Sexualisation of very young girls - US style

[thormas]

Do you know anything about the NEW COVENANT that Jesus instituted at the last supper? Which did away with the old covenant of the shedding of the blood of sheep and other animals. Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice.

Once again, an attack from a Christian, really???

Why don't you try to engage in a conversation?

HA's point, I believe, was not so much that Jesus shed blood at his death (and that is understood as a blood sacrifice) but that practicing Jews (which Jesus, Paul and the earliest followers of Jesus in Palestine were) would ever think or ever actually 'drink blood.'

[mikewhitney]

No Jew speaks of drinking blood. The blood is reserved for the deity.

Hence the strict rules around the removal of all blood from Kosher meat, even today.

Which equates with reinstating human sacrifice. Something that was anathema for Jews.

But the Jews selected Jesus to die instead of Barrabas. We have discussed that point about Jews before and that this push for Jesus' death was brought up to those Jews in the preaching in Acts. (So, it is not all Jews nowadays guilty of this.)

[thormas]

Do you know anything about blood and Judaism? No Jew would speak of drinking blood even metaphorically.

More food for thought.

I was reading Jill Levine's 'The Misunderstood Jew' .....she is a great biblical scholar and a practicing Jew (numerous books and video presentations).

When discussing the Last Supper she does confirm that Jews do not eat (drink) blood. Yet even while acknowledging this she goes on to stress the intended 'shock' of the words of Jesus in the gospel of John (such shock is a teaching method used by Jesus (and she provides examples). She focus on the idea of the sacrifice of Jesus and does not seem to focus on problems with the blood at all. Still reading but it is Paul - a practicing Jew - who speaks of the meaning of the 'body and blood.'

[Sparko]

No Jew speaks of drinking blood. The blood is reserved for the deity.

Hence the strict rules around the removal of all blood from Kosher meat, even today.

Which equates with reinstating human sacrifice. Something that was anathema for Jews.

The animal sacrifices took the place of the punishment the Israelites would have to pay for because of their sins. Jesus just took it to the ultimate level and made one sacrifice for all. But you are right, the Jews had a hard time accepting Jesus as the Messiah for a number of reasons, including he died a shameful death hung on a tree.

[mossrose]

No Jew speaks of drinking blood. The blood is reserved for the deity.

Hence the strict rules around the removal of all blood from Kosher meat, even today.

Which equates with reinstating human sacrifice. Something that was anathema for Jews.

You are once again showing your ignorance about who Jesus is. You should quit now.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Do you know anything about the NEW COVENANT that Jesus instituted at the last supper?

No Jew speaks of drinking blood. The blood is reserved for the deity.

Hence the strict rules around the removal of all blood from Kosher meat, even today.

Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice.

Which equates with reinstating human sacrifice. Something that was anathema for Jews.

[mossrose]

Do you know anything about blood and Judaism? No Jew would speak of drinking blood even metaphorically.

Do you know anything about the NEW COVENANT that Jesus instituted at the last supper? Which did away with the old covenant of the shedding of the blood of sheep and other animals. Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

More ignorance from Hyper Alexander. It is not Paul's invention but is based on the Passover meal which Jesus ate with his disciples prior to his crucifixion.

Scripture Verse: Luke 22:14-20

And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

© Copyright Original Source

(Also referenced in Matthew 26 and Mark 14.)

Do you know anything about blood and Judaism? No Jew would speak of drinking blood even metaphorically.

[thormas]

Scripture Verse: Matthew 12:37

By your words you will be condemned.

© Copyright Original Source

Is that a confession, you owning up to your misuse of words?

Bravo!

[Mountain Man]

You really do need to have an open mind, remain a bit humble and READ :+}

Scripture Verse: Matthew 12:37

By your words you will be condemned.

© Copyright Original Source

[thormas]

If you mean significance difference.........of course, because Paul came first some 20-40+ years prior to the gospels.

The point was innovation from the earliest communities, 40-65 years before any gospel, to Paul (not Paul to the gospels) who converted circa 33 CE.

[Mountain Man]

Actually, she is not ignorant at all.

First, you do know that the Luke's version was changed from his original, correct?

But leaving that aside, as I showed above, there is more to the story than you assume: Paul both inherited and took it a step further. And he is the first NT writer - Luke's version more closely resembles (based on?) Paul than do Mark and Matthew. So before Paul, we have nothing in writing about the eucharist.

No one has any real problem with Paul's understanding but there is, seemingly, an innovation from the earliest community (see my post above). And, all the NT writers see in the meal, the connection to the 'life-giving' death of Jesus.


