As a former catholic (I was indoctrinated during my childhood, like the 95% of people in my country) I have always found the idea to eat a god-man creepy and totally irrational and I never believed to “Transubstantiation” but I was too afraid to speak openly; it made me uncomfortable and I just avoided it.

The church made a great deal about that superstition, especially during Middle Age and Counter-reformation.

Some unlucky hebrews were unjustly ** you do not have permission to see this link ** of desecrating the Host and executed.
See the infamous painting by Paolo Uccello, where some kids are burned at stake.

The “miracle” very likely never happened, but people actually died.

And in XVI century a protestant student, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, was boiled alive in Rome because he didn’t believe to that dogma.

To burn people for a tiny magical wafer of bread is the peak of human stupidity and cruelty.
The roman poet ** you do not have permission to see this link ** was right when he criticized religion.

JAS said
I doubt very much that anyone was really burned for that tiny magical wafer; that was merely a pretext for other reasons, probably not much better. I think it is clear that you were deeply scarred by your religious upbringing, mb1980, and yet I have known (or known of) many people for whom their religious connections were mostly positive. Religion, like so many human activities, is complicated.

  

Of course it was a pretext (often it happened when someone owed money to a Jew and accused him of a fictional crime rather than paying) but during Middle Age many Hebrews were falsely ** you do not have permission to see this link ** not only of desecration but of ritual murders of boys (unsubstantiated claims made about the kidnapping of Christian children) and well poisoning.
It happened several ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Often were burned.

1215: The Fourth Lateran Council in Rome declared the belief in transubstantiation. This established the theological basis for the host desecration myth.

** you do not have permission to see this link **. 
Professor William Nicholls, a former minister in the Anglican Church and founder of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of ** you do not have permission to see this link **.

In general I tend to be skeptic about the sayings prophesizing the death and atoning sacrifice of the Messiah.

I think that “Mark” placed those theological statements on the lips of his literary version of the galilean preacher and I support the theory of “Messianic Secret” firstly developed by ** you do not have permission to see this link **. The historical figure, a teacher and apocalyptic preacher, probably was ready to risk his life but did not see himself as a sacrifical lamb and did not foresee the future.

edit:

I know that many scholars no longer support Wrede’s theory but I think it still makes sense in many ways. 

My opinion. While he was preaching other people started calling him Messiah, maybe against his own will and finally those claims put him in troubles.
So his outburst against the merchants in the temple was seen by Romans not only as “disturbing the peace” but as an attempt to estabilish some kind of rule in Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, admitting that he believed to be the Messiah and future king, there is still a big problem; Jewish tradition saw the Messiah as a winner, not as a crucified criminal defeated by enemies. The suffering servant image is often cited but it was not the mainstream understanding. Some hints make us think that the Apostles believed that they would have reigned over the 12 tribes of Israel. So I think that Mark had to place on his lips words about the atonement and the sacrifice, maybe borrowed from a pre-Pauline tradition.

I have always wondered, but this is only my speculation, if “Mark” wanted to include some nods to the story of King Josiah (640–609 BCE).

He was seen as a righteous king and he’s credited with a cleansing of the temple, part of a (supposed but debated) larger reformation of religion.

There are two accounts of his death. The Second Book of Kings merely states that Necho II met Josiah at Megiddo and killed him (2 Kings 23:29), whereas the second book of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:20–27) gives a lengthier account and states that Josiah was fatally pierced by Egyptian archers and was brought back to Jerusalem to die.

His death in the latter account was attributed to him “not listening to what Necho had said at God’s command…” when Necho stated: “What have I to do with you, king of Judah? I am not coming against you today, but against the house with which I am at war; and God has commanded me to hurry. Cease opposing God, who is with me, so that he will not destroy you.” The account in Chronicles is considered unreliable by some scholars, as it is based on the description of the death of a different king, Ahab, in 1 Kings, and it meets the Chronicler’s religious agenda to attribute the death of a righteous king to some form of sin. More about him in ** you do not have permission to see this link **.

If I remember well the Bishop Spong in one of his books suggested a simple but compelling explanation about the birth of the idea that “he died for us” or at least for the first step of this concept, before it was theologically developed into a vicarious atonement redeeming whole mankind.

It’s possible that when Romans arrested and interrogated him (unfortunately we have NO witnesses and the tale of Barabbas is very likely literature) he took the blame for everything, admitted that the claims of Messiahship were made by him and asked them to spare his followers, depicting them as simple peasants and fishermen not involved in politics.

A sort of plea deal. Disciples went into hiding or fled to Galilee, but if Pilate – the real governor was a lot harsher than the literary version as stated by Philo of Alexandria ** you do not have permission to see this link ** – wanted could have easily arrested and executed all of them. The denial is literature but it could be a memory of Peter’s feeling of guilt and shame for abandoning the rabbi.

Yes, I know the story of the seven brothers.  

The setting of the book is during the Seleucid period (around 160 BCE), but probably the author intended to apply the lessons from that era to his time.
It was not included in the Masoretic canon of Hebrew scriptures, the Tanakh, and was not considered canonical by later Jews, but in 1st century circulated among Hellenistic Jews.
I find interesting and compelling the theory suggested by Moses Hadas; according to him Antioch in Roman Syria was a more likely site for composition: a Hellenized and Greek-speaking city with a large Jewish minority that revered the martyrs, judging by later churches dedicated to the “Maccabean martyrs”.

In one of my previous posts I mentioned Antiochia because I had in mind that milieu.

In some Jewish circles a rudimentary idea of vicarious atonement was already circulating. It’s likely that Paul was influenced by their theological views.
They were more keen to put emphasis on the suffering of a righteous man (the death of king Josiah was interpreted in a similar way) than the original followers of the galilean preacher, like Peter, who were shocked because they expected a triumphant messiah.