Biblical view on Cannibalism

Emmylouwho said:

Jesus was simply following the protocol of having symbolism for the Passover.

Click to expand...

I still do not see how you got that from what I said.

For..you said...

Emmylouwho said:

So the symbolism of the Passover was... eating people and drinking their blood?

Click to expand...

There was nothing to do with eating people and drinking the blood being taken literally. It was representative symbolism. Just like the sacrificial lamb represented Jesus on the Cross.

When Jesus said... "this is my blood." He was referring to his death for our sins.


We have died with Christ on the Cross.

Our flesh no longer lives (in God's eyes).

Jesus is the Bread of Life! We must eat Him to have life!

What was His life?


We are to feast upon God's Word! Jesus was telling Satan that his eternal nourishment came from the Word of God!

Eat Him? How? Jesus is the Word of God! John 1:1

Therefore? When we eat Him we must take in the Word of God. We must first understand it and then believe it to have life! No room for confusion... Time clarifies all confusion if we pray, seek, and patiently endure and never quit until clarification is brought our way! Those who refuse to endure settle for mediocre, non growth churches.

grace and peace...

friend of said:

If people can provide where it says explicitly in scripture not to eat another man post it here. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Feeling guilty?

AlexDTX said:

And so is yours. My opinion decreasing in value from your side does not matter to me. As I said, you went off topic. A simple statement that you believe the book is bunk, therefore you do not agree with the definition is all that was needed. Instead you are goading me and flaming me with your insistence.

Click to expand...

I have merely replied to your (continued) responses to me, and I would suggest you look closely at your own posts before accusing someone else of goading and flaming.

So you say. I don't see it that way.

friend of said:

If people can provide where it says explicitly in scripture not to eat another man post it here. Thanks!

Click to expand...

If you can provide where it says explicitly in scripture not to eat human feces post it here. Thanks!

genez said:

I still do not see how you got that from what I said.

For..you said...



There was nothing to do with eating people and drinking the blood being taken literally. It was representative symbolism. Just like the sacrificial lamb represented Jesus on the Cross.

When Jesus said... "this is my blood." He was referring to his death for our sins.

"Now if we died with Christ, we believe
that we will also live with him." Rom 6:8​

We have died with Christ on the Cross.

Our flesh no longer lives (in God's eyes).

Jesus is the Bread of Life! We must eat Him to have life!

What was His life?

Jesus answered,“It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone,
but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Mat 4:4​

We are to feast upon God's Word! Jesus was telling Satan that his eternal nourishment came from the Word of God!

Eat Him? How? Jesus is the Word of God! John 1:1

Therefore? When we eat Him we must take in the Word of God. We must first understand it and then believe it to have life! No room for confusion... Time clarifies all confusion if we pray, seek, and patiently endure and never quit until clarification is brought our way! Those who refuse to endure settle for mediocre, non growth churches.

grace and peace...

Click to expand...

I understand that religious rites symbolically replicate various things, but when symbolic rites replicate cannibilism, it’s repulsive. Maybe it’s just me?

Emmylouwho said:

I understand that religious rites symbolically replicate various things, but when symbolic rites replicate cannibilism, it’s repulsive. Maybe it’s just me?

Click to expand...

Its not meant to do that. But, it will though, for those who are not being spiritually discerning.

Its like what happened when Jesus said about.. "this temple will be torn down."


Those who were spiritually dull failed to see that he spoke not about the Temple in Jerusalem, but spoke of his own body. Just like some insist he spoke about cannibalism, when it was not what he spoke about!

God deliberately puts such things in the Bible to separate and expose the hearts of one kind of person from another.

Here is what took place with those who could not discern Jesus's words!




Some in the same spirit could have accused that he was promoting cannibalism!


God knows what He is doing. Those who have ears will hear.

grace and truth...

genez said:

Its not meant to do that. But, it will though, for those who are not being spiritually discerning.

Its like what happened when Jesus said about.. "this temple will be torn down."

