[Andyman_1970]

No, it's quite literal. All four gospels (eg. Luke 22:14-20) recount the last Passover supper he had with his apostles the night before he was crucified. He said, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. . . Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

.

You realize that to "drink blood" was to make oneself unclean according to Torah............remember Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, if He wasn't He would have been a false Messiah..........the early church was entirely Torah observant Jews until Acts 10.........Paul even says in Acts 23 he "is" a Pharisee (not was) which implies observance to Torah.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No, it's quite literal. All four gospels (eg. Luke 22:14-20) recount the last Passover supper he had with his apostles the night before he was crucified. He said, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. . . Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

And you don't think that the blood which had not yet been shed wasn't just symbolically represented by the wine in the cup?

 

[DRB]

to me, this is the only reason that there is an issue. if i want a tatoo with a certain ink that will give me cancer...i can get it. if i want to get drunk every night and kill my liver....so be it. but if i want to kill (hottly debated part here) the living body inside a pregnant woman....it's no longer a "personal" decision...it is now pluralistic.

What about the effect your getting drunk every night has on your kids. Or the fact that you smoke 3 packs a day in the house with them with right next to you. Those all of a sudden aren't "personal" decisions. Or that you fix unhealthy food and feed your kids the same stuff.

And even take the kids out of the equation, your choices have an effect on me in that insurance rates are increased because of the excess hospitalization caused by your dead liver and your rotten lungs. Or the fact that you eat too many donuts.

 

[-dustin]

pro-choice, pro-death penalty

 

[enkidu]

And you don't think that the blood which had not yet been shed wasn't just symbolically represented by the wine in the cup?

You realize that to "drink blood" was to make oneself unclean according to Torah............remember Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, if He wasn't He would have been a false Messiah..........the early church was entirely Torah observant Jews until Acts 10.........Paul even says in Acts 23 he "is" a Pharisee (not was) which implies observance to Torah.

"This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(John 6:60). . . That's exactly what many of his Jewish disciples said and left him. But Christ did not try to stop them from leaving, saying "Oh, wait, I only meant as a symbol and a metaphor!" His statement is quite unequivocal:". . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (John 6:56)

Paul reiterates the importance of this tradition / institution of the "breaking of bread" (1 Corinthians 11:23). He admonishes that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (27) and "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (29) He clearly takes the sacrament of the Eucharist literally.

And Andyman: Can it be that "the blood of the New Covenant" of the "unblemished lamb" of the ultimate Passover is the cup accepted by him at the garden of Gethsemani? Dying ignominiously naked and bleeding on the cross with common criminals surely was an "unclean" scandal. Christ accepted that cup of blood. So we, too, hopefully are given the courage and humility to accept it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

"This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(John 6:60). . . That's exactly what many of his Jewish disciples said and left him. But Christ did not try to stop them from leaving, saying "Oh, wait, I only meant as a symbol and a metaphor!" His statement is quite unequivocal:". . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (John 6:56)

Paul reiterates the importance of this tradition / institution of the "breaking of bread" (1 Corinthians 11:23). He admonishes that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (27) and "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (29) He clearly takes the sacrament of the Eucharist literally.

You still haven't convinced me that it wasn't just metaphor. Jesus says many times that people will not believe in him and that they will turn away from him, so when people turned away from his blood, he wouldn't have been surprised. So, he could still be speaking metaphorically instead of literally.

Besides, John is a second (at best) hand account of the events that happened. How do you know that the words that were said and the actions that were reported are correct?

 

[Reactor]

I think the death penalty is highly suspect as a form of punishment. Far too many innocent people are imprisoned and put to death. Especially in states like Texas which seem to impose the death penalty on a weekly basis. Then there is the issue of what it says about a society. If it's wrong to kill and we have a crime called "murder" why does society kill?

As for abortion, I'm highly conflicted. There are cases where it's medically necessary, in those cases I can't see the logic in allowing a living breathing person die or suffer severe injury to "protect" a potential life. If someone considers a fetus a life, where does it end? What about eggs and sperm? or Zygotes that don't implant? After all two out of three fertilized eggs don't implant and the small dividing cluster of cells leaves the body.

