Drink jesus' (God's)blood? Eat his flesh?

[Avoice]

Human sacrifice
Drinking blood
Eating human flesh

You cant get any more pagan than this


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. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

NOW HERE IS WHAT THE GOD OF ISRAEL SAID THROUGH THE PROPHET ISAIAH.

"They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?"

THINK!
EAT Jesus/ GOD?
DRINK the blood of Jesus/ GOD?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 152 by marco]

Are your objections to the RP based upon that it's complicated? Notice, nowhere in the texts does Jesus say "you have to intellectually understand this". He just says this is the way it is and believe and do.

If we are going by what is not said in the Bible, then nowhere does it say that the Lords Evening Meal was complicated.

Another thing not said in the Bible, the whole RP doctrine.

He just says this is the way it is and believe and do.

There is faith and then there is credulity. Many see these things as the same but they are not. Credulity is dangerous, borders on being out right gullible but faith is built on evidence. “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.� (Heb 11:1)

There is no 'evident demonstration' of the RP doctrine. Think of it like algerba. 2+X=4. Solve for X. I have enough evidence to discern that X = 2. The RP doctrine is like 2+X=X. Just completely made it whatever they want it to be. It would be credulous of a person to just believe something with out some kind of supporting evidence, even just a little evidence would help. But there is none to support RP. In fact it has more evidence against it, both scriptural and physical.

[Saber Bob]

[Replying to post 161 by 2timothy316]

Yes, at the Last Supper, Jesus used direct language, "this is my body... this is my blood". "Translations" like the NWT which put "means" instead of "is" have left honest translation behind and indulged in confessional bias.

Jesus did not leave us with his unsupported word. He backed up everything he said by his Resurrection and Ascension along with the other miracles of the Incarnation.

[Saber Bob]

[Replying to post 160 by Eloi]

It's not your simple either/or. It's a clear and/ also.

That Eternal Sacrifice in heaven before the Father is made-present, re-presented to us in the Eucharist. Because the Eucharist is that same Sacrifice, the same Sacrifice in Mal 1:11, it cannot be sacrificing Christ over and over again.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 161 by 2timothy316]

Yes, at the Last Supper, Jesus used direct language, "this is my body... this is my blood". "Translations" like the NWT which put "means" instead of "is" have left honest translation behind and indulged in confessional bias.

Jesus did not leave us with his unsupported word. He backed up everything he said by his Resurrection and Ascension along with the other miracles of the Incarnation.

The translation has nothing to do with it. "Means" or "is" I don't care which one is used.

“Why is it you speak to them by the use of illustrations?� Jesus answered: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted. This is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations, because, looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, neither do they get the sense of it; and toward them the prophecy of Isaiah is having fulfillment, which says, ‘By hearing, you will hear but by no means get the sense of it; and, looking, you will look but by no means see. For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive.’�​—Matthew 13:2, 10, 11, 13-15; Isaiah 6:9, 10.

“Jesus spoke to the crowds by illustrations. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them.�​—Matthew 13:34.

These scriptures are the reason I do not accept the explanation of the RP doctrine. Just used illustrations when he spoke to people. The blood and flesh started as illustrations. There is nothing in the scriptures that they were every anything else but symbolic. The RCC turned into something more than what the scriptures say, which I do not accept them as having any authority to explain scripture. Scripture explains scripture. Jesus supports his own word and I don't rely on the RCC to correct him.

[Avoice]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

Wonderful quote you provided.

It tells exactly why people WANT to believe in Jesus. It has nothing to do with a relationship with God. Or God. Its about what they want - to live forever.

It also tells us that the so-called trinity means nothing to them. It simply serves as a way to worship a human without looking like idoloters. Jesus is God therefore they convinced themself they are monotheistic. No they arent. No, the trinity means nothing. When jesus asked if they would stop following him what was the answer? Where would they go? THERE IS TWO OTHER HEADS, RIGHT? HOW ABOUT THE GOD THEIR FATHERS WORSHIPPED...THE GOD OF ISRAEL.
Ill let the God of Israel take it from here....

"Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?"

Did the disciples turn away from his ordinances? Did his disciples get you to do the same? Sure they have. The trinity is just a way to hide the idolotry. Because Christianity isnt about a relationship with God. Its all about jesus. Christians believe God is only God if he holds hands with what he created.
.

[Saber Bob]

[Replying to post 164 by 2timothy316]

In private, Jesus spoke plainly, Mk 4:34. In the Upper Room, just him and the 12. Your entire position is therefore invalid.

It's also invalid for. John 6. Not only does Jesus not use any of the story forms of parables or anything like "the kingdom is like...", Jesus SIX TIMES confirms his listeners literal understanding of "eat my flesh and drink my blood"

The common figurative meaning of that phrase makes Jesus into an idiot in saying "unless to slander or persecute me, you have not my life in you".

No symbolic or metaphorical meaning provided by Jesus, the Gospel writers or Paul.

This was such a clear teaching, Justin Martyr in First Apology written to the Emperor in 150 explicitly said Jesus was present, body and blood, at risk of it confirming slandes of cannibalism.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 164 by 2timothy316]

In private, Jesus spoke plainly, Mk 4:34. In the Upper Room, just him and the 12. Your entire position is therefore invalid.

It's not my position that you think is invalid. Its the scriptures I cited you're calling invalid and I'm sorry to hear that.

When he spoke of the flesh and blood he was speaking to the crowds and not to his disciples. There is nowhere in the Bible that says the symbolisim of the blood and flesh changed into anything else but literal bread and wine. Nowhere does it say in the Bible there was a conversation explaining the RP doctrine. A doctrine that doesn't exist in scripture then it doesn't exist to me.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 164 by 2timothy316]

In private, Jesus spoke plainly, Mk 4:34. In the Upper Room, just him and the 12. Your entire position is therefore invalid.

It's also invalid for. John 6. Not only does Jesus not use any of the story forms of parables or anything like "the kingdom is like...", Jesus SIX TIMES confirms his listeners literal understanding of "eat my flesh and drink my blood"

The common figurative meaning of that phrase makes Jesus into an idiot in saying "unless to slander or persecute me, you have not my life in you".

No symbolic or metaphorical meaning provided by Jesus, the Gospel writers or Paul.

This was such a clear teaching, Justin Martyr in First Apology written to the Emperor in 150 explicitly said Jesus was present, body and blood, at risk of it confirming slandes of cannibalism.

This was such a clear teaching, Justin Martyr in First Apology written to the Emperor in 150 explicitly said Jesus was present, body and blood, at risk of it confirming slandes of cannibalism.

These writings mean nothing to me as far as 'a clear' teaching. Only the Bible does. By 150 CE apostates had begun changing things to what they wanted. Justin Martyr can't be trusted. His words are not God Breathed. If there were than they'd be in the Bible.

[Saber Bob]

[Replying to post 167 by 2timothy316]

In John 6, after the great majority of his followers left him, v.66, Jesus just asks the 12, "are you also going to go?" Everything he said to the crowd, he's applying to them.

Once again, NO alternative explanation to the 12 and no Gospel writer explanation either.

Explain away SIX TIMES Jesus confirmed the literal understanding of the crowd. Are you saying Jesus is a liar if he didn't mean that repeated confirmation?

[Saber Bob]

[Replying to post 168 by 2timothy316]

How can you say Justin Martyr was teaching apostasy whenno one else agreed with your position for 950 years later"