Steefen
This not US Media Studies 101 class, so you can drop the “I do not know how to counter his argument so I will call it a conspiracy.”
Rome had to destroy not just the Temple, the City, the zealot rebels with militant messianism, but also their belief 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”
Stephen
This is not a conspiracy?
Steefen
Out of control, anarchist rebels made themselves enemies of Rome and the God of Rome overcame its enemy.
Stephen
A few bad apples? I guess Titus overreacted, huh?
Stephen
A few bad apples? I guess Titus overreacted, huh?
Steefen
Your questions are poorly formed. I will have to pass on them until you communicate better.
And everyone can see the difference between conspiracy theory/fantasy and conspiracy/plot/plan. So, don’t go patting yourself on the back.
Robert said
You’re certainly not alone in finding it repulsive. The gospel of John portrays Jesus as losing many disciples on account of such language (6,52-59), and yet does not include this as part of his very lengthy account of the last supper of Jesus with his disciples (Jn 13-17).Paul’s account of the last supper in 1 Corinthians is the very earliest story we have of any event in the life of Jesus. If it isn’t reliable at all, then almost nothing we think we know from the gospels has much chance of being reliable. That’s not an argument for the reliability of Paul’s account, but it’s a good place to start. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** explores the question of whether or not Paul could have invented such a ritual as opposed to his relating a tradition he might have received from earlier disciples.
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread…”
Our friend, Richard Carrier, as you know, says: “Scripture and revelation are the only sources of information he (Paul) ever mentions. Anyone having the Jesus he knows and refers to, and speaks to, is always in outer space. Paul never places him anywhere else. He never clearly places Jesus on Earth or connects him to human history […]” (1). Therefore, some fringe scholars affirm that outside the Gospels, there is no evidence of the Lord Supper being something that Jesus said or did, “really“.
It would be honest to mention also this.
(1) ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Linda said
John 6:63 shows that Jesus was not literally referring to eating his flesh.
The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Earlier in that chapter, Jesus answered the question, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh IS real food and my blood IS real drink. … the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Steefen Argumentation Specialist
Human real food counts for nothing after we die. Perhaps as we live, body and spirit, human real food counts for nothing.
The Catholic Church went through the trouble of coming up with the doctrine of transubstantiation because the Biblical Jesus was literally referring to his eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
Britannica
In Roman Catholicism and some other Christian churches, the doctrine, which was first called transubstantiation in the 12th century, aims at safeguarding the literal truth of Christ’s presence while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.
Steefen
Jesus insisted on this because his mission failed. He did not want anyone else to travel that road. The gospels were written after AD70. The Hebrew God was not to inspire another messianic leader. The only way to do that was by deactivating god, no longer play the program/script of a god who rescues a culture from a super power.
#1 Moses and his god really did not rescue Hebrew slaves from Ramesses the Great.
#2 God did not rescue the Hebrews from going into Babylonian captivity.
#3 God did not rescue the Hebrews from Hellenism.
#4 God did not raise Temple Judaism above the Roman Empire.
Jesus insisted that rebelling against super powers was the wrong course of action. After the historical Moses, the Hebrews were still under the dominance and influence of Egypt.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)