The Holy eucharist

[sojourner]

One thing yall must undersand is when the so called holy traditon contradicts the plain new testament will of God we (the church of CHRIST) will side with the New Testament every time instead of your holy traditons. The reason is because your holy traditions are contrary to the New Testament teachings of God (1Tim.1:3) (Gal.1:6-9).

The reason you do not agree with what the article teaches is because it is totally base upon the word of God (the bible) and not any traditions at all outside of the bible.

The bible says (it) is going to be what judges us on judgment day (John 12:48). I will stick with the word of God (the bible). in love Baerly

"Your" Holy Tradition. Very telling. We who have sought the unity of all Christians are summarily dismissed by those who would cause division. Holy Tradition is neither "mine" nor "yours," nor anyone else's. Holy Tradition belongs to Christ through the Church. Just because your congregation does not choose to embrace much of the Tradition does not mean that the Tradition does not exist, or is not important to the Body of Christ. Neither does your rejection in any way diminish the place of Holy Tradition in Christian expression. Holy Tradition is contrary to the NT only in terms of how the NT is interpreted. Once again, you have succeeded in mistaking your interpretations as the direct message of God.:redcard:

The reason I don't agree with the article is because it approaches the sacraments from a narrow, completely Protestant interpretation of scripture, one which I do not happen to share.

You do not seem to agree that the Holy Tradition is as much the "word of God" as is scripture. Which is a classic Protestant stance. Therein lies the problem.

 

[sojourner]

[FONT=&quot]The Augustinian cleric, Hugo of St. Victor (1096-1141) characterized the “sacraments” as “outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace...”

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This paved the way for the false notion that these rites, in and of themselves, bestowed “grace”—quite apart of from a faith-motivated, personal submission to the will of God (as in the case of infant baptism).[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Here the article contradicts itself. If baptism is an outward sign of grace already present, how can it be seen to "bestow grace, inand of itself" in the cadidate??? Baptism is part and parcel of a journey we take toward God. Obviously, the writer has a skewed notion of how others view baptism.

[FONT=&quot]Baptism is not a magical rite (administered by the sprinkling or pouring of water upon the candidate’s head) that bestows the grace of pardon (or the removal of “original sin”), as alleged in Roman theology[/FONT]

The Roman Catholic Church does not view baptism as a "magical rite." RC's administer baptism under both forms -- sprinkling and immersion. The grace does not come from the rite itself, nor does it come from the water itself, but from the HS. Again, a gross misunderstanding of Catholic thought.

During the Eucharist ceremony, Christ is “sacrificed” again for sin (hence, the “sacrifice of the mass,” and, according to the dictum handed down by the Council of Trent, this sacrifice is “identical” with type of sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross. These ideas are contradictory to the plain teaching of the New Testament

Christ is not "'sacrificed' again" in the Holy Eucharist. Rather, the one sacrifice of Christ is brought forward to the present time in anamnesis -- a concept stubbornly misunderstood by so many Protestants. The sacrifice is "identical," not to the type of sacrifice that Jesus suffered, but identical with the sacrifice that Jesus suffered. The ideas are not contradictory to NT teaching, because the concept of anamnesis is clearly present in the NT.

The article bases its arguments on unproper assumptions and then condemns the Roman Church with the erroneous conclusions. Additionally, the article fails to take into consideration the Anglican and Orthodox teachings about the sacraments, which are similar to, but also different from, RC teaching. For example, Orthodox treat baptism as a sacrament (although they use Greek and not Latin to describe it), yet the Orthodox do not usually sprinkle -- they immerse. Anglicans treat the Eucharist as a sacrament, but yet they do not believe in transubstantiation.

This article is nothing but a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine Tradition that has been held by the Church since her early days.

