|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Magazine - Online sacraments
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The word Eucharist by definition denotes something physical. It’s inherent in the definition of the word.
AIUI, 'Eucharist' is a word that basically means "thanksgiving".
Aaaaand yet another person falls into the etymology=meaning trap.
Yes, that's true. But, I know of no other definition for 'Eucharist' other than a synonym for 'Communion' with a bit more emphasis on the sacrament being a thanksgiving for what Christ did for us, the things that we remember about him when we break and share bread and juice. Which still doesn't get anywhere in defining the word such that it has to be a physical act shared by people in the same room at the same time. "A ritual, symbolising and recalling the work of Christ, his body broken for us and his blood shed for us" (as, to me, a perfectly adequate definition) doesn't need there to be anything physical at all - although I'd recognise that the physical bread and juice is beneficial in making the rite closer to the last supper.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The word Eucharist by definition denotes something physical. It’s inherent in the definition of the word.
AIUI, 'Eucharist' is a word that basically means "thanksgiving". "Sacrament" is an outwards sign of grace. Neither denotes something necessarily physical, even if in practice (and, by practical necesity) they have involved physicality prior to the advent of the internet.
No, 'Eucharist' is a technical term which derives from a word that means ‘thanksgiving.’ Etymology ≠ definition.
And you keep saying that sacraments are only practically physical, because the internet hadn’t been invented. The same said goperryrevs:
quote:
[T]he Internet was not around, and there was no other context in which that discussion would have occurred. There was no historical disagreement on contraception until it existed, at which point there was a lot of disagreement.
But there were images around. Where there ever anyone who thought that he could partake of the Eucharist by considering or meditating on an image of the Eucharist?
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Well, every concordance I've read gives the original meaning as "dip" or "immerse". If I've misunderstood, I'm very happy to be corrected. I have no problem with non-immersive baptism (it's how I was baptised myself), and it's not exactly an ultra-important part of what I've been saying on this thread.
I asked for a greek lexicon, not a concordance. They hardly, if ever, give an exhaustive definition. As I’m moving, I’ll have to check my greek lexicon a little later. (It’s in a box.) But, IIRC, the word βαπτίζω can mean anything from ‘fully immerse’ to merely ‘wash.’
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
A non-phsyical Eucharist is absurd for the same reason that circular square is absurd.
So would you have a problem with an on-line service like the one Kelly described up-thread, with real, physical wine and bread, not just 'cartoons on a screen' (to use an earlier phrase)?
Yes, but for other reasons, and not one that I will use as an argument here. Number one being that the priest in question isn’t actually blessing the bread and wine I have, it’s just a recorded voice. If it did bless my bread, I see no reason to assume that every bread in the world weren’t blessed by the same action, which seems absurd.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I would think that the more universal definition of the Eucharist would be "The thing Jesus did at the Last Supper." Alas, a fair number of people here seem to have cut that episode down to nothing more than "In remembrance of me."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would think that the more universal definition of the Eucharist would be "The thing Jesus did at the Last Supper."
You've asserted that three or four times now. Each time I've responded, but rather than respond to the response, you've just gone and asserted it again.
So again: when your church has The Eucharist, is it at the end of a meal that you all share together???
If not, then do you not concede that what you do is not the thing that Jesus did at the Last Supper? Because Jesus ate a meal, not a semi-snack at the last supper.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
goperryrev - Have you ever tried to organise an ecumenical service? Have you ever worked out who would partake in communion if it was part of that ecumenical service?
I haven't, and I'm as convinced as you are that online sacraments are never going to work ecumenically - I'm here because I honestly want to understand what different people think and why, and because I'm not entirely decided what I think anyhow. And because I think that, just because they might not be possible ecumenically, doesn't mean they shouldn't happen.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Yes, but for other reasons, and not one that I will use as an argument here. Number one being that the priest in question isn’t actually blessing the bread and wine I have, it’s just a recorded voice. If it did bless my bread, I see no reason to assume that every bread in the world weren’t blessed by the same action, which seems absurd.
So, if a priest blessed the bread and wine, put them in an envelope and posted them to all the communicants, how about then? I'm not trying to be obtuse - just trying to get how you understand it. I too was a bit uncomfortable about the bit about the recorded voice bit - but then personally I see no theological reason for the consecration (according to the traditional understanding) in the first place.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, I know that if someone was really desperate, they could easily log in on two computers, but that begs the question,"what would make someone that desperate?"
