Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 8, 2007 17:24:50 GMT -4
Jesus' apostles understood he was speaking figuratively, even if they did not understand the full import of his words. They did not eat him after his death.
And the Mythbusters wouldn't touch this one with a 30' pole.
|
|
|
Post by Alliterative Andy on Mar 10, 2007 14:44:28 GMT -4
On the other hand, I do not think it happened. It is difficult to choke down that much meat even if it is divided among 12-14 people. ... Still, the symbolism is beautiful and it is a good way of thinking of the holy body being passed down through time among the believers. So it is wonderful to think of it happening, it is just not physically likely. Again, I disagree as to the physical likelihood. Even taking Jesus's words literally, it's possible that they may have eaten the entirety of his body over the course of several days, or even weeks. First, I assert that Jesus's body had less than 100 lbs. of meat (probably in the neighborhood of 70 lbs.). Among 11 (not including Judas Iscariot, since he had died, and thus would not be able to consume any of Jesus's body.) men, that's a little less than 10 lbs. That would easily last the few days it would have taken them to eat it all with proper preservation and storage. As to the symbolism, Catholics have observed the Eucharist for many, many years, and yet do not believe that the disciples literally ate Jesus's body when he died (Well, sort of, anyway, one explanation is that the bread and wine blessed by Jesus at the Last Supper actually turned into his body and blood, and that they ate that instead of Him. Perhaps it is in that vein where I would also consider it impossible for a small group of men to have eaten all of the millions of pounds of communion substance transmogrified into the body of Christ throughout the years.). At any rate, the symbolism is carried on, in spite of what anyone may or may not believe have happened.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Mar 14, 2007 13:52:45 GMT -4
Jesus' apostles understood he was speaking figuratively, even if they did not understand the full import of his words. They did not eat him after his death. And the Mythbusters wouldn't touch this one with a 30' pole. Some anti-christians might make a parody dressed like them and post it on youtube.com. I wouldn't. But I imagine someone out there might. If this kind of stuff is on the internet, anything is possible: {Edit -- photobucket saved the day}
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 16, 2007 12:40:31 GMT -4
At this point I'm inclined to agree that it's unlikely, but it's been interesting to think about.
One of the things we need to all keep in mind is how we view things through the lens of our preconceived notions and established belief systems.
I found it very interesting how Jason and DeadHoosiers argued against this theory - from within the belief system, defending the belief system with itself. I don't really want to attack their beliefs, so I'll back off from this one. The only way to continue to pursue this theory would be offensive to members that I respect.
Thanks for participating!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 16, 2007 13:07:23 GMT -4
There's really no other way to treat this "theory" - the historical, non-religious evidence on Jesus is so scanty that it's pretty much impossible to say anything about him from a strictly secular standpoint. And this whole thread read rather like a "let's make fun of the odd ideas of those silly Christians" topic from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 16, 2007 14:39:16 GMT -4
All religions seem silly to those looking in from the outside, but poking fun wasn't the point of this.
I'm sorry you took it that way.
The point was to take and extreme hypothesis and run with it for a ways. I was hoping to make a comparison between my theory, the underlying beliefs preventing others from intelligently considering it, and the way that conspiracy theorists and debunkers approach the information given. I don't have the emotional connection to approach this as a CT, and I don't have the intellectual stick-to-it-ness to handle it like a debunker, so I'm letting it go. But I was trying to walk the line between the two perspectives, for my own enlightenment. Tough line to walk.
