View Full Version : Why is cannibalism glorified by Christianity?
When you think about it, one of the most fundamental requirement of any Christians is to eat human flesh and drink human blood, or at least the bread and wine that symbolise it. But the way it is written in the Bible is ambiguous and could be interpreted as the duty of all Christians to eat human flesh.
Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you."
Human flesh is said to resemble most pork. When Europeans first arrived in Hawaii, the cannibalistic Hawaiians called them the 'long pigs' as they tasted pretty much the same. Pigs and humans share many similarities beyond the taste of their flesh. They both can have pinkish or black skin. Both species are omnivorous and, while humans can eat pigs, the reverse is also true. It is one of the rare cases of two animal species that can eat one another.
Eating pork was prohibited in Judaism long before the birth of Jesus. In fact, it was already prohibited in ancient Syria and Phoenicia during the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age. As Jesus was a Jew himself one can wonder why pork was not banned from the Christian diet. Even the Muslims adopted the old Jewish ways in that regard.
The reason could be that it would cast doubt on the validity of the Christian Eucharist. It may not be obvious to 21st century Westerners because cannibalism is no longer culturally accepted as it was in most tribal or ancient societies. Cannibalism was not only common in Stone Age tribes, but even among metal age cultures. The Aztecs, a Copper Age culture, practiced a form of ritual cannibalism. The Austronesian and Melanesian people, who practiced cannibalism until recently (and still do in parts of Papua New Guinea), were/are Iron Age societies. Pliny the Elder explained that the Celts practiced ritual cannibalism, eating their enemies' flesh as a source of spiritual and physical strength. According to Herodotus, the Scythians regularly drank from cups made from the skulls of their enemies. Some Eastern European, like the aptly named Androphagi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androphagi), were also man eaters. In fact ritual cannibalism was so widespread in tribal societies that it is hard to believe that the very concept of Eucharist wasn't itself a variant of ritual cannibalism, but in a more purified form more suitable to a monotheistic religion.
In all cases it seems that the rituals involve the passing of the deceased people's power or energy to the people who consume their flesh. A similar belief is found among many hunter-gathering tribes, in which the hunters will eat their prey's heart to absorb its strength. This tradition was found among many Native American tribes from the Great Plains and among several African tribes. It is likely that most humans had similar practices during the Palaeolithic.
It has been suggested that one of the reasons why pork was prohibited so early in the Levant was the similarity of swine meat with that of human flesh and the inevitable link with cannibalism. Other reasons were that pigs are scavengers and will eat almost anything, including human corpses - a relatively common sight in ancient times when wars and epidemics frequently left plenty of dead, unburied people to be eaten by scavengers.
By reviving a form of ritualistic cannibalism ("eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood"), early Christians may have felt it safer to lift the taboo on pork consumption, lest the association with cannibalism put the whole concept of Eucharist in jeopardy. Once again, it may sounds incredible to modern minds, but not if you try to think like Iron Age people, at an age when cannibalism was still common in other nearby societies (e.g. the Galatians in central Anatolia or some Steppe tribes).
The question I wanted to raise here is: Why is cannibalism so glorified by Christianity? Do Christians hope to obtain their god's power by reproducing a ritual in which they supposedly eat Jesus's body? Is it basically the same thing as our Stone Age hunter hoping to get the power of the freshly killed animal by eating its heart, but orders of magnitude larger, as Christians hope to enter communion with an omnipotent god and obtain eternal life? If so, that shows how little the human mind has evolved in the last 30,000 years or so. People just got more megalomaniac over time as small tribes of hunter-gatherers evolved into cities, kingdoms and empires, and humans asserted their dominance over Nature, believing that they were gods or that god(s) looked like them.
bicicleur 2
09-05-22, 15:01
When I was young, I was told about Jesus in school, and every week we had to go to church and during wholy communion these words were told.
But never I felt any link with cannibalism.
This thread perfectly encapsulates why Western Europeans are reaching the end of their lifespan as a people and civilization.
Vallicanus
09-05-22, 16:35
This thread perfectly encapsulates why Western Europeans are reaching the end of their lifespan as a people and civilization.
You'll have to explain that cryptic statement.
When I was young, I was told about Jesus in school, and every week we had to go to church and during wholy communion these words were told.
But never I felt any link with cannibalism.
The opposite would have surprised me. I also received a Catholic upbringing and was forced to go to catechism. In the absence of knowledge about the history of cannibalism or any notions of anthropology, one cannot easily make the link between the Eucharist and ancient ritualistic cannibalism. There are so many things in our culture and traditions whose origins are so distant and foreign to modern minds that it takes some effort and research to unravel them.
This thread perfectly encapsulates why Western Europeans are reaching the end of their lifespan as a people and civilization.
That's a peculiar way of putting it. Why do you associated Christianity with Western Europe in particular, when most of the Christians today live outside Europe, and that Western Europe is less religious than Eastern Europe?