Apologies if this has been addressed but IRL anyone disrupting a service can be managed... and we all are familiar with the type of aggressive poster who feels some need to inject himself into MANY forum conversations.
How could you prevent someone from disrupting online sacraments?
I don't think I am explaining it well- the portal had a very structured built in- liturgy, with only a few places for people to insert comments. SO, there wasn't a whole lot of room for people to burst in and disrupt things.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, go run the bath. Take the laptop to the bathroom and turn on the webcam. Everyone log into Skype (or whatever). New Christian jumps in the bath and splashes water around while other people in the chat room watch and one person types (or says into their webcam) "Name I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". All without anyone having to leave their home.
I'm pretty sure Luther would say "The water and the Word are present."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So, if a priest blessed the bread and wine, put them in an envelope and posted them to all the communicants, how about then? I'm not trying to be obtuse - just trying to get how you understand it. I too was a bit uncomfortable about the bit about the recorded voice bit - but then personally I see no theological reason for the consecration (according to the traditional understanding) in the first place.
No, for practical reasons, mostly. And for the lack of reverence for the Eucharist.
And I see theological reason for the consecration. But again, that's not my argument here. My point has been that the word Eucharist by definition excludes a non-physical interpretation. Just like a picture of a pipe isn't a pipe.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You've asserted that three or four times now. Each time I've responded, but rather than respond to the response, you've just gone and asserted it again.
So again: when your church has The Eucharist, is it at the end of a meal that you all share together???
If not, then do you not concede that what you do is not the thing that Jesus did at the Last Supper? Because Jesus ate a meal, not a semi-snack at the last supper.
The Eucharist is a meal we share together. The Bible doesn't list the amount of food consumed, but it sure lists what was consumed, and how it was done.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In Luke the cup of the new covenant in His blood is specifically said to have come AFTER supper.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"A ritual, symbolising and recalling the work of Christ, his body broken for us and his blood shed for us" (as, to me, a perfectly adequate definition) doesn't need there to be anything physical at all - although I'd recognise that the physical bread and juice is beneficial in making the rite closer to the last supper.
So, an definition you invented accords with your understanding of the requirements of the Eucharist. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) And this adds WHAT to the conversation?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
An opinion.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Bible doesn't list the amount of food consumed, but it sure lists what was consumed, and how it was done.
Really?
The gospels mention a couple of things, but it seems a very odd notion to me to suggest that those couple of things represent the whole meal.
If it's a Passover meal, then it's actually the Old Testament where a lot more detail can be found about the required menu.
I think asserting that Eucharist is 'a meal' is going too far for that reason.
[ 03. July 2012, 06:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Not really; he's already expressed that opinion. It appears he's trying to make some kind of conclusion about what's necessary for the Eucharist based on a definition of the Eucharist which ... he invented.
(x-post: responding to KA)
[ 03. July 2012, 06:08: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I see people on both "sides" (hate that word) of the issue repeatedly trying to reframe the same opinions again. I only see a couple people throwing in things like " " in response to that happening.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
I'm also not sure Alan's definition is one he's "invented"; ISTM that's a fairly standard summary of a more or less Memorialist view of the Lord's Supper, not one Alan's simply made up.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
An, it's more of a definition than anyone else has offered. Even those who claim that by definition it has to be physical have failed to offer a definition ... let alone one that supports their assertion that it requires physicality with all participants present at the same time and in the same building.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You've asserted that three or four times now. Each time I've responded, but rather than respond to the response, you've just gone and asserted it again.
So again: when your church has The Eucharist, is it at the end of a meal that you all share together???
If not, then do you not concede that what you do is not the thing that Jesus did at the Last Supper? Because Jesus ate a meal, not a semi-snack at the last supper.
The Eucharist is a meal we share together. The Bible doesn't list the amount of food consumed, but it sure lists what was consumed, and how it was done.
What a strange definition of a meal. But, regardless, the fact remains that Jesus ate some other stuff first (what the majority of people would actually call a meal), then broke the bread and shared the wine with his disciples afterwards. And that appears to be what at least some of the early church did too - 1 Cor 11:21 says that people were getting drunk during communion, and that whole passage suggests a full meal, not a sip of wine and a tiny mouthful of bread.
So when you define communion as "what Jesus did at the last supper", it's woefully inadequate.
Jesus wore Jewish clothing at the last supper. Jesus had a (full) meal at the last supper. Jesus sat around a table with his disciples at the last supper. Jesus gave thanks, then broke bread, and shared wine at the last supper. Jesus washed his disciples' feet at the last supper.
So the issue is this: which parts of what Jesus did are important, and which parts aren't? And that is where the subjectivity comes in. You've made out that your understanding of what the Eucharist is objective and other peoples' are subjective, but all of us have decided what elements of what Jesus did are important and what parts aren't. Now, it could well be that the parts you think are important are important because that's what a long Church tradition says. That makes sense. I can respect that. But in that case, use tradition to argue your case, not some faux "I'm objective, you're subjective" stance.
For example, what is the qualitative difference between these statements?
"Jesus ate the bread and wine as part of a larger meal, but we don't need to"
"Jesus consumed the bread, then the wine, but it's okay to dip the bread in the wine and have both together"
"Jesus drank alcoholic wine, but grape juice is fine."
"Jesus ate bread, but wafers are okay"
"Jesus sat around a table, but we can sit in pews"
"Jesus (the Great High Priest) shared the bread and wine, but we don't need to have a priest to do so"
"Jesus wore Jewish clothing, but that's incidental, we don't need to"
"Jesus shared one loaf, but sharing more than one loaf is okay"
"Jesus consumed bread and wine, but doughnuts and cola are okay"
"Jesus washed his disciples' feet after the meal, but we don't need to do that at communion"
The point is, you and I make judgement calls on each of those statements. Some we might agree with, others we might not. Different church traditions agree with different sets the statements above. But whatever - it's not that you're doing what Jesus did and I'm not, but that we're both trying to copy what Jesus did, yet disagree on which parts of what he did are important, and which parts are incidental.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Talk about memorialism is missing the point, since we are talking about merely the conditions necessary for any Eucharist at all to occur. Jesus commanded the Church to do a specific thing, and we need to look to the Bible to find out what that is. Let's establish the observable evidence first, and then we can talk about the metaphysics of the matter elsewhere.
And really, the text isn't as mysterious on this point as goperryrevs is trying to make out.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
St. Paul doesn't mention clothes. He does mention wine and bread.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
"Jesus ate the bread and wine as part of a larger meal, but we don't need to"
The text says supper had ended, not that what was about to occur was a continuation of supper. It really is quite the strain for me to imagine he is saying we must always "do this" after supper. It isn't an assumption I operate upon in everyday life, and I suspect you don't either, but imagining otherwise is convenient for your argument so here we are.
quote:
"Jesus consumed the bread, then the wine, but it's okay to dip the bread in the wine and have both together"
The Bible doesn't actually say that he consumed it at all.
quote:
"Jesus drank alcoholic wine, but grape juice is fine."
The argument for grape juice is that Jesus would have called it wine himself. I disagree with them, but this debate is at least about what is actually in the text, which is a more than can be said of this thread.
quote:
"Jesus ate bread, but wafers are okay"
Wafers are bread. Not all bread is like fluffy, white Wonderbread.
quote:
"Jesus sat around a table, but we can sit in pews"
What's that thing the priest is standing at? You are REALLY straining to make the text mysterious.
quote:
"Jesus (the Great High Priest) shared the bread and wine, but we don't need to have a priest to do so"
Every denomination I know of requires a person to act in persona Christi. There is some debate about who can act in persona Christi, but not that it needs to be led by someone.
quote:
"Jesus wore Jewish clothing, but that's incidental, we don't need to"
The text doesn't say what he wore.
quote:
"Jesus shared one loaf, but sharing more than one loaf is okay"
The text doesn't say that, just that he "took bread." You might have at least run your eyes over the text before going through the work of typing this post you know.
quote:
"Jesus consumed bread and wine, but doughnuts and cola are okay"
I'm not arguing that.
quote:
"Jesus washed his disciples' feet after the meal, but we don't need to do that at communion"
You're conflating different texts.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Talk about memorialism is missing the point, since we are talking about merely the conditions necessary for any Eucharist at all to occur.
The point about memorialism was that k-mann suggested Alan's definition of Eucharist was one he'd "invented. I was just trying to point out that it wasn't, it's held by a lot of Christians.
But isn't "what we're here to do" one of the "conditions" for Eucharist? Does it matter whether we believe we're here to "merely" remeber, to somehow meet with Christ who is present with us in the Eucharist, or to take the bread and wine which somehow (and I don't mean to use that word derogatorily) become the body of blood of Jesus? Because for a lot of people (on all sides of the argument) that does matter; it matters what we believe is actually happening here and if that's not right then it's invalid.
quote:
Jesus commanded the Church to do a specific thing, and we need to look to the Bible to find out what that is. Let's establish the observable evidence first, and then we can talk about the metaphysics of the matter elsewhere.
According to k-mann upthread, the only thing Jesus commanded us to do is to bless and give thanks for the bread and wine - not eat and drink it. Which isn't an interpretation I'd heard before, but if it's true then we're all going way beyond what Jesus commanded us. Whereas I don't think there's anywhere that doesn't celebrate Eucharist without eating and drinking.
(That interpretation also, to me, suggests even less need for physicality - if all we're commanded to do is bless and give thanks, is there any need for the physical bread and cup to be there at all? We could just as easily do so with images of them).
quote:
And really, the text isn't as mysterious on this point as goperryrevs is trying to make out.
Thing is, I'm not sure it's quite as straightforward as you're making out, either, otherwise there'd never have been any disagreements about it in church history.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
"Jesus ate the bread and wine as part of a larger meal, but we don't need to"
The text says supper had ended, not that what was about to occur was a continuation of supper. It really is quite the strain for me to imagine he is saying we must always "do this" after supper. It isn't an assumption I operate upon in everyday life, and I suspect you don't either, but imagining otherwise is convenient for your argument so here we are.
Actually, that's not true; the
Lukan version has Jesus distribute the bread during (or perhaps before) the meal; it only specificies "after the supper" in relation to the cup. So if we're arguing about what Jesus said we're to do, this is important because it suggests the bread that was broken was part of the meal. Should we be doing it as part of a meal? Should we be doing it every time Christians eat a meal with bread in it?
I'm not sure it is that clear...
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
According to k-mann upthread, the only thing Jesus commanded us to do is to bless and give thanks for the bread and wine - not eat and drink it.
Then k-mann is wrong.
"Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.'" (Mt 26)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
St. Paul doesn't mention clothes. He does mention wine and bread.
Sure, and as I said, he also mentions people getting drunk, which could only really happen in the context of a meal.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The argument for grape juice is that Jesus would have called it wine himself. I disagree with them, but this debate is at least about what is actually in the text, which is a more than can be said of this thread.
Actually no, I've been in Baptist/non-conformist circles for the last 15 years, and have only ever heard that argument once (in the Ukraine). IME most Baptists (and other Christian groups that use grape juice) would acknowledge that what Jesus drank was alcoholic, but choose to use non-alcoholic juice because of (usually) people being teetotal, or having problems with alcoholism. I.e. knowing what Jesus did, but consciously choosing to do something slightly different for what they see as a valid reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
"Jesus sat around a table, but we can sit in pews"
What's that thing the priest is standing at?
The disciples were at the table too. Not in pews watching Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
"Jesus consumed bread and wine, but doughnuts and cola are okay"
I'm not arguing that.
I know. But the fact that you've gone through each of those statements, evaluating them individually shows my point. That it's not as simple as "We just do what Jesus do", but that we INTERPRET what Jesus did, in our trying to copy it. The examples like what Jesus wore (of course we don't know, but we can be pretty sure he didn't wear jeans and a t-shirt) were just to show how your definition was too simplistic. Otherwise, if it was simply "do what Jesus did", then there's a whole lot more in the text than just eating the bread and drinking the wine. I asked what the qualitative difference was between those statements, so again, what is the qualitative difference between you saying "It doesn't need to be part of a larger meal" and Alan saying "It doesn't need to be bread and wine"? Both happened in the text. One you keep as crucial, the other you discard as irrelevant.