Besides, I leave for basic training in less than 2 weeks, I need to finish up some things here at work and get some home things taken care of. My free time is already overspent.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 16, 2007 15:55:45 GMT -4
All religions seem silly to those looking in from the outside, I disagree. Perhaps there are some people who feel that all religions not their own are "silly" but I don't think the perception is universal. A Christian can either take this idea as "poking fun" at his religion or as outright insulting it. I don't see much room for any middle ground. I'll give the posters on this thread the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were trying to "poke fun" rather than outright offend. In other words to compare Christians to conspiracy theorists. How can that be seen as anything but unflattering to Christians? How did you expect us to react to such a comparison?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Mar 16, 2007 18:15:28 GMT -4
At this point I'm inclined to agree that it's unlikely, but it's been interesting to think about. One of the things we need to all keep in mind is how we view things through the lens of our preconceived notions and established belief systems. I found it very interesting how Jason and DeadHoosiers argued against this theory - from within the belief system, defending the belief system with itself. I don't really want to attack their beliefs, so I'll back off from this one. The only way to continue to pursue this theory would be offensive to members that I respect. Thanks for participating! Though I argued "from within the belief system," that belief system is based, in large part, on historical documents--the New Testament writings--the most researched ancient documents of all time. That they're not secular doesn't make them less historical. If you search you'll find quite a few secular sources that mention Jesus and the early church. I hope I don't sound mean by saying this, AG, but you have to be a student before you can be a professor and insofar as Christianity is concerned, we're all students.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Mar 19, 2007 6:36:19 GMT -4
I find some people can jump from logic to emotional discussions quickly and they cannot separate the two. I am not a neurosurgeon but I think it has to do with a function of the corpus callosum. Some people are right brain dominate and some are left brain dominate while others have neurons firing back and forth more quickly.
The point is, this topic should be studied as a calculator would study it not as an emotionally charged person might.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 19, 2007 11:15:26 GMT -4
I disagree. Some topics are meaningless when considered without their emotional context.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Mar 19, 2007 19:14:27 GMT -4
I disagree. Some topics are meaningless when considered without their emotional context. Science holds nothing sacred as such. All topics are examined without bais and none are off the table for special reasons. If Jesus Christ's body was digested by his followers, that should in no way sway Christain faith. I think it wasn't for logical reasons, not because of emotional reasons. If you let your feelings sway your perspective, you are in for a life of unreality.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Mar 19, 2007 22:57:42 GMT -4
There's nothing about cannibalism in the scriptures. There's nothing about it in the gnostic writings. There's nothing about it in the secular writings of the time. So where are you coming from Bill? Imagination, bias and just plain cussedness is my guess. No science there. If Jesus' body was literally eaten by the disciples, it would most certainly sway Christian faith. It would mean He didn't rise from the grave and didn't bodily ascend into heaven. ALL of Christianity hinges upon the resurrection. How can you comment on this topic and not KNOW that?!! and expect anyone to take you seriously?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 20, 2007 10:51:59 GMT -4
Science holds nothing sacred as such. All topics are examined without bais and none are off the table for special reasons. I didn't say you couldn't discuss it - just that it shouldn't be discussed without consideration of the emotional attachments people have to this particular historical figure. No one would be discussing Jesus at all if he were not the primary figure in one of the world's largest religions. To willfully ignore that fact during discussion is to have a pointless discussion. Completely incorrect. The resurrection is a central fact to most Christian denominations. If he was instead eaten then they are false. I think you mean "it was for logical reasons, not emotional reasons," but I don't believe you really think Jesus was eaten at all - you're just trolling. If you deny that your feelings sway your perspective then you are living a life of unreality.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 20, 2007 12:22:35 GMT -4
ALL of Christianity hinges upon the resurrection.
This is why I'm walking away.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Mar 20, 2007 17:25:03 GMT -4
There's nothing about cannibalism in the scriptures. There's nothing about it in the gnostic writings. There's nothing about it in the secular writings of the time. So where are you coming from Bill? Imagination, bias and just plain cussedness is my guess. No science there. If Jesus' body was literally eaten by the disciples, it would most certainly sway Christian faith. It would mean He didn't rise from the grave and didn't bodily ascend into heaven. ALL of Christianity hinges upon the resurrection. How can you comment on this topic and not KNOW that?!! and expect anyone to take you seriously? I disagree. He clearly stated that whomever eats of his body has Christ living within him. It is just literal interpretation. Besides, may sects consider the bread during communion to be literally the body of Christ. It makes Christian faith easier to understand than the magic of resurrection. He did raise from the dead in a more plausible sense if the disciples ingested his body. His nutrients power the energies who go forth and spread his word. You are what you eat. And it was not I who came up with this as the links at the beginning of the thread show.
|
|