Freethought & Rationalism Archive

storytime · 12-27-2009, 01:59 AM

Maybe it was a pledge of allegiance to their cause. A new sect within Judaism purposed to overthrow the Pharisees whom Jesus saw as children of the devil.

Life of the sect was in the blood - new wine not to be put in old wineskins. "Leave the dead to bury the dead" while expanding the life of Christ in predetermined anointed priests as given in OT policy and procedures for Israel.

Steven Carr · 12-27-2009, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It really is an unlikely thing that Jesus knew that he was going to die. A more likely hypothesis is that the Last Supper story is mere myth, to coincide with the Christian interest in believing that Jesus' own death was anticipated and/or intentional. The purpose of the myth seems to be to establish a ritual, to eat bread and drink wine, symbolically representing the blood and body of Christ, in "remembrance" of Jesus, just as the myth according to Paul has it. That is the explanation that is given by the religion, and it seems to make enough sense. If it didn't make sense, then we would need to find another explanation.

And yet 1 Corinthians 11 is regularly proposed as an obvious refutation of a mythical Jesus.

neilgodfrey · 12-27-2009, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The meal seems to have been for the benefit of those who would come to know Christ. It would also ensure that His disciples continued to meet regularly and support each other in difficult times.

A meal instituted to ensure they would support each other in difficult times? Like within hours of washing up the dishes and when their leader was arrested they would run off and support each other behind closed doors?

rhutchin · 12-27-2009, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It really is an unlikely thing that Jesus knew that he was going to die.

Within the context of that which we read in the Bible, Jesus is described as knowing that he was going to die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

A more likely hypothesis is that the Last Supper story is mere myth, to coincide with the Christian interest in believing that Jesus' own death was anticipated and/or intentional. The purpose of the myth seems to be to establish a ritual, to eat bread and drink wine, symbolically representing the blood and body of Christ, in "remembrance" of Jesus, just as the myth according to Paul has it. That is the explanation that is given by the religion, and it seems to make enough sense. If it didn't make sense, then we would need to find another explanation.

Sure, if you discount what the Bible says, you can speculate in any direction you want. But if you discount the Bible, then there is nothing to discuss, as everything of significance that we know is taken from the Bible. Why not just prove that the Bible is myth and settle the issue.

rhutchin · 12-27-2009, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Jesus himself never actually claimed to be the Messiah, nor the son of God, nor God, in the earliest traditions...

The Jews thought different.

John 10
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.

rhutchin · 12-27-2009, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

According to Bart Ehrman 'A lot of scholars question whether 1 Cor. 11 contains the actual words of Jesus at his last meal.'

Nothing requires that they be the "actual," verbatim words that Jesus spoke. Paul could paraphrase. There would be nothing wrong with that. However, in context with the passage, these appear to be the exact words that Jesus spoke. There is nothing that prevents Jesus from having said these words despite what some scholars might want to believe.

rhutchin · 12-27-2009, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The meal seems to have been for the benefit of those who would come to know Christ. It would also ensure that His disciples continued to meet regularly and support each other in difficult times.

...

And they did meet after his death, according to the Gospels. They all went off fishing together :-)

From what we read in the Bible, they were meeting together. Their fishing activities may have continued until their experience on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

neilgodfrey · 12-27-2009, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

...

And they did meet after his death, according to the Gospels. They all went off fishing together :-)

From what we read in the Bible, they were meeting together. Their fishing activities may have continued until their experience on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

So Jesus commanded them to stay in Jerusalem until they were given power from above (Luke 24:49) but the rascals sometimes sneaked out to go fishing.

Steven Carr · 12-27-2009, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

According to Bart Ehrman 'A lot of scholars question whether 1 Cor. 11 contains the actual words of Jesus at his last meal.'

Nothing requires that they be the "actual," verbatim words that Jesus spoke. Paul could paraphrase. There would be nothing wrong with that. However, in context with the passage, these appear to be the exact words that Jesus spoke. There is nothing that prevents Jesus from having said these words despite what some scholars might want to believe.

All you need is evidence that Jesus knew he was going to be killed soon, and knew the movement would continue after his death, and knew the movement would need his body and blood so they could remember who he was.

ApostateAbe · 12-27-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Jesus himself never actually claimed to be the Messiah, nor the son of God, nor God, in the earliest traditions...

The Jews thought different.

John 10
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.

Such views are not contained in the earliest gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke). John is the latest of the four, containing an especially messianic and godly Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-27-2009, 01:59 AM	#11
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	Maybe it was a pledge of allegiance to their cause. A new sect within Judaism purposed to overthrow the Pharisees whom Jesus saw as children of the devil. Life of the sect was in the blood - new wine not to be put in old wineskins. "Leave the dead to bury the dead" while expanding the life of Christ in predetermined anointed priests as given in OT policy and procedures for Israel.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.