Eating flesh sacrficed to idols vs. Christian Communion

[Richard Amiel McGough]

1 Corinthians 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

I recently read a classic called The Mystery Religions by S. Angus which details the religions that existed in the ANE just prior to the emergence of Christianity. It goes through all the baptisms, the cleansing of sin by bloody sacrifices, resurrection, and communion with the pagan diety by the eating of it's flesh and the drinking of its blood. Essentially every aspect of Christianity existed prior to its emergence. This came up this morning because Rose is readin The Alphabet and the Goddess; The Conflict between Word and Image by Leonard Shlain which is an application of the modern discoveries concerning the left/right brain physiology to the question of how religions have morphed to support the male dominance over women. So anyway, she was reading this morning about the Orpheus cult in which they drank the blood and ate teh flesh of the sacrifical bull representing Dionysus. They were commemorating his suffering, death and resurrection, and believed that they were absorbing the "divine essence." All this to say that Rose and I suddenly realized that this explains Paul's discussion of "eating the flesh sacrificed to idols." They were doing the pagan form of "communion" which predates Christianity. It's in the Bible. It's as plain as day, but I've never noticed it before.

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

In The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (a book I read a long time ago) he mentions that the true root of the word 'cannibal', is 'priest of Baal'. I had to find a very old edition of Webster's before I found any acknowledgement of human sacrifice connected with religious ritual. I was tired of the 'alternative' explanations I kept finding for the word.

I would point out, though, that of course all these pagan sacrifices pre-date Christianity, but the original blood sacrifice was made by God, and it is fully efficacious.

Anything after His, is a copy, and anything less than the blood of the Lamb of God, cannot bring peace between man and God - although pagan sacrifices may bring temporary peace between demons and men.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

In The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (a book I read a long time ago) he mentions that the true root of the word 'cannibal', is 'priest of Baal'. I had to find a very old edition of Webster's before I found any acknowledgement of human sacrifice connected with religious ritual. I was tired of the 'alternative' explanations I kept finding for the word.

I would point out, though, that of course all these pagan sacrifices pre-date Christianity, but the original blood sacrifice was made by God, and it is fully efficacious.

Anything after His, is a copy, and anything less than the blood of the Lamb of God, cannot bring peace between man and God - although pagan sacrifices may bring temporary peace between demons and men.

Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons? I can't believe anyone still references that book. Here is how it is described in the wiki - it's pretty ugly:

The Two Babylons is an anti-Catholic religious pamphlet produced initially by the Scottish theologian and Presbyterian Alexander Hislop in 1853. It was later expanded in 1858 and finally published as a book in 1919. Its central theme is its allegation that the Catholic Church is a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon, the veiled paganism being the product of a millennia old conspiracy.[1][2] Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005</ref> It has been recognized by scholars as discredited and has been called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]

Although scholarship has shown the picture presented by Hislop to be based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion, his book remains popular among some fundamentalist protestant Christians.[1]
The book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord[5] and other conspiracy theorists.[6]

Although extensively footnoted, giving the impression of reliability, commentators (in particular Ralph Woodrow) have stated that there are numerous misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors in the document, and that this book follows the line of thought of works like: Martin Luther - On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Titus Oates - An Exact Discovery of the Mystery of Iniquity as it is now in Practice amongst the Jesuits (1679), Conyers Middleton - Letter from Rome (1729).[7]

And I have to say that this is the impression I got when I read the book myself.

Now as for the etymological root of "cannibal" - I'll look it up and get back to you. I love etymology, and Hislop's sounds fishy to me.

And finally, it's easy to claim that the Christian God originated the idea of sacrifice, but I think it's rather obvious that it makes a lot more sense to see it as a human invention just like the eating of the god's flesh, being cleansed of sin by blood, and all the other aspects of ancient pagan religions that were incorporated into Christianity. You see, the problem is that the Bible has lots of pagan stuff in it, like fallen angels chained in "Tartarus" which is really where Zeus had chained the Titans who had rebelled against him. So after a while, it seems a little unbelievable to "explain" all the paganism in Christianity as due to the devil trying to create a counterfeit religion. I mean, even the seven headed dragon of Revelation was imported from the Greek myth of the Hydra! Take an open-eyed look at this post from the thread Greek Mythology in the Bible?

Leviathan is another example of mythology in the Bible.

And the "seven-headed dragon" rising out of the sea? Ancient Mesopotamian mythology from the 3rd millennium BCE! Check this wiki article, and these excepts from the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. For example:

A seven-headed serpent (mus-sag-imin) partly overcome by an anthropomorphic hero or god is attested as early as the third mill. BCE in Mesopotamian iconography (H. FRANKFORT, Stratified Cylindedr Seals from hte Diyala Region [OIP 72, Chicago 1955] 37. pl. 47:497) and texts, but later survives in the textual records only, until he reappears in the Greek Hydra tradition from the 6th century on.

A seven-headed serpent? DOES THAT RING ANY BELLS? It's just the Greek myth of the Hydra! Which usually had seven or nine heads.



Now let's reflect on this.