Christianity is dying in Europe, but that surely does not impede the development of civilisation. On the contrary! The most civilised countries generally happen to be the least religious. The best example are Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. There is a very strong correlation between irreligiosity (in developed countries at least) and human development, democracy, individual rights, etc.
https://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Irreligion_rates.png
https://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Human_Development_Index_2018.png
https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Gallup_Well_Being_Europe.png
https://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Democracy_Score_2019.png
https://www.eupedia.com/images/maps/Modern_Slavery_Index.png
Carnimirie
09-05-22, 19:21
The Christian Communion is something that pertains to the spiritual realm or spiritual ideas...not corpse munching
The Christian Communion is something that pertains to the spiritual realm or spiritual ideas...not corpse munching
That does not mean its origin is not a form a ritual cannibalism.
italouruguayan
09-05-22, 20:07
In the case of the plane crash that a group of my compatriots had in the Andes in 1972, the symbolism of the Eucharist had a practical application. Trapped in a snowy valley at almost 4,000 meters, a week after the accident, there was nothing edible left in the wreckage of the plane. Only the corpses of his friends remained. When they finally made the decision to feed on them, only a few were encouraged. Until one of them remembered the Eucharist (they were all members of a Catholic school) and said: Christ died to give me eternal life...my friend died to give me life in this world. And then he put a piece of meat in his mouth. This argument ended up convincing the reluctant ones. Apparently, in this extreme circumstance, the rituals recovered their original value...
Carnimirie
09-05-22, 20:55
That does not mean its origin is not a form a ritual cannibalism.
I think this highly educated argument made in the first post is nonetheless missing the finer points of religious thought. At best it could be argued ritual cannibalism has persisted as a subconscious cultural relic, not that it is glorified.
Palermo Trapani
10-05-22, 01:39
I think this highly educated argument made in the first post is nonetheless missing the finer points of religious thought. At best it could be argued ritual cannibalism has persisted as a subconscious cultural relic, not that it is glorified.
Well let me say up front, I still hold to the Faith of My Fathers and hold to the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. Now, not looking to get into a tit for tat with anyone on what they believe and who was once Catholic or say Eastern Orthodox (who hold similar Eucharistic theology) and no longer hold those beliefs. Only prefacing my comments by "what I hold to". Now with respect to the Eucharist and charge of Cannibalism, the charge in my view does not hold. So I agree with Carnimirie that some points of theological thought are missed.
As early as the 2nd century pagan Romans, Pliny the Younger (Circa 110 AD), not to be confused with Pliny the Elder (the Uncle of the Younger) investigated early Church practices regarding the partaking of the Eucharist which was understood early on a partaking of the Body of Christ. So this charge is not new. So one has to realize what Cannibalism is and what is partaking the Eucharist (Communion, Sacrament of Christ Body and Blood, etc.). 1) Cannibalism is the killing of ones own species and eating the Flesh of another human which in its substance is human flesh. Thus, one is eating the flesh and blood of a human in the "form' of human flesh and blood and involves killing another human (Murder) 2) Communion or the Eucharist is partaking the Body and Blood of Christ (substance) under the form of ordinary Bread and Wine. And here lies where modernity, materialist, rationalist have rejected all forms of metaphysics and Greek Philosophy make a comparison that does not hold water.
As early as the Council of Nicea, early Church Theologians used terms like Substance to deal with Christological issues. Christ, in rejection of the Arian position was the same substance as the Father (Consubstantial) but distinct in terms of relationship, etc. Later on Christ would be Defined as a Divine Person with a Divine and human nature, yet each nature was not distorted by the other or took from the other. His Divine Nature same substance as the Father and Holy Spirit while human nature same as humanities. With respect the Eucharist, it, like all Sacraments had proper matter and form. Baptism, the matter was Water and the form was the Trinitarian I baptize you in the Name, of, etc
With respect to the Eucharist "substance" and "form" are important concepts to clearly define and understand. Bread, ordinary bread, with all the properties of Bread is the matter used, the form of course is the Eucharistic prayer so in substance Christ is present but the form of Bread and Wine do not change, the properties or accidents as is used in scholastic philosophy, do not change. Thus, in Communion, one is partaking of the Body of Christ in the form of Bread and Wine, not human flesh, so the charge of Cannibalism does not hold. Christ is not killed, he is actually Resurrected in a glorified body, living, not dead.
My take
How were the cannibalism rituals of the Brazilian Indians?
Food and spirituality, Brazilian cannibalism was complex.
Human flesh was much more than a snack for Brazilian cannibals. Cannibalism, in the culture of these peoples, involved ceremonies that evoked the supernatural. “They believed that the individual gains strength by assimilating others, powerful and dangerous, be they enemy warriors or dead relatives”, says historian João Monteiro, from Unicamp.
The most powerful enemies these populations had were the Portuguese. The Portuguese became the favorite dish of the taba, which saved the adventurer Hans Staden from burning in the moquém. As a German, Staden was spared by the Tupinambás who captured him in Ubatuba (coast of São Paulo), in 1549. A prisoner of the Indians, he witnessed anthropophagic rituals. His account – illustrated by the Belgian contemporary Théodore de Bry – is the most detailed ever made of Brazilian cannibals.
It is not known exactly how many indigenous groups practiced anthropophagy. The habit lasted until the 17th century, when catechization ended with it in the territories controlled by the colonists.
“But the anthropophagic logic remained strong, including the way in which the Indians assimilated Catholic rituals, which include eating the 'blood' and 'body' of Christ,” says João. Today, only the Yanomami maintain the habit of eating ashes from corpses, as a way of honoring a dead friend.
Source:
https://super.abril.com.br/historia/como-eram-os-rituais-de-canibalismo-dos-indios-brasileiros/
There are three types of cannibalism in human societies.
1) Actively seeking other humans as prey to kill and eat.
=> This has always been the least common form of cannibalism, but for some reason it is often the kind of barbaric image that spring in most people's mind when they hear of 'cannibals'. It conjures images of primitive people boiling their victims in a big cauldron. These images are rarely based on reality though.
