Yet another biblical contradiction
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2013, 07:26 PM
Yet another biblical contradiction
I rarely see this one addressed. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing it addressed and I've spent way too many years on similar sites.

Jesus tells his followers in John 16:53-56 that they will have no life unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood. However, both the OT & NT have issue with this. For instance, in Lev 17:14, it says you shall not drink the blood of any creature or you will be cut off. And if you think that is the law and Christianity does away with the law, why then in Acts 15:20, 29 does James -- brother of Jesus -- tell the Gentiles that they must abstain from blood?

This is a contradiction that I do not think has any apologetics at all. What say ye?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 09:28 PM
RE: Yet another biblical contradiction
Lean not on your own understanding? Angel

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 11:40 PM
RE: Yet another biblical contradiction
From my Christian days, this passage was always taught as a metaphor for communion. It's a "partake in spirit" kind of thing. Though, if you go the catholic route, there's transubstantiation, where once you put the eucharist in your mouth it actually DOES become Christ's flesh, and the wine DOES become Christ's blood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 12:41 AM
RE: Yet another biblical contradiction
(09-10-2013 11:40 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  From my Christian days, this passage was always taught as a metaphor for communion. It's a "partake in spirit" kind of thing. Though, if you go the catholic route, there's transubstantiation, where once you put the eucharist in your mouth it actually DOES become Christ's flesh, and the wine DOES become Christ's blood.

God: What? You told them what? You've got vampirism and cannibalism right there on day one of the new religion! And you died on Easter, the most holy pagan day ever!

Jesus: Uh, it seemed like a good idea at the time?

God: Why didn't you say 'drink this wine, it is a Merlot'?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-10-2013, 06:06 AM
RE: Yet another biblical contradiction
The catholic idea is that Jesus fulfilled the old law. The Jews could not eat blood since it was in preparation for the coming of Jesus. Whose body and blood are the basis for salvation. At least that's what the church says.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 06:54 AM
RE: Yet another biblical contradiction
(10-10-2013 06:06 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  The catholic idea is that Jesus fulfilled the old law. The Jews could not eat blood since it was in preparation for the coming of Jesus. Whose body and blood are the basis for salvation. At least that's what the church says.

That might work if James had not given the admonition to abstain from blood in Acts...which he said after Jesus' ministry and death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 07:09 AM
RE: Yet another biblical contradiction
(09-10-2013 11:40 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  From my Christian days, this passage was always taught as a metaphor for communion. It's a "partake in spirit" kind of thing. Though, if you go the catholic route, there's transubstantiation, where once you put the eucharist in your mouth it actually DOES become Christ's flesh, and the wine DOES become Christ's blood.

Actually transubstantiation asserts that it becomes "body, blood, soul, and divinity" at the instant the words of consecration are pronounced, not at ingestion. (Why would a god also have a soul ??? hmm.)
Catechism of the RCC : 1374 ....“the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained" bla bla bla.

The reason there was a rule in the OT against drinking blood was because the rule existed in the culture which produced the texts. It was not a religious custom, it was a cultural entirely HEALTH related custom in the entire ancient Near East. No Jew would ever even think of drinking blood. It was an abomination. It's not really a "contradiction", just proof that whoever cooked up the idea that at the "Last Supper" it meant what they say it came to mean was false. (At the Last Supper in John there IS NO 'Institution of the Eucharist"). If it was really that important why would it be missing from that gospel ? Talk to any Jew who "keeps Kosher". The notion of drinking blood is nauseating to them. A "eucharist" was one of the elements of the Greek mystery cults, which Saul of Tarsus imported, when he cooked up his new Paulianity (Christianity) cult.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-10-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Yet another biblical contradiction
(09-10-2013 07:26 PM)Airyaman Wrote:  I rarely see this one addressed. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing it addressed and I've spent way too many years on similar sites.

Jesus tells his followers in John 16:53-56 that they will have no life unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood. However, both the OT & NT have issue with this. For instance, in Lev 17:14, it says you shall not drink the blood of any creature or you will be cut off. And if you think that is the law and Christianity does away with the law, why then in Acts 15:20, 29 does James -- brother of Jesus -- tell the Gentiles that they must abstain from blood?

This is a contradiction that I do not think has any apologetics at all. What say ye?

It's an anti-Catholic issue you've raised, since they 1) teach transubstantiation making this a literal blood drinking which indeed 2) contradicts holy writ 3) makes them put Christians in Hell since they adamantly deny non-Catholic Christians their communion!

And it's John 6, not 16. Context is:

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: Yet another biblical contradiction
(10-10-2013 02:36 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 07:26 PM)Airyaman Wrote:  I rarely see this one addressed. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing it addressed and I've spent way too many years on similar sites.

Jesus tells his followers in John 16:53-56 that they will have no life unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood. However, both the OT & NT have issue with this. For instance, in Lev 17:14, it says you shall not drink the blood of any creature or you will be cut off. And if you think that is the law and Christianity does away with the law, why then in Acts 15:20, 29 does James -- brother of Jesus -- tell the Gentiles that they must abstain from blood?

This is a contradiction that I do not think has any apologetics at all. What say ye?

It's an anti-Catholic issue you've raised, since they 1) teach transubstantiation making this a literal blood drinking which indeed 2) contradicts holy writ 3) makes them put Christians in Hell since they adamantly deny non-Catholic Christians their communion!

And it's John 6, not 16. Context is:

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Yes, John 6, thanks.

Do you take communion or the lord's supper? It still symbolizes flesh and blood. Why would your god make rules against drinking blood in both the OT and NT to then ask you to symbolically do it? Jesus implied that sin originated in the mind and not the actions when he stated that people committed adultery when they thought about it, here symbolism is basically a thought sin.

Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airyaman's post
10-10-2013, 02:59 PM
RE: Yet another biblical contradiction
(10-10-2013 12:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 11:40 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  From my Christian days, this passage was always taught as a metaphor for communion. It's a "partake in spirit" kind of thing. Though, if you go the catholic route, there's transubstantiation, where once you put the eucharist in your mouth it actually DOES become Christ's flesh, and the wine DOES become Christ's blood.

God: What? You told them what? You've got vampirism and cannibalism right there on day one of the new religion! And you died on Easter, the most holy pagan day ever!

Jesus: Uh, it seemed like a good idea at the time?

God: Why didn't you say 'drink this wine, it is a Merlot'?

EDDIE!!! Circle is such a great show. It would be nice if his ilk were to gain even *more* popularity.

Please pardon my brief diversion, but here are two quick names of non-believing comedians with great material that may not be known:

- Jim Jefferies
- Doug Stanhope

....back to the subject. ....my apologies, OP.

"If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think, more or less, the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you're just a Catholic."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: