The Consumption Of Flesh And Blood.

[Jun]

"Jesus" in the New Testament introduced the ritual of pretending to be eating his flesh (bread) and drinking his blood (wine).

 

"Jesus" said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

- John 6:53-54

 

Yet in the Old Testament it says -

 

And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

- Lev 17:10,12

 

So "God" forbade the consumption of blood (end therefore flesh). In fact "God" says he will "cut him off from among his people" and "set my face against that soul that eateth blood."

 

Yet "Jesus" supposedly comes along and introduces the very ritual that his god daddy has forbade! It is clear to many historians/scholars that this sort of ritual was accepted among many Pagan religions, so why would "Jesus" adopt it? Why go against his god daddy? What has pretending to eat someone's flesh and blood got to with it all anyhow? It doesn't seem to fit in.

 

Oh, and I thought it was the "Satanists" who drank peoples blood (or pretended to)? Sorry to any who follow the cult of Satan if I'm mistaken.

[Dhampir]

Surely with all the transubstanstiation rituals, it is only fitting to ask: Where is Jesus getting all this flesh and blood from that he transmutates those crackers and grape juice into? I mean, if people have been doing it since the last supper, surely he's running low by now? Or maybe he's been binging to become morbidly obese so he can have enough flesh to go round these past two millenia.

[Jun]

Surely with all the transubstanstiation rituals, it is only fitting to ask: Where is Jesus getting all this flesh and blood from that he transmutates those crackers and grape juice into? I mean, if people have been doing it since the last supper, surely he's running low by now? Or maybe he's been binging to become morbidly obese so he can have enough flesh to go round these past two millenia.

 

I am an ExCatholic, we were taught that the ritual was only representative, only pretend, to be seen as a symbol only.

 

Are there Christians then who believe it to be actual transubstantiation - that the wine and bread physically become blood and flesh of the "God-man?"

[Dhampir]

As I understand there are such people. To be honest, I thought catholics were the ones that originated the idea.

[Delicate_Catastrophe]

What I'd like is an explanation for why Jesus' meat has the approximate taste and texture of a stale Kleenex, and why he bleeds such cheap wine [my former church uses actual wine, not grape juice. Bleh.]

[truth]

I never really thought too much of this when I was a xtian to be honest. It doesn't make any sense though if you think about it. Why would you need to eat someones flesh and drink their blood to remember them and recieve absolution from them?

 

I would have to agree as well, that it doesn't make sense either for Jesus to make a new ritual of one that his father oppossed to begin with and if Jesus is god why would he go against what he has already said..

 

and as far as blood sacrifices go... why did god need them to begin with? And why would he want to kill his only son, why couldn't he just decide to be loving and caring and not need sacrifices?

 

And for that matter why would we need to continually consume the flesh and blood, to recieve forgiveness from our sins and to draw closer to the presence of god? It really is twisted and does not make any sense. I can't believe that I use to blindly accept this as the truth.

[Everglaze]

I can see a Christian explaining this in a completely alien way, which has no relevance whatsoever to what it's really stating. I never understood those verses, but we know that "God" is a hypocrite by the looks of them. Jesus always used those stupid parables and metaphors too, but never really explained. It was like open translation that could've meant anything.

[Fweethawt]

I am an ExCatholic, we were taught that the ritual was only representative, only pretend, to be seen as a symbol only.

 

Are there Christians then who believe it to be actual transubstantiation - that the wine and bread physically become blood and flesh of the "God-man?"

According to Catholic Teachings™, and I mean genuine Catholic Teachings™, it is still heresey punishable by death to see transubstination as symbolic. You are to believe that it is actually happening regardless of the truth of the matter.

 

So, in short, whatever your church was teaching you about it being 'symbolic' was going against the grain of Mother Church™ in Rome.

