The Bible contradiction thread

[Mindful]

The Gospels contradict themselves.

For example, the first one, (can't remember which one) lists the whole genealogy of Jesus, descending from David.

Yes they do. If you want to understand why, I recommend Bart Erhman.

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke 3:23).

Thank you. I just looked him up. I'd not heard of him, and he seems to have done extensive studies on the subject.

 

[Faun]

Dumbass, it was not a commandment. I showed you all 623 commandments and your idiocy cannot be found among them.

lol... Thats a strange way of asking for help.

Anyway, here it is.

If you conform to the literal meaning of the words used in the command to refrain from the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you violate the deeper implications of the exact same words of that command because the teaching that a person can become holy as God is holy by eating or abstaining from certain foods is the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate.

The words of the law are figurative, the subjects hidden.

This is my flesh.

Unless you eat my flesh and apply your mind to understand and conform to the deeper implications of the law you cannot have the life promised for complying with the law in you.

LOLOL

Babbling nonsense doesn’t help you. I showed you the actual commandments. And compared to what you delude yourself with, the actual commandments prove you’re insane.

Pssst.. I'm not the guy mutilating infant penises, strapping a box on my head, or thinking that a person can become holy as God is Holy by avoiding pork chops..

You observe a literal interpretation and application of the law. I see that you have your reward already.

congratulations!

Aww, you poor thing. You want so badly to be one of the chosen. You invent alternatives.

As if there are any.

lol... now thats truly delusional. When I get an urge to obsess over what to eat and what to wear and when to strap a box on my head I'll let you know...

No worries, it’s not for you.

 

[Faun]

It means what it says ... the soul of the uncircumcised will not be G-d's people. That is G-d’s covenant.

Exactly what do Jews believe is required to be circumcised in order to become Gods people?

Penises? A circumcised penis is the mark of the covenant between God and man?

Is that really your answer?


Contradictions in the gospels should be the least of your concerns.

I’m telling you what the Torah says. I have no idea from where you get your information.

Is Judaism a biblical faith (based on the bible) or a rabbinic faith (based upon what rabbis says the Bible says)?

It's both.

Faun,

Do you believe the Torah, as written (without rabbinic explanation or commentary), is the inerrant, divinely inspired word of God?

Inerrant? No, it was written by man. Inspired by G-d? Yes.

 

[DOTR]

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

So, let me get this straight.

Faun rejects Mary's genealogy because her name does not appear on the list.

To drive home his point he puts up two lists none of which contain any woman's names.

Might that be a key to solving the mystery?

He thinks Luke is Joseph's genealogy and not Mary's.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

So, let me get this straight.

Faun rejects Mary's genealogy because her name does not appear on the list.

To drive home his point he puts up two lists none of which contain any woman's names.

Might that be a key to solving the mystery?

He thinks Luke is Joseph's genealogy and not Mary's.

He's trolling us.

He believes that the New Testament is a farce and he's not really open to another viewpoint.

When a literal interpretation of scripture Appears to suit his argument, he's not open to any other explanation.

When a literal interpretation doesn't appear to suit his argument, he's happy to infer a meaning that does.

We should pray for him, but we must respect his right not to believe, as that right has been granted to him (like all of us) by God.

Even though I'm conflicted about promoting him to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, he's actively trying to mislead others so his claims need to be addressed.

You seem an educated man. Have you not heard of “pearls before swine”?

 

[hobelim]

According to Jewish laws to live by, Paul's imprisonment made him denounced as one to trust or listen to, and compile that with the authority who jailed him controlled his image (made of many figures) and words and you have a recipe for abuses and manipulations beyond just a jailed persons vengeance.
Furthermore, since this is a topic about contradictions, then we must discuss how James and Paul seemed to contradict and argue that each was teaching another Christ figure then the other, which was proved true by my previous post on historical contradictions which showed more then 1 Christ being used for the Jesus myth.

