Eat Your Heart Out, Eliseo.

Funny for Mr. Ely Soriano to place everyone on his garbage bin. I saw this article from Scribd.com called “Eat Your Heart Out, Atheists!”. 

It's about some atheist telling Christianity promotes cannibalism base on John 6:51-54 which says “51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

I think it dander the Sorianism pride (hehehe!)




According to Mr. Soriano, “Now we know by this question, that these imaginary people are living in their idiotic world understanding only their language of ignorance and impertinence. They speak of hypocrisy and lies like their adopted father.”

Ah Mr. Soriano, you really love to put a show, do you?

To Roman Catholic belief, Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. According to the Roman Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the body and blood of Christ. The empirical appearances are not changed, but the reality is.

The mysterious change of the reality of the bread and wine used in the Eucharist, a change to which patristic writers had given other equivalent names, began to be called "transubstantiation" in the Eleventh Century. It seems that the first text in which the term appears is of Gilbert of Savardin, Archbishop of Tours, in a sermon from 1079 (Patrologia Latina CLXXI 776). The term first appeared in a papal document in the letter Cum Marthae circa to a certain John, Archbishop of Lyon, 29 November 1202, then in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and afterward in the book "Iam dudum" sent to the Armenians in the year 1341. An explanation utilizing Aristotle's hylemorphic theory of reality did not appear until the thirteenth Century, with Alexander of Hales. Like Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholic Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East believe that Christ is really, fully, uniquely present in the Eucharistic elements, and that, in the Divine Liturgy, the one sacrifice of Christ is made present; and that the exact means by which the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, through the work of the Holy Spirit, is a mystery.

It is not also a form of idiomatic expression as what Mr. Soriano wants us to believe. For those who believe that the Eucharist is the literal body of Christ, they explain, "Here we have Jesus' listeners convinced that he is inciting them to eat him. They get offended and leave. Jesus doesn't make any attempt to correct them. What does he do? He turns to the Apostles, and asks them if they want to leave."

Now a little bit of church history. In 110 AD (less than 90 years after the death and resurrection of Christ and about 20 years after the death of the Apostle John), Ignatius of Antioch wrote, "They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle of Ignatius to the Smytneans). Irenaeus (around the end of the second century) wrote, "The Eucharist becomes the body of Christ" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies). The interesting thing about this is Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle, the same Apostle who walked with Jesus and was present at the Last Supper! Roman Catholic believe that Polycarp learned first hand from John and passed on this teaching to Irenaeus which is unlikely that Irenaeus was taught an incorrect doctrine by someone who spent time with John the Apostle.

In 150 AD, Justin Martyr wrote, "For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food for which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the blood of that incarnate Jesus" (Justin Martyr, First Apology). These are just a few of the many examples of early Christian writers expressing their belief in the literal interpretation of the Eucharist. It is unreasonable to assume that these people were in error so soon after Christ’s death and resurrection. A brief study of Christian history will reveal that the early Christians believed in the Eucharist presence of Christ. Early Christians who were taught by apostles. Early Christians who were martyred for their faith during the persecutions of the first few centuries. Early Christians who authoritatively decided which books would make up the New Testament. All of these Christians believed in the Real Presence. (For more information on the Roman Catholic Eucharist, click here.)

Another reason why Jesus couldn't have been speaking figuratively is because the figurative phase "to eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" was a phrase commonly used by the Jews during that time to mean "to betray and persecute" (for example, see Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Rev 17:6,16). For the listeners to understand Christ figuratively, they would have understood him to say, "He who betrays and persecutes me has eternal life." This interpretation, of course, reduces John chapter 6 to complete nonsense.

Even Martin Luther taught that Christ was really, physically present within or under the bread and wine. Calvin taught that Christ is really present in a spiritual way (and eaten through union with Christ), but there is no physical change in the substance of the bread and wine.

Well those who will agree with Mr. Soriano’s biblical hermeneutics are the Born-Again Christians (who in fact changed the wine part of the Eucharist to grape juice.)
That’s the problem with Bible hermeneutics, it’s everyone’s boat.

Now...cannibalism in religion is not really new.

Theophagy is always performed symbolically through the eating of a food or material symbolic of the god. This practice has origins in many ancient religions. In fertility rituals, the harvested grain may itself be the reborn god of vegetation. According to H. L. Mencken, in his "Treatise on the Gods, "African and Polynesian savages it constitutes the raison d'etre of sacrificial cannibalism, and among other primitive peoples it accounts for the ceremonial eating of totem animals." Eating the flesh of a sacred animal or of a god transfers the power of that animal or god to the eater.”

In Christianity this practice continues in the consumption of the Eucharist, in which the consecrated bread and wine, which Catholics believed is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, is consumed in the ritual of Holy Communion. Frederick the Great, Prussian king (1712-1786), in a letter to Voltaire said ". . . you will certainly grant me that neither antiquity nor whatever nation has devised a more repulsive and blasphemous absurdity than that of eating your God. This is the most disgusting dogma of Christian religion, the greatest insult to the Highest Being, the climax of madness and insanity."

According to Acharya S, cannibalism is a favored act of atonement can also be shown in the Old Testament at Deuteronomy 28:53-57, where "God" exacts "his" punishment against "his" stiff-necked "chosen people," who have made the fatal mistake of not serving "the Lord your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart" (Deut. 28:47). The "Lord" punishes the Hebrews by causing their enemies to besiege them in all their towns, leaving the Hebrews to eat their offspring. In this passage, "God" is so perturbed with his chosen ones that he forces them into starvation so that they have only their children to eat, which they apparently do. The evident motivation for "the Lord" to compel "his chosen" to do this bizarre and revolting act is so that they will "fear this glorious and awful name, the Lord your God" (Deut. 28:58). If the chosen do not obey the Lord, he will further cause them and their offspring "extraordinary afflictions, afflictions severe and lasting, and sickness grievous and lasting" (Deut. 28:59)

Well that's it for now ... oh and before I forget, it's really not hard to do some analysis of different belief system before you start yapping your mouth's content. You don't want to be called an empty drum, do you?

So who's the ignoramus @ Mr. Soriano? Hmm...

.