The Catholic church teaches in transubstantiation when taking the
eucharist/communion. In layman's terms, this means that the bread and
wine/juice literally turns into and becomes the blood and flesh of
Jesus. One of the scriptures Catholics will point to is John 6:53 -
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life
in you."
Now if Jesus was speaking literally here, the disciples should have
gone up
to Jesus and started to bite him and eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Obviously this was not literal but symbolic of taking communion. Jesus
spoke often in symbolism. One time he warned the disciples about the
leaven of the Pharisees. The Pharisees took it literally and thought
Jesus mentioned leaven because they had no bread. But Jesus was not
speaking of literal leaven but that the leaven symbolized the false
doctrine of the Pharisees.
Even at the last supper when Jesus said of the bread and wine/juice -
"This is my body and my blood", that was not literal because Jesus
hadn't yet suffered the beatings and crucifixion. It was symbolizing
and foretelling what was soon to take place. Jesus even told them why
to
take communion. He said to do it in remembrance of him, not to
literally eat his flesh.
In Hebrews 10:10,12 it says - "By the which will we are sanctified
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for
ever, sat down on the right hand of God."
And in Hebrews 9:25-26 it says - "Nor yet that Jesus should offer
himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place
every year with blood of others; For then must he often have
suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once
in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself."
It's clear from these verses that Jesus was only sacrificed once and
that he only suffered once and does not have to often suffer. If we are
literally eating and drinking Jesus' flesh and blood every time we took
communion, Jesus would be sacrificed and suffering every time we took
it.
Does Jesus want us to be cannibals? I don't think so. What about you?
I think it is obvious that Jesus wants us to be cannibals. I am not Christian...but from what I can see all the Christians are going batcrap about taking care of the sick and poor. Proverbially...they are saying let sickness and poverty swallow them up and crap them out. Just listening to X-tians actions on this one.
Cannibals? No. This is obvious symbolism, even for me.
Well there is forced cannibalism in the bible. Among other equally horrific things.
@agnophilo - where? By whom? What do you have in mind?
As far as I can recall Jesus never spoke for or against cannibalism. So for Christians this remains one of those areas left open for interpretation.
As for me, I'm with most civilized people in being firmly against cannibalism. I don't care what anybody says: People shouldn't eat people.
@dirtbubble - I don't know why Jesus have to say something word for word about something, when we know him accepting all of the Hebrew Bible as the authoritative word of God. The Bible is very clearly against cannibalism and it was a terrible judgment on the people that they would eat their own young.
[People shouldn't eat people.]
Why not?
@pychen - Hmm. You are very literal. Read my comment again, but this time tickle yourself so you won't forget to laugh.
@dirtbubble - I don't have a problem about laughing, But you are making a "should" statement of right moral action, and I want to know by what do you say so.
@pychen - It's called a conviction, in this case one shared by almost all cultures throughout the entire world and history of the world. Cannibalism is one of the easiest taboos to identify, right up there with incest. Just plain common sense says eating other people is bad policy.
@dirtbubble - where does this "conviction" come from? Where does the world get it from? and what is it?
@pychen - Ask yourself, not me. I'm not conflicted about my convictions or yours. If you want to know more about my convictions, go read my blog. It's loaded with that kind of information.
My original response was in context of this ridiculous post that attempts to illustrate a fallacy in the Catholic tradition of the eucharist, which is no less absurd than suggesting Jesus was born from a virgin. The old eucharist = cannabilism thing. Can't you feel you IQ melting by the second? I'm out.
Good post. I would also add that Jesus goes on in John chapter 6 to explain to His disciples in vs. 63. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." This statement is meaningless if it is detached from the eating flesh and blood statements because He is not talking about flesh in any other parts in the surrounding verses. Jesus is referring directly to His eating of flesh and blood statement that caused so many to walk away and His own disciples to state "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" vs.60.
So it is Christ who said that the flesh profits nothing and what He is saying is spiritual.... It is the Church in Rome that states it means so much! Simple exegesis of the verses eliminates the Catholic view from serious consideration.
This post sounds very anti-Catholic. Am I wrong here? Or are you simply refuting what some uneducated fool said about what the bible says? Of course Jesus did not teach cannibalism. Having said that, the insinuation seems to be leveled at the Catholic Church and their position on the Eucharist.
@pychen - In one place god sends people so much famine or drought to punish them that they have to eat their babies. And of course god makes people eat bread made of their own shit.
God's a sick motherfucker.
Literally, if you think about it.
@MC_Shann - I would also add that Jesus goes on in John chapter 6 to explain to His disciples in vs. 63. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
Good addition.
@FKIProfessor - There might be others that believe in transubstantiation such as EO, but Catholics are best known for this. This post is directed towards the teaching, not the church.
*yawn*
Yes, of course the insinuation is aimed at the Catholic Church, once again by someone who believes theirs is the only "right" way to think.
Geeze, I was having such a nice nap.l Why did you go and wake me up again? My consolation is in knowing that Jesus himself laughs his head off at this foolishness people engage in, in their self-righteous, vain attempts to "defend" him and the "pure faith."
Puh....leeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzeeeee!
@Breath_Of_Dawn - Yes, of course the insinuation is aimed at the Catholic Church, once again by someone who believes theirs is the only "right" way to think.
lol - oh the irony! The Catholic church and Catholics are the ones that think theirs is the only "right" way to think. How are you doing Dawn? I hope all is well.
@dirtbubble - [Ask yourself, not me.] I am asking you because it is you who states a moral right and wrong: "People shouldn't eat people."
[I'm not conflicted about my convictions or yours. If you want to know more about my convictions, go read my blog. It's loaded with that kind of information.]
I did not ask about your convictions, but you were talking about your conviction and I don't know how you came about your conviction, or on what basis you came about your convictions. By what standard you make your moral call of right and wrong?
[My original response was in context of this ridiculous post that attempts to illustrate a fallacy in the Catholic tradition of the eucharist, which is no less absurd than suggesting Jesus was born from a virgin. The old eucharist = cannabilism thing. Can't you feel you IQ melting by the second? I'm out.]
You are claiming that this or that is "absurd" and that your IQ is melting. You are claiming to have some kind of idea of what is logical and what is not. But you did not state where you come to hold to this thinking of right and wrong thought? It sound like you claim to be a reasoning person, even a person with high enough IQ to have it melt. I would like to know: What is the laws of logic in your understanding of things? Where did it come from?
@agnophilo - What do I think of that? You have not said anything rational or meaningful. But if that is all your atheism is reduced to,... a mere foaming at the mouth, then sure I expect a mindless person to talk that way. I would rather we have a meaningful talk.
This old saw has been aimed by Christians (aka Catholics back in the day) by Jews since the resurrection.
Has no one grown up yet?
@pychen - What do I think of forcing people to eat their babies and make food out of their own shit as forms of punishment? I think it's demented and evil. I didn't think I had to actually say that. But apparently if I made you eat your own shit you might burst out into song or something, so you need people to tell you these things.
@agnophilo - If you care to show from where in the Bible you are talking about, that would help me to have some idea of what you have in mind.
[I think it's demented and evil.]
Here you are saying that you know this or that is "evil" and what you would personally considered "demented." Yet, you did not stat by what are you making that moral or personal judgment. Are you saying that it is just you subjective feeling, or are you saying that it is a universal fact? By what do you make this statement meaningful?
@Breath_Of_Dawn - Hi, we have not met, but let me just say that... between the Roman Catholic and the Christian churches, I think the issue are not are not resolved are ultimately going to remain. The case that Jesus spoke the words to eat his flesh are clear and evidence from the context, and yet Rome has it's own tradition that seeks to interpret the text according to that tradition. When it comes down to it, it is an issue of authority. It is going to be the text of the Bible itself or is it going to the tradition of the Roman church. The Christian would have the authority of the Bible to be a test and falsify the tradition claims. The Roman Catholics would have their tradition be the test of truth and conform all understanding of the Bible in conformity to the Roman tradition.
I think that had been the historical issue and conflict. It is a conflict of authority. It is a conflict of what determines the Christian world and life view. For the Christian, it is the God given revelation — Bible.
"If you care to show from where in the Bible you are talking about, that would help me to have some idea of what you have in mind."
"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." (Ezekiel 4:12)
To be fair god lets them make them out of cow shit instead. Ain't he a sweetheart?
Oh, and while looking for that one I found this:
"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (2 Kings 18:27)
Fun!
The other:
11And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
12The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.
13And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:
14And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.
15
But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:"
He goes on to say all the horrible things that will happen to them if they don't eat their children. What a loving god.