It does seem obvious that Paul contradicts Jesus on several key issues foundational to salvation.

All of that aside, whoever the real Jesus was he must have pissed off the romans to no end. Why else would they have gone through the trouble of changing the customs of the entire empire and abolishing every other religion in existence making the new official religion centered around an open demonstration of hatred for the Hebrew God and compulsory ritual celebration of his death.

 

[norwegen]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

I need a little more information.

The "contradiction" appears to arise from your belief that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant.

Why do you believe that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant?

The Abrahamic covenant established the Jewish people as God's people.

The covenant Jesus made with the apostles, at the last supper, established a new form of relationship between God and believers both Jewish and gentile, but it did not render God 's promise to the Jewish people null and void.

Through my belief in Jesus, I can come boldly before God's throne of grace.

Still, my direct relationship to God does not mean that the Jews are no longer God's people.

If the Jews are no longer God's chosen people then what is the purpose of period of time when God will reconnect with his chosen people immediately after the rupture, in the book of Revelation?

Secondly, God did give the Land of Caanan to the Jewish people. The Jews were taken from that land because they weakened themselves by turning away from God, but the land (spiritually) still belonged to them.

Jews have lived in the land for thousands of years, but the Jewish people were able to re-establish the state of Istael, miraculously in 1948.

To the extent the Jews don't control the land God gave them, it is because they given parts of it away to buy peace with their neighbors.

I'm sorry I don't see the contradiction here either.

I don’t believe G-d’s “everlasting covenant” was replaced with the New Testament. Christians believe that. That’s why I pointed out the contradiction between G-d’s covenant with Jews versus the New Testament. The New Testament is a farce.

The everlasting covenant has not been broken. It was not with Jews per se, but with Israel, and Isaac's progeny once by blood are later his progeny by faith (Rom 3:27).

The law is no longer a hindrance to God’s people, for Christ is its fulfillment (Mt 5:17); that is, he is the end of it, or its culmination (Rom 10:4). Christ came to cause God’s will, as made known in the law, to be obeyed as it should be, as it was in the Garden.

The new covenant is a revision of the old, so to speak. The dark and sinister history of Israel was one that invited a "law" that would be a negative, a detriment, the "curse" of Deuteronomy, that so encumbered the tribes that they would cry for their God to become king and then embrace the Gospel for the sheer relief of it.

 

[norwegen]

Sin is simply disobedience to the perfect will of God.

As religious people we live by faith.

Faith is expressed when we receive the perfect will of God through the prompting of the Holy Spirit and we respond and do God's will.

There were many reasons by which we as humans can rationalize and agree with the two men who passed by and didn't help. Ultimately it's not this human decision for which they are being called out here.

They are being called out here because it was God's will that they help and they disobeyed the perfect will of God, spiritually.

The challenge with using the parables as living guidelines is this, they are not providing a list of what to do and what not to do, because as you have correctly pointed out that decision can be situation specific.

They are showing us that if we follow God's lead (accept his Lordship in our lives), rather than our fear or some other human failing, our decisions will always be the right ones.

If you want to use the parables as living guidelines, then seek God's direction in your life and then do what HE says when prompted.

Actually, Christ’s parables are about the kingdom. In the Gospel according to Matthew, for example, the subject of every parable is comparable to the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom may be compared to a man who sowed good seed (13:24) or to a mustard seed (13:31) or to leaven (13:33) or to a hidden treasure (13:44) or to a merchant in the market for pearls (13:45) or to a fishing net (13:47). The kingdom is like a king who wishes to settle his accounts (18:23) or a landowner in search of labor (20:1). It is like ten virgins (25:1) or a man on a journey (25:14). You get the idea. The kingdom is the single, common thread in the parables. When Jesus tells parables, in fact, he shares secrets of the kingdom (Mt 13:11; Lk 8:10).

 

[norwegen]

The second death (Lake of Fire) comes after judgrment.

How can you have a second death if it appointed for man to die once?????

there is the death consequent to violating the law of God and then there is the death of the physical body.


