Flesh and blood

[keypurr]

The historical record is pretty clear on the fact that the earliest Christians (Idolaters of Christ) believed they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. So: so do I. I think you're missing out: that you don't.

Also, the cordial is very nice. From Vermont. It was quite nice mixed with water this morning: I think I'll try that again.

If Christ is in you why would you need to drink his blood and eat his flesh? Silly pagan traditions.

If your body is his Temple why would he not be in it?

 

[aikido7]

The historical record is pretty clear on the fact that the earliest Christians (Idolaters of Christ) believed they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. So: so do I. I think you're missing out: that you don't.

Also, the cordial is very nice. From Vermont. It was quite nice mixed with water this morning: I think I'll try that again.

If they believed it literally, then they were strange indeed.

It's only in modern times--since the Enlightenment--that people are so fixated on the "factually correct." Religious people have always used metaphor and myth to describe the holy and the sacred. We discount metaphors, even though we use them every day. And we see myth as "fable" instead of a narrative that is within us and without us as human beings.

Is it that everyone knew they were only parable back then, or that they thought they were history back then, but now think they are parable right now?

Ancient people could hear those stories and not ask that question about literal truth. If they believed them, they were true. If not, not.

I find those ancients just like us and us moderns just like them. In matters of vital importance, moderns and ancient alike acept or reject stories far more on an ideological than an evidentiary basis. We too, Enlightenment or not, ask far too seldom: "Yes, but is that literally true?"

Both sides are definite, articulate, and unyielding. Neither side ever mentions a single shred of evidence either way. The story of JFK is true or false depending on the hearer's ideology. It is accepted or rejected as a metaphorical summary and symbolic condensation of one's vision of reality.

We began [with the Enlightenment] to think that ancient peoples ("other" peoples) told dumb, literal stories that we were now smart enough to recognize as such.

Not quite.

Those ancient people told smart, metaphorical stories that we were now dumb enough to take literally.

 

[daqq]

If Christ is in you why would you need to drink his blood and eat his flesh? Silly pagan traditions.

If your body is his Temple why would he not be in it?

:thumb: Good points and questions!

Those ancient people told smart, metaphorical stories that we were now dumb enough to take literally.

:thumb: True so long as one understands that what most people today mean by "literal" is actually naturalism, (literal is only literal to them so long as it is physical in nature). SPIRIT is more literal, (and permanent) because it cannot be moved by the natural and carnal.

 

[jamie]

If Christ is in you why would you need to drink his blood and eat his flesh?

Would it be because he said to do so?

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread and when He had given thanks He broke it and said, “Take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of Me.”

In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25 NKJV)​

 

[Idolater]

Not at all. I rather like how the Roman Catholics try to tie together all of the imagery in the Old Testament with the New. They seem to not like to leave loose ends, and I appreciate that about them.

why RC? Do they use too much scripture for your taste?

 

[daqq]

Not at all. I rather like how the Roman Catholics try to tie together all of the imagery in the Old Testament with the New. They seem to not like to leave loose ends, and I appreciate that about them.

:thumb:

Not that I agree with the theology but, yes, we should all try to do the same.

 

[Idolater]

You're overthinking it. Christ said to do it. This is the universal witness. You're sitting in judgment of what Christ actually said to do. You're the silly one. I'm sorry.

If Christ is in you why would you need to drink his blood and eat his flesh? Silly pagan traditions.

If your body is his Temple why would he not be in it?

 

[Idolater]

All of the evidence I've seen indicates that "those ancient people" took Christ literally about the bread and the cup being his flesh and blood. I'm curious if you've seen evidence to the contrary? It seems universal that the earliest Idolaters of Christ believed they were eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood when they partook of the bread and the cup.

If they believed it literally, then they were strange indeed.

It's only in modern times--since the Enlightenment--that people are so fixated on the "factually correct." Religious people have always used metaphor and myth to describe the holy and the sacred. We discount metaphors, even though we use them every day. And we see myth as "fable" instead of a narrative that is within us and without us as human beings.

Is it that everyone knew they were only parable back then, or that they thought they were history back then, but now think they are parable right now?

Ancient people could hear those stories and not ask that question about literal truth. If they believed them, they were true. If not, not.

I find those ancients just like us and us moderns just like them. In matters of vital importance, moderns and ancient alike acept or reject stories far more on an ideological than an evidentiary basis. We too, Enlightenment or not, ask far too seldom: "Yes, but is that literally true?"

Both sides are definite, articulate, and unyielding. Neither side ever mentions a single shred of evidence either way. The story of JFK is true or false depending on the hearer's ideology. It is accepted or rejected as a metaphorical summary and symbolic condensation of one's vision of reality.

We began [with the Enlightenment] to think that ancient peoples ("other" peoples) told dumb, literal stories that we were now smart enough to recognize as such.

Not quite.

Those ancient people told smart, metaphorical stories that we were now dumb enough to take literally.

 

[Idolater]

That's my reason. :thumb:

Would it be because he said to do so?

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread and when He had given thanks He broke it and said, “Take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of Me.”

In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25 NKJV)​

 

[Idolater]

Once again this morning, I partook of the bread and of the cup. Mixing water with the cordial is definitely the way to go. :thumb:

Anybody else?

 

[Idolater]

Wow, I'm having a great time partaking of the bread and the cup each morning.

Anybody else?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

:chew:

"Taste and see that the Lord is good."

 

[Idolater]

Amen to that! Indeed he is.

:chew:

"Taste and see that the Lord is good."