Jesus Supplanted Temple Sacrifice Then God Turned His Face from Jesus

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 2:44 PM GMT
    In the Synoptic gospels, Jesus has the bread and wine metaphor for body and blood consumption.

    In the Gospel of John, Jesus says it is not a metaphor, followers are literally eating his body and blood. (In the gospel of John, the last of the four gospels, Jesus brings up literal cannibalism before the last supper. Jesus brings it up and loses followers. He says this teaching is too hard for those who do not stay with him.)

    Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

    Lev. 17: 10

    The agony in the garden happens after Jesus makes the bread and wine metaphor.

    Jesus renounces the God of Israel, then he goes to the Garden and finds the God of Israel is not on his side for him to continue living.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2015 12:14 AM GMT
    Except it really WAS a metaphor. The dude tacked to the cross wasn't an anemic, half-chewed-on rawhide treat, was he? Just because Jesus doesn't understand what a metaphor really is doesn't negate its metaphoricism.

    If God turned from Jesus, that also means--metaphorically--that he did not accept Jesus's sacrifice in the stead of the lamb. Thus, he paid for no one's sin except his own (pride?), if that's what you're saying. Good luck selling that to the last 2000 years of Christianity.
  • monet

    Posts: 1093

    Apr 06, 2015 2:50 AM GMT
    Today is Easter. Easter is the day that Jesus rose from the dead.

    Jesus died on the cross on Good Friday. His body was taken down from the cross and wrapped in linen. His body was placed in a cave and giant stones were rolled in front of the cave.

    On the third day the stones were rolled away from the cave and Jesus came out of the cave.

    That is why we now celebrate Easter. Easter is the day that Jesus comes out of his cave. If Jesus sees his shadow when he comes out of the cave we will have six more weeks of winter. If he doesn't see his shadow it means that spring is right around the corner.

    Thank you Jesus for dying on the cross and for coming out of your cave and predicting the weather for us.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2015 2:21 AM GMT
    Mickey:

    If God turned from Jesus, that also means--metaphorically--that he did not accept Jesus's sacrifice in the stead of the lamb. Thus, he paid for no one's sin except his own (pride?), if that's what you're saying.


    Stephenoabc:

    Some real person did get crucified between two robbers [bandits who were actually Jewish Revolt rebels in 70 AD]. The three crucified men were taken down from their crosses because Josephus asked General Titus if he could do so. They were treated but only one survived. One could say he was brought back from the dead...

    As for your second point, the God of Israel was through with Jesus; but, a new notion of God was in formation. This is how Jesus became God. Jesus accepted his own sacrifice.

    Remember, when a person becomes atheistic towards a former notion of God, that person, himself becomes God. (Humanists who reject notions of God have no other God before their notion of God but Human Secularism, or Agnosticism, or Atheism.)

    For this to have happened in 33 AD, is too soon. It's more believable that Jesus supplanted Temple Sacrifices AFTER the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That's the void of the abomination of desolation (Temple desolate of sacrifices).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2015 7:37 PM GMT
    The amount of misinformation in this thread is astonishing. You can't just pick a couple verses out of The Bible, cobble them together to create a misinformed understanding of the religion, and then label the religion as nonsense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2015 8:15 PM GMT
    StubbornLove saidThe amount of misinformation in this thread is astonishing. You can't just pick a couple verses out of The Bible, cobble them together to create a misinformed understanding of the religion, and then label the religion as nonsense.


    Someone with a brain! Thank GOD
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    Barook said
    StubbornLove saidThe amount of misinformation in this thread is astonishing. You can't just pick a couple verses out of The Bible, cobble them together to create a misinformed understanding of the religion, and then label the religion as nonsense.


    Someone with a brain! Thank GOD


    Lol, I was rather enjoying the meandering trippiness.
  • NealJohn

    Posts: 187

    Apr 07, 2015 11:26 PM GMT
    Eating Jesus' body is a metaphor for reading the word of God, from which he is and was formed from. His blood is the sign of the new covenant / testament .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2015 12:58 AM GMT
    StubbornLove saidThe amount of misinformation in this thread is astonishing. You can't just pick a couple verses out of The Bible, cobble them together to create a misinformed understanding of the religion, and then label the religion as nonsense.


    …The Lord Jesus … took bread,
    and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
    In the same way, after supper, he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this; whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

    The Authentic First Letter of Paul the Apostle
    to the Corinthians 11: 23-25
    Also, The Gospel According to Luke 22: 19-20
    Matthew 26: 26-29
    Mark 14: 22-25

    The Gospel According to John does not have the metaphor. It has something far worse: it changes cannibalism, metaphorically speaking to literal cannibalism.

    John 6: 44-59
    and
    John 6: 60-66


    44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

    45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

    46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

    47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

    48 I am the bread of life.

    49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.

