Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-06-2008, 11:24 PM

John 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.

In the fifth century, the bishop Cyril discloses that Nestorius reports the following public opinion in regard to this teaching in John, that in fact people were thinking the words introduced the notion of cannibalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NESTORIUS

"I will speak the words too of offence.

Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ
discoursing to them;

Except ye eat, He says,
the Flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His Blood,
ye have no Life in you:

the hearers endured not the loftiness
of what was said,
they imagined of their unlearning
that He was bringing in cannibalism."

It seems clear to me that the pagans were having a cheap shot at the interpetation of the holy constantine canon, and that Nestorius was making a report of this indiscretion on the part of these heathens.

If that were all there was, it might go unremarked, but lo and behold we have one of the apocryphal Acts being written in which the brave christian Apostles actually have to travel to a land of cannibals ...

From the apocrypha the Acts of Andrew and Matthias (Matthew)

Quote:

From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

At that time all the apostles were gathered together
and divided the countries among themselves, casting lots.
And it fell to Matthias to go to the land of the anthropophagi (cannibals)

Now the men of that city ate no bread nor drank wine,
but ate the flesh and drank the blood of men;
and every stranger who landed there they took,
and put out his eyes, and gave him a magic drink
which took away his understanding.

So what did the authodox think of this?

Quote:

Glenn Davis - Acts of Andrew

The oldest direct mention of the Acts of Andrew
is by Eusebius who lists it among the writings
that are written by heretics and are absurd and impious.
The Coptic Papyrus Utrecht I, which contains a translation
of a section from the Acts of Andrew, confirms that it was
known in Egypt in the 4th century
(the papyrus is dated to this period).

Of course we all knew without any shadow of doubt that our man Jesus H was not on this planet to advocate cannibalism, and yet here we have an entire alternative series of historical citations to such expressed opinion.

What was actually going on in the fourth century? Surely public opinion was in overdrive against christian authodoxy. Is all this a coincidence?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.