|
Post by Bill Thompson on Feb 2, 2007 18:39:03 GMT -4
Could Jesus Christ have been eaten? ( counter-propaganda.w3.lt/christ/ejesus/enejesus.php ) Didn’t the scene of the ‘Last supper’ imply an order to eat up Jesus’ body after his death? It is argued here. Although I do not agree with everything, it is still a good argument. It is mentioned here, here and here. Noone else has had the courage to start this thread. So I have started it. On a purely logical view, it makes sense. So I am obligated to believe regardless of what I want to believe or have been raised to think.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 2, 2007 18:41:11 GMT -4
I don't think this is very funny.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Feb 2, 2007 18:44:31 GMT -4
I don't think this is very funny. I don't either. It makes a lot of sense though. Even as a ritual where Christ would pass himself to his followers, I can see it happening. It is logical. Having assumed that Jesus Christ was eaten, many myths and rites of Christianity do not seem strange and mysterious any more.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Feb 2, 2007 18:50:19 GMT -4
Did not Jesus Christ imagine that he would resurrect in his disciples who would have eaten his flesh and would have drunk his blood? According to John, Jesus Christ explained: ‘The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him’. (The Gospel according to John, 6, 56)
Also, when I was studying art in college, I remember the paintings before the Rennasance where Christ's blood was collected in the Holy Grail while he was on the cross. Maybe this was known in earlier times and we have choosen to ignore this today.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 2, 2007 19:07:33 GMT -4
I don't think it's funny either. This is serious stuff.
That's why I didn't start the thread YET - I'm not ready to discuss it in any depth, taking it seriously and not just being flippant about it. "The needs of the clients comes first," and I do this when I'm not being "needed" at. In fact, it has taken me 20 minutes to write THIS POST.
I'll start flippin thru the Bible and get some material, maybe after work tonite.
After all, I'm a Chaplain's Assistant in the Army, now, so I need to learn my way around the Bible better anyway. I've never read the entire thing.
By the way, Jason, you might just avoid this thread. I can almost guarantee it will offend you.
On the other hand, david/Rocky should look this over and think about "objectivity."
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 2, 2007 19:09:46 GMT -4
Bill - thanks for starting with some links. Very interesting. Here's one I bookmarked months ago and haven't really looked through - but apparently he wasn't a "carpenter" but a "general contractor." www.jesuspolice.com/
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 2, 2007 19:17:27 GMT -4
By the way, Jason, you might just avoid this thread. I can almost guarantee it will offend you. I'm much more difficult to offend than you would think. I'm beginning to see why Bill can talk about the LDS church performing mass castrations and beheadings with a straight face - he's apparently willing to believe just about anything about any religious group (well, any Christian religious group, anyway). I await the thread about Mohammed being eaten by his followers with bated breath.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 2, 2007 20:05:19 GMT -4
All very speculative. And like most of Jesus' life there is squat for evidence outside of Josephus and a few books written years after his death. Trying to work backwards into contending that the apostles did something that would have been abhorrent to them as Jews is pretty silly.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Feb 2, 2007 20:55:14 GMT -4
By the way, Jason, you might just avoid this thread. I can almost guarantee it will offend you. I'm much more difficult to offend than you would think. I'm beginning to see why Bill can talk about the LDS church performing mass castrations and beheadings with a straight face - he's apparently willing to believe just about anything about any religious group (well, any Christian religious group, anyway). I await the thread about Mohammed being eaten by his followers with bated breath. Ad Hominem . Also inaccurate portrayal. Besides, stick to the subject, in the proper threads, please. On the other hand, history has shown that anything truly is possible when it comes to this kind of thing. So all this is possible. If a simple explanation is logically more sound than elaborate symbolism and flimsy Johnny-Cochran-type defensive rhetoric, then we are obligated as logical beings to accept the simplest explanation. Besides, I did not come up with this originally. You can see this if you look at the links I first posted. So don't shoot the messenger. Also Brigham Young said that some people should be beheaded, not me. So don't put words in my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Feb 3, 2007 15:32:41 GMT -4
As Christians we believe it happened figuratively. What difference does it make if it happened literally? All very speculative. And like most of Jesus' life there is squat for evidence outside of Josephus and a few books written years after his death. Trying to work backwards into contending that the apostles did something that would have been abhorrent to them as Jews is pretty silly. Right. They were Jews but they were also 12 outcasts who were devoted followers of an iconoclastic and charismatic leader. History tells us that people in such a situation blindly do whatever they are instructed to do by their leader who they are convinced knows better.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 3, 2007 17:27:43 GMT -4
On the other hand, this theory makes some parts of the New Testament narrative seem much less likely and much more bizarre.
For example, in the last supper scene, we are told in concrete, factual language that Jesus is speaking figuratively. That he literally holds up a glass of wine and makes a figurative, symbolic speech about it.
This is much more consistent with someone using a metaphor or an analogy to communicate a concept, than with someone instructing his disciples to literally eat him.
The resurrection and post-resurrection narratives also use concrete language to describe a literal, physical man doing literal physical human things.
Not only that, but the subsequent writings of the disciples are all remarkably lucid, coherent, internally consistent, consistent with each other, and generally reflective of the mainstream of human moral philosophy. This is not really typical of brainwashed fanatical outcasts who have been dominated into consuming the body of their guru--in utter opposition to every moral law of their culture.
The kind of Jesus who would command his disciples to commit cannibalism, and the kind of disciples who would do it, are simply not in evidence in the narrative as it exists today.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 3, 2007 17:55:08 GMT -4
Except that Jesus very often taught in parables - elaborate symbolism. It is therefore not out of place to view the admonision to eat his flesh and drink his blood as symbolic.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 11, 2007 15:13:51 GMT -4
If anyone is really unsure as to whether the disciples ate the Lord's fleshly body, please take a look at what scripture says:
Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it (bread)], and brake [it (bread)], and gave [it (bread)] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mar 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it (bread)], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it (bread)], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it (bread)], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Sames rules for the wine.
The Lord's supper of bread and wine is to remind us of the price He paid for our sins in actual flesh and blood.
Perhaps this distasteful discussion of cannibalism in connection with Christianity can be discontinued now?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 12, 2007 1:35:00 GMT -4
If you don't like it don't read it.
I'm interested in continuing this discussion, but I'll need to do more research than I've had time to do. Drill this weekend didn't leave me any time for reading, so I'll have to sneak it in at work.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
Rocky/david brought up the subject of "objectivity," and I think this is a fine way of challenging ourselves to think without our preconceived notions.
If you don't like it don't read it.
If you feel the need for literal payment for sins in literal flesh and blood, then why does the flesh and blood need to be figurative?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 12, 2007 1:59:13 GMT -4
Not to mention that I find it distasteful to have the presumptuousness to accuse literally thousands of people of faking their lives' works. Yet some people who shall remain nameless have no problem doing that.
|
|