SLD

I recall reading on these boards that while Graves' book as a whole has many many flaws, that the selection posted on II was not flawed (at least not much if at all). If not, I stand corrected.

As to Cicero's quote, there have been quite a few discussions here in the past, and I have never seen a significantly different translation than the one given by Graves. The Justin Marty quote (blaming the previous Eucharist on the devil, right? or is it claiming that Christian rites were no different than other pagan cult rites?) either way it is a great quote, but it antedates Christianity. I've always personally liked Cicero's quote, though - it shows that there was a debate about the "meaning" of the Eucharist even before Jesus came around. It seems that the debate has not stopped.

JTurtle

I did take the time to read all of the post's. So I do not know if anyone has mentioned the fact that Jesus saying "this is my body....this is my blood" is not to be taken as literal. It is clearly symbolic. So incase no one mentioned that let me restate it, this is SYMBOLIC. Obviously the bread is not Jesus' actual body, it's BREAD! The same goes for the wine/welche's grape juice(or whatever the church may use), it is not actually Jesus' blood, it's just juice!

In Matthew 26:28 Jesus says how this is his blood and we must drink of it. However, we must read on to the next verse an take this in it's context. In Matthew 26:29 Jesus goes on to say, "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until the day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." Jesus clearly states that the beverage in question is wine, not blood. It is a symbol, and a reminder of what Jesus did for us.

Jonathan

Toto

All of Graves 16 Crucified Saviors in in the II Library. Some of it may be correct, but it is not a reliable source. It would take a major effort to track down his sources and verify them.

rlogan

Hmmm...

Sounds like another book I hear a lot about


You know, that a thread on something so basic as this could go for so long is just more evidence as far as I'm concerned.

Would God really send a messenger speaking in riddles, offering baffling and conflicting instructions, suggesting rituals subject to interpretation?

Amaleq13

You are too used to the wide-open spaces. Heaven clearly has limited real estate so certain obstacles must be put in place to prevent overcrowding. That's why Jesus spoke in parables in order to prevent folks from understanding.

JTurtle

Well it's really not that hard for US to understand since Jesus explains most all of his parables. Also, I do not see any conflicting instructions...please show me what you mean.

Jonathan

SLD

Whether it is to be taken symbolically or literally has been debated by Christians for millenia. The early Christians debated it extensively and there are still many, many sects which take it literally. But regardless of symbolism or literalness, the fact remains that the Eucharist is a blatant rip off of pre-Christian mystery cults. As I mentioned earlier, the very debate over its meaning predates Christianity.

SLD

Weltall

For a quick example, read 1 Peter 2:12 and then read Matthew 6:1 and 23:3. How about Mt 6:5 and 1 Tim 2:8? Psalm 14:1 and Mt. 5:22? Maybe you'd care to try Genesis 21:23 and Matthew 5:34? I could go on but these should be enough.

capnkirk

How can one "bastardize" a myth? If there was a Historical Jesus (which is by no means certain), he was certainly an exclusively human conventional Jewish Messiah. The appropriation of his name and historicity by others who reinvented him in the image of a pagan, sacrificial, resurrected savior (complete with a pagan Eucharistic rite) was the "real" bastardizing act.

Chronologically, the first mention of the Eucharist is in Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, written about 55-56 CE, which predates the first gospel by at least a decade. I am prepared to argue that the gospel references to the Eucharist are "ex post facto" redactions by "Xtian" editors trying to bring the gospels into line with Paul's corpus of work. As noted on this thread, there are other references to eucharistic rites that predate Jesus, and those may even have been the source of Paul's inspiration.

capnkirk

For those of you who wish to deny that Xtianity has ever in any meaningful way taken "literally" the significance of blood and body in the eucharistic rite, here is specific and undeniable proof to the contrary. From its beginnings until at least the 1600's, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) upheld the doctrine of "Transubstantiation" which held that during the mass, priests have the power to supernaturally turn the bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Declarations of The Council of Trent, 1564, Pg. 347, #1376.

These excerpts taken directly from published RCC archives should settle the literal/symbolic issue (so far as widespread Xtian practice is concerned). At the same time, I am NOT contending that the RCC still holds this doctrine to be true and correct.
:boohoo: