Biblical problematic passages--Vol 4: The Eucharist

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

In 1Cr 11:23-25, Paul writes:

Paul here is claiming to have received a revelation concerning a rite that was supposedly established by Jesus himself and practiced by the early Jewish Christians since then. Why then the need for this “revelation”.

The term Paul used for the rite was the Greek kuriakon deipnon, meaning the Lord’s Supper. But this was the same term used for a similar rite in the mystery (pagan) religions for their savior-god. This was so embarrassing to the early church fathers that they changed the name to the Eucharist which had a more Jewish connotation to the non-magical kiddush, or blessing of a sabbath meal.

1 Corinthians was written c. 53-57 CE with Mark c. 70 CE and Matthew and Luke following that, giving plenty of time for Paul and his followers to have influenced the source for those synoptic gospels. But John had the greatest Jewish perspective of the four gospels, so even though it was written c. 90-100 CE, it amazingly it has no hint at all about this greatest Christian sacrament at the Last Supper, even though it reiterates Judas’ betrayal, the prediction of Peter’s denial and includes Jesus washing the disciples’ feet.

Because of the obvious problem with consuming human flesh and blood, it has been a contentious point of theology whether the bread and wine are in fact transubstantiated into Jesus’ flesh and blood or not. But in the end it doesn’t matter since it is the biggest problem with the credibility of the origin of this ritual. The consumption of blood of any kind, much less human blood, or human flesh, symbolic or otherwise, would have been blasphemous cannibalism to any Jew, especially to an aesthetic Jew like Jesus.

Paul putting such sacrilege into Jesus’ mouth was one of many reasons Jesus’ followers under his brother James would have had great enmity for him, and it is only touched on (in an attempt to smooth it over) in Acts. Paul could have easily been the “Spouter of Lies” from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and almost certainly was the beast from Revelation. His corruptive influence is so complete, we may never be able to separate that influence from what his opponents were trying to establish. Christianity is, for all intents and purposes, nothing less than Paulism.

2

The two verses you quoted are in the middle of a chapter where Paul is criticizing the Corinthian Church for using the Lord’s Supper as just another meal- stuffing themselves, getting drunk, and etc. He asks them, “Don’t you have your own homes to eat in?” then quotes one of the Synoptic Gospels (or it’s source) on the event of the Lord’s Supper to emphasize the do this in rememberance of me, points out that someone who takes the Eucharist with the improper attitude is inviting damnation onto himself, and closes by saying that if somebody is hungry, they should eat at home- the Eucharist isn’t where you ‘do lunch’.

So yeah, that’s why. He’s criticizing the early church for doing the Eucharist wrong- fully in theme with Corinthians, which is largely about chastising the Church for this and that. Also, it’s worthwhile to notice that other than quoting Christ as saying “This is my body” and “This is my blood”, Paul (and Paul’s source) refer to both elements of the Eucharist as bread and wine throughout, with no particular emphasis on the ‘cannibalistic’ aspects.

So, like you said, the Eucharist was an already established ritual, and Paul was correcting the Corinthians because they were doing it wrong.

3

Paineful Truth,

The Lord’s Supper is a Christian adaptation of the Jewish Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It’s origin is very old and very Jewish.

Your dating of the Gospels is based on traditional liberal dating techniques. These involve some theory about the “real” origin and “real” reasons for the Gospels being written, and then assign dates based on the theory. This is clearly circular reasoning.

The correct way to date any historical document is by using the available historical evidence. The Book of Acts has numerous references to historically verifiable people, events, and places. The Book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome. Based on historical testimony, Paul was executed around 64 AD, so that means Acts was completed prior to his trial and execution. Acts cannot be later than around 62 AD. Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, then Luke must have been written prior to that. And since Luke incorporates parts of the Gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even earlier. If you allow a year for each of those, you end up with Mark being no later than 60 AD and possibly even the late 50’s.

The Gospel of Matthew is the gospel to the “Jews”. It contains more references to the Old Testament than any of the other Gospels including John. A major theme of Matthew is that Jesus fullfilled the Old Testament Prophecies that referred to the Jewish Messiah. This is not something that would have been of major interest to Gentiles. Also the early church fathers testified that Matthew was the first Gospel written, not Mark, and increasing numbers of scholars today are coming to that view. It contains an account of the Last Supper.

None of the Gospels was meant to be an exhaustive account. The testimony of the early church fathers was that they were not complete accounts. The author of John specifically says so, (21:25) “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” The fact that John doesn’t mention the Last Supper doesn’t prove anything. He doesn’t mention many other things that the other Gospels mention.

Your entire hypothesis is based on a rather debatable dating of the Gospels.

One can determine that this was symbolic can be determined by the historical evidence. The early Christians were frequently charged (by pagans) with being cannibals because of the Last Supper. The Roman officials (also pagans) after investigating, consistently dismissed these charges as unfounded, understanding the ritual as being symbolic. The Christians were prosecuted for refusing to sacrifice to Ceasar.

If you understand the Passover feast and the blood of the unblemished lamb on the door post causing God’s judgement to passover the Jews, then you understand that the symbolism of the Last Supper would not have caused a Jew much concern. There is no record of any of the contemporary Jews having any issue with the Last Supper being blasphemous or even objectionable. They had objections, but this wasn’t one of them.

You need to provide historical evidence for these statements, otherwise they represent nothing more than unsubstantiated speculations. You’re quoting Acts as evidence for a dispute, but then you question the accuracy of Acts. You use the Gospels as evidence, but then you claim the Gospels are corrupted. You say that Paul is referred to as the “Spouter of Lies” in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the beast in Revelation, but you offer no historical evidence that this was the authors intent. If no further evidence is required, I could say that it refers to Hitler.

4

You can argue about the merits of the peripheral evidence. Yes, the dates of the gospels are in dispute, but the dates I listed are the ones most commonly arrived at by liberal and conservative scholars. In any case, Paul’s letter(s) almost certainly preceded them.

My entire hypothesis is not based on the dating of the Gospels,but on this statement which stands on its own and is indisputable:
The consumption of blood of any kind, much less human blood, or human flesh, symbolic or otherwise, would have been blasphemous cannibalism to any Jew, especially to an aesthetic Jew like Jesus.

I’m certainly not arguing that there wasn’t a Passover meal, or that Jesus may even have said to remember him when you eat and drink. It’s the pagan association of the Greek name that Paul gave the ritual and its association with the consumption of Jesus’ symbolic flesh and blood which Paul claims to have received from Jesus in the Corinthians passage.

Show-Me,
Relating the events surrounding Paul at the end of Acts, even if we were sure when they occurred, doesn’t mean it was written then. Some internal evidence causes some to believe that it wasn’t written until the 2nd century. I don’t agree with that either, but Corinthians was all but certainly written before it, but it doesn’t affect the core argument given above and the other substantial evidence supporting it.

I certainly won’t argue that Matthew has the most OT references, but John displays a greater intimacy with Jewish tradition and attitud. It’s the complete lack of any mention of what could easily be called the defining Christian ritual, and it’s even later and less disputed dating of 90-100 (much later than the synoptics in any case), has to be accounted for.

Putting the blood of the lamb on the door certainly does not equate with drinking it.

If you’re interested in the sources for Paul being the “spouter of lies” and the “beast”, neither of which I presented as absolute arguments, I refer you to James the Brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman, and the modern Ebionites, respectively.

You wrote: “There is no record of any of the contemporary Jews having any issue with the Last Supper being blasphemous or even objectionable. They had objections, but this wasn’t one of them.”

Ask any Jew if consuming blood of any kind, symbolically or otherwise, would ever have been considered anything but objectionable. This is Old Testament stuff.

Also: “One can determine that this was symbolic by the historical evidence. The early Christians were frequently charged (by pagans) with being cannibals because of the Last Supper.”

I would need see that historical evidence. The first question that arises right away is when that happened, and it any case, it could easily have been the Gentile Christians that were being accused. When the word pagan is used, it is a general reference to the official pagan religion of the Roman Empire, or can be a specific reference to the practitioners of “mystery” religions. I think generally, many Romans considered what we now call pagan mythology as irrelevant, but kept it to themselves.

Uccisore,
I don’t dispute that Paul was scolding the Corinthians for abusing the ritual. In fact that could well have been the reason he was inspired to make this blasphemous (to a Jew) equivalence, so they would treat it more reverently.

How could “this is my body” and “this is my blood” be anything but ritual symbolic cannibalism? This tradition is so ancient and accepted to us now, we have a hard time seeing it for what it was back then.

5

Sorry, but I’ve got to dispute it.

There’s a story about Jesus and/or his followers eating something inappropriate on the sabbath. Jesus was called out on it, and he said something to the effect of: “What goes in one’s mouth does not make one evil, but rather what comes out of it.” One of the Biblical types will have to help me out with that, but I think I got the general gist of it.

That’s not to say there aren’t problems with the Eucharist, but Jesus was hardly a typical Jew, so I don’t know that you can make that specific argument.

Edit: Here it is. 1-20.

6

No hint? Maybe you’re just not getting the hint for some reason. It seems more like a club over the head than a hint to me:

The Gospel of John Chapter 6:

53 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.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

7

All I can say is that this is just a self-contradiction within the book of John, and thus the result of two authors/editors. Why would it say this and then ignore Jesus giving it his authority in the passage with the Last Supper?

