joshua), and that rabbits have four-stomachs and engage in chewing their cud.

"I don't see (any longer) that the authors were expressing numerous "ideas" (don't know if I'd call them that) The differing expressions are different pictures of the same event. So in the light of that I suppose its all how you look at the book."

Bear with me here:

From "The Baal and Asherah in 7th century Judaism":

"Micah (6:6-7) portrays child sacrifice as the highest order of devotion to Yhwh, as does Genesis 22 (where adventitious substitution is legitimated, but where the intention to sacrifice the child is indispensable). Isaiah (30:33) speaks of Yhwh himself preparing a Tophet beside Jerusalem in which to slaughter the Assyrians. Yet Jeremiah identifies the Tophet, in a variety of passages, with the Host (including Sun and Moon), with other gods (plural), and with the baal (singular). He explicitly denies that the rite is oriented toward Yhwh (19:5): evidently, the worshippers claimed that it was, and denied, despite their activities in the Valley (i.e., the Tophet), that they followed the baals (plural, 2:23), as distinct from Yhwh.....

Micah appears to consider child sacrifice as a meaningful, if ultimate sacrifice to Yahweh 6:7: "Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"

This casts clear light on the emphasis of many of the condemnations of child sacrifice, in that the supreme sacrifice is made, but to the wrong deities. One can also see a clear conflict between the aims of Yahweh in Jewish reproduction and any methods of population control or contraception: Gen 15:5 "And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be." 28:14 "And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed."

Old Testament attitude to child sacrfice as a purely sexual practice is indicated by Lev 18:20 "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her. And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Gezer contains evidence of both adult sacrifice in which people are literally divided in two at the ribs in very much the same way as Abraham's sacrifice under the stars. Gen 15:10 "And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not." Newborn children are also found apparently buried alive head-down in jars in a manner associated with sacrifical offering.....

We know that YHVH had humans sacrificed to him, as even Christian apologists won't deny. However, this leads us to a question about the other character, the one named Molech. There's mounting evidence that Molech was not a God or a demon, simply put, Molech was simply the name for child sacrifices dedicated to Yahweh. How do we know this? We know this from Phoenician settlements in current day Sicily and Northern Africa. There, we find Tophets, the same ones found outside of Jerusalem. The Phoenicians were a close relative of the Hebrews, as their language and culture evolved from them. We know them as the Canaanites. The fire sacrifices of the Jerusalem Tophet, like their language, pottery, and history, comes from the Canaanites.

If we follow the line of these Tophets, we eventually make our way to Carthage, near the city of Tunis, in North Africa. We find here the relic of the Carthaginian Tophet, which was one of the most monstrous places of child sacrifice ever. The Greeks and Romans both outgrew human sacrifice, and even when they performed it, it was done judiciously. Here, we find stick-figure representations of Baal Hammon and Tanit-Ashtarte. Queen Dido of Tyre brought these familiar gods from the Phoenician homeland, much of which is now a part of Israel, when she founded Carthage about 800 BCE.

The menorah, the seven branched candlestick, often considered an exclusively Jewish symbol, has been found in a distinctive style at Carthage. Seven lamps, containers or candlesticks are arranged along a branch about a foot long. To the front is a head rather like the goddess Hathor and, in front of that, the head of a long horned bull.

(The term "Baal" {Beel, Bel} is not a proper name, but a title. It simply means "Lord". To know the proper name of a god was to possess great power, and so the proper name was often kept secret from anyone who was not a member of the priesthood. Many local and regional gods were therefore referred to as "Baal", as a means of bridging the dialectual gap. The god of the Semitic nomad tribe of Zebulon was the "Fly" or beel-Zebul, Lord of Zebulon, often mistakenly called Beelzebub.)

A UNESCO archaeological team uncovered hundreds of urns filled with the cremated bones of children and sacrificed animals, often mixed with beads and good-luck amulets. Many of these jars were buried under the pointed limestone stelae, with their dedications to Tanit and Baal-Hammon. One stela records a priest in long, flowing robes, holding a child in the act of sacrifice.

