|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: biblical inerrancy
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
Second, there's the problem that some parts of the Bible are not "ordinary books" to modern readers. Some of them are examples of an extinct literary genre modern readers would have encountered nowhere else. Telling readers with no experience with a particular literary genre to read a book in that genre as they would any other book would seem to be either asking the impossible or setting them up for a series of errors and mistakes.
In the original context of that phrase "the literal sense", it did mean/include allowing for different genres as well as figures of speech, 'riddles' etc. You specifically pick out 'apocalyptic' - ordinary readers are likely to realise they are reading a vision with symbolic elements. Those who don't have generally committed themselves a priori to an idea of 'literal reading' which is actually anything but 'reading the Bible like an ordinary book' - and indeed, with sad irony, is usually not how they themselves would read (or write - see 'Left Behind') ordinary books other than the Bible.
Christians do recognise the Bible as a collection; we believe we have good reason to regard it as a collection with a considerable 'unifying factor' in the work of the Holy Spirit. Even without that it is clear that there was enough common purpose to make it a unified collection rather than totally disparate; it is at least reasonable to read it as a unified and connected collection and see if it makes sense when you do so.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I am so far from recongising any of this that it is almost impossible to participate.
As far as I'm concerned, it's nearly all bibliolatry, in that it replaces the embodied Word with a series of written impressions of the mystery of God built up over thousands of years as a less messy substitute.
The written material, in its various genres, traditions and cultures, can only supplement and illuminate the embodied Word and our own experience of embodidness and encounters with the divine mystery as witnesses to God and God's love. Anything else is trying to create a direct substitute for God.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I didn't say that there were no 'plain and straight-foward meanings' in ancient texts but even a so-called plain and straight-foward meaning of John's Gospel, say, will indicate that it's meaning is anything but plain and straight-foward.
Ok, there's enough there for us to get the gist but even without a Magisterium, none of us are approaching any of these texts independently or out with the framework and context of a received tradition.
I don't want to get all structuralist and semiotic on you and roll out literary theories and all the jazz about signs and the signified, denotation and connotation and all the Saussure, Foucault and Derrida stuff ... But your grasp of how texts actually work and the processes involved in our interpretation of them is pretty basic to say the least.
The same would apply to my grasp of how electrical circuits work or to the forces involved in nuclear fusion. I know next to nothing about those processes. You know next to nothing about textual or critical theory. That's not a criticism. But if I write as if I'm talking to someone who doesn't understand these things then it's because, judging by what you've written, you clearly have no idea how these things work.
Sorry, but there it is.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Their original readers would have grasped the meaning, or at worst would have seen a fairly narrow range of alternatives.
The original writers and their contemporaneous readers would have shared the same conceits, concepts and understandings that modern readers from existing cultures do not.
This is what you seem to miss from Gamaliel's point. That even IF the authors intended to be understood simply, we do not have the same mental framework they did. Have you ever read a contemporary repair manual? One of the biggest problems is unintended assumption of the reader's having basic information. Important bits are omitted even when the intention is to be clear, basic and thorough.
This is why it is easier to write a contemporary work set in the culture of the reader, there is much knowledge and experience shared. This is not true across time and culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Christians do recognise the Bible as a collection; we believe we have good reason to regard it as a collection with a considerable 'unifying factor' in the work of the Holy Spirit. Even without that it is clear that there was enough common purpose to make it a unified collection rather than totally disparate; it is at least reasonable to read it as a unified and connected collection and see if it makes sense when you do so.
The Spirit would then be incompetent given the various paths His followers have wandered down.
If one attempts to read the bible as you say, one can only leave with the impression that God is an inadequate amateur with serious emotional and mental issues. He needs to be removed from position and brought into counseling immediately. For his own good as well as the safety of others'.
However, if you start with Jesus and work backwards, discarding the obvious prejudices, apologetics, justifications, etc., you can end up with a workable tome.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Before I do anything else on this thread I need to make an apology.
I thought it would be a good thing to transfer here my posts on another thread which have given rise to some issues now being discussed here; and with someone already accusing me of a change of position in another case, transferred them unedited. Unfortunately I overlooked that this would repeat a comment involving Gamaliel that Hosts had already found problematic.
Apologies to both Hosts and Gamaliel
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I hadn't noticed that the Hosts had found your transferred comment problematic, Steve. I wasn't at all offended but thanks for the apology anyway.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
lilBuddha knocks it out of the park here. We cannot read the Scriptures the way the original recipients did. We do not have their background information. To quote somebody-or-other (Bush the first?), we don't even know what we don't know. Even when something seems very clear and obvious, we don't know that it wasn't a figure of speech known to the people of the time, but which has been lost.
From this I wish you, Steve, would not infer that I think that the Bible can mean anything we want it to. That is a straw man and on its face absurdly absurd when you think about what Church I belong to. But it brings it right back around to my main point in these kinds of discussions: The Bible is not self-interpreting.
