This is my blood - really?

[marco]

Let's imagine the scenario where Jim Wilson of modern times talks to a few friends in the backroom of a tavern and announces that the wine he's drinking is his blood. He's a pious and studious man.


What would be our conclusion?


Should our conclusion be any different when the words are attributed to a pious person who lived 2000 years ago in an area noted then as now for its political unrest?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 76 by Tired of the Nonsense]

This post points to the irony of your Avatar.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 76 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Well, now if this is not hearsay, which it obviously is,

"Minucius Felix, a third century Latin apologist, gave a lurid account of Christian debauchery which he claims to have derived from Marcus Cornelius Fontero (100-166 c.e.), a Latin rhetor and tutor of Marcus Aurelius."

Then there must be a multiplicity of writings that suggest the same thing. If you are trying to make the case that this is what occurred during the early Christian meetings.

Now there was confusion and suspicion among the Romans about the teaching that the bread and wine actually turned into the actual body and blood of Christ as it was being consumed. Which is still believed by the Catholic church and Lutheran Churches today.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 78 by RightReason]

It was their common practice . . .

To eat bread and wine as symbols of the body and blood of Christ. It seems like we are in agreement then. Because in each passage you quoted also talks about bread and wine.

Now if you are referring the Eucharist tradition that the Lutherans and Catholic's believe. Then you are speaking of something that they are taking in faith. Go to one of their service and they will give you bread and wine. Their belief is then that it turns into the blood of Christ and body of Christ. I do not believe that it does but they do.

But the teaching on this is clear. It is the wine and bread that turn into the blood and body of Christ in some mystical way that the person partaking cannot even tell.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 76 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Well, now if this is not hearsay, which it obviously is,

"Minucius Felix, a third century Latin apologist, gave a lurid account of Christian debauchery which he claims to have derived from Marcus Cornelius Fontero (100-166 c.e.), a Latin rhetor and tutor of Marcus Aurelius."

Then there must be a multiplicity of writings that suggest the same thing. If you are trying to make the case that this is what occurred during the early Christian meetings.

Now there was confusion and suspicion among the Romans about the teaching that the bread and wine actually turned into the actual body and blood of Christ as it was being consumed. Which is still believed by the Catholic church and Lutheran Churches today.

I suppose that my point is that sometimes rumor and "hearsay" are too ridiculous and unrealistic to give it any credibility. The story of a flying reanimated corpse certainly falls into that category. Perhaps you can offer some credible support for the flying reanimated corpse story?

[marco]

Why? Why would He wish to scare away His followers?

He didn't wish to scare ALL his followers away; he wanted THOSE that could cope with his hard metaphors. Take Matthew 22: 14 where he explains this:

"For many are called, but few are chosen."

And why are we supposed to see His words as figurative today when His audience at the time didn’t? I’m sorry, but that simply makes no sense.

You are arguing from the supposition that you are right about the literal meaning and thus assuming the premise that the followers accepted that literal meaning. That is what we are debating. They coped with this metaphor and the others he used. Those that didn't like what he said left him. Few were chosen. Those that particularly disliked what he said, had him crucified. Surely no one would kill someone for using words!!!! But they did.

Again, are you saying His followers were just a bunch of overly sensitive individuals who could not handle dramatic symbolism and vibrant poetry? Is that really your argument? I’m afraid that interpretation requires far more of a leap then believing Christ meant what He said.

That is not my argument.

SOME of those listening to him walked away when he suggested his flesh should be munched. They might well have been sensitive or pious or the sort who objected to his observations on Abraham. SOME stayed with him, as we know.

This argument has been reduced to the improbability that words can turn people away. It happens now, it happened then that an audience gets up and walks away. Perhaps Jesus wanted only those who could cope with his message. Perhaps that's why he used rather strong metaphors that would be "hard" for some to wrestle with.


In any event you have reduced transubstantiation to a matter of taste - so to speak. I think the reason why most believe it is because of the considerable weight of the Church in her Jesuitical theologians who could argue a dozen angels off a needle. We are all too often in awe of what awfully clever folk say. Ordinary mortals make ordinary errors; giant thinkers make massive mistakes. Truth is not the captive of the pious alone; the unholy Joseph Goebbels was right in saying:

" If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "

And the Vulgate tells us that Pilate wrestled with such ideas: "Quid est veritas?" And here we are pondering the same question about the same man.

[marco]

I suppose that my point is that sometimes rumor and "hearsay" are too ridiculous and unrealistic to give it any credibility. The story of a flying reanimated corpse certainly falls into that category. Perhaps you can offer some credible support for the flying reanimated corpse story?

I'll help the other side a little. Tertullian introduced the idea of believing because it is so absurd. Why on earth would anyone claim what they clearly saw to be ridiculous if there were no truth behind it?