"So the Jews answered and said to him, “What sign do you show
to us, because you are doing these things?” Jesus answered and
said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise
it up!” Jn 2:18-19
​

Those who were spiritually dull failed to see that he spoke not about the Temple in Jerusalem, but spoke of his own body. Just like some insist he spoke about cannibalism, when it was not what he spoke about!

The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple,
and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of
the temple of His body. Jn 20-21
​

God deliberately puts such things in the Bible to separate and expose the hearts of one kind of person from another.

Here is what took place with those who could not discern Jesus's words!

"Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did
not agree.

Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him:
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human
hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”
Mk 14:56-58​

Some in the same spirit could have accused that he was promoting cannibalism!


God knows what He is doing. Those who have ears will hear.

grace and truth...

Click to expand...

Not really.

Emmylouwho said:

Not really.

Click to expand...

Fair enough...

ChristianForCats said:

Only someone who knows nothing about biology would say such a thing. We are animals in every way, so the only difference between us and all other animals is we have the ability to love or hate God.

Click to expand...

The distinction between clen and unclean animals is a God given distintion so you believe that God does not know anything about biology.

ChristianForCats said:

Only someone who knows nothing about biology would say such a thing. We are animals in every way, so the only difference between us and all other animals is we have the ability to love or hate God.

Click to expand...

The biological life of man and animals must be similar! For its the same elements of this earth we depend upon to maintain our biological life. No big deal.

What makes man drastically different than animals?

The animal souls are generic souls.

Our souls? Created in the image of God! Difference is tremendous!

Their generic soul is what makes animals creatures of instinct.

Man was created for high calling of THOUGHT and REASON... To know God.

That is why God could give animal meat for food. They have no eternal life.

Acts2:38 said:

That's because they are confused. They need further study, and don't know the gravity of what they are thinking. They are basically calling God an animal when you think about the scripture where God makes us in His image. We are not animals.

Click to expand...

Male and female was created in His image and THEN mankind/Adam was formed from the dust of the Ground.....and will return to dust.....

friend of said:

If people can provide where it says explicitly in scripture not to eat another man post it here. Thanks!

Click to expand...

I would say, "do unto others as you would have done unto you..." would be appropriate.

If you would like to be eaten by man.....by all means, start eating other men.

parousia70 said:

Far as I know, Jesus is the only human being who we are commanded to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Click to expand...

Can you in the literal sense. Most humans can reason it to have en entirely different meaning.

Or? No one can be saved! For the flesh he now has is different than the flesh he had on earth. And? He is now without need for blood.

If the literalists insist? No one can be saved. For no one can eat the flesh he no longer has. Nor, is his blood around any longer.


The Lord God's body is now made from the elements of heaven! No longer of the dust of the earth.

So? How can we eat the literal flesh that he once had, but no longer has?

We eat his flesh and drink his blood by imitating his earthly walk. We must walk in the filling of the Spirit and walk in the knowledge of the Word of God as He did! What was Satan's temptation of Christ centered upon? The Word of God!!@!@ Knowledge of the Word is what we are required to eat, sleep, and drink His life as ours.

The ones that stopped following him and followed him no more? They were the ones who took his flesh and blood literally. He wanted then gone. They could not know Him.

RaymondG said:

Male and female was created in His image and THEN mankind/Adam was formed from the dust of the Ground.....and will return to dust.....

Click to expand...

Male and female SOULS. Created! BARA! Created out from nothing.

The bodies came after the souls and were not created. They were molded and formed from what had been created.

friend of said:

If people can provide where it says explicitly in scripture not to eat another man post it here. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Since people are made in the image of God, are gifted with the sense of right and wrong, and only humanity has an eternal soul, and since the only references in scripture are associated with calamity, suffering, and death, I would say it's something to be avoided. That being said, there is no clear prohibition in scripture, and cannibalism happens more often, and much sooner during times of famine, and catastrophe, usually within a few weeks. When I was in the Navy, I went to a nation for a medical humanitarian mission, that was coming out of a famine. "Rumor" has it the population largely turned to cannibalism in order to survive those dark times, and although I never witnessed anyone actually consuming anyone, I tend to believe it happened, those people were so crushed, hopeless, and full of total despair, I had never seen such a wretched awful place, and their were hardly any children, and those with kids were crazy over protective. It could all be side effects of the suffering and deprivation they endured, and I'm sure that's part of it, in addition to the violence, lawlessness, abuse, killing, rape, and all the other things that go along with a societal collapse. But I do think they are each other.