Which means that when we approach the topic of online sacraments, then it has to be more complicated than dismissing it as "Oh, that's not a sacrament", but looking at what it actually constitutes, like with those other examples above. That is, of course, unless you take a very high view of the Eucharist, and all Protestant forms of communion are 'invalid' anyhow, in which case online sacraments would just be added to the long list. Which is understandable. But as I said, that comes down to an argument from tradition, not an argument from the text. Because solely from the text, your tradition (as well as mine) does not copy the blueprint closely, if only because we don't share communion as part of a larger meal.
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
And really, the text isn't as mysterious on this point as goperryrevs is trying to make out.
Thing is, I'm not sure it's quite as straightforward as you're making out, either, otherwise there'd never have been any disagreements about it in church history.
That's exactly it. I'm not really trying to argue that it's totally mysterious, just that from scripture alone, it's not as clear-cut and obvious what we're meant to do at the Eucharist as Zach seems to think. And Sola Scriptura, would you even come up with the concept of a Sacrament anyhow?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
You seem to have two lines of argument here, goperryrevs. On one hand you have people that do not particularly care what the Bible says. For example, Baptists who do not care whether or not Jesus thought grape juice was wine, or people who feel in their hearts that moon-pies and pepsi is communion no matter what the Bible says Jesus used. I don't care about those people's arguments, and I don't think their arguments are relevant. I know I'll come to grief for saying it, but I think we must have a biblical Church, and if that's not what you want then we can respect each other but can have nothing to argue. We are talking about two completely different things.
On the other hand, you are forcing mystery on the text. Let's stick to that end of things.
[ 03. July 2012, 15:20: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Zach, where on earth do you get the idea that no-one cares what the Bible says?
That's a straw man if ever I heard one. All you actually mean is that some people don't think literal details are important when compared to meaning and symbolism. If they didn't care what the Bible says at all, they simply wouldn't bother attempting to have Communion to begin with.
And please don't make any assumptions about my own views regarding Communion before responding. Because there's a high chance those assumptions will be wrong. My concern right now is not with the correctness of your position but with the way you're arguing it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Zach, where on earth do you get the idea that no-one cares what the Bible says?
Where on earth did you get the idea that I said no one cared? I was speaking against a particular line of argument that I think is irrelevant.
[ 03. July 2012, 15:36: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
On one hand you have people that do not particularly care what the Bible says. For example, Baptists who do not care whether or not Jesus thought grape juice was wine, or people who feel in their hearts that moon-pies and pepsi is communion no matter what the Bible says Jesus used.
Well, I for one, care very much about what the Bible says. I think it's very clear, for example, that the Bible says Jesus took a cup of wine (and, he knew it was wine) and a loaf of unleavened bread (it was a Passover meal, so would be unleavened). What I also believe the Bible says is that the symbolism of the sacrament is primarily in the sharing together of the bread and wine - and, therefore there is no necessity for them to be unleavened bread and wine as long as it is something we can share. So, if you have recovering alcoholics or people who are gluten intolerant it is necessary to have something other than wine or bread so that they can share in the sacrament. The invitation from Christ for all to follow him, and the invitation of the table for all to partake, trumps literalistic legalism that puts a barrier in the way of anyone coming to Christ and sharing in the community meal of his followers. And, if the internet can be used to extend that invitation and open the table to more people then that is a wonderful thing to be celebrated.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Zach, where on earth do you get the idea that no-one cares what the Bible says?
Where on earth did you get the idea that I said no one cared? I was speaking against a particular line of argument that I think is irrelevant.
Well, I hope you realise that whether you think it's irrelevant does not make it so to anyone else.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Alan's post here is what I was talking about- the text goes from saying "Do this in remembrance of me" to just "Remember me."
Which, I think, operates in the assumption that Jesus making commandments is all well and good, but Jesus making particular, concrete commandments is "legalism." But if Jesus is making no concrete commandments, but only to remember and feel generous and what not, then here we are again at the Christian faith being nothing but feeling and recalling and all that. Christian life becomes adrift of the body and we slide into Gnosticism.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The difference between "Do this in remembrance of Me" and doing it while remembering Him is.
You have refused to make "Doing it" necessary at all.
Flicking back through the thread, and I couldn't let this one pass, because there's a gigantic implicit assumption about what "it" is.
There's some old tacky Star Trek episode where some character keeps demanding that people give "it" to him while steadfastly refusing to identify what "it" is. Because to the character in question, it's self-evident.
This thread is oddly reminiscent of Star Trek.
EDIT: And in a wonderful piece of timing, Zach, you've just got back there again. "Do this in remembrance of me". I'm glad you're so amazingly clear in your head as to what precisely "this" IS. But it's clear to me that goperryrevs is trying desperately hard to convey to you it's not nearly as self-evident as you suppose.
[ 03. July 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Zach, where on earth do you get the idea that no-one cares what the Bible says?
Where on earth did you get the idea that I said no one cared? I was speaking against a particular line of argument that I think is irrelevant.
Well, I hope you realise that whether you think it's irrelevant does not make it so to anyone else.
Which is why I said we can respect each other, but we really have nothing to argue about. I am not interested in what people feel, I am interested in what the Bible says. Talk about it all you like, it's a free thread, but don't address such arguments to me and get frustrated when I don't answer to such arguments.
quote:
EDIT: And in a wonderful piece of timing, Zach, you've just got back there again. "Do this in remembrance of me". I'm glad you're so amazingly clear in your head as to what precisely "this" IS. But it's clear to me that goperryrevs is trying desperately hard to convey to you it's not nearly as self-evident as you suppose.
I would imagine it's not so clear when one deliberately reads the text in as obscurantist manner as possible. Yet, Christians were able to read it and settle on basically the same ceremony for thousands of years somehow.
[ 03. July 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am not interested in what people feel, I am interested in what the Bible says.
And when the Bible says "do this in remembrance of me", it regrettably does not come armed with a footnote explaining precisely what the word "this" is referring to.
The fact that you reduce the other side to 'feelings' is precisely what I'm taking issue with. It's not 'feelings' at all, it's about different interpretations of what it means to "do this". Given that you're not advocating a full-on recreation of the Last Supper as mandatory, you are clearly interpreting the text yourself. The fact that others interpret it differently doesn't mean that they're simply ignoring the text to go by feelings.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
basically the same ceremony
Ooh. How I love that first word, it papers over the cracks in the logic of your argument so superbly.
"Basically" = only with differences that you consider insignificant. Regardless of whether or not the practitioners of those ceremonies found the differences significant. While very, very quietly acknowledging that there were in fact differences.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
And when the Bible says "do this in remembrance of me", it regrettably does not come armed with a footnote explaining precisely what the word "this" is referring to.
The text says exactly what "this" refers to. It's not complicated, and outside of attempting to show how illiterate I am you probably wouldn't find it so mysterious either. But that last part is just speculation.
quote:
The fact that you reduce the other side to 'feelings' is precisely what I'm taking issue with.
When concrete actions are dismissed as not necessary, what is left?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Now, here's why I get stuck on a particularly strict and literal interpretation.
Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood". While holding bread and wine, respectively.
Let me start by saying that I don't hold with transubstantiation. One of the reasons I don't hold with it is that the bread and wine that JESUS held clearly weren't Jesus' body and Jesus' blood because Jesus was still using his body and blood in the normal fashion at that moment. While it might be plausible that the ascended Jesus would be in the business of turning bread and wine into his body and blood, it seems most peculiar to think that he did it while... holding bits of himself, basically.
So, we have Jesus holding bread and wine as symbols of his body and blood.
To insist on bread and wine (and not, say, grape juice) is to insist that a PARTICULAR symbol of body and blood is of profound importance, such that no other symbol of body and blood will do.
Which seems to odd to me. It's not evident to me that there is something inherently special or sacred about bread that means that no other thing can represent 'body', and that wine is the only thing capable of representing 'blood'. Though the latter in particular does a great job, so long as it's a red wine.
Do I find bread and wine particularly good at reminding me of the Last Supper? Absolutely. Am I persuaded that no other substances can be used to remind me of what happened that night and the sacrifice of his body and blood that Jesus was about to make for real, losing his life? Sorry, not persuaded.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
And when the Bible says "do this in remembrance of me", it regrettably does not come armed with a footnote explaining precisely what the word "this" is referring to.
