J
- Status
S
sambos671
Guest
I know this thread is about transubstantiation. However Reducation I have questions. In my studies about all these matters I’ve gone back to the early church fathers and also picked up some material on how Jesus taught as a Rabbi using mishnaic concepts. (I’m still a novice in this area though I have attended a Messianic Jewish service during Shabbat in Golders Green London England while other community members banged on the windows yelling "you
re not Jews! Strange since it was shabbat!) I am still learning about changes between Pre and Post Exilic Judaism. I’m weak here. What materials can I review about this matter. Also what is the difference between the Babaloynian Mishna and (I forget the name) the other writings. And what do the Jews think of the Alexandrian writings translated into greek? Especially the apocrypha? As far as transubstantiation I’m still with the Catholics on this issue. I had interesting conversations about John 6 with several pastors I know and they stop dead and say honestly they don’t know. One suggested that he’s not sure whether you believe in that or not is necissary for salvation. Or in other words “it’s besides the point” I can’t take that view. Still studying.
re not Jews! Strange since it was shabbat!) I am still learning about changes between Pre and Post Exilic Judaism. I’m weak here. What materials can I review about this matter. Also what is the difference between the Babaloynian Mishna and (I forget the name) the other writings. And what do the Jews think of the Alexandrian writings translated into greek? Especially the apocrypha? As far as transubstantiation I’m still with the Catholics on this issue. I had interesting conversations about John 6 with several pastors I know and they stop dead and say honestly they don’t know. One suggested that he’s not sure whether you believe in that or not is necissary for salvation. Or in other words “it’s besides the point” I can’t take that view. Still studying.
S
Schabel
Guest
Minor quibble and off topic, but since you included it, I have to point out that there are not a few who believe that John’s Gospel was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. For instance, the internal evidence of:
Joh 5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Bethzatha, which has five porticoes.
Is. Present tense.
T
toaslan
Guest
Michael, thank you for posting all those examples of Jesus speaking figuratively, then it being made explicit what the figure meant. This post and your two following–very helpful, to the point, and enlightening. Still absorbing.
M
mikeledes
Guest
I’m glad I can be of some help.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
JReduction, I’m presuming that your pointing this out was a charitable act, as opposed to the reply you got to it. I did acknowledge that there were shortcomings in referencing it when I posted, just as I also pointed out that I couldn’t quite get my USB slot to accept my Hatch-Redpath.
It was there to give those who wanted to look at rough glimpse at what was available to support the use of "logos in a Hebraic context. Not adequate, but better than nothing.
I was pleased to see that you didn’t simply dismiss Barrett as just “some protestant” as some might have done-I was tempted to cite Raymond Brown, but I think there might have been more protests at some of his musings
While you stopped short of prooftexting, you did pick out the passages that most favourably supported your argument. I’d recommend that anyone who’d like a more balanced portrait review the book themselves (at least what is available of it-I have the whole thing here, but once again the USB won’t cooperate) especially the first 2 chapters.
One of the key points that speaks to a Hebraic viewpoint (Greek-speaking Jews IMHO, but Jews nonetheless) is the details that are left out of the key stories such as the Cana wedding, the woman at the well, and the crowd’s reaction in John 6. The author writes with the expectation that his readers know the history and culture that is needed to understand these stories.
Barrett certainly identifies Greek elements in the Gospel, but not at the expense of an overall Hebrew context. Looking at your later post, I’m happy to see a more nuanced presentation (I’ll explain why later)
Agreed, just as it was an oversimplification to give the impression that Greek philosophy was the sole key to interpreting John-even if you wouldn’t have done so, others might have fallen into that error from reading your earlier posts.
Agreed.
One of the reasons I chose Barrett-as I’ve said in previous posts, I don’t disagree with the Real Presence, I just don’t accept transubstantiation as a dogmatic truth. Think of it as a friendly gesture on my part.