Those who take part in the first resurrection cannot be harmed by the second death.


Only physical death is natural. People praying to statues for instance and then dying and descending into the netherworld for decades or for life by losing their sanity is not Gods will.

IOW, you admit it is NOT appointed for man to die once. Some men will die twice, and as you have already pointed out some men will not die at all.

Actually, the two guys who never died, Enoch and Elijah will face physical death in the future (see Revelation 11:7)

i believe they are the two witnesses spoken of in the book of Revelation.

John the Revelator called these witnesses lampstands (11:4). Lampstands were churches (1:20). These two witnesses were not individuals; they were assemblies.

 

[HaShev]

According to Jewish laws to live by, Paul's imprisonment made him denounced as one to trust or listen to, and compile that with the authority who jailed him controlled his image (made of many figures) and words and you have a recipe for abuses and manipulations beyond just a jailed persons vengeance.
Furthermore, since this is a topic about contradictions, then we must discuss how James and Paul seemed to contradict and argue that each was teaching another Christ figure then the other, which was proved true by my previous post on historical contradictions which showed more then 1 Christ being used for the Jesus myth.

It does seem obvious that Paul contradicts Jesus on several key issues foundational to salvation.

All of that aside, whoever the real Jesus was he must have pissed off the romans to no end. Why else would they have gone through the trouble of changing the customs of the entire empire and abolishing every other religion in existence making the new official religion centered around an open demonstration of hatred for the Hebrew God and compulsory ritual celebration of his death.

All the revolter Christ figures p'o'd Rome, a good book on those who fought back the Greek & Seleucid rule in the earlier era is called
"my glorious brothers".
When you read Josephus, you find disturbing things about the revolters against Rome that you never knew, because it paints a less Romantic Revolutionary Savior image and more of a thuggery gang image.

The tax revolter christ in the Herod era What I didn't even know till recently is that Josephus accounts the Galilean christ as being responsible for the destruction of the Temple(instead of Moshiach to build the Temple) and Zealot war with Rome that failed miserably.
Yehuda the Galilean Christ began the "fourth philosophy" of the Jews which Josephus blames for the disastrous war with the Romans in 66-70 CE.
The philosophies of Judaism most important in that period were the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, and the Zealots (fourth philosophy).
They were the freedom from Rome fighters who hated the census(7bc), they are the Zealots who ended up at Massada.
Such movements in the first century were both religious and political; not one or the other. Interesting enough one of his 2 sons which were also crucified later for their revolt, claimed to be a messiah figure as well, perhaps where the term father and son as one (one cause).
The Disturbing fact about Yehuda's and his followers that Josephus tells us is that these tax revolters encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers.
Basically they would be considered their eras version of Antifa, opposing tyrany, but becoming what they hate by forcing others to do as they or have tourched houses and businesses and stuff looted. Sound Familiar? Anti fascist ironically becoming the fascists themselves.

 

[Mindful]

Was Jesus real?

Or merely an idea?

 

[hobelim]

Was Jesus real?

Or merely an idea?

Of course he was real. Hashev just doesn't understand that no historian outside of the gospels wrote about him because he was not thought of as a revolutionary or rebel leader. He was dismissed as a drunken nutjob and executed without much thought. People laughed at the things he said, eat my flesh and such. Ironically no one would have ever heard of this Jesus if not for the gospels and the romans turning him into a god.

 

[Mindful]

Was Jesus real?

Or merely an idea?

Of course he was real. Hashev just doesn't understand that no historian outside of the gospels wrote about him because he was not thought of as a revolutionary or rebel leader. He was dismissed as a drunken nutjob and executed without much thought. People laughed at the things he said, eat my flesh and such. Ironically no one would have ever heard of this Jesus even with the gospels if the romans didn't turn him into a god.

I thought he was a member of that sect, talked about in The Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[G.T.]

Was Jesus real?

Or merely an idea?

