Is it wrong to demand evidence?

[agua]

Cool

Personally ... generally speaking, it's a major world religion that typically has the person and nature of Jesus Christ as a focus. Beyond that, it's an umbrella term for a wide variety of systems and groups and businesses that claim either to be part of it either in name or heritage, etc.

Ok we have a different definition. Mine comes from when the term was first used to describe the disciples in Acts, and the methodology they used in the process of following Christ. Also strictly speaking identifying as Christian doesn't necessarily imply a person is, according to Jesus. I accept your definition has become the norm and is also the general atheist view of Christianity.

By the way, does PoS stand for "Something Something Salvation" ? Like Plan of Salvation or something ? I did a quick Google and nada. "PoS" really only means one thing in my mind, which you probably didn't intend ...

You may want to qualify the context when you say "I'm a PoS person" lol

After reading some posts recently where you lost the cool I can certainly say it doesn't mean what you may think

PoS is perserverance of the Saints.

 

[TillICollapse]

Ok we have a different definition. Mine comes from when the term was first used to describe the disciples in Acts, and the methodology they used in the process of following Christ. Also strictly speaking identifying as Christian doesn't necessarily imply a person is, according to Jesus. I accept your definition has become the norm and is also the general atheist view of Christianity.

I don't recall any scriptures where Jesus describes what a Christian is or isn't, or Jesus even using that term for that matter. If we are being literal, I believe the term was coined by the church (or believers maybe, idk) in Antioch and caught on from there, yes ? So technically speaking, a "Christian" would literally be whomever the believers in Antioch agreed was a Christian, since it was arguably the term they decided to use at some point. Also Christianity is one thing, a "Christian" is arguably another. Pretty much anyone can say, "I'm a Christian," it's nearly so vague as to become meaningless in terms of what it may say about a person saying it. Similar to asking someone where they are from, and they say, "North America." It only says so much.

After reading some posts recently where you lost the cool I can certainly say it doesn't mean what you may think

PoS is perserverance of the Saints.

Haha I would have never guessed it meant Perserverance of the Saints. I kept thinking the "S" stood for salvation. But yea, PoS lol.

And what posts are you talking about where you think I lost the cool lol ?

 

[RDKirk]

I didn't think of it at all before before keith99's comment, but I think he has a point. If Jesus didn't refer to the elements as his body and blood, then I think there would be no justification for it, but he did, so IMO it can be called a form of ritualistic cannibalism.

If you've read the scripture, as he says that, Jesus hands out bread and wine, not actual chunks of His own body. Clearly He is speaking figuratively from the very beginning.

 

[keith99]

Not even that...for I have never met a single Christian who thinks we eat Christ's leg or arm at Communion time. Not a single one.

Don't know any Catholics?

 

[keith99]

If you've read the scripture, as he says that, Jesus hands out bread and wine, not actual chunks of His own body. Clearly He is speaking figuratively from the very beginning.

How do you explain the reaction of the Disciples to his words? It would seem they saw more than just a symbolic gesture.

I'm not claiming there are no good explanations, but I will say most believing Christians do not seem to have ever even thought about this, let alone have worked out or found a reasonable explanation.

 

[TillICollapse]

If you've read the scripture, as he says that, Jesus hands out bread and wine, not actual chunks of His own body. Clearly He is speaking figuratively from the very beginning.

I thought transubstantiation was an actual thing. I remember a conversation once with an Orthodox individual who kept telling me it was a "mystery" how the bread and wine turned into the actual blood and body of Christ. It's not arms and legs mind you, but still. Even though Jesus may not have given out chunks of His own body, I thought some believers today actually believed transubstantiation in modern times ... a large some, not just a few. Yes ? No ?

 

[agua]

How do you explain the reaction of the Disciples to his words? It would seem they saw more than just a symbolic gesture.

I'm not claiming there are no good explanations, but I will say most believing Christians do not seem to have ever even thought about this, let alone have worked out or found a reasonable explanation.

Joh 6:56-64 KJV He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (57) As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (58) This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. (59) These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. (60) Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? (61) When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (62) What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (64) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Firstly we can't interpret any scripture in a vacuum, and must be sure it doesn't contradict other instructions from Yahweh. Drinking blood is prohibited. We can then move onto what Jesus may likely mean by drinking His Blood and eating His flesh and we get a clue where He says that the words He speaks are spirit ( spiritual ) and life ( about eternal life ).

Jesus is saying that if you ingest His teachings ( take them into your being ) and ingest His actions ( take them into your being ) you will find eternal life. He uses such extreme ( and offensive ) hyperbole to make it clear that simple acknowledgement of Him isn't sufficient. imo Yahweh also uses hyperbole, parablesm analogies etc to make people search for answers and this weeds out those who aren't really interested, or those who follow men and don't seek Yahweh, imo.

