It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Even assuming the flesh was human, it couldn't have been preserved so after being exposed to parasites, the environment, etc. It simply goes against the law of nature.
originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: adjensen
LOL Somebody else just said the same to me! I repeat: I don't believe anything is above natural laws, even 'god'.
I have never heard of the saint and cloak you mentioned, I'll read on it tomorrow, too late for me now.
originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Akragon
Ok....let's assume the creator is above natural laws......but who created the creator?
There's always a natural explanation for said miracles, if only accurate / peer reviewed modern tests were allowed.
Funny how miracles usually happen in very religious countries, eh?
The bread and wine Jesus was talking about is supposed to be symbolic of his teaching and the way he led his life... Not a real so called "transubstantiation"
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just 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. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:53-58, 60, 66 NIV)
originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: ketsuko
I respect your faith and belief but I don't agree: where you see a miracle, I see something that we still don't understand. Where you see the act of god, I just see the act of nature and its laws. In the end most miracles are analyzed and understood in a scientific way.
Also, I have Norwegian friends who believe in God, they believe in Thor. My pagan friends believe in The Goddess... who is right and who is wrong? Impossible to tell.
My friend, let's agree to disagree, eh?
originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: ketsuko
I respect your faith and belief but I don't agree: where you see a miracle, I see something that we still don't understand. Where you see the act of god, I just see the act of nature and its laws. In the end most miracles are analyzed and understood in a scientific way.
Also, I have Norwegian friends who believe in God, they believe in Thor. My pagan friends believe in The Goddess... who is right and who is wrong? Impossible to tell.
My friend, let's agree to disagree, eh?
If it was just "symbolic", it wouldn't have been "hard teaching" that drove away most of his followers. They were seriously grossed out by the idea of eating another human being, understandably, but they just didn't get it.
Jesus was the Paschal Lamb -- the Jews had to eat the Passover lamb, they couldn't just make a sacrifice and be done with it. In the same way, we must eat of the Paschal Lamb, we can't just pay lip service to him, and he himself said that. So for most of Christianity -- Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and some Anglicans -- Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, in fulfillment of scripture.
originally posted by: the owlbear
Cannibalism at its most holy level.
Eat your god.
If indeed God created man, then demanded bull blood and fat and meat and other blood sacrifice before becoming human as Jesus and the whole transsubstanciation thing replaced the blood lust of the OT aspect yet were created in his image...doesn't this resemble a cannibalistic ouroboros?
originally posted by: the owlbear
Cannibalism at its most holy level.
Eat your god.
If indeed God created man, then demanded bull blood and fat and meat and other blood sacrifice before becoming human as Jesus and the whole transsubstanciation thing replaced the blood lust of the OT aspect yet were created in his image...doesn't this resemble a cannibalistic ouroboros?
it can be very clearly shown that his followers didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about most of the time.
originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Akragon
it can be very clearly shown that his followers didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about most of the time.
And yet Jesus didn't go running after them when they left, saying "Wait! Wait! It's only symbolic!" It seems unreasonable that he would allow people to reject him if he knew that it was due to a misunderstanding that was his fault.
Either he meant what he said, or he was the world's worst teacher.
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
originally posted by: the owlbear
Cannibalism at its most holy level.
Eat your god.
If indeed God created man, then demanded bull blood and fat and meat and other blood sacrifice before becoming human as Jesus and the whole transsubstanciation thing replaced the blood lust of the OT aspect yet were created in his image...doesn't this resemble a cannibalistic ouroboros?
Maybe. But the entire "sacrifice" thing had a much deeper meaning behind it. It was not the act itself that supposedly held the importance. Plus, we are not physically talking about eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. It is symbolic. Even if this turned into real heart tissue, nobody ate it, lol. The entire Eucharist is symbolic, a reminder if you will, as well as a purifying act. So no actual cannibalism going on here.
I don't know if this story is true. Even if it is far-fetched, it still could be true. It does seem like some real research could get to the bottom of the entire incident. BUT, this could never be proven to have actually occurred? Why you ask? Because there is no way to prove that the integrity of the sample. The chain of custody cannot be proven in this case, at least most likely not.
However, IF it can be proven that the tissue was alive, which is not possible, then something miraculous and strange could likely be proven to have occurred. It irks me that there are Christians out there who would take advantage of others by making things up. This is clearly not an action that is aligned with the teachings of their religion. Everyone makes mistakes, but something like this takes deliberate planning, giving the perpetrator time to consider that what they are doing is wrong. If it is a hoax that is.
originally posted by: the owlbear
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
originally posted by: the owlbear
Cannibalism at its most holy level.
Eat your god.
If indeed God created man, then demanded bull blood and fat and meat and other blood sacrifice before becoming human as Jesus and the whole transsubstanciation thing replaced the blood lust of the OT aspect yet were created in his image...doesn't this resemble a cannibalistic ouroboros?
Maybe. But the entire "sacrifice" thing had a much deeper meaning behind it. It was not the act itself that supposedly held the importance. Plus, we are not physically talking about eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. It is symbolic. Even if this turned into real heart tissue, nobody ate it, lol. The entire Eucharist is symbolic, a reminder if you will, as well as a purifying act. So no actual cannibalism going on here.
I don't know if this story is true. Even if it is far-fetched, it still could be true. It does seem like some real research could get to the bottom of the entire incident. BUT, this could never be proven to have actually occurred? Why you ask? Because there is no way to prove that the integrity of the sample. The chain of custody cannot be proven in this case, at least most likely not.
However, IF it can be proven that the tissue was alive, which is not possible, then something miraculous and strange could likely be proven to have occurred. It irks me that there are Christians out there who would take advantage of others by making things up. This is clearly not an action that is aligned with the teachings of their religion. Everyone makes mistakes, but something like this takes deliberate planning, giving the perpetrator time to consider that what they are doing is wrong. If it is a hoax that is.
I agree there was deeper meaning to "sacrifice". Priests got the first choice of the cuts of meat. Establishing a hierarchy of "closer to God". Hard to raise bulls and lambs and goats in a desert.
But the rhetoric from the OT...I'm just jaded.
Why would an omnipotent god who was before anything need rams blood spilled on an altar or bull or whatever in order to make HIMSELF (God is all MAN. Penis and testes, vas deference, prostate) unless "He" is going through an unhinged phase as we all do.
The guy could create million galaxies of bulls blood to huff or whatever.
This just makes no sense. A blood fetish god who became human in order to be sacrificed. Whoa...getting heavy. It's like those stories that leak out of Germany about people meeting up and do their thing until one is eaten...