Left with the Holy Bible and the Holy Spirit, a person of good will and good faith could end up with any of an infinite number of interpretations. For every George Fox there's a Mary Baker Eddy; for every Martin Luther there's a Charles Taze Russell.
Who can distinguish between these interpretations? Refuting them from the Bible itself treads on the toes of petitio principii. Conclusion: the Bible is not self-interpreting.
__________________________________
"begging the question" -- aka circular argument
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Thanks for spotting that and apologising Steve Langton. Host rulings are on previous thread ' Hug a Homophobe'. And this is a friendly reminder to all that any personal conflicts belong in Hell and not to import conflicts from elsewhere on the boards.
Thanks!
Louise
DH Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Mousethief: quote:
(Bush the first?)
I think it was actually the weapons and poison gas salesman Donald Rumsfeld.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
lilBuddha knocks it out of the park here. We cannot read the Scriptures the way the original recipients did. We do not have their background information. To quote somebody-or-other (Bush the first?), we don't even know what we don't know.
I think it was actually the weapons and poison gas salesman Donald Rumsfeld.
Yes, it was indeed Donald Rumsfeld.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Even when something seems very clear and obvious, we don't know that it wasn't a figure of speech known to the people of the time, but which has been lost.
This reminds me of an incident I witnessed during a history class on the Second World War. One of the students questioned how FDR, Churchill, and Stalin could form an alliance given how different their various perspectives were. The teacher responded that necessity makes strange bedfellows. Another student gave an audible gasp and asked "You mean they were all gay?!?" There followed an explanation of the idiom in question. If idioms aren't universal within the same culture and language, it seems unlikely that they can be easily recognized across gulfs of time, culture, and language.
And that's not even taking in to account the way the present sometimes invents idioms for the past.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Who can distinguish between these interpretations? Refuting them from the Bible itself treads on the toes of petitio principii. Conclusion: the Bible is not self-interpreting.
Or as someone else once put it, the Bible is not a paper Pope.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or as someone else once put it, the Bible is not a paper Pope.
Oooh, hadn't heard that but it's a good one. Must try to remember and use in future.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mousethief: quote:
(Bush the first?)
I think it was actually the weapons and poison gas salesman Donald Rumsfeld.
From the mouths of stopped clocks....
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
And that's not even taking in to account the way the present sometimes invents idioms for the past.
I like the 'Filtered Camels' - I prefer the explanation I heard while at Uni from a young Greek Cypriot brought up in the Orthodox Church. Apparently in early texts it's not a 'kamellos/camel' but a 'kamilos/cable' and what Jesus was really saying was that getting a rich man into heaven would be like threading a ship's hawser through a sewing needle. Mousethief may know more about that one.... But the camel is definitely funnier!
Probably, as with the intrusive 'inn' in the Nativity story, this is an artefact of early translations between Greek and Latin. There are a few others; indeed I've an evangelical-sourced book which produces truly impressive numbers of 'typos' in and between the surviving manuscripts. But it needs saying that very few such 'typos' and similar actually affect any basic teaching.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's not simply an issue of typos of course. You still don't seem to be engaging with the points some of us have been trying to make about contexts, the issue of communal and received traditions and the way we approach and interpret texts due to cultural, theological and historic influences.
I know you understand that, but the way you write about such things seems to imply that we somehow approach these texts in glorious isolation. It doesn't work like that. Not with the Bible nor with any other text.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, you have no life within you.
What is the simple, easy, and straightforward interpretation of this, Steve Langton? Surely the Catholics and Orthodox are right and this refers to the Eucharist, and those who refuse to serve and partake of the Eucharist are damning themselves, as our Savior's words clearly say.
What do you think, Steve Langton? How do you interpret this, and on what basis?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Apparently in early texts it's not a 'kamellos/camel' but a 'kamilos/cable' and what Jesus was really saying was that getting a rich man into heaven would be like threading a ship's hawser through a sewing needle. Mousethief may know more about that one.... But the camel is definitely funnier!z
Still the same thing: an impossibility. Instead of this plain reading, Christians will still manage to read a loophole into what is an indictment of wealth.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The plain meaning is only the plain meaning until its plainness becomes something we find uncomfortable or don't agree with.
It has ever been thus.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Still the same thing: an impossibility. Instead of this plain reading, Christians will still manage to read a loophole into what is an indictment of wealth.
And where was I saying it was anything other than an "indictment of wealth"?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I know you understand that, but the way you write about such things seems to imply that we somehow approach these texts in glorious isolation.
The point is that you "know (I) understand that" precisely because a lot of what I write shows that I don't in fact adopt the simplistic view you keep trying to foist on me.
The point is also that while one wouldn't expect every last bit of the Bible to be instantly perspicuous to everyone, it is as human literature a fairly normal product which intends a plain meaning and more than enough of it is clear for more than enough people. You're tending to talk as if a few rare exceptions were enough to indicate general incomprehensibility.
Precisely because it is a human product, written with an intent of being understood, understanding is not as hard as you're trying to make out, or as improbable as you're trying to make out. I don't hear many people making similar difficulties about Plato, Sophocles, Julius Caesar, and other ancient authors.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, you have no life within you.