2) Survival cannibalism
=> Eating dead people in time of crisis in order not to starve to death. The crash of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 in 1972 is a famous example of this, but it has happened more than we expect everywhere on Earth in the past during periods of famine.
3) Ritualistic cannibalism
=> It properly covers the vast majority of all human cannibalism in (pre)history. Wikipedia has an exhaustive list of cases of human cannibalism around the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannibalism). It can take the form of either endocannibalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannibalism) (eating deceased members of one's own community) or exocannibalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocannibalism) (eating people outside one's own close social group). Here are some examples of endocannibalism.
The Aghoris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghori): modern Hindu ascetics (mostly from Uttar Pradesh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttar_Pradesh), India's most populated state) who believe that eating human flesh confers spiritual and physical benefits, such as prevention of aging. They claim to only eat those who have voluntarily willed their body to the sect upon their death.
Several Papuan tribes the ate the body of dead relatives. This could be out of love and to free the spirit, as in the Fore people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_people) (see Whitfiled et al. 2008 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581657/)), while others hoped that their kinfolk's spirit would keep living in them if they ate them.
The Wari' people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wari%CA%BC#Cannibalism) of the Amazon practiced mortuary cannibalism. This was done as a form of utmost respect to those who had died. Mortuary preparation involved ritual wailing and other ceremonies, building a fire, removing the visceral organs, and finally roasting the body. The decedent's closest kin would not consume the body, but they urged the attendant relatives to eat. Consumption of the flesh would assuage the family's grief, as it meant that the soul of the deceased would be kept in the living bodies of relatives instead of being abandoned to wander the forest alone. The practice was considered equally an act of compassion, affinal love, and grief.
In her book Toward a Theory of Peace The Role of Moral Beliefs (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08188RRPP/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B08188RRPP&linkCode=as2&tag=eupedia-20) (free on Kindle), Dr. Randall Caroline Forsberg has a whole chapter dedicated to ritual cannibalism in which she explains that: "Often, the organ to be consumed is the heart, the brain, or the liver, and the attribute to be preserved (endocannibalism) or appropriated (exocannibalism) is the soul stuff, the spirit, the courage, or the fecundity of the deceased."
Most Western people would probably be afraid to visit a tribe of cannibals, because they mistakenly believe that they are just going to kill any human they meet (from outside their tribe) to eat them. This is so completely wrong. It's the same kind of mental bias that make some straight people believe that gay people are going to want to sleep with them! Ignorance leads to fear, which leads to hatred.
As we can see, most human cannibalism is ritualistic and rooted in spiritual beliefs. This typically involve the passing of the soul or spirit of the deceased to those who consume their body (or more typically specific parts of the body rather than the whole body). It's a way early human societies found to deal with their own mortality, hoping to find a sort of continuity after death - one of the greatest preoccupation of humanity since our brains were big enough to ask ourselves: "what happens after we die?"
From a historical and anthropological point of view, the Christian eucharist fits perfectly in the continuity of these ancient rites. It aims to answer the same question about what happens after death and pretends to confer eternal life to people who "eat the flesh of the Son of Man", even if no actual flesh is consumed. Some Amazonian tribes crush the bones of their deceased kinfolk and add the crushed bone powder to their food. It is considered as a form of ritual cannibalism even though no actual flesh is eaten. There is no reason it should be different with the eucharist. The image is the same. The purpose is the same.
I think this highly educated argument made in the first post is nonetheless missing the finer points of religious thought. At best it could be argued ritual cannibalism has persisted as a subconscious cultural relic, not that it is glorified.
Ok, maybe I chose a title that was a bit catchy to grab people's attention. But it's hard to condense all the ideas I wanted to convey in a short title. Nevertheless, even if the eucharist is a subconscious cultural relic of ritual cannibalism, it goes without saying that the eucharist is one of the most important and defining part of being a Christian. The whole concept of excommunication, the exclusion from the Christian community, is the prohibition of an individual from receiving the eucharist/holy communion (hence the name from the Latin ex- communis, or exclusion from the communion).
So the communion/eucharist is not just glorified by Christianity, it is one of its defining features, one of the few aspects that all Christian denominations (and there are many!) almost all seem to agree on. (I googled it and it looks like only the Quakers and The Salvation Army do not partake in the eucharist. Together they represent less than 0.1% of all Christians worldwide.)
If the eucharist is a glorified and defining part of Christianity, and the eucharist is a form of ritual cannibalism, then a fortiori ritual cannibalism is glorified by Christianity.
The lead post uses conflation to reach a eye catching headline. I admit it worked on me.
Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you."
Human flesh is said to resemble most pork.
One thing that is not a logical connection is to jump immediately to pork as a type of meat.
I don’t recall anywhere in the Bible where pig is connected with Jesus or the Messiah. He is referred to multiple situations as the “Lamb of God”. Why do you focus on pork instead of lamb?
The context of the “Lamb” in ritual was a pure sacrifice. It is a bit of conflation to equate ritual sacrifice to ritual cannibalism.
As Jesus was a Jew himself one can wonder why pork was not banned from the Christian diet. Even the Muslims adopted the old Jewish ways in that regard.
This is clearly explained by Peter’s dream in Acts 10.
‘He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”’
This was so evangelizing the Gospel would not be hindered to the Gentiles.
Jesus revealed a greater truth in Matthew 15:10-11,
‘Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” ‘
The food is not that important. It’s our words.
The question I wanted to raise here is: Why is cannibalism so glorified by Christianity?
It’s not glorified. You have not logically shown the premise of your question is true. It’s an irrelevant question for us to answer.