 

[writer]

21 Holy Tradition is neither "mine" nor "yours," nor anyone else's. Holy Tradition belongs to Christ through the Church.
What tradition? At least w/ the Bible one can specify actual statements, chapter and verse

Holy Tradition is contrary to the NT only in terms of how the NT is interpreted.
To the contrary: the NT's plain-spoken and straightforward

 

[sojourner]

What tradition? At least w/ the Bible one can specify actual statements, chapter and verse

The Bible is part of the Tradition. Following the Bible is, in, part, following the Tradition. But, there is also an extra-Biblical aspect of the Tradition, which is just as authentic as the Bible. This aspect handles the unwritten lore, culture, beliefs, practices, etc. of the Church. It's this unwritten part of the Tradition that you reject. But you have to understand that the majority of the Church does not reject it. The majority of the Church places as much emphasis on the unwritten Tradition as they do on the written.

For over a thousand years, we didn't have the printing technology that made writing easy and widely available. Nor was humanity widely literate. That's why we find so many historical beliefs and practices that are no written in the Bible. An "oral" Tradition developed out of an "oral" society.

To the contrary: the NT's plain-spoken and straightforward

No, it isn't.

 

[writer]

No, it isn't.
To the contrary: 'tis. And the GodMan even spoke in very simple, small, plain, and earthy words and parables. Of course to comprehend His words requires Him. In faith

there is also an extra-Biblical aspect of the Tradition, which is just as authentic as the Bible.
Mebbe jus not as specific. Any tradition's value's easy enough to measure by comparin it w/ the Bible, the apostles' (and prophets', and Lord's) teachin

This aspect handles the unwritten lore, culture, beliefs, practices, etc. of the Church.
It's this unwritten part of the Tradition that you reject.
2 the contrary: i wait 2 hear any specific thin b4 i accept or reject it

But you have to understand that the majority of the Church does not reject it.
The church is not a "Tradition" nor system nor hierarchy nor religion. She's the Body o' her Lord, His members (cf 1 Cor 6:17; etc)

An "oral" Tradition developed out of an "oral" society.
I'm not sure what that means, since writin wuzn't developed yesterday; nor did God not have Scriptures until His apostles o' His church wrote 'em.
As what the written record o' what Jesus said in John 5:39 reads:
"The Scriptures [Writings]...testify concerning Me."
And as His chief apostle wrote as Scripture, concerning Writings, at the end of his writin to the church in Rome:
"My good news, that's the proclamation o' Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery...through the prophetic writings, 'cordin to the command o' the eternal God,'s been made known to all the Gentiles for obedience o' faith."
Thanks

 

[sojourner]

And the GodMan even spoke in very simple, small, plain, and earthy words and parables.

Therein lies the misunderstanding. Our culture does not either speak or learn in parable. Parable is a device of a largely illeiterate and oral culture. Very often, we seek to understand the parables of Jesus from our own standpoint, instead of the standpoint of those to whom Jesus would have been speaking. That sort of understanding would only obfuscate the message. What would have been "plain language" for the illiterate and largely pastoral audience of Jesus, becomes somewhat convoluted and not-so-plain when we encounter it.

Additionally, in Luke 10, Jesus says that his message is deliberately confusing, being kept from the understanding of the privileged. How do you reconcile that statement with your own?

The church is not a "Tradition" nor system nor hierarchy nor religion. She's the Body o' her Lord, His members (cf 1 Cor 6:17; etc)

But the Church has Tradition -- the Church's vehicle of acting in the world and of being understood is the Tradition. Most of "His members" subscribe to the Tradition, as set forth by the apostles and continued by the bishops.

I'm not sure what that means, since writin wuzn't developed yesterday; nor did God not have Scriptures until His apostles o' His church wrote 'em.
As what the written record o' what Jesus said in John 5:39 reads:
"The Scriptures [Writings]...testify concerning Me."
And as His chief apostle wrote as Scripture, concerning Writings, at the end of his writin to the church in Rome:
"My good news, that's the proclamation o' Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery...through the prophetic writings, 'cordin to the command o' the eternal God,'s been made known to all the Gentiles for obedience o' faith."

What I mean is that the written word was not widely available for at least a thousand years. Most Christians were illiterate. They communicated and carried on business by word-of-mouth, not by the printed word. Therefore, the Bible would have been less important to the average "pre-print Christian" than the stories, the "rules," the faith as acted out in worship. Notice that it was not until Martin Luther came along, and the Bible was widely available to the average Christian, and the world became more literate, that the idea of sola scriptura was developed.

