Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
LOL. The intellectual dishonesty involved in justifying superstitions is one of the main reasons I reject religion.
There is one definition of literal. Although the way people use it today you'd never know it!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did the Disciples Eat Jesus?
- Thread starter Sister Cyber
- Start date
LOL. The intellectual dishonesty involved in justifying superstitions is one of the main reasons I reject religion.
There is one definition of literal. Although the way people use it today you'd never know it!
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
But it isn't literal, that's the thing. This perfectly describes the word "figurative."
Again, this is all figurative, but the Catholics maddeningly insist on using the word literal instead. It's like 15 year old girls who's heads "literally explode" when they hear Justin Bieber.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
But it isn't literal, that's the thing. This perfectly describes the word "figurative."
Again, this is all figurative, but the Catholics maddeningly insist on using the word literal instead. It's like 15 year old girls who's heads "literally explode" when they hear Justin Bieber.
It is literal. If it is not literal, is it fake? For example, when I say my ancestors are present with me, they are literally present with me. Some people interpret Spirit/Soul (say Holy Spirit) as a metaphor of a person, abstract entity, or maybe they know it is a personification rather than an actual entity. I don't know. I've seen souls of the deceased or spirits (whatever the term); so, I know it's more than what is created or interpreted in my head. I mean, I can say the guy I saw reminded me of my father, but that would be an association that may or may not have been true. Same as seeing someone on the street and you think "hmm.. he looks like someone I know" type of thing. There isn't a separation such as life/death its just transition from this life stage (for lack of better words) to the next stage of life. Going back to the Eucharist, it's not figurative. "Jesus is the Eucharist" is a blunt, clear statement that he is in the Eucharist. Does it make sense? Depends on who you ask. It makes sense only because I read scripture. If a priest told me out of the blue without my having foreknowledge of scripture and christian belief, I'd look at him and say "you're kiddin' aren't you?"
I'd probably be doing what you're doing because I assume when someone is indoctrinated and is "set free" it's the same as someone who is has no knowledge of the real experience of something because they were trained to think and experience something that doesn't add up with their inner being. Basically, a slave to their indoctrinated belief system and knowing the teachings isn't the same as coming to it with a fresh slate, understanding it, and letting the teachings become your being and your experience. That is the way you have to see it.
Once you see it that way and it becomes your life, it is not a metaphor. It is not figurative. It is not a symbol. That's like calling someone fake. It's real. Literal "taking words at their actual value" is exactly what Catholics say to you when they say "Jesus is the Eucharist" to take that at is actual value at the criteria of the Church since it's the Church's teaching is taking it literal.
If you try to dissect it outside of the Church and as a non-christian (or one who hasn't experienced the sacraments of Christ) then of course it sounds like we are saying "the chair is a bird". It won't make sense.
I actually don't know if I am the only one who isn't Christian who can see it this way, honestly. Usually, I find people who leave the Christian faith completely dissociate with it. If it was a part of their being, they can't dissociate it. That's like my brother saying he doesn't want to be affiliated with his mother. She is still his mother regardless. He doesn't have to accept it, but there it is.
I'm just relaying Catholic teaching through experience rather than indoctrination. I've never been indoctrinated, so I can't see any religion from a skeptic eye. I can just say "now that is odd" or "that doesn't make sense" but once it does logically within the criteria of that given faith, regardless if I believe in it or not, I accept what they say because I understand it and respect it as so.
and yada yada yada
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Figurative and fake are two different things.
No, they aren't. Your ancestors are dead, they are not literally here. If you carry their memories, ideals, experiences, etc., you can say they are with you in spirit...figuratively with you. If they were literally here, we could shake their hands.
So you claim, but I don't believe you or anyone else who claims these things. If it were just in your head, of course you wouldn't feel that way. People who have delusions or visions...it seems real to them but no one else can see what they see. There are such things as hallucinations, or less dramatically, just thinking you saw something you didn't really see. Being mistaken about something in other words, people are mistaken about what they think they saw all the time. It's very common, for example, to have two eyewitnesses report two completely different things, both swearing up and down that they "know" what they saw for sure.
