Around about the year 250 BC a chappie called Aristarchus put forward the theory that the earth rotated and revolved around the sun. Wow! That long ago? Now there was a forward thinking observer if there was ever one.

Aristarchus didn't get very far with his theory because it was generally rejected by the other Greek scholars and scientists of the day because it didn't agree with either Aristotle or Plato who both argued on purely philosophical grounds that the Earth had to be the centre of the universe and therefore immovable.

The earth at the centre of the universe theory pretty well stood solid for another 2000 years until around 1500ad and Nicolaus Copernicus hit the scene.

Copernicus wrote a book - "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium," in which it was claimed that the Earth "revolved" around the Sun, not the other way around.

Copernicus' book may well have been widely considered in the underground world of science but it didn't go down very well in the church of Rome's eyes. It was banned and it remained banned and on the list of the church of Rome's prohibited books until 1822.

About 100 years later a chap called Bruno also taught that not only did the Earth orbit the Sun but all stars were distant suns that had planets orbiting them, and probably had life on those planets.

Oh dear, that was the end of him. He was burned at the stake for heresy by the inquisition.

Now we come to Galileo (1610 AD)

Galileo was a true observer. It would seem that he adopted the philosophy that believing something because you had been told it, or for the sake of belief itself, was not the way to go, but rather - by being as objective as possible be ready to discard any idea, theory or teaching that didn't stand up to scrutiny.

Galileo wasn't guessing or theorising. He had a telescope. It was a very rudimentary thing but it did work. It was by this telescope that he observed craters on the moon, he saw moons orbiting Jupiter, he saw the phases of Venus, sun spots and observed that the milky way was actually made up of millions of stars, and his observations and mathematical workouts brought him to the conclusion that good old Copernicus had been right after all. The earth did orbit the sun and not the other way around as Ptolomy had taught and the Church had adopted as official thinking and teaching on the matter for many years.

He wrote a book - the "Dialog of Two World Systems" to explain exactly why Copernicus was right and why the official thinking of both the church and the science of his day was wrong.

Oh dear, oh dear, and thrice oh dear. Not the sort of thing that you do in the seventeenth century because the church is likely to make dangly ornaments out of your testicles.

As an old man, due to enormous pressure as in - recant or get burned, he did recant of his so called heresy as far as the church was concerned. Let's face it - he had to in order to save his life - a wise and astute move, but nobody really believes that his recantation was anything other than a ploy to save his life.

Now here is a question for you -

When did the Roman Church finally admit that they had got it wrong, that their official dogma which upheld that the sun and all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth was crap, and that the inquisition was wrong in accusing Galileo and Capernicus of heresy?

They did have the wee problem that if they admitted they were wrong there would be questions regarding the infallibility of the Popes ever since the issue raised its ugly head, and admitting you are wrong aint an easy thing to do because it may shake a few believers faith in you and your omnipotence, but nevertheless, when did they finally officially admit that they had got it wrong and pardon Galileo and Copernicus? Have a guess.

The answer - 1992. That's right - not 1782, nor 1882, nor yet when the first rockets left the earth or man took his first steps on the moon. It took them until 1992. They obviously had other more important things to do like making sure that the official bread and wine factories were running smoothly

Now I am not suggesting that they actually believed that they were right until 1992, but it did take them until then to actually officially admit it. Because you see there are enormous problems and repercussions in admitting that you have been wrong.

Doesn't this fact sort of hint to you that these religious, power hungry, mind controlling Church leaders might have the merest taint of the arse-hole about them.

Oh dear, did this man just say that he considered the Church of Rome to be "arseholes"? - That isn't very politically correct is it?

Politically Correct? (stand back in amazement). Where are you people coming from? They burned the scientific brains of their day at the stake for heresy. They tortured the poor sods until they recanted of their "so called" heresy, and the ages rolled on by.

The Industrial Revolution came and went. History went through World War 1 and World War 2.

In 1908 under the supervision of George Ellery Hale, the Mount Wilson 60-inch telescope is completed and sees "first light."

In 1917 the 100-inch telescope is completed at Mount Wilson.

In 1949 the historic Hale 200 inch telescope was completed on Mount Palomar, not to mention the 60 inch, the 48 inch and the 18 inch telescopes which were already in operation.