Essentially I don't think God would instruct us to perform acts of cannibalism, and eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood would appear to be a spiritually irrelevant act.
Not only is it a pretty crass idea, it's quite positively counter-indicated by other passages about eating, for example Matthew 15
quote:
10 And having called near the multitude, he said to them, `Hear and understand: 11 not that which is coming into the mouth doth defile the man, but that which is coming forth from the mouth, this defileth the man.' 12 Then his disciples having come near, said to him, `Hast thou known that the Pharisees, having heard the word, were stumbled?' 13 And he answering said, `Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up; 14 let them alone, guides they are--blind of blind; and if blind may guide blind, both into a ditch shall fall.' 15 And Peter answering said to him, `Explain to us this simile.' 16 And Jesus said, `Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 do ye not understand that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth? 18 but the things coming forth from the mouth from the heart do come forth, and these defile the man; 19 for out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, whoredoms, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings: 20 these are the things defiling the man; but to eat with unwashen hands doth not defile the man.' Matt 15:10-20 (YLT)
The same Jesus who spoke v 17
quote:
do ye not understand that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth?
is surely unlikely to have made a strong point about any kind of literal eating of his body and drinking his blood.
But there is strong symbolism in the idea;
There's the symbolism that what you eat becomes part of you and indeed gives you life. Jesus in us means we share his life. But not by a crass literal eating of literal flesh or drinking literal blood - which anyway oddly continues to look, feel, and taste just like bread and wine....
There is the symbolism that Jesus fulfils many different aspects of the OT rituals including the various sacrifices - that's why Leviticus can still be an important part of the scriptures for us, helping us to interpret Jesus' sacrifice via a kind of 'visual aids'. In this case one notes that many of the sacrifices were not simply destroyed, but became partly a meal, for the priests or sometimes for the worshippers. We can't and shouldn't literally and cannibalistically eat Jesus' body and drink his blood - but in the Communion we symbolically share a similar meal from Jesus' sacrifice. The symbolism also arguably reinforces the idea of God's NT people as a 'nation of priests', the priests being the main beneficiaries of such sacrificial meals.
And there's all the symbolism of the Passover with the Passover Lamb becoming the sacrificial ransom for the Israelite firstborn; and Jesus of course set the Communion in a passover meal, but with no longer a need to sacrifice a lamb because Jesus has forever fulfilled the sacrifice...
I'm pretty sure that I could find enough of that kind of thing for a sermon of unusual length in our church! One thing I would include in that sermon would be a reference to the Anglican Communion liturgy which says, as near as I can remember with my own copy of the old Prayer Book temporarily lost in the chaos of a recent refurbishment of my flat, that we are to "Feed on Him in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving". That seems to me more consonant with the totality of NT witness and the OT ideas it relies on, than a crassly literal supposed consuming of Jesus' flesh and blood.
And on top of that, the passage where Jesus talks of this is John 6; and in context it is something he says to sceptical Jews who, in effect need their thinking shaken up, and he leaves them questioning a paradoxical statement. But explaining to his disciples afterwards he affirms to them that
quote:
the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life; John 6:63 (YLT)
Which could hardly more emphatically affirm that a crass 'literal flesh' meaning is wildly inappropriate, and that what's really important is to believe and follow his words, incorporating them into our lives!
(BTW, YLT is "Young's Literal Translation" which tends to be the default setting on my Bible software)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Precisely because it is a human product, written with an intent of being understood, understanding is not as hard as you're trying to make out, or as improbable as you're trying to make out. I don't hear many people making similar difficulties about Plato, Sophocles, Julius Caesar, and other ancient authors.
Because they don't matter. As Christians, the Bible is meant to inform how we live our lives and think about God. Who gives a crap about ferreting out difficult passages of Plato? I mean besides professional philosophers, bless their woolly toes. But Plato is not for us the Sword of Truth. He's not even a pen knife of truth. For living the Christian life, he doesn't matter a jot. Scripture does. So we have to make sure we're interpreting it properly, because it matters.
ETA: You would hear many people arguing about those ancient authors if you were in the right classes in the right universities. This just speaks of your lack of experience with people who care -- professional philosophers, historians, etc. And no blame to you, other than to think that your lack of knowledge constitutes knowledge of lack.
But you have plenty of experience with people who care about the Bible, which group includes most Christians.
[ 18. September 2016, 23:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
<mighty snip> what's really important is to believe and follow his words, incorporating them into our lives!
So say you and other really-low-candle Protestants. The high-candle churches say this refers to the Eucharist, in which we mystically partake of the flesh of Christ and the blood of Christ, and cross-reference it to Christ's words at the Last Supper, which are so important that (other than "it is better to give than to receive") they are the only words of Christ quoted by St. Paul.
My point with raising this is that there is no obvious, plain interpretation of this passage. There are (at least) two very different interpretations. And this is not some side-passage about some minor thing. This comes with the warning that unless we do whatever it is we're meant to be doing, we have no life within us. That's heavy stuff.