    50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

    51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

    52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

    53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

    54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
    has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

    55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

    56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

    57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

    58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

    59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
    Many Disciples Desert Jesus

    60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

    61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?

    62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

    63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

    64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

    65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

    66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2015 1:02 AM GMT
    NealJohn,

    You're in error.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2015 1:04 AM GMT
    StubbornLove and Barook,

    You do not get to water down or spin the Gospel of John or any other part of the New Testament.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2015 6:06 PM GMT
    Yeah, no. It's still a metaphor. Jesus also said that he gives living water. Are we to look at that and say, "Is he saying that this water is ALIVE? How can water possibly eat and breath and walk??" No. It's very simple. He said my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink - as in his body had been nailed to the cross, and his blood poured out for us - and these sacrifices are what will sustain us, more so than physical food and drink. It's obvious and straightforward what he was trying to communicate. That you enjoy getting caught up in technicalities and grammar doesn't change what he meant. Speaking of grammar, the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, then translated again and again throughout the years. So while you're over here trying to demonize it by picking apart it's ENGLISH, the original text remains untouched.

    I am not trying to "water down" the gospels. I take them as they are. It is you who is trying to "spin" them into being about cannibalism of all things. Even if Jesus was in fact saying that the bread and wine were his literal flesh and blood, what exactly are you trying to prove? Am I missing a verse that says, "Now go and eat one another?"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2015 7:37 PM GMT
    This is the thing you're not understanding OP, there are two ways people read the bible. You have those who read the bible and take the literal sense of everything said and then you have those, like myself, who see it as a metaphor in relation to something else.

    This is also where we get the split of religions, for example Catholics and evangelists. Evangelists take every single word of the bible in the literal sense and look how crazy they are...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2015 8:04 PM GMT
    this is giving me a headache...icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2015 8:50 PM GMT
    Barook saidThis is the thing you're not understanding OP, there are two ways people read the bible. You have those who read the bible and take the literal sense of everything said and then you have those, like myself, who see it as a metaphor in relation to something else.

    This is also where we get the split of religions, for example Catholics and evangelists. Evangelists take every single word of the bible in the literal sense and look how crazy they are...



    Yep. I'm Christian and have been in some highly amusing arguments with Fundies. Stephen here should also know better, as he himself pointed out discrepancies in the bible, like people in the bible seeing the face of god, then John in the bible declaring no one has seen the face of god. I have no idea what he's up to with this topic.

    ...actually, never mind. I just scrolled down and saw he started a topic about how he USED to believe Christianity but now it's all fake.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4016308
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 1:46 AM GMT
    StubbornLove saidThe amount of misinformation in this thread is astonishing. You can't just pick a couple verses out of The Bible, cobble them together to create a misinformed understanding of the religion, and then label the religion as nonsense.


    Actually, this is part of a larger look at how cannibalism and blood consumption is bad news in the Hebrew scriptures Jesus upheld.

    You can see more during the last hour of this 2 hr 44 min. video:



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 1:55 AM GMT
    StubbornLove saidSpeaking of grammar, the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, then translated again and again throughout the years. So while you're over here trying to demonize it by picking apart it's ENGLISH, the original text remains untouched.


    We have accurate translations in English.

    You can see

    Douay–Rheims Bible

    You can also see

    NET Bible

    The New English Translation (NET Bible) is a free, "completely new" on-line English translation of the Bible, "with 60,932 translators’ notes" sponsored by the Biblical Studies Foundation and published by Biblical Studies Press.

    Your criticism of translation is invalid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 2:00 AM GMT
    StubbornLove saidYeah, no. It's still a metaphor.


    It is not a metaphor for the Roman Catholic Church.

    Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the change whereby, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood, while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances - species in Latin) remains unchanged. What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent. The manner in which the change occurs, the Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."

    # # #

    Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written before John. One could wiggle to metaphor. So, the Gospel of John closed the wiggle room as quoted above.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 2:10 AM GMT
    StubbornLove said

    I am not trying to "water down" the gospels. I take them as they are. It is you who is trying to "spin" them into being about cannibalism of all things. Even if Jesus was in fact saying that the bread and wine were his literal flesh and blood, what exactly are you trying to prove? Am I missing a verse that says, "Now go and eat one another?"



    #1 The animal sacrifices at the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem were not metaphorical sacrifices, they were literal flesh and blood of animals. The insistence on Jesus' actual body and blood is to make at least two points: a) real flesh and blood is being killed and b) that Christianity was definitely accepting the punishment of Leviticus because it needed to separate itself from the God of Temple Judaism and the religion itself BECAUSE the Temple was destroyed.

