• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did the Disciples Eat Jesus?

Really? It doesn't show.

That's fine. God hasn't instructed me to show off, so I'm okay with that. Now, with all due respect, unless you have a meaningful contribution to the discussion, can you maintain your composure and refrain from distracting the conversation with insignificant remarks? Thank you.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
That's fine. God hasn't instructed me to show off, so I'm okay with that. Now, with all due respect, unless you have a meaningful contribution to the discussion, can you maintain your composure and refrain from distracting the conversation with insignificant remarks? Thank you.
Sorry. Had I known that God instructed you to label the storied disciples cannibals I would have taken your contribution far more serious (if not more meaningful).
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Jesus said, "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,"

I believe they followed his command.

What do you think?
So your just going to skip the part about referring to wine and bread, symbolically? There was a cup of wine involved, and a passing of bread of life.
 
Sorry. Had I known that God instructed you to label the storied disciples cannibals

Show me where I did that. Where did I say that the Disciples of Jesus were cannibals? Print the quote. When you discover that you cannot do that, then, my friend, you can just drag your knuckles out of this discussion.

So your just going to skip the part about referring to wine and bread, symbolically? There was a cup of wine involved, and a passing of bread of life.

That was already covdered; I guess you overlooked it or missed it completely. I believe I may have even mentioned twice in this disccusion that in the verses prior to the main scripture containing his commandment to the disciples, he had been addressing the crowd in parable mode, but then, you see he cut to the chase and made himself verily, verily crystal clear,
 
It occurred to me tha tin order for an ACCEPTABLE sacrifice to be made unto God as was in accordance with Jewish law, the sacrifice must have first been living, not dead. So why does mainstream teaching dictate that Jesus died on the cross when he did not? None of the canonical gospels even say that he died on the cross. Let's take a look at the Roman crucifixion scene....

The Romans killed jesus, not the jews. Cruel and ruthless imperialists crucified anyone who rebelled against their rule. Crucifixion was meant to be death by asphyxiation. Christianity grew out of judaism, but was developed in the Roman world and implemented as the state religion, so bear in mind that christians and jews were both being wiped out by the Romans. The canonical gospels offer stories of what the first eyewitnesses actually saw, and they do all agree that the man called jesus hung on a cross and female disciples were there; Mary Magdalene is named constantly in each (Mark 15:37-41, Matthew 27:50-56, Luke 23:46-49, John 19:25-30).

First and foremost, it is very important that you understand that he was not on the cross long enough to die ~ only three hours, an insignificant fraction of the length of time that death by crucifixion took. Death by Roman crucifixion was meant to be a painful and prolonged form of state-sanctioned execution that was reserved for thieves and rebels. He was very-much alive when Joseph of Arimathea put him in the tomb, and the man called jesus was not dead when the stone was rolled in front of the tomb. I'll tell you why.

Remember, two other criminals hung with him on that same day and they were both very alive when they were taken down from their respective crosses. So what makes you think that a Master healer of the Human body and reknown performer of many great and spectacular miracles could not bear in his mind and body far beyond what those two ordinary criminals did? Also important to note is that the Roman soldiers only considered breaking his legs at the end of the day, but they didn't break them. They broke the legs of the other two criminals who were hung with him on the same day, didn't they? Do you know why? Because they were alive TOO! Again, I point out that death by crucifixion was A PROLONGED PROCESS, and it being the eve of the sabbath, their legs were broken as the Roman soldiers' cruel means to ensure that they would not be able to escape from where their bodies were buried, and thus would slowly starve or bleed to death while abandoned in their graves.

Jesus' legs were not broken because the Roman soldiers THOUGHT he was dead because he appeared to them to be dead due to his superconscious state, but they, too, missed the mark in their assumption. All the Roman soldier did to him was stab him in the side with his dagger. Big deal. The text says when he was stabbed, blood and water (they apparently did not know the scientific term is "plasma," which is a clear fluid in our blood) came out.

I thought it would make sense to bring to your attention that generally speaking, there are a whole bunch of people (and you may even know one or two or perhaps be one yourself) who are walking around today with scars from stab wounds that were inflicted on them in their past, even in their sides. So it is very, verily reasonable to say that it was not a stab that killed him at all.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Jesus said, "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,"

I believe they followed his command.

What do you think?

It doesn't matter what we think. God's word is what matters. If you had read a few verses down you would have answered your own question.

61Aware that His disciples were grumbling about this teaching, Jesus asked them,“Does this offend you? 62Then what will happen if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?

63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64However, there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus was speaking spiritually, as He says in the verses above.
 
Sorry. Had I known that God instructed you to label the storied disciples cannibals I would have taken your contribution far more serious (if not more meaningful).
Show me where I did that. Where did I say that the Disciples of Jesus were cannibals? Print the quote.