Here’s a question for you to chew on. The Last Supper was literally with bread and wine.
In Matthew 4:4 Jesus provides relevation.
“Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’“
What is or who is the word from God’s mouth? Is this not the underlying theme of Christianity?
So the communion/eucharist is not just glorified by Christianity, it is one of its defining features, one of the few aspects that all Christian denominations (and there are many!) almost all seem to agree on. (I googled it and it looks like only the Quakers and The Salvation Army do not partake in the eucharist. Together they represent less than 0.1% of all Christians worldwide.)
I have attended a variety of church services in the USA. I have never thought that Communion was a high priority in most denominations in the USA other than Roman Catholic.
I have attended evangelical churches in the past years and I don’t remember taking Communion. Maybe sometimes it is done at Easter but last couple of Easter’s it hasn’t.
I think there are people evangelical churches in the USA than Roman Catholic.
Palermo Trapani
11-05-22, 02:52
I have attended a variety of church services in the USA. I have never thought that Communion was a high priority in most denominations in the USA other than Roman Catholic.
I have attended evangelical churches in the past years and I don’t remember taking Communion. Maybe sometimes it is done at Easter but last couple of Easter’s it hasn’t.
I think there are people evangelical churches in the USA than Roman Catholic.
You are correct regarding the religious landscape in the USA, it has a free market flavor outside the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Communion is something largely tied to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church. Outside of those 2, the priority of Communion is closer to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox in churches that have some holdings earlier Apostolic Traditions such as Creeds and Liturgical worship. So Communion would be higher in protestant traditions like Anglicans and Lutherans. As you move to the Reformed/Presbyterians (Calvinist), who while holding to the ancient Creeds and having some basic Liturgical structure in their Sunday worship services, it may vary, some weekly, some monthly, etc, etc. Once you move to evangelical, Baptist or Pentecostal groups it is largely based on what the local Pastor thinks since those groups tend to not have ties to a broader communion or confession, etc.
You are correct regarding the religious landscape in the USA,
Thanks, but please recognize I grew up in mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. As an Irish background marrying to Hispanic, we did the classes, etc. in the Roman Catholic church.
However, I have been a member of evangelical churches for years.
I think two of your comments are quite insightful.
it has a free market flavor outside the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
…..
Once you move to evangelical, Baptist or Pentecostal groups it is largely based on what the local Pastor thinks since those groups tend to not have ties to a broader….
The pastors do not have authoritarian control. They may try to but the “free market” votes with its feet so it is essentially democratic.
I looked up the definition for “evangelical”. There is no mention of communion or the eucharist… hardly a “defining part”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evangelical
It just isn’t the most critical sacrament in most American churches as I have seen them. Baptism would be a more prominent ritual across the board, but is really the word - the Gospel and the Word.
I think there are -more- people evangelical churches in the USA than Roman Catholic.
I missed the word “more”. The Roman Catholics are in the minority overall among USA denominations. I could some change with the number of Hispanic speaking immigrants but there tends to be conversions to evangelicals over the generations. Palermo’s “free market” is at work.
“The majority of Christian Americans are Protestant Christians (150 to 160 million),”
“Today, most Christian churches in United States are either Mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, or Catholic.”
(wikipedia)
Palermo Trapani
11-05-22, 07:03
I missed the word “more”. The Roman Catholics are in the minority overall among USA denominations. I could some change with the number of Hispanic speaking immigrants but there tends to be conversions to evangelicals over the generations. Palermo’s “free market” is at work.
“The majority of Christian Americans are Protestant Christians (150 to 160 million),”
“Today, most Christian churches in United States are either Mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, or Catholic.”
(wikipedia)
Yes, if you combine all Protestant groups, they are larger than Catholics in the USA. By "more" I was referring to yes the more non confessional protestants, which Baptist, evangelicals, Pentecostals would all be part of. So free market to me is a foreign concept for religion, although I recognize it as a reality in the USA. Many groups in the USA are off shoots, of groups, that are off shoots, of another group. From my perspective, there is lots of moving from group to group and there are always a new pastor with the church of what is happening now to entice people to move from a to b. I should have been a little clearer in my views, although even among confessional protestants, there are splits, the United Methodist in the USA just had a split into 2 new confessions. That may have had to do more with moral theology and church leadership issues, vs. sacraments as the Methodist tend to have a view of Sacraments somewhere between the Reformed and Baptist.
When you think about it, one of the most fundamental requirement of any Christians is to eat human flesh and drink human blood, or at least the bread and wine that symbolise it. But the way it is written in the Bible is ambiguous and could be interpreted as the duty of all Christians to eat human flesh.
Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you."
Human flesh is said to resemble most pork. When Europeans first arrived in Hawaii, the cannibalistic Hawaiians called them the 'long pigs' as they tasted pretty much the same. Pigs and humans share many similarities beyond the taste of their flesh. They both can have pinkish or black skin. Both species are omnivorous and, while humans can eat pigs, the reverse is also true. It is one of the rare cases of two animal species that can eat one another.
Eating pork was prohibited in Judaism long before the birth of Jesus. In fact, it was already prohibited in ancient Syria and Phoenicia during the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age. As Jesus was a Jew himself one can wonder why pork was not banned from the Christian diet. Even the Muslims adopted the old Jewish ways in that regard.
The reason could be that it would cast doubt on the validity of the Christian Eucharist. It may not be obvious to 21st century Westerners because cannibalism is no longer culturally accepted as it was in most tribal or ancient societies. Cannibalism was not only common in Stone Age tribes, but even among metal age cultures. The Aztecs, a Copper Age culture, practiced a form of ritual cannibalism. The Austronesian and Melanesian people, who practiced cannibalism until recently (and still do in parts of Papua New Guinea), were/are Iron Age societies. Pliny the Elder explained that the Celts practiced ritual cannibalism, eating their enemies' flesh as a source of spiritual and physical strength. According to Herodotus, the Scythians regularly drank from cups made from the skulls of their enemies. Some Eastern European, like the aptly named Androphagi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androphagi), were also man eaters. In fact ritual cannibalism was so widespread in tribal societies that it is hard to believe that the very concept of Eucharist wasn't itself a variant of ritual cannibalism, but in a more purified form more suitable to a monotheistic religion.
In all cases it seems that the rituals involve the passing of the deceased people's power or energy to the people who consume their flesh. A similar belief is found among many hunter-gathering tribes, in which the hunters will eat their prey's heart to absorb its strength. This tradition was found among many Native American tribes from the Great Plains and among several African tribes. It is likely that most humans had similar practices during the Palaeolithic.
It has been suggested that one of the reasons why pork was prohibited so early in the Levant was the similarity of swine meat with that of human flesh and the inevitable link with cannibalism. Other reasons were that pigs are scavengers and will eat almost anything, including human corpses - a relatively common sight in ancient times when wars and epidemics frequently left plenty of dead, unburied people to be eaten by scavengers.
By reviving a form of ritualistic cannibalism ("eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood"), early Christians may have felt it safer to lift the taboo on pork consumption, lest the association with cannibalism put the whole concept of Eucharist in jeopardy. Once again, it may sounds incredible to modern minds, but not if you try to think like Iron Age people, at an age when cannibalism was still common in other nearby societies (e.g. the Galatians in central Anatolia or some Steppe tribes).
The question I wanted to raise here is: Why is cannibalism so glorified by Christianity? Do Christians hope to obtain their god's power by reproducing a ritual in which they supposedly eat Jesus's body? Is it basically the same thing as our Stone Age hunter hoping to get the power of the freshly killed animal by eating its heart, but orders of magnitude larger, as Christians hope to enter communion with an omnipotent god and obtain eternal life? If so, that shows how little the human mind has evolved in the last 30,000 years or so. People just got more megalomaniac over time as small tribes of hunter-gatherers evolved into cities, kingdoms and empires, and humans asserted their dominance over Nature, believing that they were gods or that god(s) looked like them.
Us Catholics have a ritual where the priest takes the chalice onto the table and takes the bread saying the verse �this is my body which will be given up to you� then lifts up the bread; sometimes bells ring depending on the specific Catholic Church. Then the priest raises up the chalice of wine saying that this is my blood.
We all get in line to partake in eating the bread and wine calling it communion. :)
Bread is symbolism for the body and wine is symbolism for blood basically and not really human flesh; I may live near Forks but I�m no vampire lol 🧛*♂️ . 😅
Yes, if you combine all Protestant groups, they are larger than Catholics in the USA. By "more" I was referring to yes the more non confessional protestants, which Baptist, evangelicals, Pentecostals would all be part of. So free market to me is a foreign concept for religion, although I recognize it as a reality in the USA. Many groups in the USA are off shoots, of groups, that are off shoots, of another group. From my perspective, there is lots of moving from group to group and there are always a new pastor with the church of what is happening now to entice people to move from a to b. I should have been a little clearer in my views, although even among confessional protestants, there are splits, the United Methodist in the USA just had a split into 2 new confessions. That may have had to do more with moral theology and church leadership issues, vs. sacraments as the Methodist tend to have a view of Sacraments somewhere between the Reformed and Baptist.
If you are not in USA and an explorer it would be hard to understand. I think the evangelical churches could be grouped together for their strong similarities, which would be much more centered around “born again” and baptism rather than the eucharist.
Even this Pew research poll understates. I am pretty sure that their “unaffiliated” churches would mostly be evangelical even though not derived from mainline Protestant churches.
I can best highlight this by a pastor (who I loved) of a very small church who would say “ I don’t care what church you go to as long as the name over the doorway is the King, Jesus Christ”.
This is much like spirit following as described John’s relevations.
“The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” John 3:8
If you don’t understand the 1st Great Awakening, 2nd Great Awakening, the Abolitionist movement, Billy Graham, (and probably the Anti-abortionist movement) then you don’t understand Christianity in USA.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/5-facts-about-u-s-evangelical-protestants/ft_18-03-01_5factsevangelicals/
“In the United States, evangelicalism is a movement among Protestant Christians who believe in the necessity of being born again, emphasize the importance of evangelism, and affirm traditional Protestant teachings on the authority as well as the historicity of the Bible.“
Notice, Communion is not listed. It is the notion of to be “born again” which is related to Baptism, albeit baptism with fire, not water.
There is a large charismatic movement within the US Catholic church. This and conversion to evangelical churches among Hispanics can’t be denied. My own family is probably a good example. I inherited Roman Catholicism from the Irish, my wife from the Hispanic. We were married in a Catholic church, but we have not attended Catholic churches in years, except occasions like my father-in-law’s funeral.
I just don’t see how one can say Communion is the “defining part” of Christianity.
Palermo Trapani
13-05-22, 06:32
“In the United States, evangelicalism is a movement among Protestant Christians who believe in the necessity of being born again, emphasize the importance of evangelism, and affirm traditional Protestant teachings on the authority as well as the historicity of the Bible.“
Notice, Communion is not listed. It is the notion of to be “born again” which is related to Baptism, albeit baptism with fire, not water.