And I’m happy that you did so. In brief, the reason I made a point about clarification was that I wished to avoid having your sign/symbol comments become another misunderstood tool in the hands of “drive-by apologists”
As you’ve noted in your clarification, there are many nuances, transubstantiation isn’t proved by the argument, but the probability for it may be increased in light of the sign/symbol concept. You also pointed out the hours of study required to begin to understand such an argument and its implications.
I don’t want people who disagree to be told they “aren’t open” or “accused of ulterior motives” if a drive-by apologist flings this argument at them without understanding the knowledge behind it that qualifies it. It’s a weight on the balance, not a silver bullet.
I agree, although no matter which point you start from, the discussion will eventually change boundaries-theology will inform apologetics, philosophy will inform theology, Scripture will inform philosophy and so on.
While I have what I believe to be a relevant point on interpreting John 6, I will post it here in order to keep things a bit tidier.
With that, thanks for the discussion, JReduction.
M
mikeledes
Guest
When Jesus said that He would give His flesh for the life of the world, the Jews reponded (John 6:52):
**52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” **
This is similar to an earlier response to Jesus’s claim that He is the Bread that came down from heaven (John 6:41-42):
**41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” **
In the case of the latter, did the Jews understand Jesus correctly, namely, that He literally came down from heaven? They did! Jesus literally - not figuratively - came down from heaven. This is one instance where Jesus was speaking literally and the Jews understood Him to be speaking literally. The other example comes a couple of verses later in John 6. Jesus makes a statement that the Jews take literally and He reaffirms that their basic understanding of what He said is correct (John 6:51-58). Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is as literal as His coming down from Heaven. His return to Heaven (ascension) will reaffirm the truths of His origin and of what He said of His flesh and blood. That’s why He responds (John 6:61-62):
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?
His ascension will vindicate His words and thus prove that the words He spoke are spirit and life, that is, that they are of God and are life-giving.
God bless,
Michael
**52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” **
This is similar to an earlier response to Jesus’s claim that He is the Bread that came down from heaven (John 6:41-42):
**41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” **
In the case of the latter, did the Jews understand Jesus correctly, namely, that He literally came down from heaven? They did! Jesus literally - not figuratively - came down from heaven. This is one instance where Jesus was speaking literally and the Jews understood Him to be speaking literally. The other example comes a couple of verses later in John 6. Jesus makes a statement that the Jews take literally and He reaffirms that their basic understanding of what He said is correct (John 6:51-58). Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is as literal as His coming down from Heaven. His return to Heaven (ascension) will reaffirm the truths of His origin and of what He said of His flesh and blood. That’s why He responds (John 6:61-62):
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?
His ascension will vindicate His words and thus prove that the words He spoke are spirit and life, that is, that they are of God and are life-giving.
God bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
BTW, “spiritual” does not necessarily mean “figurative” or “symbolic.” It basically means that which pertains to God, who is Spirit.
God Bless,
Michael
God Bless,
Michael
J
JReducation
Guest
Yes it’s in there and it is in present tense. However, it is also the understanding of Catholic exegetes as well as many Protestants, that John and Luke changed some details such as names, times and places as they were not as interested in historical details as they were in the details surrounding the person of Christ.
You have to understand his mind-set. In his mind this is all about Jesus and who he is. The rest is framing. He plays with the framing. I belive I explained this in a previous post. This was style of writing that was common through Jewish history.
While John certainly has a very strong Greek flavour, he beautifully integrates it with his Jewish heritage. If you one looks at Exodus there is a description of Moses’ death. However, if one asks a Rabbinical scholar they believe that Exodus was written by Moses. When you push the question further, then they tell you, that his authorship is one thing and the pencil and paper work was done by someone else who completed the work much later.
It is possible that John may have been started earlier and the pen put down and finished much later. I doubt this, but it’s a possibility that would explain the difference in tense and the chronology of the gospel.
The other possibility is the Jewish tendency to play with details when writing on spiritual matters in order to preserve and present the spiritual subject more clearly. I am more comfortable with this hypothesis.
J
JReducation
Guest
Thank you for your nice response. I can dialogue with someone who is pleasant and open to ideas. It’s fools whom I do not tolerate well.