Oh I can explain the reaction of the disciples because it is similar to the reaction of evry human that first hears the instruction, before investigation. From this we can find that the true followers continued, and many who didn't understand didn't.

 

[agua]

I don't recall any scriptures where Jesus describes what a Christian is or isn't, or Jesus even using that term for that matter. If we are being literal, I believe the term was coined by the church (or believers maybe, idk) in Antioch and caught on from there, yes ? So technically speaking, a "Christian" would literally be whomever the believers in Antioch agreed was a Christian, since it was arguably the term they decided to use at some point. Also Christianity is one thing, a "Christian" is arguably another. Pretty much anyone can say, "I'm a Christian," it's nearly so vague as to become meaningless in terms of what it may say about a person saying it. Similar to asking someone where they are from, and they say, "North America." It only says so much.

I disagree, because the term actually means "followers of Christ" and Jesus used the same description when calling people to Himself in saying "follow me". I agree that today the use of the term Christian has become meaningless because people decide for themselves how to follow Jesus, and what this implies. I must say that it will be logically sound to suggest the earliest Christians ( those identified at Antioch) would be closer to the intended "followers of Christ" meaning intended by Jesus simply because it's human nature to deviate from and bastardize any teaching over time. It was also a large problem that the first Disciples ralied against from the intitiation of the Church ( Body of Christ ) and today I suggest the same problem exists but is far worse because, well, humans are stubborn and Satan wants the Church perverted.

Haha I would have never guessed it meant Perserverance of the Saints. I kept thinking the "S" stood for salvation. But yea, PoS lol.

And what posts are you talking about where you think I lost the cool lol ?

I won't refer directly to the posts because if you don't recall them I suggest we will disagree if you lost the cool, or not, and merry go round we go .

ETA I also think it may be against forum rules, maybe.

 

[ananda]

If you've read the scripture, as he says that, Jesus hands out bread and wine, not actual chunks of His own body. Clearly He is speaking figuratively from the very beginning.

That's why it's ritualistic cannibalism, not literal cannibalism, although, like TilICollapse pointed out, it could be literal for some.

 

[Albion]

Don't know any Catholics?

They don't think they're eating the arm that Jesus used on that night, either.

 

[RDKirk]

That's why it's ritualistic cannibalism, not literal cannibalism, although, like TilICollapse pointed out, it could be literal for some.

"Ritualistic cannibalism" actually is cannibalism practiced for strictly ritualist purpose rather than as an ordinary diet.

You mean "figurative" cannibalism. I think if you're attempting to conflate what you know is clearly a figurative expression--at no time in Christianity has any person ever been eaten as a Christian ritual--then you're really just trolling.

 

[ananda]

"Ritualistic cannibalism" actually is cannibalism practiced for strictly ritualist purpose rather than as an ordinary diet.

You mean "figurative" cannibalism. I think if you're attempting to conflate what you know is clearly a figurative expression--at no time in Christianity has any person ever been eaten as a Christian ritual--then you're really just trolling.

OK ... ritualistic figurative cannibalism, then

 

[keith99]

They don't think they're eating the arm that Jesus used on that night, either.

The Catholic Church holds that it is the real Body and Blood of Christ.

Again, if it was purely figurative why the reaction of the Disciples?

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church holds that it is the real Body and Blood of Christ.

"Real" and "present" (not merely symbolic), but not what you are suggesting.

The Catholic Church does not maintain that it is the literal body that Christ occupied while on Earth. If it were, tens of thousands of altars each would have to be holding it almost simultaneously each and every day at Masses around the world.

The Catholic Church also maintains that the bread and wine retain all the properties of bread and wine and freely admit that this is what every scientific examination of the elements shows this to be the case. There is no possibility of this being some kind of religious "cannibalization," even given the Eucharistic doctrines held by the church.

I also believe the consecrated elements to be the "real" body and blood of Christ but only in a transcendent, spiritual, sense. It's quite obviously wheat paste and grape juice as well!

 

[RDKirk]

The Catholic Church holds that it is the real Body and Blood of Christ.

Again, if it was purely figurative why the reaction of the Disciples?

Did anyone ever eat the actual flesh of Jesus? Do you really think Jesus intended it to mean He was actually to be eaten? C'mon, Keith, you're usually better than this.

