2007-11-27 06:25:19 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
no
2007-11-27 06:27:48 · answer #1 · answered by FarmerCec 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
You can't say that communion is a ritual and then say it was giving physical instructions as well. It's either a lesson in cannibalism or its ritual using bread; can't be both in the same breath.
Jesus wasn't explaining the ritual of communion anyway. The idea of breaking bread and the symbolism of it was well established in the Passover Seder supper long before Jesus walked the earth.
Jesus was however explaining a mysterious component. Too long to address here but in the Seder there are three wafers of bread. One had always been broken and returned to its holder and never eaten. Jesus was explaining the previously unclear reason for this action. He was explaining His role as divinity.
He said "This is my body that has been broken for you". This was an eye opener for the Jews sitting at the table. It answered a question that perhaps had been on there mind every time they celebrated Passover.
This same revelation is further explained by the cup with which He said "This is the cup of my blood, the 'new' covenant that has been poured out for you". The cup He was holding was understood, in the context of the Passover, to be the cup of promise (or of covenant). Jesus was expressing a fulfillment of a promise made for a Savior.
It is only the religious idea of the Transubstantiation of the bread into "real flesh" that would give a view of cannibalism.
There are several nuances difficult to address in this forum. I don't hold to the teachings of Transubstantiation so I don’t see the problem with the bread to body symbolism.
God bless
2007-11-27 06:42:42 · answer #2 · answered by Consider_This 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Jesus never suggested communion because Jesus was Jewish and as a practising Jew he followed those rituals. Communion, as part of Christianity etc, did not develop UNTIL AFTER JESUS DIED.
How is it that some of you STILL can't appreciate this simple fact?
Jesus was Jewish; the only rites and rules he adhered to were the Jewish ones. Deal with it, people!
Now just watch me get the thumbs down! Doesn't change the fact that what I said is accurate, though.
ADOPTIVE FATHER
Are you insane? So you reckon the ROMANS killed Jesus because he didn't follow enough Jewish laws? Yeah, 'cause we all know how much the Romans loved the Jews - that's why they crucified so many of them! Get your facts straight, for crying out loud.
DENVER
You are wrong because at the time Jesus lived, those things were NOT done at the seder night for Passover. So how on earth could Jesus be 'explaining' things that Jews did not do back then??? He wasn't, that's the answer.
2007-11-27 06:30:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No.....
And this is where the catholics get transubstantiation wrong.
The emblems (bread & juice) do NOT literally become the body & blood of our Savior. The emblems have NO saving value.
That would be cannibalism.
2007-11-27 06:27:36 · answer #4 · answered by primoa1970 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hello,
No; he was of course speaking symbolically but later on people who wanted to discredit Christianity in the Empire brought this idea up and it worked in Rome at times.
Cheers,
Michael Kelly
2007-11-27 06:30:52 · answer #5 · answered by Michael Kelly 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not as far as i know... I think it was some sort of symbolic gesture that he was going to die for everyone to appease his father because of the penelty of sin but still you have to accept this gift from him...
2007-11-27 06:44:28 · answer #6 · answered by Spooky Mouse 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
On the off hand that this is a serious question, in a way He did. Please refer to John chapter 6. In this single chapter He told His followers a total of fifteen times (no doubt different translations are a bit different) to eat His flesh and drink His blood. I do not think that Jesus was kidding fifteen times. I also do not think that Jesus was being symbolic fifteen times. Towards the end of the chapter some of Jesus's followers grumbled and left Him. Jesus let them go, only the twelve remained.
I always find it strange when people say that Jesus could not have advocated drinking His blood because that was against Jewish law. Was not Jesus crucified for breaking Jewish laws?
EDIT:
Pilate washed his hands of Jesus's death.
2007-11-27 06:41:21 · answer #7 · answered by Adoptive Father 6 · 0⤊ 6⤋
No, He didn't. He said 'take this in remembrance of me'. The wine and bread. It was symbolically to remember Him. Nothing about cannibalism.
2007-11-27 06:30:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 2⤋
Symbolism! And, I believe you already know that!
2007-11-27 06:29:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well he was certainly promoting pretend cannibalism at the very least.
2007-11-27 06:28:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
yes and rising from the dead after 3 days is Zombiism - his name is on the credits of the movie Cannibal Holocaust
2007-11-27 06:36:15 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