Counter-Propaganda.com

Could Jesus Christ have been eaten?

15 05 2006

If we assume that Jesus Christ (his corpse) after the crucifixion was eaten by his followers, we can explain not only the Christian cannibalistic mysticism, but also many other mysteries of Christianity.

The rituals of the Eucharist are similar to the ceremonies of the true cannibals

Non-Christians have always been confused by the rituals that simulate eating the body of Jesus Christ (Joshua from Nazareth, the Christian prophet, worshiped as a god or god’s son) or drinking his blood.

While eating special consecrated wafers or drinking wine, Catholics, the Orthodox and many other Christians imagine that these are the body and blood of their prophet (or god). Most Christians imagine that by doing this they get closer to their god, acquire a kind of divinity themselves, and some of them even fall into ecstasy.

These rituals by their form and meaning remind of the rites of many known cannibalistic cultures – the true cannibals ate people (perhaps they are still doing this in some regions of Africa and Asia) not because they were starving, but because they believed that by eating up a man or a certain part of his body they would overtake his power and courage.

In almost the same way, Christians eat the imaginary body and blood of Jesus Christ not because they are hungry, but because they want to obtain sacredness, unity with Jesus Christ, who has resurrected (as they believe), and to consolidate the Christian solidarity.

It is still not known what actually happened to the body of Jesus Christ

To the fact that the corpse of Jesus Christ disappeared from the tomb where it was left till the end of the Sabbath, Christians refer as a miracle, they present it as the proof of their prophet’s divinity or even his later resurrection. It is a strange argument – apparently, nobody who could not be interested in proving Christ’s divinity guarded the tomb (it will be considered later in this article), so the corpse could have been taken away and transported to another burial place.

Didn’t the scene of the ‘Last supper’ imply an order to eat up Jesus’ body after his death?

The so-called ‘Last supper’, which took place immediately before the Christ’s arrest and crucifixion, is described in several places of the New Testament. During it, Jesus Christ ordered his disciples to eat bread and to drink wine and suggested that these were his body and blood.

The Eucharist has its origins in the ‘Last supper’; however, it looks as if Jesus Christ had in his mind his own true flesh and blood when he spoke about the bread and wine during the ‘Last supper’.

The following thoughts of Jesus Christ are cited in the Gospel according to John:
‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life <…> For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. <…> This is the bread that came down from heaven…’ (John, 6, 53-58)

Christian theologians usually interpret this as a metaphor. Such an interpretation corresponds best with the interests of Christianity, but the words by no means sound metaphorically in the original text of the Gospel.

If Jesus Christ perceived his body and blood as a meal that had to be eaten, then it seems that the scene of the ‘Last supper’ – is nothing but the last reminder to the followers about their obligation to eat up their teacher’s body.

It is quite probable that Jesus Christ was eaten by his followers

As we can infer from the biblical texts, the tomb where Christ’s body was stored was not guarded. True, the Gospel according to Matthew claims that in order to prevent the corpse of Jesus Christ from being stolen from the tomb, the next day after the crucifixion chief Jewish priests and Pharisees assembled in front of Pilate and asked him to post a guard to secure the tomb, and when Pilot told them, – ‘You have a guard…’ – they put (their?) guards at the tomb and sealed the stone. (Matthew, 27, 62-66)

This episode does not seem to be a testimony by some Christ’s contemporary, but it rather looks as a fake, which was grafted into the Gospel by a person who was not familiar with the Jewish religion and culture, because the events took place during the Sabbath, and any work (sealing the tomb and possibly posting the guard or even standing on guard) was then a serious crime against the Jewish religion.

Even the mother of the prophet and his (apparently) girlfriend or wife Mary Magdalene did not dare even to make preparations for the pending burial ceremony – there is little doubt that that nobody guarded the tomb until the Saturday sunset.

Even on the Sunday morning when the two Maries came to the tomb, they found only one man, who tried to convince them that Jesus Christ had resurrected (or two men according to Luke and John). So, most probably none of Christ’s enemies had guarded the tomb at all.

The owner of the tomb, Joseph from Arimathea, apparently was Christ’s disciple, so in fact the followers of the Christian prophet could have done with his corpse whatever they wanted, and they could have eaten the body as well.

If the body of Jesus Christ had actually disappeared during the cannibalistic party of his disciples, it is quite natural that they preserved their secret. The disclosure of such secret would not only have discredited the then still emerging Christianity, but also Jews, who did not tolerate cannibalism, would have executed all the participants of the last feast. Anyway, even if somebody of the initiated had blurted it out, nobody believed him.