This is what’s important. We are going to solve the issue on an internet thread. You sound smart enough to know this. If we can get one step closer to an answer, it’s a good thing. Agreed?
I believe this is the mistake that PCM made at the beginning. He wanted a discussion that used scripture to support scripture. Such rigid boundaries are hard to work with. It’s like asking a football team to play the Super Bowl on a tennis court. By the way the Patriots are going to win.I saw it in the Bible.
You’re welcome. It’s nice to talk with someone who is civilized.With that, thanks for the discussion, JReduction.
JR
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
Have you read the whole thread? We have been all through that. I made that argument in several places. It has been my point all along if you would ike to expand on them please do.
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
Its more like asking a football team to play the Super Bowl without a coach or a quarterback. The playing feild (this forum) is still there and the players have a play book (the Bible), they just don’t have authoratative persons (Church Fathers and Tradition) calling the plays and setting a game plan.
T
toaslan
Guest
If see you and others here take this view so contrary to my own. Sigh.
A QUESTION CAN BE LIMITED JUST TO SCRIPTURAL BASIS.
If anybody wants to start another thread about ALL THE BASIS, or JUST ECF BASIS or BASIS FROM TRADITION or BASIS FROM THE CATECHISM or SOME COMBINATION OF ONE, TWO OR ALL THREE or MORE for Transubstantiation, then why not do so?
To accept the framework of the OP is NOT TO ACCEPT some version of Sola Scriptura.
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
I guess I’ll just repeat: I think you make a BIG MISTAKE when you whine about being limited to scripture. We all know there is other support. IT IS JUST OUTSIDE THE VALID VALID VALID SCOPE OF THIS THREAD.
dang. Haven’t you all noticed that really good work from many diverse posters has concentrated on this thread? That happened because IT IS A GOOD OP, and also because PC kept providing tension for it. I wish other OPs were as tightly, explicity and simply framed…
Well, I for one am not tired of this thread as posed, but if it is hen-pecked to death there will be nothing for it to do but die! Is that what you want?
T
toaslan
Guest
I’d like to post a solid contrary to this in the form of quotation from some recent authoritative document which reinforces the literalness of the historicity of the scriptures, but I can’t! That is, I can’t quite summon up the document–but it was written to dispose of the kind of thinking which reduces the scriptures to myth and symbolism. (I am not accusing you of this desire, but saying that the Church is inclined to insist on the literalness of even the points which if considered inessential tend to clear away certain difficulties.)
And I am less comfortable with it. Can’t speak to it properly, though; anyhow, it probably deserves its own thread.
T
toaslan
Guest
I don’t think I noticed this before, Michael.
Jesus says, I came down from Heaven
The crowd says, **"What you say is FALSE–you were born like anybody else–your parents are Joseph and Mary and you live down the block–we’ve known you your whole life, and you certainly did not come down from heaven; you’re a local like everybody else… **
Mike, you are saying that their response makes no sense if they were not responding to a literal interpretation of Jesus’s declaration about His origin.
So, the crowd takes Him literally even at this early point in the Discourse.
And they continue to take Him literally all the way through.
So the REASON Jesus goes from Flesh/Bread to Ascension is to show how literal the flesh/Bread is, right?
Because He intends the Ascension to be also understood literally.
But–and is this a new point to anybody else but me?–But though Jesus intends Ascension literally, that concept also cannot be understood literally AT THE MOMENT, right? For there is no way the disciples present, including the Twelve, can fully understand this reference to a miraculous Ascension literally at this point in the Discourse…
The reaction to both teachings–that He is the flesh which is the Bread of Life to be eaten, **and **that He will ascend in glory returning whence He came–both meant literally, both to be accepted in belief without much understanding but unconditionally accepted nevertheless.
And those who believed Him not only got one reward of that belief:
- the revelation at the Last Supper of HOW Jesus would literally give His flesh to them as bread to be eaten (i.e., in an unbloody manner);
- to literally see fulfilled the promised event of His return to His Father (those who rejected Him did not get this reward of belief).