There is a large charismatic movement within the US Catholic church. This and conversion to evangelical churches among Hispanics can’t be denied. My own family is probably a good example. I inherited Roman Catholicism from the Irish, my wife from the Hispanic. We were married in a Catholic church, but we have not attended Catholic churches in years, except occasions like my father-in-law’s funeral.
I just don’t see how one can say Communion is the “defining part” of Christianity.
It was a defining part of Christianity where Christianity developed. Christianity developed in the Mediterranean world. The elements of Bread and Wine are stables in that part of the World. The symbols Christ used for Sacraments are largely because the Incarnation took place in the context of Greco-Roman culture and in the Levant. Evangelical churches are for the most part very far removed from Apostolic Tradition as expressed by the early Church Fathers and the first 4 major ecumenical Councils (Nicea 325 AD, Constantinople 381 AD, Ephesus 431 AD and Chalcedon 451 AD).
In fact one of the first Heresies faced in the late 1st Century was a form of Gnosticism, Saint John's Gospel could be seen as a direct refutation of it as John's prologue gets right to the point, the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us (cf. John 1:14). The Incarnation therefore is an abiding reality, Christ resurrected still had a Body, Glorified yes, but still a body. Sacraments are related to Christ, who as the Councils I mentioned above, declared/defined Dogmatically Christ to be a Divine Person with both a Divine Nature and human nature. Sacraments, as Saint Augustine first defined as visible signs of an invisible Grace, the ordinary means through which God relates to humanity in ways consistent with our human nature, not against it.
The OT, when read through the way the Early Church Fathers read it, through Typology, looks at signs, events, persons in the OT as prefiguring Christ in the NT. As early as Genesis 14:18 we read the Priest Melchizedek bringing out bread and wine and making an offering (remember this). Exodus 12:1-20 prescribes the Passover Ritual, lamb and unleavened bread. This ritual was meant to be a perpetual institution (c.f Ex 12:14). In Exodus 16:13-15 we read of the Mana from heaven, which Moses describes as "this is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat". The Psalmist writes that God brings bread from the earth and wine to gladden our hearts (Ps: 104:14-15) and in Psalm 110 writes the Lord has sworn you are a priest like Melchizedek forever (remember what Melchizedek offered).
So when Christ in John Chapter 6 "Bread of Life Discourse" where Christ refers back to the Mana event from Exodus 16, he states he is the Bread that came down from heaven..and who eats this bread, unlike your ancestors who ate bread in the desert and died, will never die. Notice the connection. John 1:29 Christ is called the Lamb of God (part of passover ritual). All 3 Synoptic Gospels describe the Last Supper narrative (Lk 22: 14-20; Mk 14: 22-26; Mt 26:26-30) which all have Christ taking Bread and Wine, blessing it, and giving it to the Apostles saying take and eat, take and drink, do this in memory of me. (Bread and Wine, do it in memory of me, relating back to Melchizedek). In the post resurrection narrative in Saint Luke's Gospel, we read the story of the road to Emmaus (cf. Luke 24:27-35) we see Christ walking and talking but it was in the Breaking of the Bread that they recognized who was truly present (strong eucharistic theology here).
In Acts 2:42, we read the early Church devoted themselves to communal life, prayer and the breaking of the bread. In Acts 20:7, we read Saint Paul before leaving, on the first day of the week, gathered to break bread. Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 speaks of the cup of blessing (wine) and bread that we break as a participation in the blood and body of Christ. Later on he states that he hand on to the Church of Corinth what he received and goes on to describe the Last supper narrative where Christ took bread and wine., it is a new covenant, and as often as you eat and drink, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he come. Nobody should partake of the cup of the Lord or eat the bread unworthily. The Letter of Hebrews in Chapter 7 describes how Christ is a priest Forever and uses Melchizedek to describe how Christ is a priest forever.
So The Eucharist/Communion is the way in which Christ is eternally present, His Body and Blood, in an unbloody manner, in the form of bread and wine. You will find no Apostolic Church Father (Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus), pre-Nicene Church Father (Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, Hippolytus of Rome) or post Nicene Church Father (Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Hillary of Potiers (4 Great Latin Doctors) or Greek Fathers, Athanasius, Basil the Great, etc) denying the Eucharist as the central act of Liturgical worship in the Church.
It was a defining part of Christianity where Christianity developed….
I still agree, at least in terms of considering the early church from a Catholic orthodoxy and organizational perspective.
However, you peaked my interest so I started reviewing the New Testament for this. There is a reference to “breaking bread” but I haven’t been able to find where the earliest church leaders, the Twelve Apostles, conducted a formal communion ritual.
I would hardly say that Holy Communion was “the” defining part of the earliest Christianity. I think movements of the Holy Spirit from healings to speaking in tongues to miraculous escapes and conversions was much more of a hallmark of the spread of the early church. This is the power of the early church, which is the body of Christ, not the orthodoxy.
Palermo Trapani
14-05-22, 16:02
I agree. I would never say the sacrament of the Holy Communion is unimportant, particularly within some denominations. It could easily be called “a” defining part of Christianity, particularly in original universal/catholic church.
What I am emphasizing is that Maciamo is wrong to characterize this sacrament as “the” defining part of Christianity, particularly if we are talking across denominations.
Another dimension of this is the understanding of rituals and sacraments. In that American “free market” of Christianity in the USA, the formal priestly role is not nearly so important as it was/is in the Roman Catholic church. The large number of people reading the Bible has led to more emphasis on the reality of everyday living and the lay people. As mentioned, we are all priests. We are to pray and contemplate Christ often and that includes every meal, not just formal church ritual.