I read scripture my whole life...raised Catholic until the moment I had the sense to move along. Read the Bible twice, went to a decade of Catholic training, had priests over the house in my youth, studied religion in college, etc, etc. So I'm not coming from a place of ignorance when it comes to religious claims, particularly those associated with Catholic dogma.
You really said nothing here about the idea of literal flesh and blood. We can test the cracker, chemically, to see if it's 1) unleavened bread or 2) flesh. If it's literally #1, it's not literally #2. Anything else anyone says about "Jesus is IN this bread" is figurative. That's just the definition of the word. It's either bread or flesh, literally. IF Jesus was "literally" in the Eucharist, we could test and find DNA. No DNA, no Jesus...except figuratively of course.
I'm sorry, it's not real simply because someone sees it as real, or thinks it's real. Just because someone convinces themselves that something is real, doesn't make it real. I'm not calling anyone fake, I'm calling people deluded, misguided maybe? Deep belief in something unreal doesn't make it real. It might be real "to you" but that doesn't make it intrinsically real. To billions of ancient Romans, Zeus was real. It became their way of life, and that's the way they saw it...literally real Zeus. Yet despite the opinions of all these people, Zeus is not, nor has Zeus ever been, literally real. I'm not calling the ancient Roman's "fake" I'm saying they were mistaken.
Baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church. Experienced the sacraments of Christ for 13 years or so. Still don't agree.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The Eucharist debate is pretty easy to understand, though.
OT:
Animal-sacrifice
Blood-remission of sins
Body-communion
NT:
Jesus-sacrifice
Blood-remission of sins
Body-communion
I'm sure since Jesus didn't want people to eat him as they ate animals in the OT, he instead gave the wine (actual wine) to become the blood/remission of sins and gave the bread (actual bread) to become the communion (last supper). He said no one needs to "slain" the lamb no more; so, that's why bread and wine are used. That is also why they become Christ at consecration.
So every time a person partakes of communion, they partake of the actual Blood and Body of Jesus Christ through or by means of not "as" and "as a metaphor of", bread and wine.
It's not literal as in the bread is Jesus' hair, bones, and skin
It's not literal as in the wine is Jesus' white and red blood cells
If that be the case, then Catholics are cannibals.
It's literal in
Bread and wine is life (food and nourishment): John 6:34-37 and John 15:1-6
Yes. I quoted scripture to support my point.
The Eucharist is Jesus not because the bread and wine becomes his hair, bones, dna, and white blood cell count. It becomes Jesus because Jesus is food and nourishment to a Christian's soul.
Why not say metaphor? Simply? Comparison?
Spirituality doesn't work that way, sorry. We're not talking about is the chair a dog at the time Jane says the magic words. It's a conversion of the heart and to a Christian that is real and it is a fact that is why it is literal. You have to come from that perspective not a prove the "the table is not a dog" perspective.
It will always get side tracked.
We keep asking Christians to look outside of the box to understand the non-christian view, maybe some of the rest of us should look inside of the box to understand the Christian view. It doesn't work by knowledge. It works by experience.
Dedicated to @Demonslayer
OT:
Animal-sacrifice
Blood-remission of sins
Body-communion
NT:
Jesus-sacrifice
Blood-remission of sins
Body-communion
I'm sure since Jesus didn't want people to eat him as they ate animals in the OT, he instead gave the wine (actual wine) to become the blood/remission of sins and gave the bread (actual bread) to become the communion (last supper). He said no one needs to "slain" the lamb no more; so, that's why bread and wine are used. That is also why they become Christ at consecration.
So every time a person partakes of communion, they partake of the actual Blood and Body of Jesus Christ through or by means of not "as" and "as a metaphor of", bread and wine.
It's not literal as in the bread is Jesus' hair, bones, and skin
It's not literal as in the wine is Jesus' white and red blood cells
If that be the case, then Catholics are cannibals.
It's literal in
Bread and wine is life (food and nourishment): John 6:34-37 and John 15:1-6
Yes. I quoted scripture
to support my point. The Eucharist is Jesus not because the bread and wine becomes his hair, bones, dna, and white blood cell count. It becomes Jesus because Jesus is food and nourishment to a Christian's soul.