*tick, tock, tick tock...*

**moderator edit**

Although the disciples of Jesus were from various backgrounds, those of them who were the traditional beliefs of Israel were devout followers of a particular diet they held as sacred law. However, in obeying the great command of their Messiah, they wound up violating the laws traditionally practiced by them and their ancestors, so Jesus became their redemption by becoming the required sacrifice, the lamb of God, so that they could continue to follow the will of the God of their understanding as set forth in Leviticus. If Understanding that, if my customary diet regularly consists of eating meat with my meals and someone I highly respect and honor told me to eat a salad for lunch tomorrow because it would be highly beneficial to me, so I trust in that promise, deviate from my normal burger for lunch and just eat a salad instead so I can reap those benefits, then go back to my regular diet of meat with meals, does that mean I am a vegan?

It doesn't matter what we think. God's word is what matters.

Agreed. That is why it is so important to read The Word with understanding.

If you had read a few verses down you would have answered your own question.

My question (as you quoted) was, "What do you think?" My extrasensory perception might not function so well as others, so how could I know what you think? Therefore, how could I answer my own question?

63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64However, there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus was speaking spiritually, as He says in the verses above.

Not so. Before you read this, bear in mind that the following text from the 6th chapter of the gospel according to john transpired before the Passover feast known as "the last supper" ~ waaaay before:

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.

On a re-read of that verse, two important things he said there jumped out at me. The first to catch my eye was "son of man" and the next was "Verily, verily."

1. "Son of man" is who he referred to himself as ~ not son of god, ever. HE knew who he was.

2. When the man called Jesus said anywhere, "Verily" it meant "Truly." It meant that he was about to say something important. When, however, you see "Verily, verily," whatever came behind that was to be paid undivided attention to. A modern-day translation of "Verily, verily" might be something like, "Listen up for your own good, I kid you not, or you may face consequences..." Whatever followed "Verily, verily" was sure to be seriously profound and taken literally.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.<p> </p>55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.<p> </p>56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.<p> </p>57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.\\

upload_2016-6-12_1-29-57.png


*recovers*

You should be aware that in the verses prior to that, he had been addressing the crowd in parable mode, but then, you see he cut to the chase and made himself verily, verily crystal clear.

Again, what strikes me is that he said all that BEFORE the Passover observance commonly referred to as the "last supper." Long before. Of how much time elapsed between the two events, I am uncertain. The Passover incident was merely a reminder and a full practice-run for the disciples of what they were expected by him to do: eat his flesh and drink his blood.

So, it is obvious that he concisely made himself perfectly clear and we do especially get this point when we continue in our reading...:

upload_2016-6-12_1-32-6.png


60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

Well yes, wouldn't *you* be offended at first if you were just informed that you were required to eat your loved one and drink their blood?

An appropriate Commercial Break: "So You've Decided to Eat Your Loved Ones" video....

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Note that there, again, he referred to himself as the son of man (not son of god). That portion of the 6th chapter of john contains popularly misinterpreted text that clearly requires no special interpretation in the first place. Here is what I mean: "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" The question is obviously referring to his predetermined plan to appear to the disciples in astral form, which I will give a little more detail about in Chapter 10. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." As I said earlier, he understood the mechanics of the Human body and he knew the process involved in deliberate Out Of Body Experiences (explained earlier)

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

It now lines up and makes sense when you see clearly how this piece fits into the age-old puzzle. After coming to understand that in order to receive what the man called Jesus had to offer, they would have to first eat his flesh and drink his blood, many *would* opt out of that plan, leave and stop following him. It weeded out the superficial and thin-skinned disciples from his die-hard friends-to-the-end, as it is written that after he said that, the number of disciples he wound up talking to had diminished to 12 when he started with "many" (hundreds). It was those remaining ones who sacrificed him, ate his flesh, drank his blood and "acted with power" when the pentecost occurred, who indeed are as alive today as he is through biblical text of the new testament and who will live as long as those texts are referenced by the masses.

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

PETER proclaimed that the people thought he was the son of god, even though the man called jesus never said that, only referring to himself ever as the son of MAN, and if you observe carefully, you will note it was always only PETER who piped up calling him the son of god.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

First Baseman

Retired athlete
You're trying to make the scripture complicated when it is straight forward and direct. Stop trying to read things in that aren't there.

I'm not interested in your commentary. Jesus said what He said. Did He ever cut off His skin and feed it to anyone? Did He ever drain His blood into a person's mouth? Please don't be silly.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
I find no humor in your silly question. Shall I ask you one and poke fun at some silly tradition practiced in your country? I shall not.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
@Sister Cyber, an anonymous Gospel likely penned over half a century after the purported crucifixion carries absolutely zero weight with me. I grant it neither theological relevancy nor historical accuracy.

Oh, and by the way, purposely quoting me out of context is dishonest.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
That was already covdered; I guess you overlooked it or missed it completely. I believe I may have even mentioned twice in this disccusion that in the verses prior to the main scripture containing his commandment to the disciples, he had been addressing the crowd in parable mode, but then, you see he cut to the chase and made himself verily, verily crystal clear,
Great but your not backing away from referring to it as a cannibalistic ritual or did I miss that too.
 
Did He ever cut off His skin and feed it to anyone? Did He ever drain His blood into a person's mouth?

The closest stories that would answer this in the canonical bible adopted for the masses are as they relate to the last supper before THE LAST supper - the story about the last Passover jesus shared with his disciples, and I combed through that story in finite detail on Page 3 of this discussion (see Jun 1, 2016, Post #52).