The text says exactly what "this" refers to. It's not complicated, and outside of attempting to show how illiterate I am you probably wouldn't find it so mysterious either. But that last part is just speculation.
quote:
The fact that you reduce the other side to 'feelings' is precisely what I'm taking issue with.
When concrete actions are dismissed as not necessary, what is left?
1. As a legislative drafter, I'm of the view that the word 'this' isn't particularly good at the kind of precision that you claim for it. I spend my working life reading instructions which were 'perfectly clear' to the writer but which are capable of 2 different interpretations, and usually the reason is because they've engaged in the kind of shorthand that a word like 'this' represents!
2. WHICH concrete actions? You are confusing the dismissal of particular concrete actions with the dismissal of action altogether. A fallacy you've thrown up quite a few times, I see. There is a vast logical gulf between the two propositions. The gap between "don't drink wine" and "do nothing" is a gap that encompasses every single possible action besides drinking wine.
[ 03. July 2012, 16:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Both a memorialist and one who holds to transubstantiation can agree that Jesus is commanding Christians to do a specific thing. If it's just a memorial he is commanding the Church to memorialize him in a specific way. Otherwise he would have said "Remember me" and not "Do this in remembrance of me." That is why I think the real presence/memorial debate is getting ahead of matters.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
1. As a legislative drafter, I'm of the view that the word 'this' isn't particularly good at the kind of precision that you claim for it.
The New Testament is not a legislative document.
quote:
2. WHICH concrete actions? You are confusing the dismissal of particular concrete actions with the dismissal of action altogether.
Then tell me what specific, concrete actions are left in online sacraments.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: The legislative drafter in me desperately wants to ask Jesus whether "take and eat bread in remembrance of me" would be a better way of accurately conveying his intended policy. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The New Testament is not a legislative document.
Then you shouldn't try to read it as setting down precise rules!!
[ 03. July 2012, 16:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Then tell me what specific, concrete actions are left in online sacraments.
Off the top of my head, it is perfectly possible for someone sitting in front of a computer screen to pick up and drink from a cup of wine at the same time as other people elsewhere in the world are also picking up and drinking from their own cups of wine.
And that really is just off the top of my head, in the middle of the night. Why the blazes am I discussing this with you in the middle of the night...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I add, with sincere respect, that you may be reading the text like a lawyer trying to see what a client can get away with under the law, than as a Christian hearing the commandments of God. As Kierkegaard wrote, “The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly.”
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I add, with sincere respect, that you may be reading the text like a lawyer trying to see what a client can get away with under the law, than as a Christian hearing the commandments of God.
From that remark, you clearly have NO idea whatsoever what my job involves. The only "clients" I have are people trying to set the rules, not people trying to wriggle out of them. I produce the material that other lawyers try to exploit. My role is so fundamentally different from theirs that it isn't funny.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I really don't, but it sure sounds like your assumptions about the text are much the same as those lawyers, and they have to be in order to defend against their wiles.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
1. As a legislative drafter, I'm of the view that the word 'this' isn't particularly good at the kind of precision that you claim for it.
The New Testament is not a legislative document.
I agree. I would guess most people on this thread agree. Trouble is, on this matter at least, you are treating it in this way, at least in the sense of it having some form of legislative power or force for the church.
If it's not a legislative document, then doesn't that give us some freedom to think and reflect on what Jesus meant when He said "Do this in remembrance of me", rather than just reading a list of instructions?
EDIT: x-posted with a whole bunch of stuff !
[ 03. July 2012, 16:38: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I really don't, but it sure sounds like your assumptions about the text are much the same as those lawyers, and they have to be in order to defend against their wiles.
It's not me who's making assumptions as to meaning...
It's late, so let me pose you this question and give you time to think about it, as it illustrates the point rather well.
When you press keys on an input device known as a keyboard, and cause various combinations of pixels to be displayed on your monitor, and subsequently the monitors of a large number of other people, are you 'writing'?
(Here in Australia, the answer is legally yes. Electronic Transactions Act 1999. Very useful little law, as it heads off laborious debates about whether 'writing' requires the placement of ink or graphite on paper. But what if there was no such piece of legislation to settle the question?)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Zach, where on earth do you get the idea that no-one cares what the Bible says?