The Carthaginian Tophet has many layers, and the bottom one dates back to 750 BCE. At the earliest period, animal sacrifice was more frequent, though it never made up for more than 1/3 of the ritualistic killings. The most primitive burial urns and stelae show wider variety in color and design. What happened here was simliar to what happened with feudal samurai weaponry. As the battles started increasing in Japan, swords went from being beautifully crafted and well-made, to being very nondescript and uniform in appearance. In Carthage, once sacrifices went up, along with the population, the burial urns became a uniform orange color, and the stelae were also standardized. The grand total is twenty thousand plus urns.

In an article printed in the January/February, 1984, issue of Biblical Archeological Review, Lawrence Stager (Associate Professor of Syro-Palestinian archaeology at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute) and Samuel Wolff (Ph.D. Candidate in archaeology at the University of Chicago) presented this argument on the basis of their excavation of the child and animal cemetery uncovered at the north African site of Carthage.

Concerning the matter of why children were sacrificed, Stager and Wolff comment: Inscriptions from the Tophet (of Carthage] demonstrate that the commonest reason for child sacrifice was the fulfillment of a vow. The Phoenician/Punic word for vow (ndr) frequently appears on inscribed stelae. Taking vows was an old and hallowed Near Easter custom. Concerning the manner of the sacrifices, Stager and Wolff quote the third century B.C. Greek author Kleitarchos, who was paraphrased by a later writer, Diodoros, as saying:

"Out of reverence for Kronos, the Phoenicians, and especially the Carthaginians, whenever they seek to obtain some favor, vow one of their children, burning it as a sacrifice to the deity, if they are especially eager to gain success. There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing, until the contracted (body) slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the ‘grin’ is known as ‘sardonic laughter’, since they die laughing.”

Archaeologists Lawrence Stager and Samuel Wolff concluded that the Carthaginian Tophet is "the largest cemetery of sacrificed humans ever discovered."

Despite the fact that there are child sacrifices attested to at Carthage, in conclusion with physical evidence, there are some scholars who simply will not admited to child sacrifice ever having occured here. The question would then arise, "Why would scholars shun this find?" Duncan Scott Craig makes the following remarks:

When I was in Yucatan last year, I visited many Cenotes, or wells of sacrifice. Despite evidence to the contrary, every Mayan guide insisted that child sacrifice wasn't practiced. There are necropolis' from Pheonician and Canaanite settlements with ritually sacrificed infants, stored in large urns. Some cemeteries reflect use for as long as twenty two generations. Entombments of live human victims was practiced in China until the Ming, I suppose every culture has 'skeletons in their closet' that members of the society deny.

That is exactly the case here. The strong connection between the Jerusalem Tophet and the Carthaginian Tophet is what makes these scholars balk here. The epigraphic evidence from Carthage sacrifices are called "Mulk offerings". We can't find a single God named Molech at any place in Carthage or any other Phoenician settlement!! What this implies is what we normally dialectually supply to the Hebrew consonants mlk, for a human sacrifice, isn't a deity named Moloch, it means "human sacrifice", or "mulk offerings". This is important also because Hebrew language not only requires one to supply vowels, based upon sentence, but also renders words on context.

Rev. Robert Palmer states that:

One of the last items faced concerning the Scriptures is of more recent origin and may account for the vast majority of the linguistic problems that occur. I refer to the reworking of the Hebrew language by the Masorites and Tiberians, between the 6th to 12th centuries C.E. The Masorites were responsible for many of the alterations in the vowels and definitions of the Hebrew words. In that the language had not been a spoken one for at least a hundred years before their endeavor, and not until 1948 was it brought back to life again after not being spoken for nearly 1600 years. This is one reason why meanings of a number of words are unknown thus making it difficult for the modern scholar to rely solely on the Hebrew version as the last authority. This is why the tablets from Ebla are still important as the language is akin to the Hebrew and can give us a clearer understanding of 'uncertain' words.

Rev. Palmer is talking about the finds in the Ugaritic region. In other words, in order to understand Hebrew words, we have to look at a language that is just like it to find out! The Canaanite translation gives us much to think about in this regard. Understanding this translation, it means similar rituals of child sacrifice took place as part of orthodox Yahwism, perhaps on a large scale.

Isaiah 30:29

"Such shall be your song, as on a night a feast is celebrated with gladness of heart, as when one marches in procession with the flute, to enter the mountain of Yahweh, to the Rock of Israel. Yahweh has made heard the crash of His voice, the down -- sweep of His arm he has displayed, with hot wrath and flame of consuming fire, cloudburst and flood and hailstones. Yes! At the voice of Yahweh Assyria will cower -- with His staff He will beat him. Every passage of the rod of His punishment which Yahweh will lay upon him will be to the sound of timbrels and lyres; with battles of offerings He will fight against him. For his Topheth has long been prepared, He himself is installed as a victim [molek]. Yahweh has made its fire -- pit deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance. The breath of Yahweh, like aorrent of sulphur, sets it ablaze!"

(This version of Isaiah is from Dr. Paul Mosca's translation, from "Child Sacrifice in Israelite and Canaanite Religion: From Molk to Moloch").

We find here something interesting, in that Isaiah's song is exactly corresponding with the ritualistic content of a human sacrifice, and not only this, but YHVH was exalted in the torture and immolation of the Assyrian victim. This victim was probably the Assyrian king, Sennacherib. Mosca posits that Isaiah here was creating a deliberate pun, using the same word to mean two things, the victim (molek) is the Assyrian king (melek). The Jews had some interesting ideas on word play. According to "The Code Book", by Simon Singh, p.26, he refers to Atbash, a traditional form of Hebrew substitution cipher, which replaces each letter with the letter equidistant from the end of the alphabet. The example given is 'Sheshach' in Jeremiah, which is code for 'Babel'.

Charles Pfeiffer tells us in "Old Testament History" that there are contending theories. One being that the "passing through fire" was a harmless rite of purification which leaves the child unscathed. However, the problem with this is that Ezekiel complains, “(NIV) You took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols... You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them [made them pass through the fire] to the idols.” The evidence is clear that children were slaughtered and burnt like other sacrificial victims. Josephus says of Ahaz, “He also sacrificed his own son as a burnt offering to the idols according to the custom of the Canaanites.”

Even if this interesting perspective on terminology is rejected, Isaiah's poem still clearly relates to a ritual killing. According to Mosca's analysis of Isaiah's poem, "we begin with the fire -- the lightning -- of Yahweh's storm theophany and end with the fire of ritual sacrifice." All of the mountain god's weather powers -- over lightning, thunder, hail, rain, and wind -- become weapons by which Yahweh conquers Sennacherib and then sacrifices him. Thus, the roles of storm god, warrior, and sacrificer converge in this frightening portrait of Yahweh, just as they do in the mythologies of the Andean mountain gods. (A relationship to YHVH and Baal).

The argument can then be made that this passage is entirely allegorical; that this is just a war song. This would make a good argument, but there's flaws. This sacrifice details are exactly like the ones which are performed by the Canaanites, it is an allegory the Assyrians would have taken literally. Isaiah's Tophet sacrifice takes place at night, around a deep fire, a pit, to the sound of music, just as the Phoenician rites did. The main difference between the Tophet ritual extolled by Isaiah and the human sacrifices practiced by the Phoenicians is that Isaiah's victim is offered to Yahweh, whereas the Phoenician victims are given to Tanit and Baal. This is yet another connection between Baal and YHWH.

What is more significant here is that Isaiah has nothing critical to say to Kings Ahaz or Manasseh, both of whom sacrificed their children at the Jerusalem Tophet. This is an argument from silence, but in taken with the positive evidence presented above, it makes a powerful case. Paul Mosca concludes from his study of Isaiah 30:27 - 33 that

"the rite of the Jerusalem Tophet -- though in hindsight viewed first as unorthodox (Deuteronomist) and finally as idolatrous (Jeremiah and Ezekiel) -- was, in fact, part of the official Yahwistic cults. Isaiah himself seems to have had no particular objection to Yahwistic 'passing into the fire.'"

We find here that Isaiah's view of the Tophet, and the sacrifices, were in complete contrast to later authors. We find in Chronicles and Kings that Ahaz was following "the abominable practice of the nations." The difference between Isaiah and Jeremiah is even greater. In Isaiah, he praises the Tophet as Yahweh's liberating weapon against the Assyrians. Jeremiah, however, blames the Tophet for the fall of Jerusalem, which he ascribes to Yahweh's anger at idolatrous human sacrifice. Between the time of Isaiah's ministry in the early seventh century BCE, and Jeremiah's preaching in the early sixth century BCE, Jewish thinkers radically redefined Yahwism and suppressed human sacrifice.