In 1957 in Cheshire, England they built the Lovell Telescope, one of the largest radio telescopes in the world, with a dish of 250 ft. in diameter in order to study the universe.

These telescopes have been searching the universe, cataloguing galaxies, and doing all sorts of scientific study and research for a good many years.

Man left the earth, went to the moon and came back again, and yet it took the Roman Church until 1992 to officially admit that they got it wrong and officially admit that the earth did revolve around the sun after all. What would you refer to them as in your humble opinion. Let's just agree on "arseholes" and be done with it. Either "arseholes" or terribly dishonest, wouldn't you say?

But you see - they do have a problem, and it is a massive, huge, gigantic hell of a problem.

The problem is - if you state that something is fact and make it your official teaching and even burn a few people at the stake for opposing you, and then it is later proved to be utter crap then by admitting that you were wrong can have some very serious knock on effects.

It can cause the masses to maybe question a few of the other things that you have taught as being "correct". It may cause a wee bit of confusion among your followers regarding some of the other things that you have taught them. If you claim to be infallible then infallible you have got to be. And when it is proved that you are not infallible after claiming so long that you are, then the poo may well hit the fan amongst your followers. So better to just leave it alone and admit to nothing.

This appalling practice of non admission to being wrong goes on every single day. The perpetrators of it know very well that they were and are wrong, way off beam, barking up the wrong tree, head up their arse, but they won't admit it. The dangers of admitting it are so great in that the repercussions can be so enormous that they will wriggle and squirm like a worm on a hook, twist and turn and make all sorts of sideways moves to avoid the question and the problem, but they will not come out up front and admit to being in error.

So, now let us leave the Roman Catholic Church alone for a bit and take a look at Judaism.

I am getting a fair bit of email these days from those of the Jewish faith, who upon finding this site, (even though it is designed for Christians) do not like some of the things that I say concerning Moses and the God Jehovah.

So this is for them.

The sacrificial law was set up by Moses and adhered to by the children of Israel through their wanderings in the desert. When the temples at Jerusalem were established the sacrificial offering system continued as was planned, using the temple as the place where the sacrifices were offered by the priests. According to the record that we have in the New Testament, these same sacrifices were still being carried on at the time of Jesus in the second temple built at Jerusalem. It was the tables of the sellers of doves and money changers in the temple courtyard that Jesus got so mad about and overturned.

There were sacrificial offering made for all sorts of things, at the ordination of priests, at the birth of children, at the end of each menstrual period for women (as we have before looked at) see an example of sin nonsense. The list just goes on and on and anybody who wishes to do so can peruse the book of Leviticus to see what I am talking about.

The sacrificial system was terribly important to early Judaism. So the question is - what happened to it?

Hey! Don't let this one just glide by. This is a very real and important question. And an especially important question to those of the Jewish Faith who are in the habit of emailing me with their complaints and abuse.

I am asking you- what happened to the sacrificial law? And if there ever was a single shred of worth in any of it, why is it not still carried on today? What happened to it all? Because after the destruction of the temple by Rome in 70ad the sacrificial system was abandoned.

According to Jewish sources, in 68 AD, two years before the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed, a Rabbi by the name of Yohanan ben Zakkai disagreed with the leaders at Jerusalem over their warlike stance against Rome and left the temple school at Jerusalem. With permission from the Romans he established a new school of rabbinical law in the coastal city of Jamnia.

After the war with Rome and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70ad, other rabbis joined with him at his new school and began the restructuring of the Jewish religion. They formed a rabbinical legal court (Beth-Din) at Jamnia to make decisions previously left to the Jerusalem priests. These included calculating the Jewish calendar and setting the dates of festivals and feasts.

By necessity the customs and festivals themselves had to be revised. For instance Passover could no longer be celebrated at the Temple because the temple no longer existed, so it was decreed that it should be celebrated in the home.

So what happened to all of those sacrifices that had been offered for donkey's years to atone for sin? Admittedly there wasn't a temple anymore for the priests to offer up such sacrifices, but hey, that hadn't stopped them in the wilderness, had it? I mean - for years before they ever built a stone temple, they just had a temporary tent structure. So they could have done the same. They could have built a tent, ordained it as the temple, and carried on. So why didn't they?