Where on earth did you get the idea that I said no one cared? I was speaking against a particular line of argument that I think is irrelevant.
But it's not that they don't care what the bible says. It's that they interpret it differently to you.
You're veering very close to "I read the plain meaning of the text; you interpret".
No, we all interpret.
Like Orfeo said, when Jesus says "this is my body, this is my blood", it's hard to understand. Like when he says "gouge your eye out" or "cut your hand off".
In terms of what "this" is when he says "do this", IMHO it's not as straightforward as you think. Not because I think the bible is unimportant, but because interpreting it is a hazardous business.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The point about memorialism was that k-mann suggested Alan's definition of Eucharist was one he'd "invented. I was just trying to point out that it wasn't, it's held by a lot of Christians.
No, what I said was not that memorialism was Alan’s invention, but that his insistence on the validity of a completely non-physical Eucharist is his invention, or at least completely foreign even to most ‘memorialists.’ I don't believe they believe that you could go up to the altar or table, look at a picture of bread and wine, and leave. They all eat bread and drink wine.* I haven’t argued for the metaphysics, only the discernable stuff.
* Some of them, of course, drink grape juice. But that isn’t wine. The greek word for grape juice is τρύξ, and that isn’t found in the Last Supper narratives. What we find there is οἶνος, which (according to BDAG) means ‘intoxicating wine.’ So if someone is not using wine (real wine, however big the alcohol content) he isn’t doing what Christ commanded.
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
According to k-mann upthread, the only thing Jesus commanded us to do is to bless and give thanks for the bread and wine - not eat and drink it. Which isn't an interpretation I'd heard before, but if it's true then we're all going way beyond what Jesus commanded us. Whereas I don't think there's anywhere that doesn't celebrate Eucharist without eating and drinking.
I never said that. I said that the only thing Christ commanded us to do when he said ‘do this in remembrance of me’ was to do what Christ did: take bread and wine, bless it and give thanks over it. The command to eat and drink is separate, but he also commanded that. Which doesn’t actually lessen our case. You cannot eat or drink a pixelated picture on a computer screen.
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Thing is, I'm not sure it's quite as straightforward as you're making out, either, otherwise there'd never have been any disagreements about it in church history.
Which is our point. There aren’t any serious disagreement on whether or not the Eucharist is physical.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And when the Bible says "do this in remembrance of me", it regrettably does not come armed with a footnote explaining precisely what the word "this" is referring to.
The greek text (Luk 22:19) we read that Christ took bread, and said Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. Translated rather direcly, it goes: “This is my body, which for you is given; this (you) do in/for my remembrance.” The two key phrases here are Τοῦτό ἐστι (“this is”) and τοῦτο ποιεῖτε (“this do”/“do this”). The text is pretty clear: You are to do the bread. And since there are no command to eat or drink in Luk 22, we must see what Christ did with the bread and the wine in that context. And what he did was to take bread and wine, bless it and give thanks over it. The text is pretty clear on what Christ meant when he said “do this in remembrance of me.” No need for any explanatory footnotes.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The greek text (Luk 22:19) we read that Christ took bread, and said Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. Translated rather direcly, it goes: “This is my body, which for you is given; this (you) do in/for my remembrance.” The two key phrases here are Τοῦτό ἐστι (“this is”) and τοῦτο ποιεῖτε (“this do”/“do this”). The text is pretty clear: You are to do the bread. And since there are no command to eat or drink in Luk 22, we must see what Christ did with the bread and the wine in that context. And what he did was to take bread and wine, bless it and give thanks over it. The text is pretty clear on what Christ meant when he said “do this in remembrance of me.” No need for any explanatory footnotes.
While I very much appreciate your explanation and translation, the first thing that struck me about this is that it sounds like a command to remember Jesus when having a meal. Quite possibly WHENEVER having a meal.
In other words, it doesn't sound like it's supporting what we now consider 'traditional' communion practice. Quite the reverse! It sounds much more like a command to Christians that when they gather together to have a meal, they are to remember Jesus' sacrifice of his body and blood.
I can't recall who it was, but someone did already point out in this thread that there are indications this is precisely what the early Christians did. When they came together to break bread, they were having a meal together, not lining up at an altar rail during Sunday services.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