At this point and time, YHWH was mainly worshipped by shaman, prophets who were on "ever high hill". King Josaih of Judah destroyed all of the hill, and the shrines on top of it. He brought in all the priests from the cities and completely demolished all of the shrines, from Geba to Beersheba. He desecrated Topheth so that no one might make his son or daughter pass through the fire in honor of molech. (From 2 Kings 23: 8-10). Josaih razed the hill, the shrine at Bethel erected by Abraham, and went throughout the land of Samaria to slaughter, "on all the altars all the priests of the hill shrines." (2 Kings 23:20)

This caused a problem, as this was an age old custom. An earlier king named Hezekiah had attempted to suppress some of the hill-shrines, but he was accused of destroying YHVH's legitimate places of worship. (The ironic thing here is that the Assyrian King Sennacherib had told this same thing to Hezekiah, {Isaiah 36:7}). Hezekiah's grandson, King Josaih, cleverly rewrote history to make Moses the author of his sweeping reforms, whose effects were to fill the temple's coffers with contributions from all over Judah at the expense of the once independent local shamans. Obviously, the High Priest was one of the principal beneficiaries of this centralization, (thus the reason the above examples were given of similar instances taking place). It was the High Priest Hilkiah (father of the prophet Jeremiah) himself who, while collecting tribute from all over Judah and Israel," discovered the book of the law of the Lord which had been given through Moses" (2 Chronicles 34:14). This discovery was to revolutionize the rules of Hebrew worship.

This new book of Moses was completely unheard of prior to this. Thus, Josaih had to consult a prophetess about its authenticity. She wisely confirmed the divine origin of the newly discovered book. Not surprisingly, the High Priest's book of Mosaic law (perhaps Deuteronomy) supported Josiah's reforms to the letter. One of the most obvious anachronisms of the new rules was that all of the hill-shrines were to be destroyed outside of Jerusalem. Moses was the one who built these altars, and had even given instructions to his successor Joshua to build more of them. We further find that in these new teachings of Moses, he repeatedly attacks human sacrifice, though we find in the story of Moses, he originally had a form of sacrifice done to his son.

Exodus: 4:24 - 26:

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
As mentioned above, one form of human sacrifice was mutilation of the sexual organs. The origin of this is because the "prepuce", (foreskin), is one of the most sensitive areas of the male penis. The sacrifice was for a God who didn't want males having lots of sex. It's no wonder that YHVH was so mad at Moses for not circumcizing his son.

One of the most transparent anachronisms of the new rules was the requirement that all hill-shrines be destroyed outside of Jerusalem. Moses built such altars himself, and gave instructions to Joshua to build more of them. Another anomaly in these new teachings is Moses' repeated attacks on human sacrifice, although, as we've seen, Moses attempted to sacrifice his own son, sacrificed a group of leaders to avert an epidemic,

NU 25:4 "... take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the Sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel."

sacrificed 32 virgins in a heave offering given to the high priest, (read what the significance of the high priest was above), in Numbers 31:40-41, and once offered to sacrifice himself, (Exodus 32:30-32). By the new " book of Moses," the old Moses was a heretic!

Commenting on the origins of the druidistic ritual, Barbara Walker states on Abraham that:

"This name meaning 'Father Brahm' seems to have been a Semitic version of India's patriarchal god Brahma; he was also the Islamic Abrama, founder of Mecca. But Islamic legends say Abraham was a late intruder into the shrine of the Kaaba. He bought it from priestesses of its original Goddess. Sarah, 'the Queen' was one of the Goddess's titles, which became a name of Abraham's biblical 'wife.' Old Testament writers pretended Sarah's alliances with Egyptian princes were only love-affairs arranged by Abraham for his own profit - which unfortunately presented him as a pimp (Genesis 12:16) as well as a would-be murderer of his son (Genesis 22:10).

In the tale of Isaac's near-killing, Abraham assumed the role of sacrificial priest in the druidic style, to wash Jehovah's sacred trees with the Blood of the Son: an ancient custom, of which the sacrifice of Jesus was only a late variant. Jehovah first appeared to Abraham at the sacred oak of Shechem, where Abraham built his altar. Later Abraham build an altar to the oak god of Mamre at Hebron. Even in the 4th century A.D., Constantine said Abraham's home at the Oak of Mamre was still a shrine: 'It is reported that most damnable idols are set up beside it, and that an altar stands hard by, and that unclean sacrifices are constantly offered.'"