Ethically I can't see my wife having an abortion unless there were severe problems with a pregnancy. I thinks in a era where birth control is available, elective abortions are senseless, in all but a few circumstances are senseless. Unfortunately not all people have real sex education or access to contraceptives.

As for scriptural accuracy, my personal belief, and I can't prove it, is that much of ancient scripture, of many faiths, was "dumbed down". You have scholarly enlightened individuals, thinking in complex, often abstract terms, trying to get a message across to illiterate goat herders and fishermen. I believe many concepts were transformed into stories, not to be taken literally, but to provide examples of the original abstract concepts. Over time some of these stories have probably been altered and they are retold and recopied.

So when a scripture says for example "make a pilgrimage on your hands and knees praying at each step" it probably means something like "you must make a pilgrimage, no matter how hard it is or what it costs, and contemplate/pray/meditate on your religion and place in the world, not being distracted by worldly problems"

If a scripture says "she was turned into a pillar of salt" it may mean "she was stunned, motionless and white as a salt". This happens with when passages are translated, re translated, reretranslated, altered to meet an agenda, edited, sliced and diced and turned int multiple different editions.

Some scriptures, like the the Torah, have been painstakingly preserved, and although very old, are far less likely to have been mistranslated, edited and misinterpreted.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Some scriptures, like the the Torah, have been painstakingly preserved, and although very old, are far less likely to have been mistranslated, edited and misinterpreted.

Except that the Torah itself was passed by word of mouth many times before it was ever committed to paper.

 

[enkidu]

As for scriptural accuracy. . . I believe many concepts were transformed into stories, not to be taken literally, but to provide examples of the original abstract concepts. . .

Yes! Anthony DeMello captures that essence of stories beautifully in "The Song of The Bird" and "Taking Flight".

His glossary defines Theology as "The art of telling stories about the Divine. Also the art of listening to them." And Mysticism as "The art of tasting and feeling in your heart the inner meaning of such stories to the point that they transform you."

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Yes! Anthony DeMello captures that essence of stories beautifully in "The Song of The Bird" and "Taking Flight".

His glossary defines Theology as "The art of telling stories about the Divine. Also the art of listening to them." And Mysticism as "The art of tasting and feeling in your heart the inner meaning of such stories to the point that they transform you."

So, why do you insist that it is literally Christ's blood and body that you are eating?

 

[fluff]

I'd guess he's catholic

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I'd guess he's catholic

It doesn't matter. He can't say that what is written is to be taken literally, then turn around and agree that it's not to be taken literally.

 

[fluff]

It doesn't matter. He can't say that what is written is to be taken literally, then turn around and agree that it's not to be taken literally.

Well, he can. But he can't be consistent doing so.

 

[enkidu]

It doesn't matter. He can't say that what is written is to be taken literally, then turn around and agree that it's not to be taken literally.

As a clueless, but trusting, child I can physically truly hold on to my father's hand as we stroll on a mountain path and at the same time revel on how good fatherhood is and rejoice with other children who are holding onto their own fathers. No?

(I'm off to work now. Take care.)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

As a clueless, but trusting, child I can physically truly hold on to my father's hand as we stroll on a mountain path and at the same time revel on how good fatherhood is and rejoice with other children who are holding onto their own fathers. No?

(I'm off to work now. Take care.)

And you can be completely inconsistent and illogical too.

No, really, your little thought there is heart-warming and all, but ultimately pointless. You are still contradicting yourself.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Except that the Torah itself was passed by word of mouth many times before it was ever committed to paper.

Yeah by people who a) took it very seriously, b) had all sorts of time on their hands for memorization. It was very common in Jesus day for 12-14 year olds to have the whole Hebrew Scripture memorized........which in our modern world with all the distractions we look at as a monumental feat........which was commonplace in their time.

Anyway.........just a little tidbit I thought I'd share.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Yeah by people who a) took it very seriously, b) had all sorts of time on their hands for memorization. It was very common in Jesus day for 12-14 year olds to have the whole Hebrew Scripture memorized........which in our modern world with all the distractions we look at as a monumental feat........which was commonplace in their time.

