The Borg and the bible, don't eat blood! Jesus, eat my blood! WTF?

Crazyguy

Your thoughts , and is in it interesting how much Jesus teachings seem to contradict the Jewish God jehovah.

cofty

is in it interesting how much Jesus teachings seem to contradict the Jewish God jehovah

Really? I can't think of any examples.

Jesus was a Jew and passionately dedicated to keeping the Law. He challenged many of the ways the Law was being interpreted but he demanded that his followers keep it impeccably.

TD

You realize that many Jewish scholars believe Jesus of the Bible was a Pharisee, albeit a voice for reform?

Jesus Christianity to get off the ground, apart from Judaism it had to please lots of people holding diverse beliefs. To gain ascendency it had to encompass among other cults, the Roman favourite Mithras.

In Mithraism the blood of the Savior, the Great Shepherd, was commemorated by an annual ritual of partaking of symbolic bread (or cakes) and wine well before christianity adopted it. The symbolism of blood to the Romans was cleansing and strength and at the initiation ceremony the novice was placed under a grill in the dark Mithraeum (subterranean windowless church) and the hot blood from a dying sacrificial bull rained down on him some of which he was obliged to drink as it fell.

Inscribed in the Mithraic temple which occupies the catacombs under the Vatican today is the pre-Christian text, "Whosoever does not drink of my body and eat of my flesh, the same will not be with me in paradise".

So I agree with you Crazyguy that for the sake of harmonisation of the Jewish religion with its monotheism and blood prohibition, and the other competing cults, the early Jesus movement had to make many compromises. It is most interesting to see how the two divergent views on blood were accommodated. The Jew would still be offended by drinking blood but the Roman would accept the idea from familiarity.

Paul did a sterling job in the letter to the Hebrews to rationalise the different strands of dogma.

Without the Jesus myth and Constantine's mother Helena having adopted the cult, the dominant Roman religion would probably have ended up in a Dionysian mould...but this cult too had to be absorbed for Jesus Christianity to become the catholic or universal faith, Dionysus contributing the expression "The true vine", he turned water into wine at a wedding feast, was born a virgin son of God and was crucified for the sake of sinful mankind. Makes you think!

TD

It's probably important to differentiate between the character (If he actually existed) and those who attempted to explain his death. St. Paul is far more the inventor of Christianity as we know it today than Jesus.

prologos

The cannibalistic / human sacrifice reference in John 6 also sinks the wt interpretation of it. A partaking for all is clearly implied. Partaking will lead to everlasting life, an assured resurrection, not directly* to immortality as the wt "144 000 anointed " doctrine has it.

* in the "revelation" book they hint, that partaking leads to everlasting life on earth, and the "anointed" have to sacrifice that aquired right to go to heaven.

Deleteandrestart

Half Banana,

That was an excellent explanation right there 🤔

fukitol

Yes indeed.

But JWs will respond that Jesus' words were purely symbolic, which of course they are, so his command to eat his blood is irrelevant to the blood transfusion debate.

But then they forget that blood is purely a symbol for the life or soul that is lost. Does a blood transfusion involve loss of life or soul? No, none whatsoever. So a blood transfusion has no symbolic value in God's eyes whatsoever. It's no different to any other organ transplant.

opusdei1972

In the fourth Gospel we find that Jesus says that we must eat his blood and his flesh so as to live. However, the author (or one of the authors) of the Fourth Gospel invented Jesus' words in order to fulfill a theological agenda against the Jews who were opposing Christians in the beginning of the second century. So, it is unlikely that Jesus said "you must eat my blood" or "before Abraham I AM", as the Fourth Gospel tells us.

Nevertheless, the words "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you", are in the Fourth Gospel, so, if a christian believes that Jesus said that, it clearly contradicts the way Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate the Last Supper and in certain sense contradicts the ban of eating blood.

redpilltwice

Half banana:

Without the Jesus myth and Constantine's mother Helena having adopted the cult, the dominant Roman religion would probably have ended up in a Dionysian mould...but this cult too had to be absorbed for Jesus Christianity to become the catholic or universal faith, Dionysus contributing the expression "The true vine", he turned water into wine at a wedding feast, was born a virgin son of God and was crucified for the sake of sinful mankind. Makes you think!

Thanks Half banana! In my case, "Makes you think" is an understatement. I mean, could it really be that the whole concept of the ransom is of pagan origin? Just like the JW's always point to the pagan origins of certain rituals and holidays? I didn't know about these specific pre-christian origins you mentioned! ! Fascinating stuff. I definitely want to read more

The Borg and the bible, don't eat blood! Jesus, eat my blood! WTF?

Share this