Christians reject "mythology" OUT OF HAND as obviously false! Yet they accept the Bible, which is filled with the very mythology they reject in every other context.

My mind is numb. How could I have been so blind for so long?

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

I don't think Hislop offered any etymology. As far as I remember, he just made the statement. I like etymology, too, which is why I remained so unconvinced by the usual dictionary entries, which seek to obliterate any acknowledgement of cannibalism as a current phenomenon.

The dictionary I'd found, which acknowledged cannibalism as connected with religious rite, has now been removed from that library. Reminds me of how other books have been removed, to minimise the 'rumour of God's name in the public square'.

[Brother Les]

I had read an article somewhere that brings forth the idea that the 'Israelites' took most of their 'creation' story from the Sumerians and just 'changed' some names to indicate that the 'story' was about them.....

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I don't think Hislop offered any etymology. As far as I remember, he just made the statement. I like etymology, too, which is why I remained so unconvinced by the usual dictionary entries, which seek to obliterate any acknowledgement of cannibalism as a current phenomenon.

Good morning Charisma,

Actually, Hislop did suggest that the etymology was based on Cahn Bel, where Cahn is cognate with the Hebrew Cohen (Priest), so you get Priest of Bel. He was wrong. The correct etymology seems to be what you find in most standard dictinaries.

The dictionary I'd found, which acknowledged cannibalism as connected with religious rite, has now been removed from that library. Reminds me of how other books have been removed, to minimise the 'rumour of God's name in the public square'.

I don't understand why you would think that dictionaries would want to hide the idea that cannibalism was a "religious rite." Why would they want to hide that? And how do you know it was a "religious rite" if the scholars have hidden that fact?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I had read an article somewhere that brings forth the idea that the 'Israelites' took most of their 'creation' story from the Sumerians and just 'changed' some names to indicate that the 'story' was about them.....

There is strong evidence that the Hebrew creation story was "borrowed" and modified from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Just Google it.

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your reply.

I know that the old Webster's I found, included the religious use of cannibalism in its definitions.

Scholars would want to hide this because some of them are cannibals, and the Victorians were more open to the gory details of human behaviour, but we're living in Screwtape's paradise, where Satan's emissaries have been working overtime for a number of decades in the attempt to convince 'educated' people, that there are no such things as demons, or a leader of demons (Satan), or a hell, or sin, or judgement, or life after death, or a loving God who cannot abide unrighteousness, so He personally disposed of it, or (finally), any penalty for rejecting His offer of eternal life. Play now. Pay later. That's exactly what most people are doing. In a nutshell, that's what's wrong with democracy. Political theory is the secularists' offering to the world, instead of God's 'better' ways.

I should think you must know by now that most science is sketchy compared with the full details. To me, it's much easier to believe in the whole of reality, not limiting it to what can be perceived by me in my small corner of creation.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your reply.

I know that the old Webster's I found, included the religious use of cannibalism in its definitions.

Scholars would want to hide this because some of them are cannibals, and the Victorians were more open to the gory details of human behaviour, but we're living in Screwtape's paradise, where Satan's emissaries have been working overtime for a number of decades in the attempt to convince 'educated' people, that there are no such things as demons, or a leader of demons (Satan), or a hell, or sin, or judgement, or life after death, or a loving God who cannot abide unrighteousness, so He personally disposed of it, or (finally), any penalty for rejecting His offer of eternal life. Play now. Pay later. That's exactly what most people are doing. In a nutshell, that's what's wrong with democracy. Political theory is the secularists' offering to the world, instead of God's 'better' ways.

I should think you must know by now that most science is sketchy compared with the full details. To me, it's much easier to believe in the whole of reality, not limiting it to what can be perceived by me in my small corner of creation.

Good morning Charisma,

Where did you get the idea that there were cannibalistic scholars? That is an entirely new idea to me. Where did you learn it? And why do you believe it? And why would the non-cannibalistic scholars let the cannibals get away with hiding historical facts like the etymology of cannibal? They're usually pretty picky about such details. Were they afraid of getting eaten maybe?

And have you considered the possibility that scientific folks have argued against the existence of demons because there is no evidence for them?

If there is real evidence for demons, why can't anyone present any evidence that would stand up under scrutiny?

And why do you say that God "disposed" of unrighteousness when in fact he designed the Universe so that there would be eternal unrighteousness and suffering in hell? Thtat's the real problem with the doctrine of hell. It makes God out to be a demon who freely chose to create a universe of eternal conscoius torment. If this doesn't bother you, I suspect it is because you have never taken a moment to truly imagine the implications of that doctrine.

And what exactly are "God's better ways" that you would prefer to see over our messy little democracy? Can you flesh that out a little? What would you really like to see people do to restructure govenment? Perhaps starting a thread in the Politics section would be a good idea for this one.

Finally, there is a profound irony in your idea that you can "believe in the whole of reality" that goes beyond "sketchy" science. Where did you get your understanding about "the whole reality?" How do you know those things that are not scientiically verifiable? And what, other than non-verifiable metaphyscial entities like God and demons and angels, is there in the "whole reality" that you think you "know" and that "sketchy" science misses?

Great chatting!

Richard