Of course he was real. Hashev just doesn't understand that no historian outside of the gospels wrote about him because he was not thought of as a revolutionary or rebel leader. He was dismissed as a drunken nutjob and executed without much thought. People laughed at the things he said, eat my flesh and such. Ironically no one would have ever heard of this Jesus even with the gospels if the romans didn't turn him into a god.

Because you said so, he existed? Because the perpetrators of the Religion in question, which hinges on his existence, said so? Damn, you set that bar high!

 

[hobelim]

Was Jesus real?

Or merely an idea?

Of course he was real. Hashev just doesn't understand that no historian outside of the gospels wrote about him because he was not thought of as a revolutionary or rebel leader. He was dismissed as a drunken nutjob and executed without much thought. People laughed at the things he said, eat my flesh and such. Ironically no one would have ever heard of this Jesus even with the gospels if the romans didn't turn him into a god.

I thought he was a member of that sect, talked about in The Dead Sea Scrolls.

"he lived in the wilderness among the wild beasts." which means he was living in roman towns outside of Jewish law, (the wilderness), running around with the wild beasts, (the romans), presumably doing what romans do, partying with sinners and prostitutes and keeping all sorts of bad company.

 

[hobelim]

Was Jesus real?

Or merely an idea?

Of course he was real. Hashev just doesn't understand that no historian outside of the gospels wrote about him because he was not thought of as a revolutionary or rebel leader. He was dismissed as a drunken nutjob and executed without much thought. People laughed at the things he said, eat my flesh and such. Ironically no one would have ever heard of this Jesus even with the gospels if the romans didn't turn him into a god.

Because you said so, he existed? Because the perpetrators of the Religion in question, which hinges on his existence, said so? Damn, you set that bar high!

The religion in question said he was a three in one edible mangod born of a virgin. they just hijacked the movement started by the gospels and turned it into a form of Mithraism effectively burying the truth about Jesus under a mountain of blasphemy.

 

[G.T.]

Was Jesus real?

Or merely an idea?

Of course he was real. Hashev just doesn't understand that no historian outside of the gospels wrote about him because he was not thought of as a revolutionary or rebel leader. He was dismissed as a drunken nutjob and executed without much thought. People laughed at the things he said, eat my flesh and such. Ironically no one would have ever heard of this Jesus even with the gospels if the romans didn't turn him into a god.

Because you said so, he existed? Because the perpetrators of the Religion in question, which hinges on his existence, said so? Damn, you set that bar high!

The religion in question said he was a three in one edible mangod born of a virgin. they just hijacked the movement started by the gospels and turned it into a form of Mithraism effectively burying the truth about Jesus under a mountain of blasphemy.

Don't mock their beliefs, yours are equally unsound, spirit in the blood. That's why you dip, duck and dodge.

 

[hobelim]

Was Jesus real?

Or merely an idea?

Of course he was real. Hashev just doesn't understand that no historian outside of the gospels wrote about him because he was not thought of as a revolutionary or rebel leader. He was dismissed as a drunken nutjob and executed without much thought. People laughed at the things he said, eat my flesh and such. Ironically no one would have ever heard of this Jesus even with the gospels if the romans didn't turn him into a god.

Because you said so, he existed? Because the perpetrators of the Religion in question, which hinges on his existence, said so? Damn, you set that bar high!

The religion in question said he was a three in one edible mangod born of a virgin. they just hijacked the movement started by the gospels and turned it into a form of Mithraism effectively burying the truth about Jesus under a mountain of blasphemy.

Don't mock their beliefs, yours are equally unsound, spirit in the blood. That's why you dip, duck and dodge.

The flesh of one creature or another represents teaching, what you say, , blood represents action, what you do.

Yes, life is in the blood. Life is the promise for fulfilling the law.

The flesh of Jesus is his teaching. The blood of Jesus is the way that he fulfilled the law to receive the promise of life...

 

[G.T.]

Was Jesus real?

