Nostr Web Client

Replying to

Laeserin

But you are eating the literal body and blood of Christ. 😱

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

the text, with a little more context:

16 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.

17 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

18 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.

19 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

20 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

21 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.[fn]

22 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.

the body of christ is the church. the pouring out of the blood was his execution, and for which reason he did it.

it is just another example, IMO, of how so much of the bible text is misunderstood. the jews had a ritual of hospitality to their guests that required them to specifically cook meat over fire as a proper "friendly" offering. the last supper was this same thing, he wasn't literally saying they were eating him. probably the translation misunderstood the meaning of "this is my ..." in the sense of representation, not literal. of a reference to the jewish rituals around eating.

IMO, transubstantiation doctrine is a perversion of the intent of hospitality and specifically for the case of the last supper, to bring to mind the sacrifice that he gave in order to bring about the end of the empire of darkness.

not only is the translation bad from the original greek to english, in most translations, being old, the translation from old english idiom to modern is also bad.

idioms in languages are a funny thing, they often use words that can be misunderstood in a literal sense, when they are not literal. "he covered me with his grace" might be an example. grace is not a substance, so covering you does not mean draping some invisible thing over you, it means placing a shield around you that protects you from condemnation, and grants you wisdom. similarly, "this is" as a translation does not mean the same as if i hold up an egg and say "this is an egg" because it's clearly not whatever i say "this is". we even still use this - "this is a misunderstanding" what is a misunderstanding? context makes a very big difference and interpreting this above text to mean literally eating his flesh, and that he "transformed it" is beyond naive and childish. it was a symbol, and the subject was the mind.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

another point, in verse 19 it says that he will not eat again until the kingdom of God comes. this is a reference to Judgement Day which is a time that is still to come. he left the planet, and there is no grapes of earth where he went.

this reinforces the interpretation that what he meant by it was to partake of communion, in order to summon his *spirit* to be in your presence (remember means to bring to mind a memory, not to piece together broken parts). and it should be further noted that the ritual of blessing the meal in prayer is essentially communion, though not many frame it that way, and the ravenous hunger of the attendees often distracts from the thoughtful rememberance of the fact it is referring to summoning the Lord to bless the people at the table with health.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

it isn't on my back to bear the burden of accepting twisted interpretations of the bible that more than subtly resemble conflating the text with the pagan practices of idolatry and sun worship. even the orthodox at least reject the literal embodying of saints in the form of carved representations. and the orthodox also acknowledge the importance of Enoch who appears in genesis and jude, by keeping the book, which the catholics basically memoryholed from europe for 1400 years.

but it is petty, in the context, to be contentious beyond simply pointing out how these doctrines are perversions of the intent of Jesus and the saints, to people who are otherwise faithful. i just want to say that "don't trust, verify" was a motto of Jesus also, and that includes making your own personal interpretation of your understanding of the text instead of believing what others say.

just like how communists talk about the "revolution of the proletariat" not understanding that they are acting as puppets for yet another group of bourgoisie, jesus was not saying to believe that the food and drink *becomes* his literal flesh. both idolatry and cannibalism both connect to such an idea, which means that the ritual being interpreted this way is affirming perversity.

anyhow, it's your judgement day to justify your accepting these doctrines. i'm not accepting them. though it does remind me to remember when i eat. gonna start praying before i eat now. that seems like a good idea.