(Strange position for anarchist and/or Satanist to take. Oh yeah right, stir the pot.)

I believe Jesus (who was a man after all and thus prone to error himself) was referring only to the sprint in which something is consumed. Idolatry vs. hunger.

No, Jesus wasn’t a typical Jew, he was a very ascetic one meaning one who goes well beyond the call of duty in his strict adherence to the law. “I come not to change the law but fulfill it”.

8

Lol…no no, I just call 'em like I see 'em. I don’t like anyone getting away with anything, even if I mostly agree with them.

The story is about Jesus letting his followers break the law…explain that? I don’t get your idolatry vs. hunger thing.

I’m not an anarchist or a satanist. I probably appear that way a lot of the time, though :slight_smile:

9

You stated that there is no hint in The Gospel of John about the Eucharist wherein the Christians symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. I pointed to verses in The Gospel of John wherein Christ endorses eating and drinking his blood symbolically thus proving that you were wrong.

Faced with clear evidence that you were wrong, you now assert that this is “a self contradiction within the book of John.” There is no contradiction in The Gospel of John. Rather, the Gospel of John contradicts your assertion that there is no hint about the Eucharist in it.

Now, you assert that there must be two authors/editors of the Gospel of John. However, you offer no evidence to support this contension. A simpler explanation is that you were mistaken in the first place.

“Why would it say this and then ignore Jesus giving it his authority in the passage with the Last Supper?” Because it was a painful memory that John didn’t want to talk about? Because John fell asleep at the supper and didn’t hear Jesus say it? Because John had already recounted one of Jesus’ earlier discussions of Eucharist symbolism in chapter six and he did not wish to be redundant? My point is: I don’t know and neither do you. But we do know that in The Gospel of John, Jesus endorses the symbolism of the Eucharist in no uncertain terms.

10

Breaking dietary law to stave off hunger is one thing, but the attitude behind the consumption of blood is idolatrous. Paul was criticized by James’ Jerusalem Jewish-Christian Church for eating food sacrificed to idols. I say criticized, but they appeared to have wanted him dead for such corruption of the law.

Your avatar for starters.

Don’t you find it odd that such a reference was inserted so out of place in John, rather than in the narration of the Last Supper where it should logically have been found? Jesus saying it there is what’s supposed to give it its authority.

No need to be redundant, just put it where it belonged in the first place.

Look at this entry on John from Wikipedia:

I’m not suggesting this is the last word on John, only a likely possibility. Whatever the questions about any of the Gospels (and there are many questions about books this old and written under such questionable authorship and subsequent redaction–John was even 60 to 70 years after the fact) the fact still remains that it would have been a blasphemous, idolatrous act; one that Jesus would never have even considered, but which Paul shows he had little problem with. If you insist that Jesus would have done so, then that would be damning evidence against Jesus himself.

11

Finding it odd is different than having evidence to support your assertions.

I suppose you would have writen the gospel is differently, but then you didn’t write it, so your comment is irrelevant.

You and Raymond Brown are just guessing. That Jesus “would have” considered something in some way is not “a fact” but conjecture on your part. It is your theory about how things were circa 2000 years ago based on limited evidence and therefore a questionable opinion.

Your approach would be far more palatable (no pun intended) if you had qualified your assertions by acknowledging them to be what they are i.e. a theory about what might have been. But by claiming that supposition is fact you have overreached.

12

Ah, that. I forget that I have that sometimes. I actually like that it confuses people.

There was no issue for Jesus asking them to be idolatrous; he and they (thought he) was god, therefore worshipping him was no different than worshipping god. If you want to accuse them of idol worship, you have to attack the trinity. While I think the trinity is ludicrous, you’re gonna have a helluva time convincing christians of that.

13

Ah, confusion, the #1 tool of the anarchist.

They didn’t think he was God, that was another Paulism. And even Paul didn’t have the balls to come up with the Trinity. That was 300+ years later.

I’m not really trying to convince Christians of anything (except the rare occasional one, such as what I used to be). I stopped beating my head against that brick wall years ago. I’m just trying to offer a reasonable alternative to those hiding in the shadows and who don’t know what to think about the mystical, supernatural “revealed” religion they’ve inherited.

14

That’s a joke, right?

15

No no no, That’s a joke, right?

16

I could ask again, but I’ll just ask this: did you read the quote about the Rush album? The picture is of ‘Starman’, a Rush symbol.

It’s like the androgenous Led Zep angel.

17

You said that you like that it actually confuses people.

How does the Rush connection change the subject? Their’s is a neopagan/wiccan pentagram similar to and using elements of:

The Satanic pentagram

and the anarchy symbol

There is a parallel here. Taking a guitar and associating it’s music with these pagan symbols is almost exactly what Paul did–he took the Passover Seder and associated it with the pagan ritual of the consumption of the human flesh and blood of Jesus, who he transformed into a pagan god. Paul left it for later generations to come up with the three from one slight of hand.