    #2 When the Temple was destroyed during the Jewish Revolt, Jerusalem had two war theaters: civil war and revolt against Rome. In this chaos, famine occurred and cannibalism occurred. The account in Wars of the Jews that is relevant here is that a son of Mary was cannibalized by his mother. The mother wanted her son, the son of Mary to be a byword to the world. Jesus, son of Mary is also known to the world for cannibalistic reasons. The gospels make a number of references to secular history.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 2:14 AM GMT
    Barook saidThis is the thing you're not understanding OP, there are two ways people read the bible. You have those who read the bible and take the literal sense of everything said and then you have those, like myself, who see it as a metaphor in relation to something else.

    This is also where we get the split of religions, for example Catholics and evangelists. Evangelists take every single word of the bible in the literal sense and look how crazy they are...


    And it's good to put the metaphors to the test to see if there is really something substantial and factual instead of claiming things did not happen literally when they actually did--watering down past events and missing the point, many points.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 2:22 AM GMT
    StephenOABC saidStubbornLove and Barook,

    You do not get to water down or spin the Gospel of John or any other part of the New Testament.


    Yes they do.

    You are giving your own interpretation in this thread, so expect others to offer theirs.

    None of the canonical gospels, nor those rejected by the Council of Nicaea and regulated to the apocrypha, are historical texts written of events as they happened. They are translations of translations of translations of stories and sermons passed down as part of the oral traditions of one of the many forms of Christianity.

    It seems silly you are rejecting someone else’s view while referring to texts that give four different interpretations of the same events.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 2:46 AM GMT
    FN_R5000I/784

    They are translations of translations of translations of stories and sermons passed down as part of the oral traditions of one of the many forms of Christianity.


    StephenOABC

    You have been misinformed: the oral tradition theory does not hold water.

    Prophets to multitudes of people have been recorded before Jesus' lifetime and during Jesus' lifetime.

    How do we know about the Egyptian false prophet who gathered multitudes at the Mount of Olives? (The Egyptian false prophet was a contemporary of the biblical Jesus.)

    Second reason the "oral tradition" history does not hold up is because the biblical Jesus is composed of more than one person; he is also personifications; and, his actions come from Homeric myths (see the book The Gospel of Mark and the Homeric Epics).

    Third, your statement just might be an incorrect wording of what one scholar actually said. We do not have original autographs, we have copies of copies of copies. He did not say we have translations of translations of translations.

    We have earlier century papyri. We also have the secular sources of Jesus' sayings. For example: the biblical Jesus gives prophetic statements about the Tribulation which are no more than historical accounts of the First Jewish Roman War. The gospels are telling us about history not subjective interpretations.

    Quality differences are wasted on you, yes?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 2:57 AM GMT
    FN_R5000I

    None of the canonical gospels are historical texts written of events as they happened.

    Stephenoabc

    You are in error, again.

    For example: the biblical Jesus gives prophetic statements about the Tribulation which are exact historical statements of events as they happened.

    Second, the passion of the Christ is an exact historical account of the passion of Jesus, son of Ananus.


    From the “biblical Jesus being a composite of people made historical by Josephus” perspective, here is the Passion narrative:

    But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds (See Matthew 24: 27 and 31), a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!” This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.

    However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.

    Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

    If someone is looking for source material for the gospels, look to Josephus. The above is but one example.

    The gospels make at least one reference to the account of Josephus (Q source) about the scourging of Jesus son of Ananus, and Jesus son of Ananus, quiet before a procurator.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 3:03 AM GMT
    StephenOABC saidFN_R5000I

    None of the canonical gospels are historical texts written of events as they happened.

    Stephenoabc

    You are in error, again.

    For example: the biblical Jesus gives prophetic statements about the Tribulation which are exact historical statements of events as they happened.

    Second, the passion of the Christ is an exact historical account of the passion of Jesus, son of Ananus.


    From the “biblical Jesus being a composite of people made historical by Josephus” perspective, here is the Passion narrative:

    But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds (See Matthew 24: 27 and 31), a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!” This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.

    However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.

    Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

    If someone is looking for source material for the gospels, look to Josephus. The above is but one example.

    The gospels make at least one reference to the account of Josephus (Q source) about the scourging of Jesus son of Ananus, and Jesus son of Ananus, quiet before a procurator.


    This is how parts of the gospel were pieced together, not from Oral Tradition but:

    1) the passion of Jesus son of Ananus
    2) the eating of the body and blood of the son of Mary
    3) the prophetic statements of the Tribulation (for example, the Temple will be destroyed) come from someone who lived through the First Jewish-Roman War (At least three of the Gospels WERE written AFTER the Temple was destroyed.)


    We ARE dealing with historical accounts in the gospels. The gospels ARE historical texts. "Interpret" them and water them down at your own peril.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 3:27 AM GMT
    StephenOABC said
    For example: the biblical Jesus gives prophetic statements about the Tribulation which are exact historical statements of events as they happened.


    Wow.

    tumblr_inline_n4hv4eOU351ryj2q8.gif