Emmylouwho said:

One of the reasons i feel kind of squicky about Christianity is because of the cannibalism aspect. Communion rituals. The idea of pretending to eat jesus’ flesh and blood is revolting

Click to expand...

Judaism has a very strong prohibition against consuming blood. This reason alone should give pause before accepting a literal belief in drinking the blood of Jesus.

RaymondG said:

Male and female was created in His image and THEN mankind/Adam was formed from the dust of the Ground.....and will return to dust.....

Click to expand...

You have one choice of wording that is incorrect. Otherwise, yes.

The "THEN" part you used is incorrect.

God created man in His image, using the dust of the ground, breathed life, and man was a living soul. You need to combine Gen 1 with Gen 2, not separate them.

When you said, "created man in His image THEN Adam was formed from the dust", you imply either 1)two different accounts or 2) that created man in His image, then created Him again using dust from the ground.

It sounds like your getting confused between the 1st chapter and 2nd chapter of Genesis. The 1st chapter is a broad overview of ALL creation and in the 2nd chapter it narrows down to be more specifically toward humans and their starting point, recounting the same event described in chapter 1. Same event.

So really, you would have to tie both the first half of Gen.1:27 with Gen.2:7. What do I mean the first half?

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The semicolon shows a independent sentence tied with a sentence that relates. The second half can act as its own that can tie in with Gen.2:21-22.

Like I said, both chapters 1 and 2 are of the same event. Chapter 1 is accounting for ALL of creation while chapter 2 narrows down and pinpoints to humans.

Lastly, was that your defense in trying to say humans are animals?
Or that by saying humans are animals, it is not saying God is an animal?

Basil the Great said:

Judaism has a very strong prohibition against consuming blood. This reason alone should give pause before accepting a literal belief in drinking the blood of Jesus.

Click to expand...

That's what I have been trying to tell her... No Jew would have accepted a command to drink blood if it were to be taken literally.

Acts2:38 said:

You have one choice of wording that is incorrect. Otherwise, yes.

The "THEN" part you used is incorrect.

God created man in His image, using the dust of the ground, breathed life, and man was a living soul. You need to combine Gen 1 with Gen 2, not separate them.

When you said, "created man in His image THEN Adam was formed from the dust", you imply either 1)two different accounts or 2) that created man in His image, then created Him again using dust from the ground.

It sounds like your getting confused between the 1st chapter and 2nd chapter of Genesis. The 1st chapter is a broad overview of ALL creation and in the 2nd chapter it narrows down to be more specifically toward humans and their starting point, recounting the same event described in chapter 1. Same event.

So really, you would have to tie both the first half of Gen.1:27 with Gen.2:7. What do I mean the first half?

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The semicolon shows a independent sentence tied with a sentence that relates. The second half can act as its own that can tie in with Gen.2:21-22.

Like I said, both chapters 1 and 2 are of the same event. Chapter 1 is accounting for ALL of creation while chapter 2 narrows down and pinpoints to humans.

Lastly, was that your defense in trying to say humans are animals?
Or that by saying humans are animals, it is not saying God is an animal?

Click to expand...

I understand your interpretation.....for it is needed to match your current belief.

You are combining scriptures and chapters, you say......but in the image creation.....both male and female were created in His image....yet in the second instance.....only Man was created, and the woman came out of the man......how do you reconcile this?

Are you saying that only men are the image of God and woman the image of man? Or can we wisely separate the creation of the spirit from the forming of the flesh that receive the spirit?

The flesh profiteth nothing....when you read that....do you believe it to say "God profiteth nothing" since you believe the flesh is the image of God?

This line of questioning profiteth nothing.

Surely we can find a better reason to not eat people than " flesh is the image of God"