"Here you are saying that you know this or that is "evil" and what you would personally considered "demented." Yet, you did not stat by what are you making that moral or personal judgment. Are you saying that it is just you subjective feeling, or are you saying that it is a universal fact? By what do you make this statement meaningful?"
I'm not even going to bother with this nonsense. It bugs me to no end when stupid, ignorant christians with no concept of history or philosophy pretend that the concept of morality was coined by jesus.
No, I do not subscribe to the philosophy that "it's right because an authority (god) says so, and that's how we can know what morality is". And you know what, NEITHER DO YOU you hypocrite. You don't do half the shit that's in the bible, you probably haven't even read the bible. Otherwise you wouldn't need me to look this stuff up.
Comments (41)
I think it is obvious that Jesus wants us to be cannibals. I am not Christian...but from what I can see all the Christians are going batcrap about taking care of the sick and poor. Proverbially...they are saying let sickness and poverty swallow them up and crap them out. Just listening to X-tians actions on this one.
Cannibals? No. This is obvious symbolism, even for me.
Well there is forced cannibalism in the bible. Among other equally horrific things.
@agnophilo - where? By whom? What do you have in mind?
As far as I can recall Jesus never spoke for or against cannibalism. So for Christians this remains one of those areas left open for interpretation.
As for me, I'm with most civilized people in being firmly against cannibalism. I don't care what anybody says: People shouldn't eat people.
@dirtbubble - I don't know why Jesus have to say something word for word about something, when we know him accepting all of the Hebrew Bible as the authoritative word of God. The Bible is very clearly against cannibalism and it was a terrible judgment on the people that they would eat their own young.
[People shouldn't eat people.]
Why not?
@pychen - Hmm. You are very literal. Read my comment again, but this time tickle yourself so you won't forget to laugh.
@dirtbubble - I don't have a problem about laughing, But you are making a "should" statement of right moral action, and I want to know by what do you say so.
@pychen - It's called a conviction, in this case one shared by almost all cultures throughout the entire world and history of the world. Cannibalism is one of the easiest taboos to identify, right up there with incest. Just plain common sense says eating other people is bad policy.
@dirtbubble - where does this "conviction" come from? Where does the world get it from? and what is it?
@pychen - Ask yourself, not me. I'm not conflicted about my convictions or yours. If you want to know more about my convictions, go read my blog. It's loaded with that kind of information.
My original response was in context of this ridiculous post that attempts to illustrate a fallacy in the Catholic tradition of the eucharist, which is no less absurd than suggesting Jesus was born from a virgin. The old eucharist = cannabilism thing. Can't you feel you IQ melting by the second? I'm out.
Good post. I would also add that Jesus goes on in John chapter 6 to explain to His disciples in vs. 63. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." This statement is meaningless if it is detached from the eating flesh and blood statements because He is not talking about flesh in any other parts in the surrounding verses. Jesus is referring directly to His eating of flesh and blood statement that caused so many to walk away and His own disciples to state "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" vs.60.
So it is Christ who said that the flesh profits nothing and what He is saying is spiritual.... It is the Church in Rome that states it means so much! Simple exegesis of the verses eliminates the Catholic view from serious consideration.
This post sounds very anti-Catholic. Am I wrong here? Or are you simply refuting what some uneducated fool said about what the bible says? Of course Jesus did not teach cannibalism. Having said that, the insinuation seems to be leveled at the Catholic Church and their position on the Eucharist.
@pychen - In one place god sends people so much famine or drought to punish them that they have to eat their babies. And of course god makes people eat bread made of their own shit.
God's a sick motherfucker.
Literally, if you think about it.
@MC_Shann - I would also add that Jesus goes on in John chapter 6 to explain to His disciples in vs. 63. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
Good addition.
@FKIProfessor - There might be others that believe in transubstantiation such as EO, but Catholics are best known for this. This post is directed towards the teaching, not the church.
*yawn*
Yes, of course the insinuation is aimed at the Catholic Church, once again by someone who believes theirs is the only "right" way to think.
Geeze, I was having such a nice nap.l Why did you go and wake me up again?
My consolation is in knowing that Jesus himself laughs his head off at this foolishness people engage in, in their self-righteous, vain attempts to "defend" him and the "pure faith."
Puh....leeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzeeeee!
@Breath_Of_Dawn - Yes, of course the insinuation is aimed at
the Catholic Church, once again by someone who believes theirs is the
only "right" way to think.
lol - oh the irony! The Catholic church and Catholics are the ones that think theirs is the only "right" way to think. How are you doing Dawn? I hope all is well.