Why not say metaphor? Simply? Comparison?
Spirituality doesn't work that way, sorry. We're not talking about is the chair a dog at the time Jane says the magic words. It's a conversion of the heart and to a Christian that is real and it is a fact that is why it is literal. You have to come from that perspective not a prove the "the table is not a dog" perspective.
It will always get side tracked.
We keep asking Christians to look outside of the box to understand the non-christian view,
maybe some of the rest of us should look inside of the box to understand the Christian view. It doesn't work by knowledge. It works by experience.Dedicated to @Demonslayer
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
If you experienced Catholicism, then this would make sense to you regardless if you disbelieve it.
It would be like knowing a simple basic mathematics problem even if you don't like math anymore. However, since you are saying it isn't literal, I don't understand how you experienced what it is like to see through a Catholic's point of view because most Catholics say otherwise.
Did it just popped in your head that it doesn't make sense all of the sudden?
What was the logic or method that all of the sudden made you see the Eucharist figuratively when Catholicism teaches it's literal?
I'll let you pass on that. No. They are not dead. This was just an example of how spirituality isn't like "prove this dog is a chair" type of thing. You have to go back to your Catholic eyes and see it from your indoctrinated perspective.
Not from knowledge of Catholicism, but from your experience. What does your experience-your inner being--say when you knew not believed that the Eucharist was Jesus? How did that change? Was it real-because if I know two and two is four and someone told me it was 6, I can believe it's 6 all I want but if I'm indoctrinated that it is 4, that is what I'd believe until something logical would tell me otherwise.
What was the logic that broke you from Jesus being the Eucharist? Was it the Bible? How did you get from point A to point B if you only knew A all your life? Was it a revelation?
It would be like knowing a simple basic mathematics problem even if you don't like math anymore. However, since you are saying it isn't literal, I don't understand how you experienced what it is like to see through a Catholic's point of view because most Catholics say otherwise.
Did it just popped in your head that it doesn't make sense all of the sudden?
What was the logic or method that all of the sudden made you see the Eucharist figuratively when Catholicism teaches it's literal?
I'll let you pass on that. No. They are not dead. This was just an example of how spirituality isn't like "prove this dog is a chair" type of thing. You have to go back to your Catholic eyes and see it from your indoctrinated perspective.
Not from knowledge of Catholicism, but from your experience. What does your experience-your inner being--say when you knew not believed that the Eucharist was Jesus? How did that change? Was it real-because if I know two and two is four and someone told me it was 6, I can believe it's 6 all I want but if I'm indoctrinated that it is 4, that is what I'd believe until something logical would tell me otherwise.
What was the logic that broke you from Jesus being the Eucharist? Was it the Bible? How did you get from point A to point B if you only knew A all your life? Was it a revelation?
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
The very fact that you put the word "become" in italics suggests an internal understanding that the wine did not actually "become" blood.
Maybe it's lame of me to insist on the accurate usage of the word "literal" and maybe I'm over sensitive about it because of how liberally it's incorrectly used these days. (I literally died laughing!!) But what you are describing here is the very essence of the word "figurative" or "symbolic." You're plainly admitting that the wine is just wine, physically and chemically speaking.
Bread and wine are not literally life. Bread and wine ARE literally nourishment, but that's not nearly all that Transubstantiation claims.
Yes. I quoted scripture
Egads, the horror!
You got me, because that's exactly what it is. Metaphor.
A Christian can get as internally convinced and tingly as they want, it doesn't change what the word "literal" means to the rest of the world. Again, someone's "internal reality" does not equal actual reality in all cases.
We keep asking Christians to look outside of the box to understand the non-christian view,
I have the experience, as do many of the other millions of "lapsed Catholics." It's not like if we just review the doctrine one more time we're all of a sudden going to agree. I understand the Christian view. It's all well and good if Jesus is Food For Your Soul. Just don't make me use the word "literally" when clearly the word "figuratively" is the proper term for these kinds of ideas.
Dedicated to@Demonslayer
Yay me, I'm special!
