Sorry for the zany thread title, just a few quick questions I need cleared up.
From John Dominic Crossan:
'Divine,' 'Son of God,' 'God,' and 'God from God,' whose titles were 'Lord,' 'Redeemer,' 'Liberator,' and 'Saviour of the World.'" "(M)ost Christians probably think that those titles were originally created and uniquely applied to Christ. But before Jesus ever existed, all those terms belonged to Caesar Augustus." Crossan cites the adoption of them by the early Christians to apply to Jesus as denying them of Caesar the Augustus. "They were taking the identity of the Roman emperor and giving it to a Jewish peasant. Either that was a peculiar joke and a very low lampoon, or it was what the Romans called majestas and we call high treason."Crossan, John Dominic, God and Empire, 2007, p. 28
Interesting stuff. Is this another one of those historical allusions to Christ, the perfect revelation of God? I think it may have been mina who says alot of the seeming paralells with other events and figures in history have sort of pre-figured the Incarnation and Christ's earthly ministry and Resurrection. As is if it was perfect breeding ground for the Messiah and put those loose pieces together in a sense.
On a side note, speaking of Crossan, he suggests the the Eucharist was an invention, or should I say the meaning of it was later added. "The cup/bread liturgy of the Didache, from the Jerusalem tradition, does not mention Passover, or Last Supper, or Death of Jesus/blood/body, and the sequence is meal + thanksgiving ritual even late in the first century C.E., at least some (southern?) Syrian Christians could celebrate a Eucharist of bread and wine with absolutely no hint of Passover meal, Last Supper or passion symbolism built into its origins or development. I cannot believe that they knew about those elements and studiously avoided them. I can only presume that they were not there for everyone from the beginning, that is, from solemn formal and final institution by Jesus himself."(Crossan, John Dominic, "The Historical Jesus" HarperCollins 1992 p 36)
But why would the Church then suppose it was the actual body and blood of our Lord then? I mean why would the Didache not include this information, was it because it was already known by members of the Church?
Sorry for the ridiculousness of this thread, these are just a few hurdles I have yet to iron out.