At the last supper, Jesus took bread and broke it..He then blessed it as he did the wine. He took from it Himself and so did His disciples. The words He used indicated that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood.....so they are symbolic. He said "Do this in remembrance of me" which we as Christians do. It is a symbolic act....as prescribed by Jesus our 'Living God' and in no way involves eating human flesh. So it is not cannibalism.
With a little study and more wisdom and understanding you could have discovered that for yourselves instead of trying to ridicule Christian practice.
2007-06-26 10:30:36 · 17 answers · asked by georgiansilver 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Can I suggest thqt even if the Catholics are led to believe that they are eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus, they are still only eating a wafer and drinking wine.......so it is still not cannibalism.
2007-06-26 10:41:25 · update #1
I am a Christian but any reference to communion as cannibalism on this site, has always been directed to Catholics, who believe they are actually eating the body and blood of Christ. I wouldn't call it cannibalsim but it is a misinterpretation. As you said, it is a symbolic act.
2007-06-26 10:35:36 · answer #1 · answered by lix 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No eating God. Not in God-form, not in human form. It's an abomination. Unless of course you're an ancient pagan, from which this concept and practice comes.
As a Jew, Jesus NEVER would have said any such thing, ever, that indicated bread being his body or wine being his blood, even symbolically, for people to consume. He would have been absolutely disgusted by any such idea.
It comes from ancient paganism. If I were you, I'd be asking why the Church inserted this paganism into the mouth of Jesus in the New Testament. Because he surely didn't say any such thing, as a Jew.
EDIT: TO yy4me_. What you're quoting there has at least one mistake in it. Maneating was mentioned in the Torah. The Nefilim are mentioned as doing this, after they had eaten everything else, they began to eat other human beings. This is mentioned as an utter abomination, and that it had become widespread among them. This was also one of the reasons that God caused the flood to come about, at that point the whole thing was just beyond repair.
2007-06-26 10:38:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are completely and utterly wrong about Catholics and them not being cannibals.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION!!
Thousands and thousands of people have died from the birth of Christianity until now to prove the point that the bread and wine was not symbolic but actually BECAME the actual blood and flesh of Jesus Christ.
It created wars and divisions of countries and the loss of many many lives.
You cannot say "yeah, but its still symbolic because to Catholics it isnt.
2007-06-26 18:58:03 · answer #3 · answered by Iona 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was also believed in the early Church.
Christians were accused of being cannibals.
For Catholics it is the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.
This is called the transubstantiation.
If Jesus arose from the dead, so can the bread and wine, by the power of the holy Spirit become the Body and Blood of Christ.
Bronze Age thinkers Ron C- they could still swig back the booze and sin like you and me-nothing has changed!
2007-06-26 11:03:20 · answer #4 · answered by Plato 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
http://socialissues.articlesarchive.net/cannibalism-and-human-sacrifice-part-ii.html
The major monotheistic religions are curiously mute when it comes to cannibalism. Human sacrifice is denounced numerous times in the Old Testament - but man-eating goes virtually unmentioned. The Eucharist in Christianity - when the believers consume the actual body and blood of Jesus - is an act of undisguised cannibalism:
"That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church ...."
(Catholic Encyclopedia)
"CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema."
(The Council of Trent, The Thirteenth Session - The canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent, Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 75-91.)
2007-06-26 10:38:21 · answer #5 · answered by YY4Me 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
of direction, this then brings up the question... shouldn't the communion wafer be thoroughly cooked, after transubstantiation, before being served. Who is accustomed to? in keeping with danger Christ had ring malicious program, or Mad Cow disease. Communion must be very risky and hazardous. "The Church teaches infallibly that Christ is contemporary by way of transubstantiation. because of the fact the Council of Trent says, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church repeats: '. . . by way of the consecration of the bread and wine there happens a metamorphosis of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the physique of Christ our Lord and of the entire substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. this transformation the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and remarkable called transubstantiation.' Trent proclaims an anathema against people who deny transubstantiation."
2016-10-19 00:10:15 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First let me state that I hate copy and paste answers. What I do not understand is 1) how Jesus could be any clearer and 2) how Bible literalists can consider this symbolic. BTW I am Catholic. The following is John 6:53 - 58.
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
2007-06-26 10:57:40 · answer #7 · answered by Adoptive Father 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is a symbolic act: symbolic cannibalism. What's so bad about that? It is, after all, symbolic and not literal, or even suggesting that literal cannibalism would be in any way appropriate. But it is saying that Jesus sacrificed himself for others.
2007-06-26 10:35:07 · answer #8 · answered by auntb93 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sorry hon, but not all Christians agree with you. Some absolutely believe they are ingesting the actual body and blood of Christ.
Your brand of Christianity is not the only one out there.
2007-06-26 10:34:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
even if it is just symbolic I'd never follow Jesus. as i don't believe any of the guff wrote in a book by bronze age thinkers
2007-06-26 11:05:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