The truth of the matter was that the new thought and reorganisation within Judaism changed track. The new slant followed the lines that atonement was achieved through good deeds, prayer, and the study of the Torah.

Now, I am not a one to complain about all of those animals being saved from slaughter, far from it, and I'll bet the dove population was pretty relieved too, not too mention the bullock fraternity, but that is not the point.

The point is - Moses set up the sacrificial system as a NECESSITY for atonement for sin. It was the backbone of early Judaism! According to Moses it was commanded by Jehovah, and the instructions on how all of those sacrifices were to be carried out came by the instruction of Jehovah Himself, so who gave the authority for change?

Did Jehovah give the authority?

Do you know, I cannot find any record of it being so in any scripture. I cannot even find any hint of it in any Jewish writings.

So how do we get an answer? Easy - ask a Rabbi.

Oh dear, oh dear, and once again thrice oh dear.

You see Rabbi's are not generally stupid just like their Roman Catholic dogmatists and officials aren't stupid. They can see the writing on the wall. As far as they are concerned the rule is very simple -

NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG!

If you admit to having been wrong in the past the repercussions of your admission can be enormous. If it is admitted that Moses was wrong in teaching untold errors regarding sacrifices to appease God, then the rest of his teachings and statements are also bought into question.

So - side-track, manoeuvre your way around it, avoid the question, change the subject, pretend to have a heart attack, do anything but do not answer the question openly and honestly.

And if the question persists and won't go away then wriggle out of it somehow but for goodness sake avoid it like the plague or most certainly avoid giving a straight an honest answer regarding it. Better still - do your damndest to bring into disreputation the person who is asking the question.

If you talk to a Rabbi today the flim flam starts to flow. I am quite used to flim-flam, I listen to politicians on a regular basis. Some Rabbis bluster and burble on as the excuses and reasonings are presented. Others are as hard as nails and try to baffle you with academic flip-flop, but hey, I am an expert flim-flam and flip-flop interpreter.

The most common reasoning goes along these lines -

During the Babylonian exile when Israel was taken captive they had absolutely no means of offering any blood sacrifices. According to 1 Maccabees (cf. 1:54, 4:52) valid sacrifices in the Temple were discontinued for three years (168-165 B.C.E.).

Right…… so?

So what did they do? They could do little else other than to offer contrite repentant prayer.

Okay…….. so?

So this meant that in a time when it was not possible to offer up atonement sacrifices in the Temple, contrite, repentant prayer would do instead. So when the destruction of the temple took place in 70 ad, rabbinical Judaism's change of tack in substituting a sacrificial atonement system with an atonement system based on repentant prayer was only doing the same as had been done before in Babylon.

Aha? So…..?

So there you have it.

There you have what? I ask. So what? I don't really give a donkey's chuff. You have not answered the question. When in Babylon during the exile the sacrificial system could not be carried out due to a lack of a temple and the fact that all religious practice was banned by the Babylonians - okay. But after the Babylonian exile and the vast majority of Jews were allowed to return back to Jerusalem it was all started again.

Well, wasn't it? Of course it was. The returning body of Israel rebuilt the temple and carried on where they had left off.

So why was it not started again after the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in 70ad. Not convenient? Well it is now! The state of Israel was established in 1948. So why has the sacrificial system not then been reintroduced? You have had your own state - the state of Israel for 60 years. So why has the sacrificial system not been reintroduced as it was before when the Jews were allowed to go back home after teh Babylonian Exhile?

You see, they have absolutely NO INTENTION of re-introducing the sacrificial atonement system.

Can you imagine the uproar it would cause if the press got a hold of the pictures of every Jewess in Israel driving up to Jerusalem to the temple at the end of each month with her 2 doves for the priest to sacrifice on her behalf?

Can you imagine the fury of the RSPCA or Greenpeace, or the world at large at the film footage of the steady stream of bullocks heading for the sacrificial altar in the Temple ready to be slaughtered during the ordination ceremony of the new Rabbis?

As I said - they have absolutely NO INTENTION of re-introducing the sacrificial atonement system.

Why not?

Because their religion and belief system has evolved and progressed and has now adopted a new way of thinking and practising.