Was the chocolate Easter Bunny a real Bunny ?.

Perhaps. Funny you should ask, because it was actually in March 2010 when I was involved in a discussion about the christian religious belief system, when I stumbled upon an amazing discovery that has been in biblical text all along, but which has been somewhat misleadingly taught to and by many, I would say more out of ignorance from traditional teachings than from deliberately masking truth, although a little of both are involved.

Easter was fast approaching; it was only a few short days away, on April 4, 2010, the first Sunday, when followers of the christian religious belief system customarily carry out the traditional cannibalistic ritual practice of eating flesh and drinking blood. It is a time when many christians celebrate what they were taught to believe about the idea that a man called Jesus was raised from the dead after being crucified.

The fable of the resurrection of the man called Jesus is the foundational core of the christian religious belief system, but there are some issues.

~ For one, all of the tales that were told about the empty tomb or the resurrection appearance are different from each other.

~ The early christians readily admitted that the onlywitnesses were the disciples of the man called jesus (Acts 10:41)

~ Early christians also made no bones about the fact that christian belief depends on a tall tale and the shaky testimonies (1 corinthians 1:18-24, john 20:29)

There are also other things to be considered.

~ It is traced to many eyewitnesses. For instance, paul purported more than 515 eyewitnesses (1 corinthians 15:3-8)

~ The tales are embarrassing, considering, for example, the divergent stories, plus women as witnesses.

The name Easter, which is used in English-speaking and German-speaking countries, is taken from the pre-christian (pagan) Spring festival for Eostur, the Anglo-Saxon Goddess of the Dawn, and is celebrated on or after the first full moon

an anonymous Gospel likely penned over half a century after the purported crucifixion carries absolutely zero weight with me

To which "anonymous Gospel" were you referring?

Great but your not backing away from referring to it as a cannibalistic ritual or did I miss that too.

I'm unaware of whether you may have missed it or just misunderstood.

To be clear, what the majority of believers in the christian/catholic religious belief systems practice typically on a monthly basis might be referred to as a cannibalistic ritual, except if they're eating wafer disks and drinking shots of grapejuice they're missing the mark. To be clear, as I pointed out to Jayhawker Soule yesterday, the disciples, as devout and dedicated followers of the jewish religious belief system (of course not the gentile disciples...) were very careful to regularly follow sacred laws for eating and diet as defined in Leviticus, but one day they deviated from that law in obedience to the command of their Messiah; after THE LAST Supper when Jesus was sacrificed, there is no insinuated record that I have read in the bible that the disciples ever repeated a cannibalistic act. To be clear, what the disciples did would be like if I regularly eat meat with my meals but today I had a salad for lunch. Does that make me a vegan?

Something you should understand, my friends, is that the truth will make you free. But mainstream teaching is not truthful. Truth is right there in the scriptures we can read for ourselves, if we can manage to do that without adding to or taking away from The Word in order to soothe our sensitivities. If truth were to become mainstream teaching instead of imagined interpretations and the mix and match patchwork of non-related scriptures, I agree that it would be hard to swallow (pun intended).

Knowing truth, I can truly honor Jesus, and I am truly free.

If the bible is true, then the truth is that the disciples ate Jesus, I understand why, and I respect their deep devotion to their friend and Messiahn.

I honestly do not imagine that it had to be a gory mess either, although I do admit to being puzzled by the christian's proclaimed desire to be covered with and/or washed in blood.

upload_2016-6-13_1-48-44.png


Old Schoolers might recognize this photo of "Carrie" covered in blood at her prom in the 1976 movie. Does Carrie look clean to you?

upload_2016-6-13_1-51-22.png
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
If the bible is true, then the truth is that the disciples ate Jesus, I understand why, and I respect their deep devotion to their friend and Messiahn.
So you continue to miss the whole metaphor part. Nobody ate anyone. It was a cup of wine and bread.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
The closest stories that would answer this in the canonical bible adopted for the masses are as they relate to the last supper before THE LAST supper - the story about the last Passover jesus shared with his disciples, and I combed through that story in finite detail on Page 3 of this discussion (see Jun 1, 2016, Post #52).

The canonical Bible is the only Bible. The rest are the works of those who serve Satan.

Your commentary is unnecessary. Thank you.
 
So you continue to miss the whole metaphor part. Nobody ate anyone. It was a cup of wine and bread.

f the bible is true, then the truth is that the disciples ate Jesus. I didn't write the Book of Truth, just sharing what's in it by rightly dividing it.

The canonical Bible is the only Bible.

Only in the religious bhelief system that you were taught to follow.

The rest are the works of those who serve Satan.

Not so. The disciples of Jesus wrote books that the Council of Nicea decided not to include in the canon in order to hide truths that would intrudde upon the goal to mainstream in order to maintain control of the masses.

Check out the Books of Adam and Eve...



The Book of Enoch would no doubt ruffle many feathers and introduce confusion to mainstream teachings...


And the Gospel of Mary Magdalene would throw trained christian minds into a frenzy.

Now why would the government want that? After all, religion is sanctioned by the government as a vehicle to control the masses.
 
Top