Proving your implied claim the Bible has in every important place a self-evident interpretation to be so much moonshine. The Bible is not self-interpreting. You have yet to answer this simple, obvious, irrefutable five-word sentence, and say what we should do about it.
(Oh, and "crass literal flesh / cannibalism" is a straw man that was destroyed by Justin Martyr before 150 CE. You might as well drop it.)
[ 18. September 2016, 23:26: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry about yet another post, but I've just recalled a figure of speech from an African language in which an expert on something is said to 'eat' it - from which an artisan/craft model railway supplier adopted the name 'Gingingini' (I think I spelled it right) meaning "the guy who ate the railway engine".... very literally, of course, you should see the iron levels in his blood!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
The Bible is not self-interpreting.
As I pointed out myself in my quote from Tyndale, actually; like Gamaliel you seem determined to foist on me things which are denied by my actual statements.... Just I take a positive view of the possibilities of biblical interpretation, you seem for some reason to be taking an excessively negative view of what that means.
Question is, what's your alternative? So far you're being destructive - as is Gamaliel - but not offering a solid alternative....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
The Bible is not self-interpreting.
As I pointed out myself in my quote from Tyndale, actually; like Gamaliel you seem determined to foist on me things which are denied by my actual statements.... Just I take a positive view of the possibilities of biblical interpretation, you seem for some reason to be taking an excessively negative view of what that means.
Question is, what's your alternative? So far you're being destructive - as is Gamaliel - but not offering a solid alternative....
I asked you first. Don't dodge.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
mystically
QED!!
QED my ass. Do you know what "mystical" means? Marriage is both physical and mystical. The fact that it's mystical doesn't make it not physical.
[ 18. September 2016, 23:44: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
(Oh, and "crass literal flesh / cannibalism" is a straw man that was destroyed by Justin Martyr before 150 CE. You might as well drop it.)
At what's already late I'm not going to spend a lot of time double-checking what Justin said - but my memory is that he was refuting a popular pagan canard that the Christian communion was an act of literal cannibalism as in they killed some poor bloke and ate him - I'd guess he will have pointed out that it was a symbolic/mystical/'by faith' eating of bread and drinking of wine.
I don't know what the Orthodox position is on so-called 'transubstantiation' in the RCC 'Mass' - but that has often been presented in uncomfortably crassly literal style, teaching an over-literal consuming of Jesus even if it's not a literal 'kill-someone-and-eat-them' cannibalism.
I don't see a lot of difference between 'mystically' and my quote from the Anglicans.... And you don't seem to have taken account of the bit where I point out the not-so-literal later interpretation by Jesus to the disciples of the earlier words you quoted.
There are also issues in the RCC Mass with claims that the priest somehow 'sacrifices' the 'host' in a meritorious way; which seems wrong if Jesus has in fact made a perfect sacrifice. Again, not sure what the Orthodox position is.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
Don't dodge.
Didn't dodge;
quote:
As I pointed out myself in my quote from Tyndale, actually
And since I didn't dodge, that seems to leave you needing to answer my question. I'm packing in for the night before tiredness results in some unintended cock-up.....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Precisely because it is a human product, written with an intent of being understood, understanding is not as hard as you're trying to make out, or as improbable as you're trying to make out. I don't hear many people making similar difficulties about Plato, Sophocles, Julius Caesar, and other ancient authors.
Really? From my perspective I don't think it's entirely coincidental that no culture has ever developed the idiom "as simple as Plato" to mean something that's easy to understand. I do remember a lot of discussions about how difficult it is to render "τέχνη" into a modern, Western language however.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
Don't dodge.
Didn't dodge;
Didn't answer.
Whatever Jesus meant by your later quote, it must be set against his taking bread and wine and saying "This is my body" and "this is my blood." Which as noted is (aside from the throwaway about giving and receiving) the only place Paul quotes Jesus, and the only place he actually sets forth an incident in the life of Christ (other than post-resurrection appearances, which are skeletal).
(Unless you eat) + (this is my body) = Eucharist.
How do you and Tyndale choose to ignore this?
Orthodoxen don't do "transubstantiation" which is derived from a physical model of substance and accident which we do not share (and which has been overthrown by modern physics anyway).
The priest prays, "Make this bread the body of Christ" and "Make that which is in this cup the blood of Christ, making the change by thy Holy Spirit."
We later pray, "This is truly thy body and this is thine own precious blood."
How this happens, at a physical level, is left as a mystery. We can see and taste that it's wine. We truly believe it's the blood of Christ. For someone who truly believes that the same being can be 100% God and 100% human, this is small beans.
Finally to answer your most important question, what's the key to knowing which of the myriad interpretations of the Bible is correct? I give you the commonotory of St. Vincent of Lerins: antiquity, universality, consensus. Roughly in that order. By antiquity we mean new shit that contradicts old shit is suspect. By universality we mean old shit that was all over the Christian world, not just in one spot. By consensus, we refer to the consensus of people whose holiness and way of life give them a greater likelihood to know what the shit they're talking about as regards God, and not promulgated by just one guy, or a bunch of ne'er-do-wells.