I accept that. But the question is - was Moses right? Was the sacrificial system ever necessary?

You see it is a valid question. If it is NOT considered necessary now, then was it EVER necessary?

There is obviously some confusion even amongst the Jewish Fraternity on this question because there are enough sources on the Internet that try and answer the question. For instance one site which tries to put the questioners minds at peace states -

"The rabbis under the leadership of Yohanan ben Zakkai did not make an unscriptural substitution when they emphasised sincere confessionary repentant prayer as a means of obtaining atonement. The Bible already mandated sincere confessionary repentant prayer, as a proper vehicle for attaining forgiveness. In the biblical period atonement prayer was used with full divine sanction, with or without animal offerings (even for non-Jews-- Jonah 3:5-10). "

and again

"Thus, we see that the Temple's destruction necessitated a modification of the already existing atonement process. However, this change did not include a radical alteration of its universally applied core element--sincere repentant confessionary prayer coming from the contrite heart. The direction and form of that modification was already given in the Hebrew Scriptures. The rabbis, under Yohanan ben Zakkai's leadership, did exactly what the Bible commands for such times when the full atonement service cannot be offered."

"No dilemma is posed by the inability to offer animal sacrifices for atonement of sin. Emphasis is now placed on the repentant prayer component of the sacrificial ceremony. Biblically, confessionary repentant prayer can and does satisfy all the criteria necessary for attaining God's forgiveness even without the presence of a blood atonement sacrifice. What does the ability to use prayer alone show? The very existence of repentant prayer as a biblically proper vehicle for attaining atonement emphasizes, of itself, the fact that God has never left His people without the means for atoning for sin. As God had always permitted, and continues to do, one may come before Him with confession and repentance in contrite prayer. "

And again

"The biblical and post-biblical evidence shows that God has never abandoned Israel. It is quite evident that even without the sacrificial system of the Temple service forgiveness of sin is still attainable through the biblically prescribed method of using sincere confessionary repentant prayer alone. The rabbis were absolutely correct in following the biblically prescribed method that is to be followed when no blood sacrifice offering is possible. The rabbis, in conformity with the biblical summons, bid the Jewish people to make confessionary repentant prayer as an atonement offering to God. Repentant prayer, the offering of the lips, is not a man-made alternative to offering a blood sacrifice; it is an essential biblical mainstay of God's relationship with Israel. "

Fine. Like I said - I am used to flim flam, but the questions that I asked are still not being answered.

I accept your statement that - "The rabbis, under Yohanan ben Zakkai's leadership, did exactly what the Bible commands for such times when the full atonement service cannot be offered."

BUT -

1. The state of Israel was established in 1948. So come on guys, get building a temple and sacrificial altar to start sacrificing again. And if you don't, haven't, and have no intention of ever doing so then why has the sacrificial system not then been reintroduced?

2. And if it now deemed to be unnecessary the question is - was it then ever necessary? Was Moses ever right? Was the sacrificial system ever necessary?

Because if Moses was ever right and by the command of Jehovah the sacrificial system was necessary, then where is it written that it is no longer necessary and where is it written that God has repealed his own commandments and instructions regarding the matter?

I mean, Jewish male children are still circumcised according to the law of Moses. There are enough kosher butchers around to testify to the fact that the food laws are still generally adhered to, etc. So what about the sacrificial law where sin offerings were made?

I say that the sacrificing of animals has not been reinstated because it was all horse shit in the first place. The Jewish leaders of today know full well that it was all horse shit, and that is why they have no intention of reinstating any of it.

In my opinion circumcision is nonsense as are the food laws and every other piece of ceremonial crap instigated by Moses, but hey ho, let's get one thing sorted out at a time.

Was any of the sacrificial system ever necessary, right, or in any ways required by God?

I did actually go to the trouble of meeting with a Rabbi and asking him this one.

He thought for a long time as he considered the question - a wise man. I don't have a problem with anybody taking all the time they want to consider the question and their response. Eventually his answer came -

"It was right for the time"

Oh, well done, a neat sidestep if I ever saw one. A very cleverly constructed piece of flim flam if I ever heard one. Remember the rules -

NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG!