No 'special needs' jokes please...
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
I stopped believing in it when I realized how little sense it made.
I mean I can remember back to being a child and taking it all at face value. Same as I can remember what it was like to believe in Literal Santa Claus. So I can think back to the moment in Catholic Mass when the consecration of the host was going on, and being sort of awestruck that the priest was performing some kind of miracle.
But none of that means anything to me anymore because I recognize it as literally untrue.
You've got this backwards though. If you were indoctrinated to believe two and two is six, and then were shown that two and two is four, could you go back to believing in six?
Education. When I grew old enough to realize magic tricks couldn't transform wine to blood.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Tricks are for kids, huh? It's a Christian's personal conviction and they know it's literal because they experienced it. I understand the Eucharist because I believe souls exist and Jesus isn't an exception. However, what I can't wrap my head around is god. So, we're probably on the same page just different "people".
It's an internal understanding (but beyond that, heart conviction and the other words we usually use). Since it's a personal conviction not just an understanding and not just symbols of one's reality (metaphor) but reality itself (literal), it actual does become the body and blood of Christ.
Literal, I looked it up, it says "taking it at face value." So, if a Catholic says "The Eucharist is Jesus" take it at face value. Don't make it complicated. It's a Christian's conviction. So, it is literal just not in the way you'd like to see it since that isn't your reality. If it were, you can run from it but you can't change it.
Nourishment brings life. IS-is just for emphasis that it is literal-one is the other rather than one is the result of another. Transubstantiation, that, I have issues about. Though, I understand it. I accept it at face value that it is literal; just, not my reality anymore.
Subjective and objective, true. I debated that for over a year on RF about Christians seeing things objectively. My point is, when it is your reality, it is a fact and it is literal. A Catholic knows when he holds bread that he is holding bread (the accidents)...its just that his spiritual conviction is that those accidents are also Jesus Christ.
Basically, you're debating something Catholics already know. Ya'll are just using different language (accidents verses physical for example) because they personalized it while in your view, it may be more of a college subject.
Think about it, though. To a Catholic, that's like saying "I believed that two and two is four. I stopped believing in it when I realized how little sense it made."
I'm not saying you're wrong or immoral. I just hope you understand their point of view too in a personal way. That would be hard because it would have to make sense to you to do so; so, it's a circle.
Personal testimony. Understand. Just saying, for example with me, I wasn't raised religious. So, I know no god. My reality has no gods in it. If all of the sudden, I "grown up" and realize that no god reality makes no sense to me, then I adopt a god-reality it would be no difference than what you're saying (the other way around).
I know there is only one reality. It would be silly for any of us to claim its either god-reality or not. With the Eucharist, I can only talk from my experience as an adult. When you see it as an adult it is different than seeing it as a child. As an adult, you know Santa Claus isn't real and pink elephants don't fly over your apartment building. It's a whole new ball park when you come and leave as an adult.
EDIT: If you still understand the nature of santa, remember your experiences, and why other children believe in santa, why, given your indoctrination, dont you see the same exact way about the Eucharist? (Comparing santa and eucharist)
That's my whole point. Catholics do not see two and two is six. They see it as four. It may not make sense in math, but religion is completely different. I can't take two and two is six at face value. I can the Eucharist because of experience and the nature of religion which isn't by the dictionary.
Maybe because I haven't been indoctrinated and the other way around, I've never had a god-revelation of jesus being a savior. I don't know. I just think that its not as hard as we make it out to be. Catholics say X. It is literal according to their teachings. Non-Catholics say Y. It's literal from their experiences (say indoctrination). Everyone is happy.
But no one has yet to prove there is a god entity to even believe anything internally. I just know it makes sense from what I read.
You know Santa Claus doesn't exist but at the least you got the understanding of who he is, how he affected you positively, what was his role in your life, and what was the meaning of presence and family. etc. Now that you know it is not real, do you still have those experiences or are they gone?
Also, what is wrong with it not being literal in the way you described it? Religion doesn't work that way.