St. Vincent developed this rule after he looked around and noticed that there were as many interpretations of scripture as there were interpreters. Hmm. Not so different from today. He asked around of the holiest people he could find and distilled their wisdom into those three words.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At what's already late I'm not going to spend a lot of time double-checking what Justin said - but my memory is that he was refuting a popular pagan canard that the Christian communion was an act of literal cannibalism as in they killed some poor bloke and ate him - I'd guess he will have pointed out that it was a symbolic/mystical/'by faith' eating of bread and drinking of wine.
You'd be correct on the "mystical" part but very wrong about the "symbolic" part.
quote:
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.
Meanwhile, the Anglican "by faith" language you've referred reflects Calvin's attempts to describe what happens in the Eucharist; he used language like that in part to specifically refute any idea that the Eucharist was simply symbolic.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, you have no life within you.
How do you interpret this, and on what basis?
Well here's how I would do it. I am not theologically learned.
Text/context/co text
Text :Assume these words convey Jesus' meaning in translation
Context: Jewish understanding would be that in the OT, eating of flesh with blood was anathema and so his audience of disciples are intentionally being shocked
Context 2: the utterance occurs very soon before Calvary. Jesus must be flagging his imminent crucifixion.
Co text: 1There are parallel utterances eg my flesh is real food,my blood is real drink. I am the bread of life, he who comes to me shall not hunger. Do this in memory of me.
Co text 2 Paul refers to the taking of bread by Jesus and says 'when supper was ended he took the Cup.' etc.. And By doing this we signify the Lord's death till he come.
There are others
Conclusion: Jesus has created for his immediate audience a violent paradigm shift. He has played on their OT knowledge of the Torah to force them to look at him as a sacrifice animal with his blood as a source of new life.
Paul has created a repeatable action by which believers can celebrate the source of their regeneration. He even goes so far as to enjoin that to eat and drink unworthily is to eat and drink damnation to oneself but to say the number of times one can do this is unrestricted. There is a chance to examine ones own heart as well as celebrate the new life..the new reality..the regeneration.
So the basis of this is text linked to context linked to co text.
Incidentally, If I examine church practice in the light of this I find a few things added in. A 'priest' is one of them. I conclude therefore on the basis above that the Lord's supper if you like is a valid, scriptural, repeatable, faith strengthening action that I can do minus such a functionary.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
Incidentally, If I examine church practice in the light of this I find a few things added in. A 'priest' is one of them. I conclude therefore on the basis above that the Lord's supper if you like is a valid, scriptural, repeatable, faith strengthening action that I can do minus such a functionary.
I'd slightly query the words 'that I can do'. It is rather the point of the designation 'Communion' that it is a communal act rather than something I can do alone - though in circumstances of abnormal long-term separation from other Christians I suppose I could take the bread and wine alone and derive spiritual comfort from it as communion with Jesus himself. But I think in normal circumstances Communion should be something WE do in community; and yes, without a 'priest' in the RCC/Orthodox sense, but usually led by an 'elder' as a matter of 'good order'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Nick Tamen;
quote:
Meanwhile, the Anglican "by faith" language you've referred reflects Calvin's attempts to describe what happens in the Eucharist; he used language like that in part to specifically refute any idea that the Eucharist was simply symbolic.
Which is why I quoted it. I don't think the situation is purely symbolic; but I think what makes it more than symbolic is that element of faith on the part of the participants, rather than the result of a quasi-magical act by a 'priest'. It is no less 'real' for being 'by faith' rather than by any attempt to be more literal about it.
I take it although you didn't specify, the quote is from Justin.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Steve Langton, if I understand it correctly, if an Orthodox priest turns up to celebrate the Eucharist and he's the only one there, he won't celebrate the Eucharist ...
It's as much a communal act within Orthodoxy as it would be in a low-church Protestant setting. The difference lies in the understanding of what is being performed as it were.
Also, for all your insistence that I'm accusing you of an overly simplistic approach, I'm afraid it seems to me, you continually demonstrate such to be the case in the way you respond to the questions posed to you.
We've had an example just now with the question MT posed. Instead of dealing with his question directly you've gone off on a tangent about the RCs and transubstantiation and refuting that instead of dealing with MT's question. In other words, you weren't dealing with the 'plain meaning of the text' at all but trying to second guess what MT meant ...
'Hmmm ... he must be trying to establish an overly literal and crass understanding of the real-presence in the way my tradition tells me that the RCs do ...'
In other words, you were interpreting what MT wrote through the lens of what you understand the RC position to be - rather than what MT was actually getting at.
Do you see what I'm driving at?
Your 'plain-meaning' approach is no plainer than anyone else's. And you still haven't addressed some of the issues I've raised and others have raised about the role of tradition, our particular context and values etc etc in the way we interpret texts.
I'm not saying that scripture is more fiendishly difficult than Plato or whatever else, simply pointing out that we don't come to any of these texts in glorious isolation.
We interpret them through the lens of whatever tradition we happen to belong to. You demonstrated that in your response to MT's question.
Whether you are right or wrong, good, bad or indifferent, you are intepreting the scriptures from a particular stand-point. We all are.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
Whatever Jesus meant by your later quote
I'm suggesting that the private explanation to the disciples casts a different 'spin' on the apparently very literal statements earlier to his sceptical hearers; and shows that he wasn't in fact 'dumb wooden' literal in those statements.
I also think that the disciples would be well able to make that connection when he presented them with his flesh and blood in bread and wine form at the Last Supper - they would see that the basic principle applied to that situation too.
In any case, as somebody pointed out at the time of the Reformation, Jesus can't be being too literal about the bread and wine being his body and blood when his actual body and blood are also present reclining at the table with the disciples....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
In other words, you were interpreting what MT wrote through the lens of what you understand the RC position to be - rather than what MT was actually getting at.
No, actually the position was that I wasn't quite sure of MT's position and set the RC position in contrast to seek clarification from MT - in effect, "How is your position like/unlike this other interpretation which I know more about than I know of yours?"
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Steve Langton, if I understand it correctly, if an Orthodox priest turns up to celebrate the Eucharist and he's the only one there, he won't celebrate the Eucharist ...
I wasn't sure of that; MT can presumably confirm. I seem to recall it was one of the Reformation issues that an RC priest could/would celebrate a Mass on his own because of the supposed 'meritorious sacrifice' aspect.
Nobody turning up at the advertised time is not quite the abnormal long-term separation from other Christians that I was envisaging in my 'thought experiment' of doing 'quasi-communion' solo myself!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You are at it again, Steve Langton. You are applying a particular viewpoint/insight from your own tradition - which is what we all do - we all inevitably do.
If you can accept the communal aspects of the 'breaking of bread' / communion / eucharist - as you clearly do - then why does it seem so strange to assert - as I do - that we equally have a communal approach to the interpretation of scripture?
My interpretation of scripture isn't 'my' interpretation of scripture, it's an interpretation of scripture that is coloured by and influenced by generations of Christians down to the present day - both pre-Reformation and post-Reformation.
It derives from other people's interpretation of scripture.
That in no way diminishes my sense of having a 'personal' faith and so on.
It's another of these both/and things not either/or ones ...
And that applies to the eucharist too, come to that - it remains bread and wine but it is also in some sense - some mysterious sense - the Body and Blood of Christ. Both/and.
In the same way the scriptures are both the words of men - ie men wrote it down, composed it and so on - it wasn't dictated to them via a form of 'automatic writing' - and yet it is also the word of God.
Primarily of course, our Lord Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man at one and the same time ...
Both/and not either/or ... not 60/40 or 80/20 but 100% / 100%.
That's the Mystery of Godliness ... 'He (God) appeared in a body ...'
Now, where did I get that idea from? From the scriptures? yes, but the scriptures mediated to me through mainstream orthodox small o and Big O tradition, through catholic small c and Big C Catholic tradition ...
Both/and ... both/and ...
Are you able to interpret the scriptures? Yes, of course you are.
Do you do it in glorious isolation or as part of a community of faith and in line with insights/understanding that have been passed down to you from other people?
Well, the latter of course. Another both/and.
When you pick up the Bible it's not just you, the text and God the Holy Spirit but a whole raft of previous influences and a great cloud of witnesses.
Hallelujah for that!
Left to my own devices I might come up with all sorts of whacky interpretations.
I need the tradition - derived from Big T Tradition ultimately - to keep me on some semblance of order and on some kind of track ... even if it isn't what MT or an RC or an Anabaptist or whoever else might not consider to be fully on track ...
That's the point I'm trying to make. Not that the scriptures are so obscure that we need umpteen theological degrees to make sense of them.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
In other words, you were interpreting what MT wrote through the lens of what you understand the RC position to be - rather than what MT was actually getting at.
No, actually the position was that I wasn't quite sure of MT's position and set the RC position in contrast to seek clarification from MT - in effect, "How is your position like/unlike this other interpretation which I know more about than I know of yours?"
Yes, I understand that, and it demonstrates the point I was making. That we can't help but approach these things via the lenses we are most familiar with. What MT wrote triggered a response gleaned from your previous reading and reflection and you sought clarification of that. Fine. But it does demonstrate the point I was making, that this is how we approach things, not in a 'me and my Bible' kind of way.
I'm not saying that to criticise or to pull you down in some way, simply stating how these things work in practice.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Nick Tamen;
quote:
Meanwhile, the Anglican "by faith" language you've referred reflects Calvin's attempts to describe what happens in the Eucharist; he used language like that in part to specifically refute any idea that the Eucharist was simply symbolic.
Which is why I quoted it. I don't think the situation is purely symbolic; but I think what makes it more than symbolic is that element of faith on the part of the participants, rather than the result of a quasi-magical act by a 'priest'. It is no less 'real' for being 'by faith' rather than by any attempt to be more literal about it.