[FirstInTheDance]

Actually, the Communion ritual is more Greco Roman influence. The Greek/Roman pantheons include harvest dieties (ie: Ceres is a Goddess of the Grain, Bacchus is a God of the Vine.) who sacrifice themselves yearly so that we may eat. The sacrificial God/dess is common to almost every early culture, and the Communion ritual makes sense if after the harvest, you are giving thanks to the Goddess of the Grain who allowed herself to be cut down so that you might have bread to eat. In the Christian context it becomes some sort of weird cannibalism and just doesn't really work.

[Kurari]

Cannibalism often has symbolic ideas that go along with it. Many ancient cultures believed that by eating their enemies, it would give them their strength and might. It was a very powerful act. By eating Jesus, you gain his godliness, so it was part of his sacrifice that he would give power to his followers.

 

Hey, Jehovah seems to flip flop on alot of issues, why not cannibalism?

 

The concept of the Eucharist really kind of freaked me out though, even when I was a christian. The idea that I was eating a peice of skin and drinking blood really put me off. I mentioned the fact I thought it was kind of a gross concept once to a Christian friend of mine and she gave me a really startled look and said, "You know...I never thought about it like that. I guess it is."

[mwc]

I can see a Christian explaining this in a completely alien way, which has no relevance whatsoever to what it's really stating. I never understood those verses, but we know that "God" is a hypocrite by the looks of them. Jesus always used those stupid parables and metaphors too, but never really explained. It was like open translation that could've meant anything.

As with many things in the bible I now have a long, drawn out, line of thinking on this. To sum it all up I see the gospels like a form of encryption. This way anyone could pick it up and read it but only initiates could understand it (it even tells you this in regard to the parables but I think it refers to the whole of the story...and like the parables there can be several layers...ie. when jesus casts out the demons into the swine it is really about fighting the 10th Roman Legion). Somewhere along the line someone outside the group got ahold of it and took it at face value and that's the religion we have today but it's not the religion you would have had if you were an "insider" that knew the secrets behind the codes. Basically, we're reading the wrong story...the cover story...as the "truth." It's a play on the symbolism concept in a way.

 

Along those lines the ingesting of flesh and blood in mystery religions wasn't uncommon. It allowed the participant to take on the attributes of their god-man and share in the divine. This is why you have the idea of transubstanciation (sp?) where the bread/wine is supposed to literally turn into the body/blood of jesus once it's inside you (if you're old school Catholic and some Protestant I believe) otherwise it's symbolic since the idea of some magically transformation is easy to disprove. No matter what your god-man becomes a part of you and infuses his essence into you is the gist of the ritual. As others have said it really is a form of cannibalism and gross.

 

mwc

[Jun]

According to Catholic Teachings™, and I mean genuine Catholic Teachings™, it is still heresey punishable by death to see transubstination as symbolic. You are to believe that it is actually happening regardless of the truth of the matter.

 

So, in short, whatever your church was teaching you about it being 'symbolic' was going against the grain of Mother Church™ in Rome.

 

That would be EVERY Catholic church in Sydney, possibly Oz, then.

[chefranden]

I am an ExCatholic, we were taught that the ritual was only representative, only pretend, to be seen as a symbol only.

 

 

Then whoever taught you that should be ex-communicated.

 

...There is but one means of rendering a symbol improperly so called clear and intelligible, namely, by, conventionally settling beforehand what it is to signify, as, for instance, if one were to say: "Let us imagine these two pieces of bread before us to be Socrates and Plato". Christ, however, instead of informing His Apostles that he intended to use such a figure, told them rather the contrary in the discourse containing the promise: "the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world" (John 6:52), Such language, of course, could be used only by a God-man; so that belief in the Real Presence necessarily presupposes belief in the true Divinity of Christ, The foregoing rules would of themselves establish the natural meaning with certainty, even if the words of Institution, "This is my body — this is my blood", stood alone, But in the original text corpus (body) and sanguis (blood) are followed by significant appositional additions, the Body being designated as "given for you" and the Blood as "shed for you [many]"; hence the Body given to the Apostles was the self same Body that was crucified on Good Friday, and the Chalice drunk by them, the self same Blood that was shed on the Cross for our sins, Therefore the above-mentioned appositional phrases directly exclude every possibility of a figurative interpretation.