The only belief and doctrine the Church had to go on were the traditions and stories of the Table, as they were carried on and passed down by those who could read -- who were the clergy.

 

[writer]

Our culture does not either speak or learn in parable.
Au contraire, jus like Aesop's can, i do. Az may anyone who reads the NT

Parable is a device of a largely illeiterate and oral culture.
That mus be why Jesus' parables're written down

Very often, we seek to understand the parables of Jesus from our own standpoint, instead of the standpoint of those to whom Jesus would have been speaking.
Jesus, being the timeless, resurrected, really-present enfleshment of the Creator, I Am,'s speakin 2 u, 'n me, in 2006, in His Word among other places

"plain language" for the illiterate and largely pastoral audience of Jesus, becomes somewhat convoluted and not-so-plain when we encounter it.
Since i dispute that entirely, i invite u, if u want, to try to provide an example or specify, anytime. Thanks

Additionally, in Luke 10, Jesus says that his message is deliberately confusing, being kept from the understanding of the privileged. How do you reconcile that statement with your own?
my own's the 1st para o' pos 25, abuv: to comprehend His words requires Him (and's about Him). In faith. Meanin i gotta be like a little child 2 receive

the written word was not widely available for at least a thousand years.
au contraire, the NT IS letters to the churches in the 1st cent.
Thanx

 

[sojourner]

Au contraire, jus like Aesop's can, i do. Az may anyone who reads the NT

A fable is a completely different form of literature from a parable.

That mus be why Jesus' parables're written down

Now you're blowing smoke. Because they were written down does not mean that they are not a device of a largely oral culture, used and understood in a certain way and from a certain point of view. Jesus did not write his parables down in a textbook and then tell his disciples, "Read this. Learn it. Know it. Be it." He told them stories and parables.

Jesus, being the timeless, resurrected, really-present enfleshment of the Creator, I Am,'s speakin 2 u, 'n me, in 2006, in His Word among other places

That really doesn't refute the fact that Jesus spoke to his disciples orally, and that they, in turn, finally wrote his words down, and that those written words have been transmitted to us who live in a completely different culture and time. Yes, the concepts that Jesus taught are Truth and they are timeless. But we have to wade our way through the human transmission of that Truth. Jesus' words are not immortalized on the written page -- they're recorded -- by humans -- on the written page.

Since i dispute that entirely, i invite u, if u want, to try to provide an example or specify, anytime. Thanks

Very well. Read Luke 13:18-21. Tell me what these two parables mean.

au contraire, the NT IS letters to the churches in the 1st cent.

First of all, the letters were not written as scripture. They were written as letters. They were later ascribed scriptural status.

Second, those letters were not widely available until 1) people became widely literate, and 2) they were reprinted and distributed to the masses.

All of which presses the issue of the importance of the Tradition in preserving and passing down the Table ritual in the Christian community.

 

[writer]

28 A fable is a completely different form of literature from a parable.
To the contrary, one's blatantly fiction, the other's a story, both providing morals or points. In addition, both're in literature, writing

Now you're blowing smoke.
is that a parable?

Because they were written down does not mean that they are not a device of a largely oral culture,
Becuz they're writtend down, means that that culture's as written as ours; just as we're as oral as theirs; given our relative differences in technology

used and understood in a certain way and from a certain point of view.
Both of which are more than understandable, plain, and clear; especially since they're Author's alive

Jesus did not write his parables down in a textbook and then tell his disciples, "Read this. Learn it. Know it. Be it." He told them stories and parables.
If you're sayin the Lord didn't know how to read, mebbe you're the one who's illiterate

26 But the Church has Tradition --
i don't understand your capital "T." I'm guessin u don't either since u generally never specify your Tradition. If u specify that physically eating Jesus' physical flesh is a Tradition, then my point's been that both contradicts the tradition of the written Bible, and that, by serving to objectify Christ, it runs in precisely the opposite of His direction in incarnation and resurrection which is to be known in spirit

the Church's vehicle of acting in the world and of being understood is the Tradition.'
To the contrary: the church as Christ's Body in the world is composed of human beings. That is, at least the church of the apostles