I take it although you didn't specify, the quote is from Justin.
It was—his First Apology. My apologies for not making that clear.
But if that was your point in quoting the "by faith" language, you muddied your point by linking it to "symbol." And as far as I can tell, you're the only one who has talked about "magic" by a priest. MT asked you a very straightforward question—what did Jesus mean in the discourse about eating his flesh? Your response, it seems to me, didn't do much answer the question as it did caricature the belief of other Christians based on your disagreement with that belief.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
Finally to answer your most important question, what's the key to knowing which of the myriad interpretations of the Bible is correct? I give you the commonotory of St. Vincent of Lerins: antiquity, universality, consensus. Roughly in that order. By antiquity we mean new shit that contradicts old shit is suspect. By universality we mean old shit that was all over the Christian world, not just in one spot. By consensus, we refer to the consensus of people whose holiness and way of life give them a greater likelihood to know what the shit they're talking about as regards God, and not promulgated by just one guy, or a bunch of ne'er-do-wells.
Hmmm!
quote:
By antiquity we mean new shit that contradicts old shit is suspect.
As in, Orthodox and RCC ideas by which they accepted Constantine/Theodosius is suspect 'new shit' compared to the NT and earlier church teaching to the contrary - the old but not, I submit, 'shit'.
So by this standard the Anabaptists are right and the Orthodox and RCC are wrong. I'm quite happy with that....
And incidentally to be able to know what is contradictory appears to be smuggling in unacknowledged something very like my 'plain straightforward meaning' view.
quote:
By universality we mean old shit that was all over the Christian world, not just in one spot.
In other words, if something was universal till now your new shit is suspect. Fair enough. But note that Constantinianism's 'new shit' has the effect of redefining 'the Christian world' from the worldwide community of the born again to 'everybody born and baptised into our Christian state' - who logically may not be 'born again' at all but only nominal. So the resulting churches are operating with a suspect 'new shit' and therefore invalid view of 'the Christian world' which must to say the least compromise their claim of 'universality'.
Yes, Gamaliel - I know that those in gathered churches are also not necessarily 'born again' - but those who have chosen to be Christian in a potentially hostile world have a prima facie claim of credible profession of faith which is much less questionable than those living in a worldly state of compulsory conformity by state order, or customary conformity originating from a one-time compulsory conformity.
If the indisputable Christian world is those who've rejected Constantinianism, then while I'm quite happy to consider on their rational merits ideas from within Constantinian bodies, I can hardly accept they have a credible claim to 'universality'. I'll stick to the old-definitely-not-shit NT, thanks.
quote:
By consensus, we refer to the consensus of people whose holiness and way of life give them a greater likelihood to know what the shit they're talking about as regards God, and not promulgated by just one guy, or a bunch of ne'er-do-wells.
No problem in respecting obviously holy - though of course still imperfect - people. But again, if they're busy trying to tell me that I should accept stuff which clearly fails the antiquity and universality tests - say, Constantinianism - their authority must again be somewhat qualified. So again I'll certainly respect what they say; but I'll be checking it against the old-definitely-not-shit NT, and if they disagree with it, hard cheddar.
So in fact Vincent doesn't offer any more certainty - and arguably less - than the basic view that Jesus and the apostles in the NT, understood in the usual ways, are what we go by.
So Vincent's view confirms relying on the NT, and applying his view quite specifically undermines the credibility of the only institutional churches which have any possible claim to special institutional interpretational authority.
Hey, I could really get to like this....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
If you can accept the communal aspects of the 'breaking of bread' / communion / eucharist - as you clearly do - then why does it seem so strange to assert - as I do - that we equally have a communal approach to the interpretation of scripture?
'Communal' is pretty central to Anabaptism as well. So for example we tend to think of the church in terms of 'ekklesia/congregation' rather than 'ekklesia/top-down authoritative institution' - especially such an institution that's coming with enforcement by the state. We'd regard that latter kind of authority as anything but Christian 'communal'.
Obviously interpretations tend to start with an individual - but the validity is then tried in the church. For reasons given in my reply to MT, some churches/institutions do not seem to have the special authority they claim - even by their own standards - and if not always wrong, well suspect/to-be-handled-with-care....
On the key Anabaptist idea on Church and state, it seems to pass Vincent's criteria - it's back to the beginning, and universal at that point and confirmed by holy men for centuries; Constantinianism is 'new shit', as MT puts it, dubiously changes the definition of the 'Christian world', and well, the Crusades and Inquisition don't seem to have the holiness whereby their supporters can be regarded as part of the Christian consensus....
Of course it's also the plain straightforward meaning of Scripture....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You seem unaware, or seem to forget, that I used to belong to a Baptist church, Steve Langton.
So I'm very familiar with the territory.
As I'm very (tiresomely) familiar with your constant harping on and on about Constantine and what you take to be the plain-meaning of scripture when it comes to church/state relations which weren't even an issue when the NT was written.
But we've been over this before. It.ain't.that.simple.
