Did the Disciples Eat Jesus?

[First Baseman]

The canonical books were acknowledged as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit by men filled with the Holy Spirit while all other books were not. I have no interest in books not inspired by the Spirit of God. These books are designed to lead men away from the truth and that is all they are good for. Best just to burn them.

 

[Sister Cyber]

The canonical books were acknowledged as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit by men filled with the Holy Spirit

Not so. The canonical books were acknowledged by the Nicean Council as what they wanted the people of the new religion formed to be aware of and to follow. Did you know the Book of Enoch used to be in the canon? They took it out because it revealed more than what they wanted the people to be aware of.

while all other books were not.

Says who? A council of men starting a new religion being sanctioned by the government?

I have no interest in books not inspired by the Spirit of God. These books are designed to lead men away from the truth and that is all they are good for.

I used to feel the same way years ago. You know, it doesn't hurt to read books. I bet you'd run out to buy a hot bestseller, or a novel of your liking and you read it without guilt, knowing it's not true if it's fiction, and hopefully being smart enought to discern what may be false in non-fiction books. Just saying, a book is a book, believe it or not, at least you will know the whole story rather than a partial truth that has to be mixed and matched with a patchwork of unrelated scriptures to give the illusion of truth.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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?

I thought they just ate the bread that was supposed to represent his body. Would actually eating him be considered cannibalism, since he's supposed to be a god, so not really human? What about eating a different god, like say, Anubis, who is only half human? Either way, eating god flesh seems a little creepy.

Exactly. All Jesus was saying was to remember him when they eat and drink. Paul converted this (along with a lot else) when he melded the "Christianity" of Jesus' followers with the pagan religion from his hometown, Tarsus, Mithraism. He claimed this cannibalistic rite was received in a vision from Jesus. Why would he need that vision if Jesus had already established the rite to his disciples decades before? Cannibalism, actual or symbolic, was and is blasphemous to any Jew, particularly so since they'd have known that it was a pagan rite. It was just Paul's way of selling his religion to the Romans, particularly the upper class Romans, of which he was one what with his Herodian heritage which provided him with Roman citizenship. The source of that quote in the OP is John, which was certainly influenced by Paul's writing 40-50 years before.

 

[Sister Cyber]

xactly. All Jesus was saying was to remember him when they eat and drink.

That's not what he said.

To my knowlede, the murderous sacrifice of blood to the god of their understanding was required by jewish law to be an unblemished specimen to qualify as an acceptable offering. He most assuredly had miraculously and completely healed with not even a trace of a scaranywhere on his body. That's what Myrrh , aloes and such healing herbs, spices, ointments and balms do, yes? The man who was probably one of the greatest holistic healers the world has yet known expertly tended to his own wounds by treating his body not only on the outside, but also on the inside on a cellular level, and in more ways than one. It was a Master healing fostered by the effects of the herbal baths he soaked in for over a month (at least forty days), combined with the healing properties in what he was consuming during that time, along with his Masterful manipulation of his body's Chi that facilitated his own total and complete healing and miraculously expedient recovery.

You know, my friends, cannibalism is not an unusual fact of life for those from some other cultures. For some, live spiders, ants, roaches, bugs and maggots are delicacies, but you would probably perish the thought of letting certain things you are unfamiliar with consuming cross your lips, and that is understandable. That's why he lost "many" disciples and was left with just twelve, amen? (See john 6:66-67: "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?")

Americans, with the exception of the likes of Hanibal Lector and others, prefer a Western diet consisting of cooked fish, meats of all sorts of animal species like birds (chicken, turkey, quail, duck...), other animals like cows, goats, buffalo, pig..... Understand that Human Beings are a species of animal and realize that there are some cannibal animal species who also eat their own kind. For example, just the other evening I was watching an Animal Planet episode of "Weird, True and Freaky" where the Tasmanian Devil eats all the offspring that don't make it to one of her limited-number of nipples as soon as they're born. There are spiders like the Black Widow that consume other Black Widow spiders, there are insects that consume other insects of their kind, snakes that consume other snakes, fish that consume other fish, birds that consume other birds, wild animals that consume other same wild animals, and people who consume other people. And look at the area of the world where all of those events were said to have taken place. It is an area a hop, skip and a jump near where cannibalism is known even to this day to be a part of the people's culture.

Cannibalism may be seen as a horrific act in our modern world, but the further back in history you go, the less that is the case. In many parts of Africa and Polynesia people only ate those they admired. It was the highest form of respect and honor, and yes, it was a way of quite literally becoming "one" with the person that was revered, to in some way, create a spiritual connection from within in a very literal sense.

For instance, in 1824, Brigadier-General Sir Charles McCarthy was killed fighting the Ashanti. They ate his heart and lined his skull with gold to make it into a ceremonial drinking cup. They did that to honor his bravery as a warrior. It might seem bizarre to our modern sensibilities, but to a more primitive society... nope, not at all in the least bit. Things have changed since then though, and nowadays cannibalism is more often the act of a twisted mind and/or considered taboo.