Most of "His members" subscribe to the Tradition, as set forth by the apostles and continued by the bishops.
what Tradition? Certainly not any that contradicts His own purpose and their own writings

the Bible would have been less important to the average "pre-print Christian" than the stories, the "rules," the faith as acted out in worship.
The faith's not, nor should it be, an act or a legalism. In fact, that's what Christ died to save men from: hypocrisy, ceremonies, and the letter of the law. Also, to suggest that the Paul's, Peter's, etc's recipients of their letters didn't appreciate, or even know how to read, their letters and Gospels; is evidently a poor attempt to revise history and prop up something that in fact's not the apostles' faith

Notice that it was not until Martin Luther came along, and the Bible was widely available to the average Christian,
That's absurd. Especially given the huge amount of manuscript evidence from the 1st-4th centuries; the education of Greek, Roman, and Hebrew culture; and the references to Scripture by Christians writing in early centuries.
The fact that the Bible became less available until ML is a testimony of the degradation and misaiming of what can be called Traditional Christendom

and the world became more literate, that the idea of sola scriptura was developed.
To the contrary: Scripture existed and was used by God's people (and God Himself incarnate) even long b4 the New Testament was written

The only belief and doctrine the Church had to go on were the traditions and stories of the Table, as they were carried on and passed down by those who could read -- who were the clergy.
The apostles never set up clergy-laity. And the apostles, and their converts, as well as the general Roman empire culture, could read, and did read. And write. As well as speak

 

[sojourner]

To the contrary, one's blatantly fiction, the other's a story, both providing morals or points. In addition, both're in literature, writing

Objection: Irrelevant.

is that a parable?

No. Metaphor.

Becuz they're writtend down, means that that culture's as written as ours; just as we're as oral as theirs; given our relative differences in technology

Actually, it doesn't. A print culture is driven largely by print -- as ours has been, even though it contains oral elements. An oral culture is driven largely by oral communication -- as Jesus' was, even though is contains written elements. The parable is a device of an oral culture. It is not particularly part of our culture.

If you're sayin the Lord didn't know how to read, mebbe you're the one who's illiterate

I'm not saying that Jesus was illiterate. It's obvious that Jesus could read, for he read from the scroll in the Synagogue. I'm saying that his audience was largely illiterate, and relied on oral teaching, rather than written text. That oral teaching included parable -- not written down until much later.

i don't understand your capital "T." I'm guessin u don't either since u generally never specify your Tradition. If u specify that physically eating Jesus' physical flesh is a Tradition, then my point's been that both contradicts the tradition of the written Bible, and that, by serving to objectify Christ, it runs in precisely the opposite of His direction in incarnation and resurrection which is to be known in spirit

I've already explained Tradition as the lore of the Church -- written, scriptural, and non-written.

Eating Christ's body in the Eucharist does not serve to objectify Christ. Rather, it serves to subjectify Christ -- to help us see him as personal. Reducing Christ's presence to only a symbol and a memory objectifies Christ.

If God wanted to be known spiritually, then why did God have to incarnate? Because we are physical and can only become wholly identified with someone through physical means. We know God, because God became one of us. Christ is present in the loaf and cup (physical elements) so that we can wholly commune with him, and participate physically with him in his sacrifice.

To the contrary: the church as Christ's Body in the world is composed of human beings. That is, at least the church of the apostles

Yes, the Church is composed of human beings. But that's not what I said. I said that the Tradition is the vehicle by which the Church (composed of human beings) acts in the world.

what Tradition? Certainly not any that contradicts His own purpose and their own writings

We don't believe that Tradition does contradict the purpose of Christ, or our writings. We believe that Tradition is true to both.

The faith's not, nor should it be, an act or a legalism. In fact, that's what Christ died to save men from: hypocrisy, ceremonies, and the letter of the law. Also, to suggest that the Paul's, Peter's, etc's recipients of their letters didn't appreciate, or even know how to read, their letters and Gospels; is evidently a poor attempt to revise history and prop up something that in fact's not the apostles' faith

I didn't say that the Faith is an "act of legalism." That's not what the Tradition is about. The Tradition is about preserving teachings, preserving faith, and providing a means to act out one's faith in the world. If Christ died to save us from ceremonies, then why did he submit to the ceremony of baptism? Why did he institute the ceremony of the Supper?