And of course there is the whole discussion of when the Supper took place and whether it was a Passover meal.



But, really, enough with slamming other people. Live what you supposedly believe: do unto others.

There is no significance between what is described in the Gospels and the writings of the Apostle Paul.

Scripture Verse: Matthew 26

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Mark 14

And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Luke 22

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: 1 Corinthians 11

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

© Copyright Original Source

So Paul didn't invent it but was simply passing on a tradition that had been started by Jesus himself.

[thormas]

More ignorance from Hyper Alexander. It is not Paul's invention but is based on the Passover meal which Jesus ate with his disciples prior to his crucifixion.

Scripture Verse: Luke 22:14-20

And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

© Copyright Original Source

(Also referenced in Matthew 26 and Mark 14.)

Actually, she is not ignorant at all.

First, you do know that the Luke's version was changed from his original, correct?

But leaving that aside, as I showed above, there is more to the story than you assume: Paul both inherited and took it a step further. And he is the first NT writer - Luke's version more closely resembles (based on?) Paul than do Mark and Matthew. So before Paul, we have nothing in writing about the eucharist.

No one has any real problem with Paul's understanding but there is, seemingly, an innovation from the earliest community (see my post above). And, all the NT writers see in the meal, the connection to the 'life-giving' death of Jesus.


And of course there is the whole discussion of when the Supper took place and whether it was a Passover meal.



But, really, enough with slamming other people. Live what you supposedly believe: do unto others.

[Mountain Man]

Yes the Eucharist was a decidedly non-Jewish invention of Paul's.

More ignorance from Hyper Alexander. It is not Paul's invention but is based on the Passover meal which Jesus ate with his disciples prior to his crucifixion.

Scripture Verse: Luke 22:14-20

And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

© Copyright Original Source

(Also referenced in Matthew 26 and Mark 14.)

[thormas]

Yes the Eucharist was a decidedly non-Jewish invention of Paul's. However, ritual meals were not unknown among various Mystery religions at the time.

You have intrigued me here.

I have typically concentrated on the 'how' of the Eucharist, i.e. 'real presence, explained as transubstantiation or, better, transignification. I have not really through much about the 'when.'

So some of my remarks are subject to change as I read but:

I agree that there were ritual meals in the mystery religions........but there were also such meals in Judaism.

Also, I have come to appreciate that Paul inherited or 'received' much from the earliest Jesus communities (that he once persecuted and then embraced) as opposed to 'inventing' things (not that he didn't develop and expand what became Christianity).

Gera Vermes, in his 'Christian Beginnings', a Biblical scholar and Dead Sea Scrolls expert, stated that "In addition to baptism.....Paul inherited from his predecessors a second great cult practice, the communal meal, referred to as 'breaking of the bread' as well as 'thanksgiving' or eucharist in Greek." Verses continues, "As in the case of baptism, Paul supplied a new meaning to the community meal and turned it into an initiation and repetition of the 'Lord's Supper'...........Paul implies that the mystical significance of this meal was revealed to him by the risen Christ........"

Finally, Vermes adds, "If my understanding is correct, the mystical significance of the Last Supper must be attributed to..........Paul writing in the 50s."

So, first,we do have Paul inheriting baptism and eucharist, the shared communal meal, from the earliest communities (he didn't invent that part). However, it does seem to be the case that Paul did give that meal a new meaning (he did 'invent' this part). Therefore, we can validly say that the original meal was indeed Jewish (since the earliest community were practicing Jews) but it is also valid to say that Paul's innovation went beyond what was found in both 2nd Temple Judaism and the early 'Christian' community.

Although I believe I understand your reasoning, I would not call it non-Jewish (Paul being a Jew). The scholar, Larry Hurtado, uses the idea of mutation or innovation, from 2nd Temple Judaism, when discussing the movement of Christianity to 'worship/devotion' of Jesus as Lord, along side of the Father (and laying the groundwork for the trinity) and I think it might also fit here. Paul's idea is definitely a departure from Judaism and the early community but it is of a piece and a mutation/innovation of what he inherited. Playing with words? Perhaps but that is, in part, what we do to try to get a handle on such issues.

I for one, as a Christian, have no real difficulty with Paul's mutation and I actually like the idea of the eucharist; the idea of being 'nourished' by the bread of Life. Transubstantiation is a bit of a weird concept to get one's head around but the more modern explanation of transignification can be easily understood and it better allows the symbol to 'come alive' and be appreciated (note: symbol does not negate 'real presence'). It is also mystical - allowing for a sense of 'spiritual fascination' - if one has the right mindset.

Anyway, you got rethinking and researching. Thanks.