 

[TillICollapse]

I disagree, because the term actually means "followers of Christ" and Jesus used the same description when calling people to Himself in saying "follow me". I agree that today the use of the term Christian has become meaningless because people decide for themselves how to follow Jesus, and what this implies. I must say that it will be logically sound to suggest the earliest Christians ( those identified at Antioch) would be closer to the intended "followers of Christ" meaning intended by Jesus simply because it's human nature to deviate from and bastardize any teaching over time. It was also a large problem that the first Disciples ralied against from the intitiation of the Church ( Body of Christ ) and today I suggest the same problem exists but is far worse because, well, humans are stubborn and Satan wants the Church perverted.

Are you saying that you believe Jesus used the term "Christian" as it regarded his followers ... even though Acts says the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch ? Appealing to the term "Christian" meaning "follower of Christ" ... it's from the Greek, right ? That term originated in Antioch, yes ? So the term being defined that way came AFTER the fact of it's origination in Antioch, not with Jesus Himself, yes ? Out of curiosity, when did Jesus first start being referred to by the Greek "Christ" and not "Messhiach" ? Would He have been referred to as "Christ" by the Greek speakers who believed He was the Messiah for example before the resurrection ?

I won't refer directly to the posts because if you don't recall them I suggest we will disagree if you lost the cool, or not, and merry go round we go .

ETA I also think it may be against forum rules, maybe.

You don't have to point them out, but if they're the ones where I used veiled profanity ... that wasn't me losing my cool, I knew exactly what I was saying lol. The only times I really get close to losing any cool is when someone is projecting heavily upon me and I pick up on it. I can be a bit overly sensitive to that. I see the value in people projecting on one another actually ... I think it can actually be useful if the person doing it knows they are doing it, recognizes it, and makes use of the opportunity. Otherwise I sometimes get frustrated by it if I try to back out of a convo where I think it's being done and the other person doesn't oblige, but I still try to respect their emotional state or psychological needs to be finding someone to project on, to degrees. Otherwise I personally don't lose my cool often, even if it seems to come across that way. It should go without saying that a lot of intent can get lose through internet communication. One person may be smiling and laughing while their post looks as though there is seriousness to it, etc.

I do get disappointed in the other person, if I view them as being intelligent enough not to resort to "You mad bro ?" types of tactics, or assuming to point out what I am feeling or thinking when they are dead wrong, and do not seek clarification or trust me when I clarify for them. I expect such behavior from certain types of people ... others I expect more from them, regardless of what I think about their stances on this or that. You would be one of those people ... so if you think I've lost my cool in something, feel free to ask, I will be honest ... but if you assume, and continue to assert your assumption despite what I clarify, I would be disappointed in you for taking that route.

 

[agua]

Are you saying that you believe Jesus used the term "Christian" as it regarded his followers ... even though Acts says the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch ? Appealing to the term "Christian" meaning "follower of Christ" ... it's from the Greek, right ? That term originated in Antioch, yes ? So the term being defined that way came AFTER the fact of it's origination in Antioch, not with Jesus Himself, yes ? Out of curiosity, when did Jesus first start being referred to by the Greek "Christ" and not "Messhiach" ? Would He have been referred to as "Christ" by the Greek speakers who believed He was the Messiah for example before the resurrection ?

No I'm not suggesting Jesus used the word Christian, but that he invited people to follow Him, and this is the definition of the word Christian used in Acts.

Jesus was referred to as Christ by all NT bible writers as far as I know and the definition is Messiah. The Jews at that time mostly spoke spoke koine Greek and Mashiach is simply the Jewish term ( Hebrew into English I think ), that also means Messiah or Annointed One. So yes He was refered to as Christ from the time He revealed Himself to John the Baptist, onwards imo. Would it matter if Jews use Masciach, anyway ?

You don't have to point them out, but if they're the ones where I used veiled profanity ... that wasn't me losing my cool, I knew exactly what I was saying lol....

Ok, I won't comment on my impression of your behaviour, then.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Re: Cannibalism and the eucharist

Well if the substance of the body is differnent from the accidens of the bread, maybe the substance of the body is different to the accidens of the body also.

IOW the eucharist is about as canibalistic as the bread looks like or apperntly is flesh..

 

[juvenissun]

Yet Jesus is recorded as saying few would find his path. Doesn't that discount the world's largest religion?

Jesus also says that not every claimed Christian will be saved.

Also, the number of Christians are very small in compare to the world population.

You are shifting the goalpost set in your OP.

 

[Albion]

IOW the eucharist is about as canibalistic as the bread looks like or apperntly is flesh..

Well, it "apparently" is bread, not flesh, because it appears to be bread, tastes like bread, feels like bread, and proves out as bread when scientifically analyzed. To the extent that anyone believes it to be something other than that, that's a spiritual concept, not unlike believing that Mohammad ascended into heaven on his horse even though that is physically impossible and he never was in Jerusalem anyway.