Most of us (apparently unlike yourself) don't see the ceremony of baptism as saving. We see grace as saving, as that grace is made apparent to us in the ceremony of baptism. We don't see the ceremony of the Eucharist as efficacious in and of itself. The ceremony is only the way in which the grace of Christ is made apparent to us.

Most of the early people who received Paul's letters and who heard the gospels read, were illiterate. That's a fact of history. Of course they appreciated the letters and the written gospels -- they just couldn't read them.

That's absurd. Especially given the huge amount of manuscript evidence from the 1st-4th centuries; the education of Greek, Roman, and Hebrew culture; and the references to Scripture by Christians writing in early centuries.
The fact that the Bible became less available until ML is a testimony of the degradation and misaiming of what can be called Traditional Christendom

In what way do you think the Bible was "widely available" to Christians, pre-printing press? This is not a "testimony to the degradation and misaiming of Traditional Christendom," but a testimony to lack of education and technology. The Church did the best it could with what it had been given.

To the contrary: Scripture existed and was used by God's people (and God Himself incarnate) even long b4 the New Testament was written

That's true, but use of scripture and the elevation of scripture to the position of sola scriptura are two completely different issues.

The apostles never set up clergy-laity. And the apostles, and their converts, as well as the general Roman empire culture, could read, and did read. And write. As well as speak

Believe what you wish. Those beliefs have no bearing on history.

P.S. Can you answer my question as to the Lukan parables in post #28?

 

[writer]

30 Irrel
reason i disagree's cuz literature = written down, "it's written," Mt 4:4; Lk 24:27, 32, 44-45; Rv 1:11; 22:18-19. Both the prophets' prophesying and the apostles' teaching. In a book. Both the OT 'n the N. Both then and now


parable device of an oral culture. not particularly part of our culture
To contrary, as believer in Jesus, Jesus' parables, metaphors, and other words in the NT are very much a part of my culture, which is the church, His Body. Even broadly-speaking they're much a part of western knowledge and culture. Lastly,
i doubt i'd've had Jesus' parables in their original form unless they were preserved in writing. Likewise w/ Moses' words


he read...his audience was largely illiterate, and relied on oral teaching, rather than written text
oral teaching and written text aren't mutually exclusive. In fact they're not exclusive at all. Rather they're interdependent, as your example above, and can be simultaneous and aid one another


That oral teaching included parable -- not written down until much later
my study shows Matthew was proly written round 40. Mere decade aft the Lord. My study also shows that not just the educated tax collector Matthew, but also the Galilean fishermen Peter, knew how to read and probably write.
"In those days Peter stood in the midst of the brothers and said, Men, brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled...For it's written in the book of Psalms, "..."...
These men aren't drunk, as you suppose...but this is what's spoken through the prophet Joel: "..."...For David says regarding Him, "..."...Acts 1 and 2


Tradition as the lore of the Church -- ...and non-written
What nonwritten lore? If u feel it haz any value, mebbe u could specify some sumtime 2 me


Eating Christ's body in the Eucharist does not serve to objectify Christ. Rather, it serves to subjectify Christ -- to help us see him as personal
i don't dispute that.
I meant that the teaching of "false presence" and/or magic that says that bread and wine at His table are "more than symbols"
serves to distract from, or replace, Christ's true presence. Which is the resurrected Christ Himself. Become a life-giving Spirit. And Christ who will return one day for His wife. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup you declare the Lord's death until He comes," 1 Cor 11:26; Mt 26:29; Lk 21:18; Mt 28:20; Jn 20:22

Reducing Christ's presence to only a symbol and a memory objectifies Christ
Symbols represent Christ's presence. Christ's presence's not a symbol.
Symbols aid memory, but Christ's presence's more than a memory. "Remember Jesus Christ," 2 Tim 2:8, since He's alive


If God wanted to be known spiritually, then why did God have to incarnate?
Good question. Thanks. It's basically cuz we're "incarnate." We're flesh