In the bestseller (urban science-fiction?) book entitled Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein (great book!), it was an honor to grok with each other and to be grokked by others. In Mr. Heinlein's invented Martian language, "grok" literally means "to drink" and figuratively means "to understand," "to love," and "to be one with."

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That's not what he said.

No, not as we have it, but they were all written well after Paul had exerted the influence of his pagan "vision". Again, the rite would have been blasphemy to any Jew, and still is, and why institute the rite that Jesus supposedly established in a new "vision". The fact that Paul called it The Lord's Supper was an embarrassment to the early Church Fathers because of it's well known mystical/pagan connection. S'why it was changed to the Eucharist, which is still used in some denominations.

BTW, it's telling that the flesh and blood analogy in John's OP quote wasn't in the telling of the event at the Last Supper, but inserted(?) much earlier in the "Gospel".

 

[Sister Cyber]

Again, the rite would have been blasphemy to any Jew, and still is

Actually, the people who call themselves Jews today are not decendants of Jacob or any of the twelve tribes of Israel, who were all very melaninated (dark-skinned). However, this is not popular knowledge due to mainstream teaching and distortions of facts throughout history. Those who know history know that the original people in Egypt at that time were also dark-skinned. That's why Mary and Joseph were directed to take baby Jesus out of Israel into Egypt to hid him, where they stayed until Herod died. You don't take a fair-skinned narrow-nosed baby into a population opposite their features to hide.

Matthew 2:13-15, "And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."

With that in mind, nobody seems to have a problem with the fabricated tales of melaninated human beings eating people, right?

However, this not being the case, as I stated, the disciples of Jesus were devout followers of the jewish law outlined in Leviticus and followed the prescribed diet, as deomonstrted by their observance of Passover by sharing the seder together during the last supper before THE LAST Supper when Jesus laid down his life for his friends as the ultimate sacrifice for their atonement from their violation of the sabbath to help jesus by bringing aloes and myrrh to the tomb that night for his healing. And as an added benefit, they wanted what jesus promised to them for their obedience.

Does that mean they ran around eating people? No. It would be like, as I hypothetically offered, if my normal diet consists of meat with each meal (bacon or sausage with breakfast, a tuna sandwich or burger for lunch, steak, chicken or fish with dinner...). I ate salad for lunch yesterday. Does that make me a vegan?

As is everyone, you are welcome to believe what you wish, but the truth is written in The Word.

 

[Sister Cyber]

Actually, the practice of offering human sacrifices is followed by satanists, not authentic jews. That christians do this every months in communion, eucharist, sacrament is what makes it a ritual ceremony.

 

[Sister Cyber]

they were all written well after Paul

Doesn't matter when it was written. What matters is that he told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and they did.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Actually, the practice of offering human sacrifices is followed by satanists, not authentic jews.

God, without comment or intervention, accepted Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter. If it was evil, how did it become "holy" scripture, without at least explaining that it was evil. And Abraham should have told God to take a hike when he was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. Yes, God stopped Abraham, but he was still going to do it, and Abraham should have known that it was God making a demand that Abraham commit an evil act. This was placed there by priests wanting to instill unquestioning obedience to God (read, to the priests and their religion).

That christians do this every months in communion, eucharist, sacrament is what makes it a ritual ceremony.

Yes they do and yes it is. What's your point?

Doesn't matter when it was written. What matters is that he told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and they did.

Then why did Paul need to claim that the Lord's Supper (which, BTW, was a pagan term that embarrassed the early church fathers enough for them to change it to the Eucharist) was imparted to him by Jesus in a vision? If Jesus had told his disciples what he "told" Paul, he wouldn't have needed to tell Paul. Like I said, such a thing, even symbolically, would have been blasphemy to Jesus or any Jew.

 

[nick notes]

There is written evidence that the disciples obeyed Jesus: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." (Galations 2:20)

You understand that Jesus did not die on the cross, correct? It is what happened when he was taken off the cross that lead to the disciples "act" of eating his flesh and drinking his blood as he commanded.

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.

On a re-read of that verse, two important things he said there stand out for 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.

John 6:54 - 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.

Bear in mind that he issued that command before the Passover feast known as "the last supper" - way before.

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...:

John 6:60 - Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?
Verse 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?

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 can give a little more detail about - "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Jesus understood the mechanics of the Human body and it is obvious that he he knew the process involved in deliberate Out Of Body Experiences

John 6:64 - 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.
vERSE 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.

So yes, Jesus laid down his life for his friends. He laid it down on an alter, as was the Jewish traditionh of the sacrificial offering.

 

[nick notes]

If I am understanding this topic correctly...was the tomb empty because the disciples ate Jesus?