I don't believe corpses rose to eat fish or defied the Earth's gravitational pull to get to heaven in the upper regions of space. Those that believe cannot bring reason to their assistance but don't need to. There is a commodity called Faith and that apparently moves mountains.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

Why? Why would He wish to scare away His followers?


He didn't wish to scare ALL his followers away; he wanted THOSE that could cope with his hard metaphors. Take Matthew 22: 14 where he explains this:

"For many are called, but few are chosen."

Again, why? Why would Jesus, knowing what we know He up to this point had preached now desire to use some graphic/disgusting metaphor to dwindle His followers? Why would He be seeking those who could handle as you say hard metaphors. What virtue exists in handling hard metaphors? Come on, Marco – that’s not a thing and it simply makes no sense.

You are arguing from the supposition that you are right about the literal meaning and thus assuming the premise that the followers accepted that literal meaning. That is what we are debating. They coped with this metaphor and the others he used. Those that didn't like what he said left him. Few were chosen. Those that particularly disliked what he said, had him crucified. Surely no one would kill someone for using words!!!! But they did.

Riiiiiight. That’s perfectly logical. I’m sure when other people saw those who had been following Jesus up to this point and asked them . . .

Curious neighbors: “Hey, what happened? Why did you guys stop following that guy? I thought you said He walked on water, restored sight to the blind, multiplied the loaves, cured the sick, spoke words of wisdom, put the Pharisees in their place, told amazing parables and stories about kindness and compassion, offered eternal salvation. I thought you told us He said He was the son of God and you believed Him. What happened?�

Those who left Jesus that day: “Well, He used this really crass metaphor today. He’s not a very good poet.�

The neighbors: “Wow. What did He say?�

Those who left: “He said unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no life in us.�

The neighbors: “What do you think He meant by that?�

Those who left: “Well, obviously He was just speaking figuratively and was trying to compare Himself to bread and that unless we symbolically eat Him we can’t receive Him spiritually. He must have been trying to explain to us He is to be our nourishment/food/life. But, how gross to use such graphic language, right?�

The neighbors: “yeah man -- that’s nasty. We told you guys He was whack.�

the Vulgate tells us that Pilate wrestled with such ideas: "Quid est veritas?" And here we are pondering the same question about the same man.

Yes, the scene with Pilate is fascinating. He begins by finding Jesus a political menace, but then after talking with Jesus for awhile one sees his captivation. This clever enigma who is unwavering.


*********

Truth is mesmerizing. We are constantly searching for it, but when we find it its brilliance can be hard to bear and we can be repelled. But, as Flannery O’Connor reminded,

“The truth doesn’t change according to our ability to stomach it.�

https://acatholicthinker.wordpress.com/ ... t-is-truth

This is where those who left wavered and where Pilate wavered. Pilate recognized who Jesus was. Those who left recognized who Jesus was, but both weren’t ready to commit – to make a sacrifice for Him – to give up their current ease of life. So, they chose to “wash their hands of Jesus�. Both giving what they saw as valid reasons. To go on further with Jesus now would require one to be all in. And although they were attracted by Jesus/Truth, they felt it would cost them too much.

When Scripture tells us many left that day and didn’t continue on with Him, my above explanation makes an awful lot more sense than because people couldn’t handle Jesus’ choice of metaphor. This is the only explanation that makes sense. It is the only explanation that takes the language, the word choice, the context, the reaction, previous text, subsequent text, what the first Christians went on to do, early Church writings, historical record, and quite frankly human intelligence and human nature into account.

But I do admire your perserverance on this one

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I suppose that my point is that sometimes rumor and "hearsay" are too ridiculous and unrealistic to give it any credibility. The story of a flying reanimated corpse certainly falls into that category. Perhaps you can offer some credible support for the flying reanimated corpse story?

I'll help the other side a little. Tertullian introduced the idea of believing because it is so absurd. Why on earth would anyone claim what they clearly saw to be ridiculous if there were no truth behind it?

I don't believe corpses rose to eat fish or defied the Earth's gravitational pull to get to heaven in the upper regions of space. Those that believe cannot bring reason to their assistance but don't need to. There is a commodity called Faith and that apparently moves mountains.

I'll help the other side a little. Tertullian introduced the idea of believing because it is so absurd. Why on earth would anyone claim what they clearly saw to be ridiculous if there were no truth behind it?

HOME»NEWS»NEWS TOPICS»HOW ABOUT THAT?
Bigfoot body 'discovery' dismissed as a hoax

By Matthew Moore11:19AM BST 15 Aug 2008
Rick Dyer and Matthew Whitton say they will produce DNA evidence and a video of their find at a press conference in California today.

They have already released a photo showing what they claim is the dead Bigfoot in a freezer, with what appear to be intestines protruding from its stomach.