I think your free market notion stems back to “protesting” organized religion, especially those hierarchical in nature. Mainline Protestant denominations are included as targets of disdain along with Catholic in this. It is my opinion that there is a natural rebellious and independent nature among Americans. This feeds the decline of formal religion dogma, ritual and hierarchy.
This strongly ties into Christ’s message to Nicodemus that he must be “born again” and the notion of a personal relationship with Christ. The movement of the Holy Spirit dwells in the bodies of all believers, not just the ritualistic officeholders.
Yes I think you captured the individualist mindset of Americans, "Me and My Bible" theological mindset. Actually, Nicodemus understood "born again" but the meaning in that text is "born from above" and the term or phrase "personal relationship with Christ" is found nowhere in the NT. So by your own which appears to be "Sola Scriptura" lens through which you form your belief system, that terminology is not found in the New Testament. However, as I already noted, from from where I sit, you have accurately captured the core tenants of American Individualist evangelical Christianity in the USA.
Palermo Trapani
14-05-22, 20:08
I still agree, at least in terms of considering the early church from a Catholic orthodoxy and organizational perspective.
However, you peaked my interest so I started reviewing the New Testament for this. There is a reference to “breaking bread” but I haven’t been able to find where the earliest church leaders, the Twelve Apostles, conducted a formal communion ritual.
I would hardly say that Holy Communion was “the” defining part of the earliest Christianity. I think movements of the Holy Spirit from healings to speaking in tongues to miraculous escapes and conversions was much more of a hallmark of the spread of the early church. This is the power of the early church, which is the body of Christ, not the orthodoxy.
Well depends how one reads the Text. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 describes a "Tradition" from which Saint Paul received that he handed to the Church at Corinth. When you realize that 1 Corinthians was written before any of the Gospels, this itself is reference to something already handed on "Tradition". Jesus himself took bread, blessed it, and broke it and then gave it to the Disciples with in (i.e., Road to Emmaus story; Cf Luke 24:27-35) is a Liturgical/Ritual act post Resurrection. So when one reads in Acts 2:46 and Acts 20:7 "breaking bread" and 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 to try to wiggle out of interpreting anyway but in relation to Christ action at the Last Supper is not correct. Furthermore, the earliest accounts from Church Tradition (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, interpreted in the context of the Church's Doctrine) refer to the Eucharist as the central act of Christian worship and it was Liturgical. The Didache, written in late 1st century (earliest Catechism and Church Directive on Church Liturgy, Sacraments) clearly speaks of Confessing ones sins before partaking in the Liturgy, it describes Baptism with Water using the Trinitarian Formula and, clearly talks of the Eucharist prescribing how the Church is to give thanks (eucharist), stating nobody can partake unless Baptized and states in strong language (something moderns have issue with) do not give that which is Holy to dogs. The Didache also states on the Lord's Day (Sunday) gather together, break bread and give thanks after confessing your sins to that your sacrifice may be pure. In addition, with the issue of Abortion being front and center in USA secular politics, the Didache is the first clear Church teaching Abortion being a grave sin. Again, the Didache was written in late 1st century. Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Church of Smyrna (110 AD) speaks of certain Gnostic sects abstaining from the Eucharist since they do not believe in the Incarnation and he writes a valid "eucharist" is only one celebrated by the Bishop or one He appoints.
The most detailed account of a Liturgy of the Eucharist is found in Saint Justin Marytr's 1st Apology (circa 150 AD) Chapters 65-66 (Administration of Sacraments and Eucharist). It is in its structure and form, no different than a Catholic Liturgy today, or for that matter, an Eastern Orthodox one as well.
Yes I think you captured the individualist mindset of Americans, "Me and My Bible" theological mindset.
You could phrase it that way, but another way to describe it as “God’s Word unfiltered”. After all we don’t live on “bread alone but every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Mat 4:4). The printing press and literacy made great impacts that help reform religious organizations, what some call the church.
In fact, the essence of Jesus’ love is to lay down one’s life for another. This is anything but a selfish perspective and is the calling put forth to Christians, not just of the evangelical types, Yes, individuals are accountable to God as individuals, but this doesn’t diminish the calling for brotherhood as members of the body of Christ, the true church.
Actually, Nicodemus understood "born again" but the meaning in that text is "born from above"
It is my understanding that it can mean either “born again” or “born above”. In this case, I think it means both as we can tell from Nicodemues’ response about going into womb and Jesus’ follow up referring to the Spirit and the wind.
the term or phrase "personal relationship with Christ" is found nowhere in the NT. …. that terminology is not found in the New Testament.
Neither is the term “Eucharist” found in New Testament that I can see. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean the term is not applicable in a discussion. It is, just as “personal relationship” is.
You find we are brothers and sisters with Jesus. To me, this is the greater meaning of the “Word of God Incarnate”. This has nothing to do with cannibalism it has to do with the humanity of Jesus, therefore supporting a relationship as a brother.
This New Testament provides reasoning for the “personal relationship” theme and brother/sisterhood among believers.
“In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters. He says,
‘I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters; in the assembly I will sing your praises.’ “. (Heb 2:10-12)
“ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. ” (Rom 8:29)
Please read Romans 8 prior to the 8:29. The word “flesh” is used 12 times in the first 13 verses. It is about sin offering, which relates to lamb and the Lamb.This has nothing to do with pork and cannibalism.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+8&version=NIV
How were the cannibalism rituals of the Brazilian Indians?
