Clyde Lofton Jr. said
Did Jesus really say to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood or did priests make that up?Eating of human flesh and drinking human blood seems cult like, and is repulsive to me.
What priests come to mind?
Why would you go from Jesus to priests, jumping over authors of the gospels?
Click this link to see that Bart believes Paul got the Holy Communion wording verbatim because it was possibly a set liturgical saying.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Holy Communion would have been SO sacrilegious 30 CE to 70 CE.
If you were to ask me, what priests made up Holy Communion, I would look to the priests of the Roman Mithraic Mysteries.
Holy Communion is a ritual that commemorates one of the most horrible reports of the Jewish Revolt and Jewish Civil War:
The story of Mary of Bethezuba is a story of cannibalism told by Josephus in his “Jewish War” (VI,193).
Mary of Bethezuba ate half of her baby boy, offered the other half to others, and now we have Holy Communion where her baby boy morphs into an adult Jesus volunteering his body and blood for consumption. How can this be said, the account in Jewish Wars announced that the son of Mary would be remembered (a byword) for the suffering of Jerusalem during its apocalyptic tribulations.
I had in mind the Roman Catholic priests. I don’t know enough about the Bible and Christianity to go in depth on this topic, but I know that Protestant Christianity started by revolting against the monopoly ‘on truth’ of the Catholic church. So I just had in mind that Roman Catholic priests may have invented the ritual of Communion; (eating Jesus flesh and drinking Jesus blood.)
Clyde Lofton Jr. said
I had in mind the Roman Catholic priests. I don’t know enough about the Bible and Christianity to go in depth on this topic, but I know that Protestant Christianity started by revolting against the monopoly ‘on truth’ of the Catholic church. So I just had in mind that Roman Catholic priests may have invented the ritual of Communion; (eating Jesus flesh and drinking Jesus blood.)
Protestant Christianity retained Holy Communion.
Yeah, I know that Protestant Christianity retained Communion. But I’ve wanted to know if the eating of Jesus flesh and drinking of his blood part of the Communion ritual was what Jesus really said, or if it was an invention by the early Roman Catholic priests and added to the Communion ritual. I’ll look into Roman Mithraic Mysteries. Thanks!
Robert
Once again …
Steefen
Yes, once again, you have other members with whom to converse. Do that.
Robert
I know, of course, that you do not want to discuss any of these matters … with me.
Steefen
That is still correct: you are on my ignore/adversary list for reasons (including repeat offenses) that led to final judgement on this action, as anyone in their right mind would put you on their ignore/adversary list.
Clyde Lofton Jr. said
Did Jesus really say to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood or did priests make that up?Eating of human flesh and drinking human blood seems cult like, and is repulsive to me.
Let’s not be anachronistic. The writers of the New Testament were not addressing their accounts to cannibals and vampires. The body and the blood are literary metaphors. But even in a modern Mass the thinking is not that the atoms and molecules in the wine and wafer become the atoms and molecules of Jesus’ body. Transubstantiation posits that the “substance” of the wine and wafer is changed into the “substance” of the body and blood of Jesus. The term “substance” refers to a Medieval scholastic philosophical concept derived from ** you do not have permission to see this link **. If you’re not up for that, consider it a Mystery.
The Jewish prohibition aversion to human sacrifice and consuming all types of blood makes it seem unlikely that the historical Jesus, being as Torah observant as he was, would have said this, even metaphorically. Cannibalism, ritualistic or otherwise, has always been a major taboo in Judaism. It only ever occurred under horrible circumstances like major devastating sieges where people were starving.
The Jewish prohibition aversion to human sacrifice and consuming all types of blood makes it seem unlikely that the historical Jesus, being as Torah observant as he was, would have said this, even metaphorically.
I agree. I think the so-called “Last Supper” was probably a Passover Seder that became reinterpreted and theologized.
LukaPNW
The Jewish prohibition aversion to human sacrifice and consuming all types of blood makes it seem unlikely that the historical Jesus, being as Torah observant as he was, would have said this, even metaphorically.
Stephen
I agree. I think the so-called “Last Supper” was probably a Passover Seder that became reinterpreted and theologized.
Steefen
But we are not dealing with just one historical Jesus who wrote his own gospel before his death.