It's a Christian's personal conviction and they know it's literal because they experienced it. I understand the Eucharist because I believe souls exist and Jesus isn't an exception. However, what I can't wrap my head around is god. So, we're probably on the same page just different "people".It's an internal understanding (but beyond that, heart conviction and the other words we usually use). Since it's a personal conviction not just an understanding and not just symbols of one's reality (metaphor) but reality itself (literal), it actual does become the body and blood of Christ.
Literal, I looked it up, it says "taking it at face value." So, if a Catholic says "The Eucharist is Jesus" take it at face value. Don't make it complicated. It's a Christian's conviction. So, it is literal just not in the way you'd like to see it since that isn't your reality. If it were, you can run from it but you can't change it.
Nourishment brings life. IS-is just for emphasis that it is literal-one is the other rather than one is the result of another. Transubstantiation, that, I have issues about. Though, I understand it. I accept it at face value that it is literal; just, not my reality anymore.
Subjective and objective, true. I debated that for over a year on RF about Christians seeing things objectively. My point is, when it is your reality, it is a fact and it is literal. A Catholic knows when he holds bread that he is holding bread (the accidents)...its just that his spiritual conviction is that those accidents are also Jesus Christ.
Basically, you're debating something Catholics already know. Ya'll are just using different language (accidents verses physical for example) because they personalized it while in your view, it may be more of a college subject.
Think about it, though. To a Catholic, that's like saying "I believed that two and two is four. I stopped believing in it when I realized how little sense it made."
I'm not saying you're wrong or immoral. I just hope you understand their point of view too in a personal way. That would be hard because it would have to make sense to you to do so; so, it's a circle.
Personal testimony. Understand. Just saying, for example with me, I wasn't raised religious. So, I know no god. My reality has no gods in it. If all of the sudden, I "grown up" and realize that no god reality makes no sense to me, then I adopt a god-reality it would be no difference than what you're saying (the other way around).
I know there is only one reality. It would be silly for any of us to claim its either god-reality or not. With the Eucharist, I can only talk from my experience as an adult. When you see it as an adult it is different than seeing it as a child. As an adult, you know Santa Claus isn't real and pink elephants don't fly over your apartment building. It's a whole new ball park when you come and leave as an adult.
EDIT: If you still understand the nature of santa, remember your experiences, and why other children believe in santa, why, given your indoctrination, dont you see the same exact way about the Eucharist? (Comparing santa and eucharist)
That's my whole point. Catholics do not see two and two is six. They see it as four. It may not make sense in math, but religion is completely different. I can't take two and two is six at face value. I can the Eucharist because of experience and the nature of religion which isn't by the dictionary.
Maybe because I haven't been indoctrinated and the other way around, I've never had a god-revelation of jesus being a savior. I don't know. I just think that its not as hard as we make it out to be. Catholics say X. It is literal according to their teachings. Non-Catholics say Y. It's literal from their experiences (say indoctrination). Everyone is happy.
But no one has yet to prove there is a god entity to even believe anything internally. I just know it makes sense from what I read.
You know Santa Claus doesn't exist but at the least you got the understanding of who he is, how he affected you positively, what was his role in your life, and what was the meaning of presence and family. etc. Now that you know it is not real, do you still have those experiences or are they gone?
Also, what is wrong with it not being literal in the way you described it? Religion doesn't work that way.
Last edited:
You crack me up
Sister Cyber
Member
Thank you. I appreciate your guidance with this as I am a newbie to these forums, just joined this morning. I also have a technical point to share with you. This is an ampersand: "&"
Agreed. however, as stated earlier, there is no call for extra interpretation or cross referencing to miscellaneous scripture since he made himself completely clear, having started his dialogue in parable form, then cutting to the chase. Whenever he himself "cross-referenced" OT scripture, he always began by saying, "It is written..."
It appears you mistake my intent in the use of the term "mock-rehearsal" - I am not using the word "mock" in the verb form (to tease, laugh at...), but as an adjective, which means "not authentic or real, but without the intention to deceive"
I do however believe that a mock was made by phrasing the Passover feast he shared with his disciples as "the last supper" when it was actually the last supper before THE LAST Supper when he was sacrificed and eatten 40 days later. Remember, after he left the tomb, he had breakfast with the disciples (fish sandwiches), hung out with them and ate dinner with them too. Dinner is supper, to me at least, though in other countries supper is later than dinner. Something like that....