@dirtbubble - [Ask yourself, not me.] I am asking you because it is you who states a moral right and wrong: "People shouldn't eat people."
[I'm not conflicted
about my convictions or yours. If you want to know more about my
convictions, go read my blog. It's loaded with that kind of information.]
I did not ask about your convictions, but you were talking about your conviction and I don't know how you came about your conviction, or on what basis you came about your convictions. By what standard you make your moral call of right and wrong?
[My
original response was in context of this ridiculous post that attempts
to illustrate a fallacy in the Catholic tradition of the eucharist,
which is no less absurd than suggesting Jesus was born from a virgin.
The old eucharist = cannabilism thing. Can't you feel you IQ melting by
the second? I'm out.]
You are claiming that this or that is "absurd" and that your IQ is melting. You are claiming to have some kind of idea of what is logical and what is not. But you did not state where you come to hold to this thinking of right and wrong thought? It sound like you claim to be a reasoning person, even a person with high enough IQ to have it melt. I would like to know: What is the laws of logic in your understanding of things? Where did it come from?
@agnophilo - What do I think of that? You have not said anything rational or meaningful. But if that is all your atheism is reduced to,... a mere foaming at the mouth, then sure I expect a mindless person to talk that way. I would rather we have a meaningful talk.
This old saw has been aimed by Christians (aka Catholics back in the day) by Jews since the resurrection.
Has no one grown up yet?
@pychen - What do I think of forcing people to eat their babies and make food out of their own shit as forms of punishment? I think it's demented and evil. I didn't think I had to actually say that. But apparently if I made you eat your own shit you might burst out into song or something, so you need people to tell you these things.
@agnophilo - If you care to show from where in the Bible you are talking about, that would help me to have some idea of what you have in mind.
[I think it's demented and evil.]
Here you are saying that you know this or that is "evil" and what you would personally considered "demented." Yet, you did not stat by what are you making that moral or personal judgment. Are you saying that it is just you subjective feeling, or are you saying that it is a universal fact? By what do you make this statement meaningful?
@Breath_Of_Dawn - Hi, we have not met, but let me just say that... between the Roman Catholic and the Christian churches, I think the issue are not are not resolved are ultimately going to remain. The case that Jesus spoke the words to eat his flesh are clear and evidence from the context, and yet Rome has it's own tradition that seeks to interpret the text according to that tradition. When it comes down to it, it is an issue of authority. It is going to be the text of the Bible itself or is it going to the tradition of the Roman church. The Christian would have the authority of the Bible to be a test and falsify the tradition claims. The Roman Catholics would have their tradition be the test of truth and conform all understanding of the Bible in conformity to the Roman tradition.
I think that had been the historical issue and conflict. It is a conflict of authority. It is a conflict of what determines the Christian world and life view. For the Christian, it is the God given revelation — Bible.
@pychen -
"If you care to show from where in the
Bible you are talking about, that would help me to have some idea of
what you have in mind."
"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." (Ezekiel 4:12)
To be fair god lets them make them out of cow shit instead. Ain't he a sweetheart?
Oh, and while looking for that one I found this:
"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and
to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit
on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (2 Kings 18:27)
Fun!
The other:
11And the LORD shall make thee plenteous
in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and
in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy
fathers to give thee.
12The LORD
shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain
unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand:
and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.
13And
the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be
above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto
the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to
observe and to do them:
14And
15thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this
day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve
them.
But it shall come to
pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to
observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command
thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake
thee:"
(Deuteronomy 28:11-15)
He goes on to say all the horrible things that will happen to them if they don't eat their children. What a loving god.
"Here
you are saying that you know this or that is "evil" and what you would
personally considered "demented." Yet, you did not stat by what are you
making that moral or personal judgment. Are you saying that it is just
you subjective feeling, or are you saying that it is a universal fact?
By what do you make this statement meaningful?"
I'm not even going to bother with this nonsense. It bugs me to no end when stupid, ignorant christians with no concept of history or philosophy pretend that the concept of morality was coined by jesus.
No, I do not subscribe to the philosophy that "it's right because an authority (god) says so, and that's how we can know what morality is". And you know what, NEITHER DO YOU you hypocrite. You don't do half the shit that's in the bible, you probably haven't even read the bible. Otherwise you wouldn't need me to look this stuff up.