Critics insist the photo is actually just a gorilla costume, or even a rug.

Mr Dyer and Mr Whitton claim to have discovered the body in woods at an unspecified location in northern Georgia, and to have spotted three living Bigfoots as they dragged the carcass into their car.

“It was very frightening at first, and it got even more frightening when you saw the others, Mr Dyer said.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsto ... -hoax.html



Wikipedia
Rick Dyer
Jerry Parrino, owner of internet Halloween costumer retailer TheHorrorDome.com, said that the costume "definitely looks like our costume" after viewing photos of Dyer's "Bigfoot".[14] Upon further inspection, it was confirmed that the "corpse" was in fact a costume stuffed with opossum roadkill, entrails and slaughterhouse leftovers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Dyer_(Bigfoot)

Why do people lie and fabricate? They have various motivations, from getting their names in the news (Rick Dyer now merits his very own Wikipedia page, albeit as a confirmed liar), to attempting to redeem the reputation of a cruelty executed leader.

[EarthScienceguy]

You have several problems with your line of reasoning.

1st most critical scholars believe the following

Jesus died by crucifixion.

He was buried.

His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope..

He was buried.

His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

The tomb was empty

The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus

The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

The resurrection was the central message.

They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

The Church was born and grew.

Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

No one really doubts that the resurrection is the central message of Christianity. It was true today just as much as it was true when the Church first started.

The problem you have with your reasoning is

• 1. How did the Church start in Jerusalem the city in which they saw Jesus die with the message being that He was raised from the dead?
  2. How did the Church start period, in the city in which all the events of Jesus’ death occurred.
  3. Why would Church move their day of worship to the first day of the week?
  4. Why would someone like Paul a well education man listen to fishermen?
  5. Why would the disciples die and become outcast for a man that did not day and raised from the died? People back then did not raise from the dead as much as people today do not raise from the dead. Even if Jesus somehow survived the crucifixion.

The disciples believed that they saw the risen Lord. And somehow the fisherman’s story was convincing enough that not only Paul but other religious leaders believed that Jesus raised from the dead also. Some how the fisherman’s story was convincing enough that even James his brother believed.
So any theory that try’s to suggest that Jesus did not raise from the dead has to have some explanation for the facts listed above.

[marco]

Again, why? Why would Jesus, knowing what we know He up to this point had preached now desire to use some graphic/disgusting metaphor to dwindle His followers?

We are playing with words. Jesus spoke. Some were put off by his words. That did not deter him from saying what he did, since he wasn't interested in attracting everyone.

Why would He be seeking those who could handle as you say hard metaphors. What virtue exists in handling hard metaphors? Come on, Marco – that’s not a thing and it simply makes no sense.

He wants people who will stick by him no matter what he says or how he says it. He asked Peter if his words put him off. The alternative explanation - his words are meant literally - introduces far more problems than does objectionable metaphor.

You are arguing from the supposition that you are right about the literal meaning and thus assuming the premise that the followers accepted that literal meaning. That is what we are debating. They coped with this metaphor and the others he used. Those that didn't like what he said left him. Few were chosen. Those that particularly disliked what he said, had him crucified. Surely no one would kill someone for using words!!!! But they did.

I thought you said He walked on water, restored sight to the blind, multiplied the loaves, cured the sick, spoke words of wisdom, put the Pharisees in their place, told amazing parables and stories about kindness and compassion, offered eternal salvation.

I don't think his apostles left him; we have no idea about the identity of those that went off; so creating an imaginary scenario answers nothing. It is perfectly reasonable for SOME to have been put off either by blasphemy or by coarseness. They were presumably a heterogeneous mix. Your conclusion, drawn from imagination, is invalid. Remember, you are using an imagined scenario to justify an interpretation that would usually be considered absurd: wine is blood, bread is flesh.

Yes, the scene with Pilate is fascinating. He begins by finding Jesus a political menace, but then after talking with Jesus for awhile one sees his captivation. This clever enigma who is unwavering.

It is highly unlikely that his conversation was reported accurately. Who was the witness? The object of the tale is to criminalise the Jews who ludicrously are accused of calling a curse down on their children. As if!!!

This is the only explanation that makes sense.

It obviously isn't unless you are claiming a monopoly on this commodity you call sense. It is senseless to suppose that when Christ said: This chunk of bread here is my flesh, he was speaking literal truth. You need more than an imagined conversation among imagined people to justify your interpretation. It is reasonable to take the words as metaphor. But wait a moment - some people walked away! So it wasn't metaphor after all! I don't believe they necessarily walked away because they thought in literal terms BUT if they did think Christ was speaking in literal terms and walked away, is that any reason for us to support these anonymous listeners? If some people thought bread was flesh they were wrong. Similarly those who thought Jesus was saying he was older than Abraham were wrong, and rather rude to throw stones.