[Jun]

Then whoever taught you that should be ex-communicated.

 

That would be every Catholic church I attended in Sydney. That's a common belief among Ozzy Catholics. So the Catholic churches of Sydney at least should be ex-communicated, cool! Wait 'till I tell some of my Catholic friends that!

[Amethyst]

I am an ExCatholic, we were taught that the ritual was only representative, only pretend, to be seen as a symbol only.

 

Are there Christians then who believe it to be actual transubstantiation - that the wine and bread physically become blood and flesh of the "God-man?"

 

As I recall, Missouri Synod Lutherans supposedly believe it is transubstantiation. Of course, few people I know actually literally believe this, but it's in the things you have to memorize when you get confirmed.

[Jun]

I just spoke to my mum on the phone. She is an Irish Catholic, she believes that the bread and wine are "transformed" into the actual body and blood of "Jesus."

 

She deftly changed the topic knowing that I was probably going to launch into one of my sermons on the fictional god-man.

[mwc]

As I recall, Missouri Synod Lutherans supposedly believe it is transubstantiation. Of course, few people I know actually literally believe this, but it's in the things you have to memorize when you get confirmed.

As a confirmed Missouri Synod Lutheran I can tell you that this is not true (as of some 20+ years ago when I was confirmed). They believe it is symbolic but I can't say they did not ever believe it to be literally true since they seem to parallel Catholic beliefs such as these in quite a few ways (and for all I know there are some holdouts among them that still do think this way but I supposedly had the latest and greatest catechism book...I might still have the thing...if I do I'll post what it says but I doubt I still have it).

 

mwc

[R. S. Martin]

 

Are there Christians then who believe it to be actual transubstantiation - that the wine and bread physically become blood and flesh of the "God-man?"

 

 

Oh yes! I thought it was only the Catholics but in my classes with Lutherans I found out they believe it, too.

[Guest BaylorBear]

I am an ExCatholic, we were taught that the ritual was only representative, only pretend, to be seen as a symbol only.

 

Are there Christians then who believe it to be actual transubstantiation - that the wine and bread physically become blood and flesh of the "God-man?"

 

Yes, transubstantiation is a binding teaching of the Vatican. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 

The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit

 

1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:197 in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"199 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,199 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."200

 

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

 

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

 

 

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

 

 

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

 

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207

 

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

 

Other Xtian denominations also believe in the Real Presence as well.

 

BB

[Lycorth]

I remember getting hammered over the head with the "Real Presence" bullshit as well.

 

As a Catholic, I was raised to believe it really was Jebus, even though the cracker tasted like a cracker and the wine like wine. I recall also watching EWTN and seeing many shows on the Yuckarist with the priest insisting that no, that isn't a cracker and wine anymore, it's flesh and blood.

 

No matter what it smells, feels, and tastes like, it's Jebus' body and blood and it was a Hell-worthy sin to say otherwise. I always had trouble swallowing that - it bugged the piss out of me, but I didn't dare question Official Church Teaching™.

 

A little critical thought exposes it as a joke, like the rest of Catholic doctrine. And Big Momma Church wonders why she's losing suckers parishoners

[The Paineful Truth]

The Eucharist ritual was started by Paul, not Jesus who was an ascetic Jew and would have considered it to be an act to be blasphemy. It's just another example of Christianity actuality being Paulism--Jewish messiahnism modified as necessary to appeal to the pagan gentiles.

 

The point being that "Christianity" is on even shakier ground than previously recognized.

[Gaura]

Yes, Catholics are supposed to believe in the full and real Transubstantiation of the Eucharist. It is why we are supposed to treat spare Eucharist wafers with such reverence. (Got a load of that when I was serving). Makes it a little difficult to believe when you can't tolerate wine, even when it's supposed to be "transubstantiated". Yeah, right, whatever.