Anyway.........just a little tidbit I thought I'd share.

Generation to generation by word of mouth....I don't care how good they were at memorization. I wouldn't take it to be a literal, accurate representation.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Besides, John is a second (at best) hand account of the events that happened.

That's assuming the "old skool" model of Jesus' disciples being middle aged dudes.........which a rabbi would never have called disciples older than about 20 at most (Peter was the oldest at 20 when he was called). Some scholars place John's age at about 10, which would mean it could have been John the disciple who wrote the Gospel, letters, and Revelation.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Generation to generation by word of mouth....I don't care how good they were at memorization. I wouldn't take it to be a literal, accurate representation.

Ok............so don't...............LOL

 

[Reactor]

For what it's worth I think Jews have put far more effort into maintaining the integrity of their scripture than just about any other group I can think of. I've heard stories of Rabbi running into burning synagogs to save a Torah, without thought of any thing else. Jews fleeing Germany and Russia would take the Torah in lew of personal possesions. They have the oldest and probably most dedicated class of religious leaders I can think of. Even with the often heroic measures they've taken it'd still possible in the passage of thousands of years some of the original meaning has been lost.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That's assuming the "old skool" model of Jesus' disciples being middle aged dudes.........which a rabbi would never have called disciples older than about 20 at most (Peter was the oldest at 20 when he was called). Some scholars place John's age at about 10, which would mean it could have been John the disciple who wrote the Gospel, letters, and Revelation.

Oh please. You have no evidence to back that up. John's gospel was written when? We don't even know that John was really the author of that gospel. Parts of the gospels are cribbed from one another. Accounts of things Jesus said while alone are included. Yeah, we can take that as accurate. Plus, if John was actually around and saw all this, why did he wait so long to write it all down? Why did he not mention what Jesus looks like? Why a lot of things really.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That's assuming the "old skool" model of Jesus' disciples being middle aged dudes.........which a rabbi would never have called disciples older than about 20 at most (Peter was the oldest at 20 when he was called). Some scholars place John's age at about 10, which would mean it could have been John the disciple who wrote the Gospel, letters, and Revelation.

Also, at that time, 20 WAS middle aged.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Why did he not mention what Jesus looks like?

That's not something the Jewish/Eastern way of thinking deems important...............see you're using your Greek/Western way of thinking on a Eastern/Jewish document..........

 

[Andyman_1970]

Also, at that time, 20 WAS middle aged.

Have you read Josephus???

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Have you read Josephus???

Josephus or Eusebius?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Josephus, the Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities......they give a remarkable view into 1st century Jewish life.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Josephus, the Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities......they give a remarkable view into 1st century Jewish life.

A remarkable view into the history of lineages and events, but not life in general. Really, it reads just like other accounts of the same time, like it was passed from mouth to mouth until someone decided to sit down and write it out. To use it to defend another account that was passed from mouth to mouth is flimsy at best.

 

[Andyman_1970]

A remarkable view into the history of lineages and events, but not life in general.

Dude are we going to agree on anything............LOL........I disagree it gives some great insight into 1st century Jewish "thinking".

Really, it reads just like other accounts of the same time, like it was passed from mouth to mouth until someone decided to sit down and write it out.

Flavius Josephus wrote his accounts with the intent of recording the events he was a part of.......not recording some oral tradition.........

To use it to defend another account that was passed from mouth to mouth is flimsy at best.

While I don't use it as a "defense" of Jesus, at least the mentions of it in his text, it does give some great insight into John the immerser, and typical "phrases" used in that time..........like "repent and follow me........" esspecially when read in the Greek along with the Greek in the New Testament.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Dude are we going to agree on anything............LOL........I disagree it gives some great insight into 1st century Jewish "thinking".

Never! I refuse!

Flavius Josephus wrote his accounts with the intent of recording the events he was a part of.......not recording some oral tradition.........

That's not my understanding of it. That would be more like an autobiography.