Or merely an idea?

Of course he was real. Hashev just doesn't understand that no historian outside of the gospels wrote about him because he was not thought of as a revolutionary or rebel leader. He was dismissed as a drunken nutjob and executed without much thought. People laughed at the things he said, eat my flesh and such. Ironically no one would have ever heard of this Jesus even with the gospels if the romans didn't turn him into a god.

Because you said so, he existed? Because the perpetrators of the Religion in question, which hinges on his existence, said so? Damn, you set that bar high!

The religion in question said he was a three in one edible mangod born of a virgin. they just hijacked the movement started by the gospels and turned it into a form of Mithraism effectively burying the truth about Jesus under a mountain of blasphemy.

Don't mock their beliefs, yours are equally unsound, spirit in the blood. That's why you dip, duck and dodge.

The flesh of one creature or another represents teaching, what you say, , blood represents action, what you do.

Yes, life is in the blood. Life is the promise for fulfilling the law.

The flesh of Jesus is his teaching. The blood of Jesus is the way that he fulfilled the law to receive the promise of life...

It's spirit. They thought the spirit was in the blood. And so, they didn't/don't eat the blood because of this.

That's woo-woo bullshit, keep tripping over your own dick.

 

[hobelim]

Of course he was real. Hashev just doesn't understand that no historian outside of the gospels wrote about him because he was not thought of as a revolutionary or rebel leader. He was dismissed as a drunken nutjob and executed without much thought. People laughed at the things he said, eat my flesh and such. Ironically no one would have ever heard of this Jesus even with the gospels if the romans didn't turn him into a god.

Because you said so, he existed? Because the perpetrators of the Religion in question, which hinges on his existence, said so? Damn, you set that bar high!

The religion in question said he was a three in one edible mangod born of a virgin. they just hijacked the movement started by the gospels and turned it into a form of Mithraism effectively burying the truth about Jesus under a mountain of blasphemy.

Don't mock their beliefs, yours are equally unsound, spirit in the blood. That's why you dip, duck and dodge.

The flesh of one creature or another represents teaching, what you say, , blood represents action, what you do.

Yes, life is in the blood. Life is the promise for fulfilling the law.

The flesh of Jesus is his teaching. The blood of Jesus is the way that he fulfilled the law to receive the promise of life...

It's spirit. They thought the spirit was in the blood. And so, they didn't/don't eat the blood because of this.

That's woo-woo bullshit, keep tripping over your own dick.

Who is they? The people that Jesus made fun of for thinking that a person can become holy as God is holy by eating or abstaining from certain food?

 

[G.T.]

Because you said so, he existed? Because the perpetrators of the Religion in question, which hinges on his existence, said so? Damn, you set that bar high!

The religion in question said he was a three in one edible mangod born of a virgin. they just hijacked the movement started by the gospels and turned it into a form of Mithraism effectively burying the truth about Jesus under a mountain of blasphemy.

Don't mock their beliefs, yours are equally unsound, spirit in the blood. That's why you dip, duck and dodge.

The flesh of one creature or another represents teaching, what you say, , blood represents action, what you do.

Yes, life is in the blood. Life is the promise for fulfilling the law.

The flesh of Jesus is his teaching. The blood of Jesus is the way that he fulfilled the law to receive the promise of life...

It's spirit. They thought the spirit was in the blood. And so, they didn't/don't eat the blood because of this.

That's woo-woo bullshit, keep tripping over your own dick.

Who is they? The people that Jesus made fun of for thinking that a person can become holy as God is holy by eating or abstaining from certain food?

No, the idiots that believe the 613 commandments were ever a good idea, or directly from a deity - specifically the israelites - that, like you, are dopey enough to wash your hands of rape and genocide and call it a metaphor despite the wars, chattel slavery and pillaging in reference actually happening in real life

cant drink foreign wine because it may have been made in sacrifice to "other" gods

woo-woo bullshit, just like a christ cracker, dope.