robto

So why do you think Pliny mentions that the meal is an "ordinary and innocent" one? If there wasn't already some question, why wouldn't he just say "then they eat"?
What makes you think his description of the meal precludes any ritualistic significance?

Amaleq13

You didn't ask about "con/transubstantiation". You asked:
You don't find that idea in Paul.

spin

Umm, cannibalism?


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
In addition to the General evidence of Forgery (Interpolation) of what Paul wrote regarding Galatians 3:19 and presented here:

by another Act of Providence Irenaeus also wrote in the same discussion of how to properly "read" Paul (assuming it's Original):

"And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, "And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ54 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him55 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders."56 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: "And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming." For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle's meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, "the god of this world," but, "God," whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.""

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...ssalonians_2:8

"And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming;"

JW:
Apparently Irenaeus read here "And then shall be revealed the god of this world" presumably in the second century, at the start of this Verse and now it's absent in all extant Manuscripts (as well as UBS). In addition we can see the following Textual variation:

"2.8 [Ἰησοῦς] {C}

The Textus Receptus, with B Dc K 88 614 1739 1881 Byz Lect copbo ms al, omits Ἰησοῦς. On the other hand, the word is present in a wide variety of Greek and versional witnesses (א A D* G P Ψ 33 1241 it vg syrp, h copsa, bo arm eth al). It is difficult to decide whether the word is an addition introduced by pious scribes (vgmss read Ἰησοῦς Χριστός), or was omitted either accidentally (οΚΣΙΣ) or intentionally (to bring the quotation more nearly into accord with Is 11.4). In order to represent the balance of probabilities the Committee decided to retain the word, but to enclose it within square brackets.

{C} {C} The letter {C} indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
B

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York"


JW:
Thus in both examples Irenaeus of Lyons (yes "Lyons") gives us, Galatians 3:19 and 2 Thessalonians 2:8, where Irenaeus claims that the Text of Paul does not mean what the words say, we now only see in all extant Manuscripts the words of Irenaeus' Interpretations of what Paul meant and no longer see what was presumably originally written. Point Doherty!

While we are on the subject of Christian Forgery (Interpolation) here does anyone (including Doherty) know if Doherty cites examples like the above as evidence to doubt the few clear references in extant Paul of a Historical Jesus?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

gstafleu

How so? Here is the passage that started this thread:
So for the wine you may have a point: it is given as an analog to the Covenant. But for the bread he says it is his body. Now we can of course discuss what one's definition of "is" is, but it seems to me that the substantiation here is either con or trans.

Then we have in Mark:
Here the link between the bread and Jesus' body and the wine and his blood is even more explicit. Unless this is a translational misrepresentation?

Perhaps you mean that the Eucharist as celebrated by early Christians did not incorporate these edible bits into the rite? If so, fine, the question still remains: where, in Paul and the gospels, did the idea of bread=body (eat it) and wine=blood (drink it) come from? Can it be derived from anywhere in the OT?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Notoriously difficult, I know.
Just to state clearly what I'm after (also see my reply to Jeffery): in Paul and certainly Mark we see the idea that bread=body of Jesus (either literally or as a representation) and wine=blood. They should be consumed in remembrance of Jesus (this more from Paul than from Mark, but Luke does add the remembrance bit). So where did this idea come from, can we derive it from the OT? Do I conclude correctly from your remarks above that your answer is "I don't know" or perhaps "it cannot be derived from the OT"?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Yes we do, see my replies above to Jeffrey and spin. Whether Paul and the gospels meant that the bread literally turned into Jesus' body or it was just a representation, the body is still being eaten, either literally or in representation.

Gerard Stafleu

spin

I have been arguing that I think the mention of the body and blood are an insertion in Paul. He probably would have found the notion abhorrent as any Jew would (have).

You'll note that Luke has all the body and blood stuff. Luke is a development on Mark.

I earlier argued that the meal in Paul is a Jewish ritual meal stemming from feasts such as unleavened bread, first fruits of corn and grape, etc. The meal was formalised by the time of the Qumran texts. This is the tradition behind the Pauline meal, so body gulping and blood guzzling doesn't fit the context. Paul's Corinthians know nothing about body and blood. They're just competing for the biggest share they can get and so Paul gives them a dusting down. You're coming with the wrong attitude: if you're hungry then think again. This is not about your bodies.

Do you really think that they're hoeing in to the body of christ and slurping his blood? The nice Lucan exposition of the eucharist is out of place in this blood and guts fest.

I turned to non-Hebrew sources as the certain origin of the change from feast to partaking in ritual proxy cannibalism. Merge fertility deities with firstfruits and you have eating the grain god. Hence the mention of Osiris and Serapis and on to John Barleycorn.


spin

Malachi151

I must note that everywhere else in 1 Corinthians that Paul talks about the body of Christ, he says that the individuals make up the body of Christ, or that the church is the body of Christ, so it does seem a little odd that he would mention the body of Christ 4 or 5 times in 1 Cor. and in each time except one he says that the body of Christ is made up of the brothers of the church.

gstafleu

When it comes to the origin of the Eucharist the meal is probably the easy part, in the sense that common meals appear in every culture so that setting a rite in that context is unsurprising. Given the common meals in religious context that you mention for the Hebrew culture you have then provided a rather clear answer for that part of the Eucharist. And indeed "body gulping and blood guzzling" () doesn't fit that tradition per se, it was added at some point. If it was known to Paul one would, given its importance and unusualness (with respect to the past) expect fairly frequent reference to it. If this is the only reference we find in Paul interpolation is indeed indicated.

Yup, that's what I thought. IMHO the myth of Isis and Osiris contains elements that commonly appear as the central part of the origin myths for food plants, much like John Barleycorn. Hence my thread A theme from food-plant origin-myths as an element of the Eucharist.

Thanks for mentioning John Barleycorn BTW, I wasn't aware of him. It is indeed an origin myth much like the ones I mention in the thread above. As an aside, interesting is the indication in the first line of the Burns version that it was the Magi who killed John Barleycorn. Now there is the idea that the three magi stood for the three stars in the belt of Orion. According to the Wikipedia page "[i]n the northern hemisphere Orion is visible in the evening from November to April," in other words in the winter. Guess when the barley dies!

Anyway, we seem to agree on the possible/likely origin outside the OT for an important bit of Christianity. Good. Now on to the next bit!

Gerard Stafleu