This Is My Body

[Meriweather]

They didn’t leave because of the words (literal of figurative). Maybe they had other things to attend to? Maybe they felt fear at what they believed was about to befall Jesus.

Either way, I don’t see how that tells anyone whether the words were anything but metaphorical.

Even people in Apostolic times were accusing them of cannibalism. Would this have happened if the Apostles were teaching metaphorically?

 

[BackAgain]

Even people in Apostolic times were accusing them of cannibalism. Would this have happened if the Apostles were teaching metaphorically?

I’m not talking about how other peoples grasped what Jesus said. (I also don’t know if other peoples expressed any such “concern” to any of the Apostles.)

My point was more focused. Since we already know that Jesus spoke in parables, it seems beyond dispute that those around Him understood that some of His words were figurative and not literal.

 

[Meriweather]

My point was more focused. Since we already know that Jesus spoke in parables, it seems beyond dispute that those around Him understood that some of His words were figurative and not literal.

And didn't he explain the parables to his Apostles?

 

[BackAgain]

And didn't he explain the parables to his Apostles?

Did He? Or, perhaps, did He use parables as a smart teaching tool which required no further explanation?

 

[Disir]

So, just so I get this correctly as I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't mean for us to turn into cannibals,.. what He meant by having us "eat" His body and "drink" His blood is for us to have His spirit inside of us right? Or is there more to it than that?

It's metaphorical endocannibalism. Funerary food and drink. There was an Egyptian cult that was doing the same with mooncakes.

The quick and dirty snippet of where all that extends from.

Anthropophagy | alimentarium

Consumption of human flesh has occurred on all continents over the ages, yet never in a systematic or continuous manner. It declined from the third millennium BCE, with the emergence of the great civilisations of Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus valley. Although it continued on the American...

www.alimentarium.org

 

[eagle1462010]

Take this in Rememberance of me. He has given his flesh in blood to save you for your sins.

 

[Meriweather]

Did He? Or, perhaps, did He use parables as a smart teaching tool which required no further explanation?

Did he explain the parable of the sower and the seed?

 

[BackAgain]

Did he explain the parable of the sower and the seed?

You tell me. Also, would it have been considered anything but clear at the time? Would any explanation even be momentarily considered necessary.

 

[norwegen]

You tell me. Also, would it have been considered anything but clear at the time? Would any explanation even be momentarily considered necessary.

Apparently, the apostles needed some slight clarification.

The kingdom is the single common thread in all the parables. When Jesus shared these anecdotes, he shared secrets of the kingdom (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11; Lk 8:10).

 

[BULLDOG]

The simple minds of bigots like you are sad to watch.

Transubstantiation.

 

[BULLDOG]

Read the account for yourself of the Last Supper. Did the bread literally become flesh? No.

Try to think rationally.

Look up transubstantiation.

 

[BULLDOG]

First off: a belief is a belief and not something that should be denigrated as the thinking of “hard core religious nuts.”

Secondly, if some very religious folks assume it’s literal truth, then it’s only cannabalistic in a manner of speaking to them. But my question was broader. I’m wondering why those words spoken by Jesus are claimed to be literal. We know that Jesus spoke in parables. Maybe it was well understood back then that he was speaking in a metaphorical sense.

If you say to someone who is making bad jokes, “Hey stop it. You’re killing me!” We all know that you aren’t literally being murdered.

I don't know your definition, but somebody that believes a cracker and some wine literally become flesh and blood are hard core crazy as far as I'm concerned.

 

[BULLDOG]

They didn’t leave because of the words (literal of figurative). Maybe they had other things to attend to? Maybe they felt fear at what they believed was about to befall Jesus.

Either way, I don’t see how that tells anyone whether the words were anything but metaphorical.

You're just making up shit now.

 

[Meriweather]

You tell me. Also, would it have been considered anything but clear at the time? Would any explanation even be momentarily considered necessary.

I am merely noting that explanations followed the parables.

 

[norwegen]

Look up transubstantiation.

You mean that Catholic thing?

Look up the Scriptures. Flesh and blood are obviously metaphorical.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't know your definition, but somebody that believes a cracker and some wine literally become flesh and blood are hard core crazy as far as I'm concerned.

So? You’re entitled to your beliefs too. You have a nasty bias against religious belief. I’m not especially religious myself. But just because you think a belief is “crazy” doesn’t make it so.

 

[BackAgain]

You're just making up shit now.

Really? Hm. I suppose you have some documentary evidence to support any particular view of why some attendees chose to leave? Thrill us with your academic acumen.

 

[BackAgain]

I am merely noting that explanations followed the parables.

Cite a couple.

 

[BULLDOG]

You mean that Catholic thing?

Look up the Scriptures. Flesh and blood are obviously metaphorical.

Methodists too.

 

[BULLDOG]

Really? Hm. I suppose you have some documentary evidence to support any particular view of why some attendees chose to leave? Thrill us with your academic acumen.

Seems neither of us has documentary evidence. You are the only one making up shit to explain it.