This can all seem trivial to us, but millions have died just denying the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus, and even today it leads billions to think with their emotions rather than their brain. What was Rush’s intent? You’d probably have to be one of them to know for sure. I guess it would be pushing the limits of all this to point out that there are 3 Rush members. #-o

18

Rush’s intent wasn’t anarchy or devil worship. Music has long been associated with paganism and devil worship anyway; it didn’t need Rush’s help.

Really, Neil just liked Ayn Rand and wanted to tell a story inspired by Anthem (which is somewhat ironic because their song of the same name doesn’t appear on 2112). They’ve never expressed any desire to overthrow the government, and to my knowledge, neither has Ayn Rand. Her novels may have protagonists with anarchal aims, but they live in societies that exaggerate the problems of the society Ms. Rand was living in to the point of being distopian. She wanted reform, to be sure, but in reality I don’t think she was much of an anarchist.

If they’re making a point, Rush always seems to have a message more for individuality than against society, especially in their earlier stuff:

Neil Peart certainly doesn’t have a lot of nice things to say about religion, but he isn’t a satanist. He may be atheist (I’m actually not sure, but I would think he is), but he is a very spiritual person. Listen to their last two albums. The better of the two is their last, which is one of their best.

Yes. Yes it would.

Rush didn’t start with the current three members. Their original drummer left the band for personal reasons. Then, 2112 was their fourth album as a band, and their third with Neil Peart. So it’s not like they planned out some parallel to christianity to prove a point on an album and then kept it up for thirty years. They just like each other and don’t (usually) don’t need other musicians.

Although, Rush is God, so this is the best argument I’ve ever seen for a trinity. Divinity in three persons: bassist, drummer, and guitarist. I think I’m going to make a cross with “YYZ” inscribed across the top instead of “INRI”.

19

Hi TPT,

I find it very interesting that people who dispute the Gospels and quote other critical sources don’t manage to grasp the probability that the Rites and the Rituals preceded the explanations for them, which were given in the Gospels. A symbolic act in which spilled blood is mentioned, especially in remembrance of someone who was put to death, doesn’t constitute cannibalism and the second step of internalising the experience by eating and drinking in memory is something not untypical in the case of martyrs.

The terminology may be unusual but the word for blood and juice is the same in Aramaic. It also means wine, sap and essence. The body that is symbolised in the bread has a lot of connotations in Aramaic and Hebrew, but it is the dead body or the corpse which, like the stones of the temple, does not constitute a sanctuary of God that can be pulled down or killed, but one that continues in and among the followers. This means that the Eucharist is invoking remembrance whenever Christians drink wine and bread is eaten, whether as the Eucharist celebration or not, and when Christ is remembered, then not as the corpse with blood spilled into the ground, but as alive and abounding in and amongst his followers.

Shalom

20

It isn’t just mentioned, it is consumed and that is symbolic cannibalism. I’ve not only grasped the probability but I’ve said it several different ways that whatever happened originally was indeed probably a Seder meal, and that Jesus could well have asked that they remember him at Passovers in the future or even whenever they eat and drink. Such “eating and drinking in memory” doesn’t require the profane transubstantiation of food and drink into flesh and blood, especially for Jews. That is the critical point here and it’s something that gentiles have a hard time understanding because we grew up with it as an unquestioned practice that is an act of honor and worship. How could that be bad?

Appealing to translation weakens any argument because of the lack of consistent Biblical authority. In fact, if you are right, it’s just evidence that Paul changed the Aramaic wine, sap, juice or whatever to the Greek for blood.

Anthem quoted:
[i]Live for yourself – theres no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will
Only cry out for more

Well, I know they’ve always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, I
Came to write this song[/i]

I like those lyrics a lot and I’m a fan of Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged is one of the greatest novels of all time, and bears a warning which we’ve progressively ignored since it was published in '57.

All I’m saying about the 2112 symbols is that there must have been something there for them to use them with their high degree of similarity to the ones I’ve mentioned. I believe that was done 10 years after they started, and a lot can happen in that time, and they/he might have even been going through a phase. Look at how much the Beatles changed and in considerably less than 10 years. Lennon becomes a Commie (Imagine…my ass.)

But to bring this full circle, it was your use of the pentagram and your devilish (impish?) pleasure at causing confusion that started all this. I think it’s a very telling comment, but I admit I’m not sure of your motivation. Someone who likes Ayn Rand can’t be all bad, even if she was an atheist. (FYI, I contend that atheism and deism are the only two reasonable positions on the existence of God, and that they must both be hyphenated with agnosticism. The only difference between the two is hope.)