I came down from heaven
I am like the Manna only even more real
Eat my flesh
I will return to Heaven whence I came
This teaching is your Life
Thank You Michael!
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
I was just clarifying the football metaphor JR used… I am not saying that its wrong to go by the rules of the OP… just that it’s a handicap.
T
toaslan
Guest
Thanks, OK, Catholic Author! What you see as a handicap I see as a positive strength. Maybe just two sides of the same coin…funny…
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Toaslan, at an academic level I can respect the theoretical benefit of studying this topic from a scripture-only basis. But I have some discomfort with the approach. This style of decompositional analysis is a “western” methodology and something we instinctively do as a matter of our social conditioning (ironically it’s our default “traditional” modus operandi). Although its not a direct analogy, In math/science we can not solve parametric equations of “N” unknowns with less than “N” or more equations. In other words if there are 3 unknowns we need 3 or more equations.
In studying Christian spiritual matters I am not as comfortable with a piece-wise decompositional methodology. I think modular decomposition and analysis of transubstantiation is like looking at a triangle and trying to characterize it by looking only at the slope or tangent of one side (in particular the hypotenuse) and forgetting that the tangent embodies two things - the ratio of the rise to run. We can pretend we can seperate the sines from the cosines by looking at the “tangent” at any point along the line but in truth that relationship is inseperatable from the ratio of rise
to run (x); both must be simultaneously considered.So I think in spiritual matters these is also an objective danger in trying to understand holistic concepts by cloistering holistic information through a modular analysis. As well it can lead to an irreverence as well as a false sense of objectivity since in the analysis we essentially put human comprehension “over” God as if we can put Him in a box (our own human “tangent”). That very process and manner of thinking essentially constructs an grossly inadequate (and irreverent) 2 dimensional relational “human” tangent to a divine multi-dimensional truth. We can only expect that such approaches can only lead to “shadows of truth” while also inviting irreverent inspection. Somehow I find it prudent here to to recollect what scripture says happened to any who even accidentally touched the Arc of the Covenant.
In the study we can certainly conceptually seperate the body and blood of Christ since scripture makes the distinction. But the essential matter is that the two are always taken together in the Eucharist as “one” divine principal. I see the same principal relationship and analogy between scripture and tradtion. Together they manifest the same living word of God. Unless I have it reversed Scripture is as the body of Jesus and Tradition is as the Life Blood. Thus holistically speaking scripture and tradition are always paired. In a similar manner we can speak of the Trinity by focusing on either the First, Second and Third Person of the one Godhead but we can not seperate Them conceptually since each Person is inseparable from the other.
So, I think at some point a responsible exposition of transubstantiation and an honest inquiry should examine both tradition and scripture. To go looking for the truth through only one aspect or the other is limited and is like going to seek The Lord without having both eyes open. I think that refusing to look at one or the other (tradition and scripture) is like trying to tell God how he must reveal himself to us. Of course God can certainly knock us off our high horse like he did Paul to directly reveal Himself but scripture tells us clearly that we must take up our cross and follow Him and do as He did. Even Jesus followed His own Jewish traditions (dedication in the temple, passover etc.). That should be sufficient enough to ratify the validity of tradition.
James
T
toaslan
Guest
James, let me mildly point out that, above, you just did separate them conceptually–by giving them different names. They are inseparable in reality, but they are separable in concept. Really.
J:
how am I being so unclear?
Yes, at some point, I agree–just not at THIS point–on THIS thread!!! Because we have a framework, given by the OP, the OP, nothing but the OP, let’s all do the OP dance :dancing: .J:
yes, it is limited. Like all human endeavors! There are limits on every single thing we try to do. without exception. shoot, why is life so imperfect?
I submit that limiting is not refusing. It is focusing on one thing, rather than excluding another. There is a positive and a negative way to look at it.
Hey, are you guys all glass-half-full-types? I am feeling like Polyanna, myself, at this point…
back to scriptural basis for Transubstantiation!
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
- Status