We are dealing with post-Jewish Revolt times. To put the origins of Holy Communion on the lips of Jesus is the continued attack by Rome on Jewish zealots. Rome had to destroy not just the Temple, the City, the zealot rebels with militant messianism, but also their belief they they were connected to their God. So, you not only turn the messiah around 180 degrees by making him a peaceful messiah with a tax collector–for crying out loud–you get him to do something that will turn his God’s face away from him also.
An historical Jesus would not have said this, even metaphorically, but Paul would have; also, those who would have sponsored the writing of the gospels, likely Romans or pro-Roman Jewish intellectuals would have written the gospels for the victors of the Jewish Revolt. Fix it! Come up with an alternative to militant messianism. “Yes, sir, we will make a Jewish superhero who has no fangs.”
…those who would have sponsored the writing of the gospels…
With all due respect I find the idea that Rome invented Christianity and that Jesus was a composite of multiple figures of history to be at best, not born out by the historical facts, and worst, utterly ludicrous.
In most cases, in most situations, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one and the simplest explanation for the origin of Christianity is that the followers of an itinerant Jewish apocalyptic prophet theologized and mythologized his life and career after his death. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Stephen said
…those who would have sponsored the writing of the gospels…With all due respect I find the idea that Rome invented Christianity and that Jesus was a composite of multiple figures of history to be at best, not born out by the historical facts, and worst, utterly ludicrous.
In most cases, in most situations, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one and the simplest explanation for the origin of Christianity is that the followers of an itinerant Jewish apocalyptic prophet theologized and mythologized his life and career after his death. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Steefen
“I find the idea that Rome and pro-Roman Jewish intelligentsia …”
For your position to have ANY credibility, tell us about the non-Romans, who, towards the end of the Jewish Revolt and after the Jewish Revolt, could afford the writing (in Greek not Hebrew) and publishing project? Second, with so many Jews crucified, why was a psuedo biography needed of Rome crucifying a messiah with a kingdom not of this world, in the late 20’s CE, a time not known for insurrections and crucifixions?
Steefen there is a lot we do not know, something to remember as you spin your conspiratorial fantasies. We have a small collection of letters from a Jewish man named Paul writing to various Christian communities in the 50s of the Common Era. These letters reflect issues in a developing community of believers and contain older traditions. Paul knew Jesus’ brother and his immediate disciples. We have a gospel written by a Gentile (or perhaps a Hellenized Jew?) written around the time of the First Jewish revolt that records stories and teachings by and about a Messianic prophet named Jesus who lived and taught in Galilee while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. We know nothing about the author of Mark other than of course that he did exist and tells the tale of a crucified Jewish Messiah. Why would he make this up? A crucified Messiah? Why create a figure who was going to alienate most of your intended audience who expected nothing of the sort?
If you actually read Mark you detect a tension between the pre-Easter career of Jesus and the depiction of the post-Easter divine savior. This is the tension between the historical Jesus and the theologized, mythologized Jesus. The historical Jesus preaches the imminent coming of Kingdom of God. He sends out his disciples two by two to preach this message. Nothing in the message about crucifixion or resurrection. This message contains the traditional triumphalist Messianic view that god will overcome his enemies and establish his Kingdom. None of which ever happened. After Jesus’ death his message was transformed into a message about his death and resurrection. His followers interpreted his life and teaching through this lens. But they retained the older traditions which sit uneasily with the later ones.
If you were making it all up why would you do it this way? Even under these circumstances Jewish Christianity slowly faded away. Christianity became a Gentile phenomenon. And the Jews went on to revolt yet again.
We have four publishing “houses”, four writing and publishing projects, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John–possibly a fifth with the gospel of Thomas:
Stephen
God will overcome his enemies.
Steefen
Catch reality, Stephen: Rome was not the enemy. If Rome were the enemy, Jesus should have identified Rome as the enemy, in prayer or in sermons. He did not. So, your reading comprehension is in error.
Was Rome the enemy of Judea and Galilee when Herod was the governor of Galilee and later became Herod the Great, ruling Judea? Answer: certainly not.
Out of control, anarchist rebels made themselves enemies of Rome and the God of Rome overcame its enemy.
Catch reality and read some real history. Judea was a client-kingdom of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was a sponsor of its client kingdom, not its enemy.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)