Agreed to your definition of cannibalism. That is what his disciples did when they obeyed his command - they ate his flesh and drank his blood. When Jesus said to do that in remembrance of him, he was speaking to his disciples - the twelve plus others who shared the Passover with him, his friends for whom he laid down his life. He was not speaking to people who were not there, however mainstream teaching dictates a monthly ceremony that for the most part is eating a wafer and drinking grape juice.
Since we're on this topic, let's take a look at the Passover meal popularly referred to as "the last supper," when the man called jesus used the bread and wine in a dress rehearsal to remind his disciples in a very real way of what they were to do to him ~ eat him up and drink his blood. The mind-blower is that at the meal, he blessed the matzah (unleavened bread) in an unusual way, calling it his body and breaking it for his disciples to share, and then he blessed the chalice of wine (which, according to luke's story, he did not drink...) in an equally unsettling manner ~ he called it his blood. It was a practice session with impact for when they actually shared in the REAL Last Supper ~ the literal feast on his body to honor what their master verily, verily charged unto them days before the Passover.
Imagine, if you will, being a fly on the wall "in the upper room" over 2,000 years and a decade ago, where the man called jesus assumed the seat at the head of the table and observed with his disciples the high holy jewish ceremonies in remembrance of the tale of how death passed over the homes of their ancestors because they splashed the required sacrificial blood on the doorposts.
Are you there?
Having been married for a number of years to an Israelite who followed the religious belief system of Judaism, to help set the scene for those unfamiliar with the practices of traditional Jewish custom, I can tell you that the Seder (passover meal) is not a celebration; it is an observance, and it's supposed to be an extremely solemn occasion. In addition to eating matzah and drinking wine, it is common tradition for whole horseradish (root) to be eaten, to remind them of the bitter times of their forefathers and to literally bring tears to their eyes, for the shedding of tears is a most important element in the observance of passover. Roasted lamb is a most important serving in the Seder, for it represents the sacrificial lamb that was eaten after the required blood of it was splashed on the doorposts and its body cooked (biblically, "burned") upon the altar grill as is in jewish custom concerning sacrifical offerings to the god of their understanding. Hence the biblical reference in Mark 14:12: "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover," and in luke 22:7: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed."
The tears they shed at the table together that evening were undoubtedly full of emotion; not so much for the past of passover because I am sure that they were crying about the events that were to unfold in their very-near future.
Suffice it to say that during the non-celebratory observance they had gathered for, there was no laughing, joking, goofing around or spreading of good cheer going on that night at the dinner table "in the upper room" at all.
Do you see it more clearly in the moment yet?
I am sure it was very quiet as they took their seats at the table after the necessary preparations and waited for their master to bless the Seder according to custom.
Remember and bear in mind, that the setting of the passover observance was used by him to be a solemn reminder to his disciples and he called the matzah his flesh as he broke it and told them to eat it as such. The wine of which he did not partake, he described as his blood and told them to drink it as such.
Zero in on that image with me because I can just see his serious facial expression as he spoke and made meaningful eye contact with each of them, then watched each bite of bread and each sip of wine from the chalice that they shared the wine from.
Consider the story of how they ran out of wine at that rich governor's wedding reception he was at with his mother when he miraculously turned the water in barrels into the best wine they had consumed all night. With that idea in mind, being the miracle worker he was purported to have been, I can reasonably imagine beyond a shadow of a doubt that his blessing of the meal had a powerful psychological impact on the disciples, but more especially an actual and mysteriously eerie effect on the matzah and wine jesus passed around, so that each bite, chew and swallow of the bread in their mouths had the distinct flavor, quality and texture of cooked meat as they consumed it during the sacred meal, and that what they drank from the chalice that he did not drink from with them had also mysteriously taken on the aroma, taste and consistency of blood.
If you are still that fly on the wall, flutter with me over to the middle of the table and land right in the center so you can see everyone's face up close.