Hence the reason why we're in Dead Horses all over again.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You seem unaware, or seem to forget, that I used to belong to a Baptist church, Steve Langton.
So I'm very familiar with the territory.
As I'm very (tiresomely) familiar with your constant harping on and on about Constantine and what you take to be the plain-meaning of scripture when it comes to church/state relations which weren't even an issue when the NT was written.
But we've been over this before. It.ain't.that.simple.
Hence the reason why we're in Dead Horses all over again.
If you think church/state relations 'weren't even an issue' in C1 Palestine, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Sorry to be so blunt, but come on!!!!
Unfortunately it happens that the Constantinian thing is way the biggest example to use in that particular argument because it is way the biggest example of how the Orthodox and RCC went wrong. There's not much I can do to change that, I wasn't the guy who made it happen....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not saying they weren't an issue. I'm saying they weren't an issue in the way they later became.
You seem to want to polarise everything around something that happened in the 4th century.
All I'm saying is that it ain't as simple as that.
I don't even know where to begin with you when it comes to questions of how we approach and interpret texts as you don't even appear to understand some of the points I've been making on that one and seem stuck on some kind of 16th century Tyndale-esque model which is past its sell-by date.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm not saying they weren't an issue. I'm saying they weren't an issue in the way they later became.
I'll allow you the technicality - the pretty much irrelevant technicality - that you couldn't call the issues 'church and state' until Jesus actually called his followers 'the church/ekklesia/congregation/assembly'. In every other respect, religion and state, the relationship between God's people and the world was an absolutely key issue between Romans and Jews in C1 Palestine. Broader religion/state issues were - as they still are - global.
My Constantinianism-heavy response above was largely aimed at Mousethief - I wanted to point out that there were not so much flaws in Vincent of Lerins' idea as flaws in the assumptions used by the RCC and Orthodox in applying the idea. Like, for instance, the way they tend to assume that they are the 'old shit' when what I believe actually came first and they're the 'new shit' contradicting it. Like the way it talks of universality in 'the Christian world' but don't notice that their adoption of Constantinianism actually shifts the definition of 'the Christian world' in a direction which in all kinds of ways doesn't help their case. And so on....
The reason things seem to end up revolving round the 4th century is simple - it's important, and especially important at the moment in dealing with Islam and the similar problems it poses. It's importance to 'biblical interpretation' (despite the thread title I'm not really regarding this as a 'biblical inerrancy' issue) is that it's rather a good test case - Jesus came up with something really radical and the Constantinian churches are ducking out of it. It's also interesting that at the same time, most churches seem actually to be tending towards the Anabaptist church and state view simply on rational grounds; it's startling and somewhat alarming how many of them seem to be doing so on those rational grounds but not realising that it's there in the Bible first....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Nick Tamen;
quote:
MT asked you a very straightforward question—what did Jesus mean in the discourse about eating his flesh? Your response, it seems to me, didn't do much answer the question as it did caricature the belief of other Christians based on your disagreement with that belief.
What I actually responded was that looking at the text Jesus appeared to be challenging sceptical opponents - they started with a 'Moses gave us manna, what have you done...?' from which Jesus took the bread/flesh theme. And it seems to me from their reaction that they had their ideas shaken up a bit. The private interpretation to the disciples seems to be the key. And should be applied to thinking about the Communion as well - don't get caught up in the flesh issue as those opponents did, or Nicodemus when faced with the idea of being 'born again', think of it spiritually.
Unfortunately some of those other beliefs do lend themselves to caricature.
As regards 'magic' - and I think I mostly said 'quasi- magic' anyway - the thing is do you believe people automatically regardless of personal faith 'eat the flesh and drink the blood' just because a 'priest' has spoken a conjuration over it? Magic is not a good 'model' for how God deals with us, and taking for example a woman I once heard talking, in the 'women priests' debate, about 'making God in the Eucharist' - that seems to me a very questionable approach. (Also explains some of the heat on the issue - if you believe it's about 'making God' that's a bigger thing than being an NT 'elder'!)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'magic' - and I think I mostly said 'quasi- magic' anyway - the thing is do you believe people automatically regardless of personal faith 'eat the flesh and drink the blood' just because a 'priest' has spoken a conjuration over it?
No, nor does any Roman Catholic I know, nor does any official Catholic teaching I have ever seen teach that. That's why I said you seem to be attacking a caricature of what other churches teach, not engaging with what they actually teach. (And just because a belief lends itself to caricature doesn't make it right to do so, nor does doing so strengthen ones argument.)
And in case it's not clear, it's at the "just because a 'priest' has spoken a conjuration over it" that what you say, in my opinion, goes off the rails.
[ 19. September 2016, 22:42: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Here is a major problem, Steve Langton.
You think that Protestants, 1500 years after the fact, have a better understanding of what was written than those temporally, and culturally, closer to the source did?
They might, but it belies the "plain" understanding and "common sense" you wish to ascribe to certain texts.
I'm not taking sides as to which sect is overall more correct, but I will assail your logic.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
