The short of it: in the Synoptics Jesus shares the Passover Seder, the last supper, with his disciples and is crucified the next day. In John, Jesus is the Passover supper, so to speak. He’s crucified the day before Passover, on the day of preparation when the Passover lambs are slaughtered. John frames his gospel against the Passover story in Exodus, so the atonement metaphor changes from bread and wine to the “Lamb of God” whose blood washes away our sins and saves us from death.
Aleph82 said
The short of it: in the Synoptics Jesus shares the Passover Seder, the last supper, with his disciples and is crucified the next day. In John, Jesus is the Passover supper, so to speak. He’s crucified the day before Passover, on the day of preparation when the Passover lambs are slaughtered. John frames his gospel against the Passover story in Exodus, so the atonement metaphor changes from bread and wine to the “Lamb of God” whose blood washes away our sins and saves us from death.
There are last supper discourses in John.
There isn’t the cannibalistic metaphor, which is good.
“Lamb of God whose blood washes away” gives the visual of the flowing blood washing away sins as opposed to consumption of blood.
Lol, well no I don’t think John is endorsing cannibalism, though that’s something that early critics (unfairly) accused Christians of doing. I was attempting crude tongue in cheek humor to segue into my next point, which was that, to John, Jesus is the equivalent of the Passover lamb from the Exodus story. Jesus’s blood saves us from death, just as the lamb’s blood spared the Hebrews from the angel of death.
Catholics and the Catholic Church will never accept the wine they consume is not the blood of Jesus ditto the bread and his body. They will repeat ad naseum that Jesus said THIS is…And because some of his followers really did think Jesus was speaking ‘literally’ of cannabalism, they left the scene and never went back as that was against their OT scriptures. Didn’t Jesus ask Peter why he didn’t leave, he rplied, “where else would I go Lord”? To Catholics this is all the confirmation they need. In fact they will say that UNLESS you believe that, you cannot have eternal life. (Word of Jesus)
This really amazes me because Jesus was about preaching the word that the Father gave him and to those whom also the Father gave him and transubstantation is tantamount to worshipping him as God, which is why they do it. Its also amazing that the whole Catholic Church Services are based on this mass and little else and any bible teaching is non existent as is any sermon, prefering just a 5 minute homily. I guess they rely on indoctrination of Children for the basic message of the Gospels and preferring parroting the Nicene Creed word for word which is said at EVERY Catholic Church Service as well.
If this doctrine was so important to Salvation and Heaven then one would ask why John left all that out?
But then I have always argued that IF the last supper happened and those words were used by Jesus, he said them to his disciples and nobody else. ie for THEM to remember him. And so that ritual was not a mandatory on any one else or any future generation certainly. I have said to Catholics their church should stop spending all that money on that ritual which must be considerable world wide. And give it all to the poor. Would God seriously punish them for not doing just that?
Finally, its a bit rich the Church not allowing certain people to take communion because of divorce or adultery etc or as Paul said not to take it if you are not worthy, when that is EXACTLY the sort of people Jesus came to preach to and save. Its obvious that when they argue a priest is needed to ‘bless’ the wine and bread to change the substance, its self vested interest as that was not a requirement by the first folowers of the faith who took it in their own homes. And even more ridiculous that a Mother Superior of decades of service to God cannot do that, yet a recent graduate of a Catholic Seminary can and needs to go into the Convent to do just that.
Then they wonder why some people find the whole thing laughable and want nothing to do with any of it.
Aleph82 said
Lol, well no I don’t think John is endorsing cannibalism, though that’s something that early critics (unfairly) accused Christians of doing. I was attempting crude tongue in cheek humor to segue into my next point, which was that, to John, Jesus is the equivalent of the Passover lamb from the Exodus story. Jesus’s blood saves us from death, just as the lamb’s blood spared the Hebrews from the angel of death.
But then, in John 6 , there is the (blood = wine & bread = body) – mythicism. It’s not part of the last supper discourse, but it is there in a slightly different form.
Aleph82 said
So it is! And even more cannibalistic than anything found in the Synoptics, though it doesn’t look like wine is specifically mentioned. It also neatly parallels the exodus story (cf. mana from heaven)
Interesting detail to catch: wine specifically isn’t mentioned in the Gospel of John’s mention of eating the flesh and blood of Jesus; but, of course, the setting isn’t a meal (Last Supper) where wine might be expected.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)