Can you imagine the initial response and recovery after that first bite and that first sip, by each disciple who realized that what it tasted like they were eating and drinking was definitely not what they thought they knew they put in their mouth was supposed to taste or feel like?
There they were, eating the meaty "bread" and drinking the bloody "wine" while watching each other weep in a true display of the charged emotion of the occasion as they prepared themselves in mind and body when it hit home that they were really going to be eating jesus soon whenever the sacrifice was made.
On Easter Sunday, I was moved to add that as they ate and drank, the euphoric effects of the blood-wine that he did not drink any of may have caused them to "have a foretaste" or sampling of the power claimed to have been embodied in his flesh and blood, which I imagine was in no way an unpleasant or undesirable feeling for them to have experienced, and probably even had them more eagerly looking forward to the sacrifice because they might have been crying inspired tears of joyful anticipation of their "blessed assurance" after having their "FORETASTE of glory devine." Wow.
He knew he was going to be in big trouble in a matter of hours ~ very soon. He used the Seder as an opportunity to prepare them by going through the motions, of what was to actually take place within a few days.
I thought I would provide the biblical text for those who, like me, may be too lazy to reach for a bible for themselves or who may not own one or otherwise have an excuse not to peruse the references. Read them carefully; don't add anything to it or take anything away from it:
Mark 14:12-24
Matthew 26:17-28a
Luke 22:7-20
John 13:1 gives an idea of jesus' mental attitude just before the last supper before THE LAST Supper: "Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end."
Unlike mark, matthew and luke however, John, in his unique detail as an eyewitness, was rather moved to document the events that transpired right after the last supper before THE LAST Supper, when he stripped naked, washed their feet and dried them using the cloth that covered his groin. Again, read it carefully, with sensible understanding, without adding anything to or taking away from the text as it is written, so that you receive true understanding:
In spite of people's historic naming of that Passover observance as "the last supper," the fact is that biblical texts do clearly state that the man called jesus did most certainly and indeed wine and dine with his disciples on many occasions during the forty days he spent hanging out with them after he left the tomb as you know, or will soon come to know....
Stupid error on my part. Thanks.
Sister Cyber
Member
And not only most Catholics, but the majority of their offspring christian religious belief systems as well.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the man called Jesus is going to come back for you? And if so, do you believe he's coming back for you because you faithfully believed "that a cosmic zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in mankind because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?"
Do you BELIEVE that???
Well, you've missed the mark because he was already eaten way back in the day and even symbolically you've missed the mark if you eat wafers and drink grape juice during the cannibalistic ritual of communion, sacrament, eucharist or whatever is the chosen label of your particular brand (denomination) of Catholicism or the christian religious system.
The biblical gospels, Paul and the book of revelation (which, is based on a dream from John, who was exiled to the no-man's island of Patmos, and who knows WHAT herbs grew there that could have caused John to have such deliriously incredible visions!) offers scenarios for an end-time that has remained popular to this day.
>"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
NOTE: When I reference biblical texts throughout this article, I prefer to use the King James Version because it is *THE* closest translation to the English language of the original Hebrew text, and even though it was doctored from translation to translation to create loopholes for King James and others, translations that follow are actually much more iffy with differences caused by deletions and edits that distort the original meaning (like changing one word that will change the entire meaning of the original text...). The variations that follow come to resemble the game Telephone, where a group of people sit around a table or in a circle, and someone starts out whispering something into the next person's ear, who whispers it to the next, who whispers it to the next, who whispers it to the next, until finally the last person says it out loud so everyone can hear what the message they had passed on had evolved into from what the originator's message started off as and it is (severely) distorted and sometimes totally different.
When Paul's original Greek was translated to Latin, the Greek word for "caught up" was translated with the Latin verb,"rapiemur," meaning to be seized, snatched or torn away. The word "rapture" appears nowhere in the bible, but the translation gave rise to the term "rapture" to imply an idea of a general resurrection of the living. In paul's gospel, the very idea of such a rapture is a consoling word for the faithful, though it wouldn't actually be the end-time because many believe a period of tribulation follows said ever-awaited-never-coming event, and then there is the report of a second coming when there would be a final judgment by the blood-thirsty god.