Food and spirituality, Brazilian cannibalism was complex.
Human flesh was much more than a snack for Brazilian cannibals. Cannibalism, in the culture of these peoples, involved ceremonies that evoked the supernatural. “They believed that the individual gains strength by assimilating others, powerful and dangerous, be they enemy warriors or dead relatives”, says historian João Monteiro, from Unicamp.
From their cultural point of view, I think they can eat human flesh like the other animals. Animal is holy to them and steppe people, however, they consume animal. what about unholy human flesh to them?
https://cdn.kastatic.org/ka-perseus-images/2131ca0ca99794eaec7b05d44adfd77e89d127fc.png
"Animals are everywhere in the Popol Vuh. They leap and lick and crawl and bite and squawk and hoot and screech and howl. They are considered sacred, not as disembodied beings in some faraway place, but in their coexistence with humans, day by day in the forests.":
With the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood, or Jesus being the "Bread of Life," Jesus spoke in some kind of parable. Christ was the symbolic ''Bread of Life,'' foreshadowing His own crucifixion, according to religious sources. However, medicinal cannibalism was prevalent in medieval and early modern European culture, influenced by the healing properties of the Eucharist. But as cannibalism became the symbol of ‘otherness’ in the New World, European medicine began to turn away from it.
Despite these insistent denials, the practice of eating human remains for religious or medicinal purposes was extremely prevalent in medieval and early modern European culture. It was studied by the Swiss physician Paracelsus (1493/4-1541) and other well-respected medical professionals and used not only by the average gentry-man who could afford medical care, but by kings such as Charles II of England and even Pope Innocent VIII. The ideology behind this practice was said to be influenced by the healing properties of the Eucharist. In fact, the general consensus seems to be that medicinal cannibalism was supported by the same ideas that supported the Eucharist: that human flesh contained healing powers, and the most effective way to access those powers was by eating that which contained them. Therefore, it seems rather odd for cannibalism to be the pervasive symbol of ‘otherness’ when the Eucharist was so essential to the European psyche. However, it has been suggested by modern scholars that early medical historians had white-washed corpse medicine, and indeed the literature shows that there is a notable gap in the discussion of medicinal cannibalism practiced outside of Europe. This can be attributed to not only the modern literature, but to a shift in early modern attitudes regarding cannibalism as a whole Indeed, the downfall of corpse medicine coincided with colonial expansion. As cannibalism became increasingly associated with New World savages, European medicine began to turn away from the belief in the spiritual properties of the flesh and the negative reputation that was associated with it.
https://www.epoch-magazine.com/riehlthebreadoflife
Receiving Holy Communion is a very special sacrament that is part of the Catholic mass, by receiving Jesus into our body through the Eucharist we affirm our faith in the church. I’m not the best catholic, I don’t go to confession or mass every Sunday but,
when I see Nancy Pelosi defying the archbishops order to refrain from communion and repent for her strong beliefs of abortion and she insists on going to mass and taking it anyway!
It’s like some kind of weird fetish with her.
She should just find another religion and go!
The way the left twists things . . . this is my body and sacrifice of the unborn.
like a sacrament to them.
CrazyDonkey
30-05-22, 20:02
Buñuel on Transubstantiation (The Milky Way):
Meanwhile the police chief discusses religion with an affable priest who matter-of-factly asserts that all people have now been converted to Christianity, even Muslims and Jews. While the priest speaks as if logic were on his side, he becomes irrational when his companion denies transubstantiation, the transformation of bread into the body of Christ. In an act symbolic of religious intolerance, he throws hot coffee in the officer’s face, and the ambulance from the insane asylum from which he has escaped soon carts him away. Citing the Pateliers, Albigeois, and Calvinists as groups who could not adhere to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the priest (recently defrocked, we learn) links Roman Catholic theological orthodoxy with fanaticism and insanity.
https://dokumen.pub/religion-and-spanish-film-luis-buuel-the-franco-era-and-contemporary-directors.html
In other words, an absurd theatre for the masses (the Mass) intended to stimulate irrational belief (faith, or swallowing whole) itself becomes material for the Theatre of the Absurd for a cultural avant-garde rolling on the floor laughing.
By reviving a form of ritualistic cannibalism ("eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood"), early Christians may have felt it safer to lift the taboo on pork consumption, lest the association with cannibalism put the whole concept of Eucharist in jeopardy. Once again, it may sounds incredible to modern minds, but not if you try to think like Iron Age people, at an age when cannibalism was still common in other nearby societies (e.g. the Galatians in central Anatolia or some Steppe tribes).
Jesus said himself there are no unholy foods, so to claim pork is unholy would go against Christianity. Market economics explain the rest.
The new testament is, by Jesus' own admission, cryptic. Jesus claims he is intentionally providing false teachings so that people must be guided by their own sense of morality/reason (spirit) to separate truth from fiction.
One potential explanation that I've heard is that it references second temple Jewish metaphors on wisdom. Acquiring knowledge and wisdom was compared to eating. Many second temple Jews, including many of the authors of the New Testament, believed that wisdom was an aspect of God that had become an independent being and for some Christian wisdom was incarnated on earth as Jesus. Another aspect that could have influenced it was the fact that Jesus's death on the cross was compared to the pascal lamb sacrifice and in second temple Judaism the pascal sacrifice would be eaten by people, hence the idea of consuming the body of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Blood (and its use) represents a type of force in almost all religious systems - including paganism. It's a very interesting topic.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.