T
For Greek Scholars: 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 - "This is Really my Body...."
- Status
H
Harmony1988
Guest
Yes, but Jesus is also God, and God has no gender. And no God is not a male. And that is essentially what is happening, we are receiving God.
The bread of life in question has nothing to do with being a male or not.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
To get it really right, why not use the original aramaic and not greek
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I’m sorry, but when the Church teaches that we receive Jesus, sacramentally, we receive Him Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Yes, we receive the Trinity in Spirit, but sacramentally, we only receive Jesus.
I’m still healing from this thread, which is similar to what you are saying now.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Because I don’t recall Paul writing in Aramaic.To get it really right, why not use the original aramaic and not greek
H
Harmony1988
Guest
No, but Paul and the disciples would have spoken ARAMAIC.
Neither can you recall Paul writing Greek, because you weren’t there 2000 years ago.
So eitherways that sentence doesn’t make much sense.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Ah, but I have Tradition that tells me that Paul wrote in Greek. He was writing to the Church in Corinth, not to those in Judea.
Hence, the sentence makes sense.
But, back to your sentence. Why would Paul, an “Apostle to the Greeks”, speak Aramaic to the Greeks?
H
Harmony1988
Guest
Lol.Ah, but I have Tradition that tells me that Paul wrote in Greek. He was writing to the Church in Corinth, not to those in Judea.
Hence, the sentence makes sense.
But, back to your sentence. Why would Paul, an “Apostle to the Greeks”, speak Aramaic to the Greeks?
Firstly, yes, tradition tells you, you can’t recall yourself Paul writing Greek, which is why it didn’t make sense.
For you to recall someone doing something, you had to be there.
Happy?
I know Paul spoke Greek or wrote greek, I was just saying your sentence didn’t make sense. And I was right.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
So, we’re in a nit-picky mood, today? Are you trying to spread Dis-harmony?
H
Harmony1988
Guest
Of course notSo, we’re in a nit-picky mood, today? Are you trying to spread Dis-harmony?
Fine fine, you win, I had no idea what I was on about
T
tabcom
Guest
Thanks for the link . . . I’ve been reading it down to #44. I’m pausing there because of this statement . . .
Which brings me back to your OP.
‘the body’ in 1 Corinthians 11:24 is an ‘it’ not a ‘he’.
po18guy
Well-known member
PROTESTANT translation. It is considered error by Catholics, as it was the product of disobedience. Sorry.
S
sandusky
Guest
Ego eimi is two words; Ego is used emphatically; eimi, is our verb, to be.
Yes, Jesus uses Ego eimi in all of His "I am” statements.
Ego eimi is emphatic—literally, I, I am.
But in the Last Supper, and in 1 Cor 11, Ego eimi is not used, but only eimi—is.
The Greek being translated is from the Greek texts; therefore, it is Koine.
It is necessary to also understand the classical usage of Greek words; many carry the meanings over from the classical to the koine.
I’m certain that Peter is the rock; I’m equally certain that a Papacy is not inaugurated because Peter is the rock.
I don’t know anything about parsing programs that are available on the net.
S
sandusky
Guest
Here is the D-R translation:
which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.this is my body,
Notice that the D-R translation is identical to the protestant translation; therefore, the problem is not one of disobedience in translation, but disobedience and deception in the interpretation.
To interpret the Jn 6 passages in a strict literal sense, even though they appear to be commanding the literal eating of Christ’s flesh, and the literal drinking of His blood, is irrational.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
No, I’d call it a mystery.
The Symbolic rendering of “eat my flesh”, which would me “loathe and hate me” in order to have eternal life is irrational.
That would be my opinion.
Y
YADA
Guest
And what does this more literal translation say [and ergo] “this is the body of me” mean?
It must mean that the Eucharist*** is*** the very body of Christ! It is not symbolic or it would read “this is the symbolic Body of me” or perhaps “this is the body of me symbolically”
But in th passage the Body is not identified as anything but the Body of Christ - Himself … and realistically, then it is really Christ who is the “me” referred to … not a spirit, not a memory, not another but Jesus…
To impose another meaning is to force the meaning with your own BIAS …
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The word ‘body’ is neuter because it is just a thing. Jesus is a person, but Jesus’ body is just a thing.
If Jesus said “This is me,” or some such thing, then that would require the pronoun “me” to be masculine. But He refers to His body, which in and of itself is just an object. His body isn’t a he or a she. His body is a male body, that is, it is the body of a male, but the body is not male itself in the way that I am male.
So far as Mr. Staples is concerned, I have not heard the recording in question but I have heard him make this point several times (as well as many other apologists). I would encourage the original poster to double check the recording if possible, becuase I have a feeling that there was a misunderstood emphasis.
The point as it is typically made is not that the Greek text contains any explicit words to say “really,” but that there were far better ways of referring to a symbolism in Greek that could have been used other than the word esti. There are words that mean “represents” or “means” or “refers to” or “is a symbol of.” To say “this is my body” is the last way a person would speak symbolically.
If Jesus said “This is me,” or some such thing, then that would require the pronoun “me” to be masculine. But He refers to His body, which in and of itself is just an object. His body isn’t a he or a she. His body is a male body, that is, it is the body of a male, but the body is not male itself in the way that I am male.
So far as Mr. Staples is concerned, I have not heard the recording in question but I have heard him make this point several times (as well as many other apologists). I would encourage the original poster to double check the recording if possible, becuase I have a feeling that there was a misunderstood emphasis.
The point as it is typically made is not that the Greek text contains any explicit words to say “really,” but that there were far better ways of referring to a symbolism in Greek that could have been used other than the word esti. There are words that mean “represents” or “means” or “refers to” or “is a symbol of.” To say “this is my body” is the last way a person would speak symbolically.
po18guy
Well-known member
Neither the twelve, nor Christ spoke originally in Greek. They spoke Aramaic. Is there an Aramaic/English translation? That eliminates the multi-translation error. The Greek transliteration and translation problems can lead one astray. And, not all translations were or are made in good faith-some being used in attempts to denigrate Catholicism. Additonally, Protestant translations are not to be relied on by a Catholic. They are, by definition, in error. Great caution must be exercised in translation, as you so ably point out.So here’s the problem, and again, I’m probably showing my ignorance. Is this an ancient Koine Greek to English translation? You could do regular Greek/English all day long, and you’re just spinning your wheels.
I’ve heard how people take the Petra (large rock) Petros (small rock) controversy and use Greek to English translations to prove their point. The only problem is, this large/small rock usage was only found in Greek poetry from maybe 9th-8th century BC. So it doesn’t fly in the face of closer scrutiny. Of course, one apologists easily explains this away by claiming that the large/small rock comparision came back into vogue for about 75 years in 1st century Israel.
Now, in all honesty, you guys may have already shown me this. If so, it’s simply a show of my ignorance rather than my obstinacy (as you well know I can display!
Tabcom and Sandusky, I’ve seen numerous Greek to English translators on the internet. Do any of these do Koine Greek to English?
Christ’s unity and peace.
po18guy
Well-known member
Remember that much of what you hold true in translation was formulated specifically to deny the One True Church. No one here can convince you of this. Only the Holy Spirit can illuminate hearts. For this I pray.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Yes, but the inspired author wrote in Greek. We can’t go back to the original Aramaic, because we don’t know what was said (in Aramaic at least).
I’m not sure if one could say “Protestant translations are, byu definition, in error”. I think even Catholic translators claim that the KJV is a very good translation. Maybe not 100% accurate (there probably are biases), but I don’t know of credible Catholics making this claim.
Not that I’m calling you “uncredible”, it’s just I don’t know of a better way to put it.
- Status