Having assumed that Jesus Christ was eaten, many myths and rites of Christianity do not seem strange and mysterious any more

As it was mentioned above, the scene of the ‘Last supper’ acquires sense. Its purpose is to persuade Christ’s disciples that they will have to eat the flesh of their teacher and to drink his blood and to convince the ‘apostles’ that by doing this they will overtake Christ’s divinity.

Then, there appears to be much more sense in many other aspects of Christianity, including the myth about the resurrection of Jesus Christ itself.

The mysticism of the ‘holy’ Grail

Christians attach great importance to the chalice from which Jesus Christ was drinking during the ‘Last supper’ and into which, according to Robert from Boron, Joseph from Arimathea later collected Christ’s blood.

Christians think that the Grail has various magic powers, and, in order to make use of them, one has to drink from it – thus, in some way one has to drink the true blood of Jesus Christ.

It seems that most probably Joseph had a point in collecting Christ’s blood into a chalice, and that possibly it was used for drinking shortly after Christ’s death, and that the Christian fantasies related to wine-drinking during religious rituals are repetitions of a horrible ceremony that took place almost two thousand years ago.

The myth about the Resurrection

Resurrection was invented long before Christians. There had been many religions that had a god who died and resurrected periodically. Various rites of sacrifice were related to the resurrection of one or another god and the offerings – usually domestic animals – were frequently eaten by the participants of the mysteries.

Did not Jesus Christ imagine his death and resurrection in a similar way – that he would resurrect in his disciples who would have eaten his flesh and would have drunk his blood? According to ‘Saint’ John, Jesus Christ explained: ‘The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him’. (John, 6, 56; italics are mine, G.Š.)

The Eucharist

Having assumed that the first Eucharist was not symbolic, but real and took place not before Christ’s death, but on the following night, the ritual itself appears in a completely different light – it is clear now how the rite managed to unite Christians.

After all, nothing has such power of uniting people as a common secret or crime. When people have performed religious rituals that others consider to be inhuman or even criminal, they feel initiated, special different from others.

Even now, the Eucharist remains one of the basic rituals that maintain Christian unity. Eating together the imaginary god’s flesh can be also called ‘communion’ – metaphoric acceptance to the community of the Christians who have already performed the ritual or further acceleration of the sense of being one of the Christians.

Inclination towards passive cannibalism is psychologically possible

It is no secret that Jesus Christ was not a psychically balanced personality. The absence of information about one’s biological father was considered by the ancient Jews to be an irremovable stain, and there is a lot of information in the Bible about the eccentricity of Christ that manifested itself already in his childhood.

Therefore, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ could wish to be eaten. Even nowadays, there are some people who crave to be eaten; even the broad public from time to time is informed of some individual cases of pre-agreed cannibalism – when the ‘victim’ finds their future eater via the Internet or so. It is possible that Jesus Christ also had such a drive.

The Christian cannibalistic mysticism is apparently still encouraging psychological deviations

Various myths about vampirism are widespread among Christians; films about cannibals, blood-suckers and similar heroes are most popular in the places where the Christian culture is dominating. There are so many maniac killers and violent perverts among Christians as nowhere else in the world; again and again in the Christian world there emerge people who want to be eaten.

Are not those cases reverberations of the ‘Last supper’? – Most Christians constantly take part in religious rituals that willy-nilly are associated with cannibalism, so they can traumatise some oversensitive persons for the rest of their lives.

So, there are many serious arguments that support the hypothesis that Jesus Christ was eaten after his crucifixion. If it is proved or at least accepted as a very probable one, much can be understood and explained in the Christian faith, psychology and in the whole Christian culture.

Perhaps it could also be helpful in understanding the inhuman historical cruelty of Christians – in understanding why the millions of decent people who found the Christian ‘communion’ unacceptable were killed in cold blood, tortured to death or burnt alive during the long history of Christianity?

Does it not seem very probable?


Enter the second and the third digits! please, permit pictures and cookies

name   

   

Laws are silent in times of war.

Cicero

Counter-Propaganda.com

Counter-Propaganda.com – en

the symbol

Counter-Propaganda.com

news

order the news

via e-mail via e-mailRSS RSS

via social networks

the symbol

©  Giedrius // 2005 - 2017