If you admit to having been wrong in the past the repercussions of your admission can be enormous. If it is admitted that Moses was wrong in teaching untold errors regarding sacrifices to appease God then the rest of his teachings and statements are also bought into question.

So - side-track, manoeuvre your way around it, avoid the question, change the subject, pretend to have a heart attack, do anything but do not answer the question openly and honestly.

So the answer given - "It was right for the time"

In 1532 on the subject of "Protective Angels and Destructive Demons" Martin Luther said -

"There are many demons in the woods, water, swamps and deserted places who may injure people. Others are in dense clouds and cause storms, lightening, thunder, and hail and poison the air. Philosophers and physicians attribute these things to nature and I don't know what other causes."

Were these statements right for the time? As far as Luther was concerned they were.

But the question is - were these statements right? Not right for the time - but RIGHT?

Let's take a vote on that one - Hands up all who believe There are many demons in the woods, water, swamps and deserted places who may injure people. Others are in dense clouds and cause storms, lightening, thunder, and hail and poison the air.

And hands up all those who believe that such things are to be attributed to nature and other causes.

Right for the time does not mean - RIGHT.

It may have been " right for the time" as the Roman Church was "right for the time" when it condemned Copernicus for writing "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium" But the question is not - "Was it right for the time" The question is WAS IT RIGHT?

In the case of the Roman Church the answer is - No, it wasn't right. The Roman Church got it wrong. Dead wrong. And even though they didn't admit it until a few years ago, they eventually did admit it

It may have been "right for the time" when the Inquisition burned Bruno at the stake for teaching that not only did the Earth orbit the Sun but all stars were distant suns that had planets orbiting them. But whether "right for the time" or not - again, those of the inquisition who burned him got it wrong - dead wrong.

It may have been "right for the time" when Galileo was forced to recant or get burned for teaching that which is accepted as fact today. Yet again, the Roman Church Got it wrong, and even though it took them until 1992 to come clean and admit it, they have at least admitted it.

What was right about any of it. It wasn't. It was all dead wrong. It was repressive. It was a prime example of religion trying to hold sway over the people so that it remained in a position of power and authority.

So don't tell me that Moses sacrificial laws were "right for the time". Because the question is not - "where they right for their time" but - WERE THEY RIGHT?

WERE THEY CORRECT?

Because if they were correct - why - now that the state of Israel exists and they can be re-introduced have they not been introduced?

I say they weren't right. And I say there were wrong for their time as well. They are wrong, they were wrong and they have always been wrong which is why they have not been re-introduced.

We do not see the Jewess's queuing with their doves to be sacrificed at the temple doors because Judaism knows full well that it was all unnecessary nonsense.

They were always wrong, dead wrong. They are and always were sheer and utter crap because no sacrifice was ever necessary to appease God or pay for sin. It was all a massive power move by Moses in the organisation process of setting up the religion for the masses to follow.

It was all part of the "control plan" by which you remain powerful and in control -

1. Convince the people that they are sinful.
2. Claim that a sacrifice is required to atone for that sin
3. Set up your priest class as the only ones capable of carrying out the sacrifice.

And as if by magic you instigate fear into the people as a means of control and as a means to establishing a power base, and it has happened time after time, again and again throughout the history of the earth wherever religion and priests come on the scene.

The problem is - I have yet to meet the Rabbi that will admit it, because if they do they can see the writing on the wall regarding how much else of Moses teachings will be bought into question. And that's the problem - no matter how illogical, absurd, barbaric or pagan the teaching of the necessity of blood sacrifice to appease God may be, none of the them will admit to any of it being in error.

Anybody who suggests or teaches that God does or ever did require a blood sacrifice to appease him so that he and man may be reconciled, be it an animal sacrifice or a human sacrifice merely shows their total failure in understanding the nature of God.

Just what sort of a barbaric nature do you think God is endued with? Those who ascribe to the necessity of a sacrificial system have a view of God that is so obstructed by their own fears that they have absolutely no comprehension of the true nature of God at all.

They stand at their pulpits each Sunday, the teach at their Sabbath schools, they all congratulate themselves on a lesson well presented or a sermon well preached. And God patiently stands by, reaching out to merely be recognised and they wouldn't know him if they fell over him on a bright summer's day if He had the word "GOD" tattooed on his forehead.