It will never happen during your earthwalk in this lifetime, but be that as it may, playing along, let's imagine that a day and hour arrive and a man who layed down his life for his personal friends 2,000 years and a decade-and-a-half ago knocks on your door and says it is time to hit the dip, but before you can get caught up to meet him in the air, wafers and grape juice shots does not make the cut, therefore you cannot bounce with him until you eat of his miraculous "Everlasting Arm" from his ever-stinky, ever-decaying corpse covered with plump little shiny, white maggots (which, by the way, are an excellent source of protein because they are packed with it from feeding off of dead fleshmeat from the time of their hatching and is considered a delicacy in many parts of the world outside the United States of America).
>***NOTE*** : Unfortunately, that particularly important stipulation may be in one of the books that were left out of the bible along with the Gnostic gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts.... Oh well....
But would you do it, or would you opt out to be left behind while others were in a state of "rapture" after consuming their fair share of their last supper of his everlasting arm and drinking the blood from within it...?
Think about it hard and fast kids, because rumor has it that based on the ancient Mayan Calendar, December 21, 2012 appeared to some to be the day the world will end... again. In fact, it was so bananas that you could even purchase 2012 Survival Kits and items online. Even still, “time is winding up…” Running with that idea for this scenario, it could be any time between now and then, if that's what you choose to believe.
Which part of the everlasting body would you eat first? Who would like a rib or a breast, or a thigh or a leg? Dark meat or white meat? How about maybe just a fingertip or a pinky toe?
I am willing to bet a brick of solid gold that those who would be first in line to quite literally step up to the plate would be "Fear Factor" fans, and that they would be the ones asking if they could have seconds before being changed in the twinkling of an eye and leaving, or at least take a doggy-bag to go for snacks on the way.
>(Commercial break: "Fear Factor - Sunday Kickoff 9/9/07:
On Easter Sunday, many tipped into the sanctuary of their 'church homes' or visited a church out of a feeling of obligation, all dressed to impress to sit upon a pew and participate in the modern-day imagined re-enactment of what they were taught was the last supper before THELAST Supper. And you...?
Always remember what you just learned.
Attachments
How would you know?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I think it is a little unsettling to know folks think they should be eating their god (cannibalism) and drinking his blood (vampires!) In any other setting, that would garner serious jail time.
InChrist
Free4ever
I don't believe it was a command and certainly according to the entirety of the scriptures it would never have been a command given by Jesus Christ or followed by any believing Jew or Gentile Christian. Might be helpful and a little more educated to read the verse you've singled out in the context of the whole passage,...
Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. John 6:60-63
along with related passages in the scriptures, such as...
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Acts 15:28-29
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I have been a life long atheist, but now that you have so eloquently explained how this stuff works, I may convert................
Sister Cyber
Member
Study of Theology and Anciengt History = 40+ years.
Absolutely agree. However, if the passion towards honoring God is so great, one would do anything in obedience on command... A devout believer, that is.... As far as incarceration for the act of cannibalism, perhaps since it was not typical in their culture, that is what they would have been facing if they were caught, so that is why Jesus went to prepare a place for the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God."
The story goes that his message to them when he projected himself into their presence in "The Upper Room" where they were gathered was, "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."
And he did just that. He went to set up camp where his final sacrifice of laying down his life for his friends was to take place.
"And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know." The disciples knew where they could find him and met him at the location, when he brought them to where his final sacrifice was made, they ate his flesh and drank his blood at THE LAST Supper.
Then you don't believe the bible; you don't believe the inspired Word of God.
Been there, done that, wrote a 15-page essay on it which is published in the Library of Congress.
As for your scripture from Acts that has nothing to do with the command of Jesus as reported by John, I am not in agreement with the mixing and matching patchwork puzzling of scripture for the purpose of making a false point true. If you stick to the script, the story is laid out for all to see right there in the King James Version of the bible with no special interpretation or other devicive nonsence nessary.
Awesome! Jesus is The Way my friend.
Really? It doesn't show.