While I don't use it as a "defense" of Jesus, at least the mentions of it in his text, it does give some great insight into John the immerser, and typical "phrases" used in that time..........like "repent and follow me........" esspecially when read in the Greek along with the Greek in the New Testament.

I would hope that you don't use it as a defense of Jesus as it's pretty well founded that the passages referring to Jesus were probably inserted by Eusebius (which is what prompted my earlier question.)

Can you point me to the chapters that deal with John the Immerser so that I can see the text for myself? (Yes, I have access to the text.)

 

[Andyman_1970]

Josephus Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Josephus Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

It says that Herod slew John (the baptist). When did this allegedly happen? When did John allegedly write the gospels, et. al.?

Herod was also supposedly around during the time of Jesus, which Josephus was not. How do we reconcile that? How do we reconcile that if John was slain by Herod, there's probably no way he could have written the gospels, et. al. when they were written?

 

[fluff]

It says that Herod slew John (the baptist). When did this allegedly happen? When did John allegedly write the gospels, et. al.?

Herod was also supposedly around during the time of Jesus, which Josephus was not. How do we reconcile that? How do we reconcile that if John was slain by Herod, there's probably no way he could have written the gospels, et. al. when they were written?

John the Baptist and John the disciple were not the same guy. But I also doubt that either wrote the gospel of John.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

John the Baptist and John the disciple were not the same guy. But I also doubt that either wrote the gospel of John.

Thank you for clearing that up. I was confused on that point due to Andyman's argument. The more I see of his argument though, the more I think that it is all sidetrack.

The "remarkable insight" into John was simply that he was killed by Herod and that he thought immersion could purify the body if the sould was already purified. One, I'm not seeing how this is so remarkable and two I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[JRogers]

Some scholars place John's age at about 10, which would mean it could have been John the disciple who wrote the Gospel, letters, and Revelation.

Come on, you have to acknowledge that the likelihood of this is slim to none. Aside from church tradition and contrived (though earnest) attempts to justify it, there is little to back this up.

 

[JRogers]

OK, try "Catechism of the Catholic Church", 1994. 2000 edition has useful Glossary and Index Analyticus. See under "Eucharist" and "Mass" for full discussions. Stuffy enough for you?

The day I start turning to the Catholic catechism for interpretation and discussion is a long way off. I'll stick with my own stuffy sources.

 

[Andyman_1970]

It says that Herod slew John (the baptist). When did this allegedly happen? When did John allegedly write the gospels, et. al.?

Herod was also supposedly around during the time of Jesus, which Josephus was not. How do we reconcile that? How do we reconcile that if John was slain by Herod, there's probably no way he could have written the gospels, et. al. when they were written?

First Herod is a reference to the king of Judea, they were a dynasty called the Herodians (half Jews who sold out to Rome).......the Herod of Jesus birth was different than the Herod that had JTB killed.

It does give insight as to what John was all about.........something alot of Christians don't get esspecially with reference to baptism.......which is why I find it insightful.

There are two camps scholarship with reference to John's writing of the Gospel of John, one camp is 50-75 AD and one is 85 AD or after.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Come on, you have to acknowledge that the likelihood of this is slim to none.

Some of the lanugage used when Jesus references His disciples and John specifically in the Greek point to someone younger than 12.

 

[Westy]

Some of the lanugage used when Jesus references His disciples and John specifically in the Greek point to someone younger than 12.

Resisting the urge to make catholic preist joke, gaah ack. Must control self..............

 

[Andyman_1970]

Yeah Yeah Yeah...............

 

[Old Man G Funk]

It does give insight as to what John was all about.........something alot of Christians don't get esspecially with reference to baptism.......which is why I find it insightful.

What, the 2 sentences?

There are two camps scholarship with reference to John's writing of the Gospel of John, one camp is 50-75 AD and one is 85 AD or after.

No one (besides apologists) is saying that Gospel of John was written as early as 50 CE. The earliest dates are around 70 CE. You are thinking of Paul's letters which date to around 50 CE. Gospel of John is widely thought to have been written about 20 years (at least) after Paul's letters.