Yahoo Clever wird am 4. Mai 2021 (Eastern Time, Zeitzone US-Ostküste) eingestellt. Ab dem 20. April 2021 (Eastern Time) ist die Website von Yahoo Clever nur noch im reinen Lesemodus verfügbar. Andere Yahoo Produkte oder Dienste oder Ihr Yahoo Account sind von diesen Änderungen nicht betroffen. Auf dieser Hilfeseite finden Sie weitere Informationen zur Einstellung von Yahoo Clever und dazu, wie Sie Ihre Daten herunterladen.
How can one reconcile the idea of the Eucharist with the Jewish custom of never consuming any animal blood?
With the firm avoidance of consuming blood, one would think the idea of drinking Jesus' blood, even in metaphorical terms, would be repugnant to anyone of the Jewish tradition. And all the first Xtians were of the Jewish tradition. And there is not even a hint of any problem with this.
I find it interesting that some speculate that if the drinking of blood is symbolic, there would be no problem with it. I find that highly doubtful. "You're not allowed to drink blood, but in this ritual you will symbolically drink blood, but it's okay because it is purely symbolic." No, I don't think that will fly. Certainly not without a couple of authoritative sources.
It appears to me that Paul is conducting a Eucharist at on point, so the practice is not a later one, but existed before any of the gospels were even written. So, whatever the Eucharist was, it was going on from the beginning of Xtianity.
I personally wonder if it never was about drinking blood and eating flesh and those were later misunderstandings.
Bruce Chilton has a theory that the ritual stems from the Temple table-turning incident:
Jesus, banned from The Temple, used bread and wine in his own private temple ritual. He didn't need The Temple anymore, "THIS is my blood (the sacrificial blood) ...
"THIS is my body(the body of the lamb, pigeon, etc.)."
This eliminates need for The Temple and also makes, for the first time, the sacrificial ritual freely available to all, because it does away with all sacrificial animals.
Dear anonymous coward: Aside from the fact that you do not know what you claim about the way the Temple would have handled a person acting up on Temple grounds, it's hard to take seriously a person hiding behind anonymity. I was almost ready to write a more comprehensive comment, then I realized you obviously don't take the matter seriously. Never make a claim you cannot back up with sources. You must enjoy getting laughed at, eh?
4 Antworten
- ?Lv 7vor 4 Jahren
It seemed to be symbolic, after all wine and bread was used, not Jesus' skin and blood. That's probably why no one was bothered by it.
- DP.Lv 6vor 4 Jahren
It's a good point because if you ever have a meaningul conversation with a religious Jew they will almost certainly throw at you two things... 1) God never changes 2) He tells you to avoid drinking blood.
It's just one good reason why the literal interpretation of the Lord's supper or transubstantion is wrong... and is supported by the fact that there isn't even a hint of surprise in the first supper.
Frankly, to my mind the problem doesn't exist if the practice is symobolic... and from personal experience it completely flaws the Jewish accusation on the matter.
- Anonymvor 4 Jahren
The so-called Judaizers - the early Jewish followers of Jesus were fully marginalized in Christianity by the later first century and fully eliminated by the third to fifth century.
The Eucharist had nothing to do with their beliefs.
To whit --
The Jewish belief of the first century about sacrifices is that these are a celebratory meal WITH God,
while they believed that the notion of "eating a god" was actually orchestrated during the initial Passover sacrifice as an insult to the Egyptians to show their complete incapacity.
And -- the Egyptians and Romans of the first century knew this very well.
On the other hand, there were a number of Roman "mystery cults" who had a theology and ritual of "eating the god" -- like The Dionysian Mysteries and the Mithraists.
Thus, the Eucharist was clearly developed among the non-Jewish Christians as an adaptation of pre-existing "mystery cults" theology and ritual of "eating the god" --
purposefully inverting the well-known Jewish Passover sacrifice symbolism of eating the chief god of Egypt and thereby merging in Romano-Egyptian worship.
=====================
> ...Bruce Chilton has a theory that the ritual stems from the Temple table-turning incident:
Jesus, banned from The Temple...
No.
He would not have been banned from the Temple.
If the event had happened and he was known to have done it, this would have been a death penalty sabotage offense under Roman law.
He would have been tried, convicted, and executed.
Yet - for all that the New Testament says that the Jews were out to get him - he was never prosecuted for this, and the New Testament instead describes some sort of trumped up generic sedition charge.
- Annsan_In_HimLv 7vor 4 Jahren
Good points. I take the biblical ban on eating or drinking any kind of blood to make a literal interpretation of Jesus' words on the wine impossible. No Jew would ever drink wine that he or she believed had been turned into any kind of blood. Jesus and all the disciples at that Lord's Supper the night before He died drank wine from a cup on the understanding that that represented them entering into the new covenant in Christ's shed blood - which had not, at that time, yet been shed. They ate unleavened bread that had been broken on the same understanding; it represented the broken body of Christ - which had not, at that time yet been broken. Yet He told them to do that in remembrance of Him. I don't believe that the disciples thought they were actually drinking Jesus' blood. They believed they were drinking wine that represented Jesus' blood. It's up to Catholics to offer their reconciliation of how Jews would never consume blood (Leviticus 17:12 & Genesis 9:4). It wouldn't surprise me if hardly any Catholics even knew of God's prohibition on consuming blood for all of Noah's descendants (which includes the Jews, but everyone else too!)