Because we are physical and can only become wholly identified with someone through physical means
God's not physically sexual; nor was Christ married physically or a fornicator; nor does Christ physical flesh and blood eaten and drunk physically. Rather God starts at the center of man, the human spirit, then spreads outward, to soul and body,
1 Thes 5:23; Rm 8:16, 10, 5, 11, 29-30, 18-23


We know God, because God became one of us. Christ is present in the loaf and cup (physical elements)
To the contrary of your 2nd sentence, and in line w/your 1st: God became one of us, He din't become one o' His animal or vegetable creations (Gen 1:27; Jn 1:14; Isa 7:14; Mt 1:23). Nor is Christ present intrinsically in loaf or cup.
Tho omnipresently, He's present, available to folks..........everywhere


so that we can wholly commune with him,
the God o' peace sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful's He who calls you, who also'll do it, 1 Thes 5:23-24


and participate physically with him in his sacrifice
if u mean "declare the Lord's death until He comes" (1 Cor 11:26), then that seems an odd way o' saying it, to me.
If u mean pay for your own sins by pretendin to become part of His sacrifice, then u may be confusing the matter o "receiving" w/ that of "doing"


Tradition is the vehicle by which the Church (composed of human beings) acts in the world
if by Tradition u mean history: then mebbe we can say acted in the world. But if you're speakin in the present tense: the Body o' Christ is His Body. Tradition isn't. He lives in living human beings. "When I cam to Troas for the gospel of Christ, I had no rest in my spirit, for I didn't find Titus my brother; but taking leave o' them I went forth into Macedonia. Thanks be to God who always manifests the savor of the knowledge of Hm through us in every place. For we're a fragrance of Christ to God in those who are being saved and in those who are perishin.....that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh"
2 Cor 2:12-15; 4:11, 10, 12


The Tradition is about preserving teachings, preserving faith, and providing a means to act out one's faith in the world
Paul wrote: "to me to live's Christ,"
Philip 1:21.
And: "Walk by the Spirit,"
Gal 5:16.
Christ's present in the world. Since He's alive. In His believers' beings. That's why He incarnated. So He could die and resurrect. He's risen


If Christ died to save us from ceremonies, then why did he submit to the ceremony of baptism?
That's a picture o' His death. In any case, i'm guessin you're not "in bondage" to baptism. Doing the physical act everyday? Mebbe you're in bondage to "holy water." But then that's not baptism. Errantly: much of traditional Christianity's blind traditions have even sought to remove baptism from believers' conscious individual experience! By purportin to do it to newborns and infants!


Why did he institute the ceremony of the Supper?
Ask Him. Do this in remembrance o' Me. Or read it in His apostles (Lk 22:19).
Declare His death, 1 Cor 11:26. Good question


Most of the early people who received Paul's letters and who heard the gospels read, were illiterate. That's a fact of history
Since u think it's a fact, care to try'n prove so?


they appreciated the letters and the written gospels -- they just couldn't read them
Based on Paul's writing in Colossians, among other places in the NT, i disagree to a large extent. "When this letter's read among you, cause that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also, and that you also read the one from Laodicea."
In any case, and probably more importantly: none of this shows a mismatch or competition between what the apostles' spoke and wrote. Rather it shows a conjunction, cooperation, and union


In what way do you think the Bible was "widely available" to Christians, pre-printing press?
1st and 2nd century
"When this letter's read among you, cause that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also, and that you also read the one from Laodicea," Col 4:16.
"What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches; to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea...he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches," Rv 1:11; 2:7.
Those 7 local churches are even on a kind of postal route

 

[writer]

30...Church did the best it could with what it had been givenaltho Roman Catholicism's not the church, never haz been, never will be, she; for example in 1500s England, and before, and after; sought not only to inhibit the spread of the Bible in the people's language (English); but even sought to, and did, murder the translator. William Tyndale. This's neither "doing the best" nor doing anything positive. Rather, it's an illustration of doing the worst. But the blood of the martyrs is the seed o' the church



use of scripture and the elevation of scripture to the position of sola scriptura are two completely different issues
reason i disagree's cuz Scripture's, by definition, the supreme written authority in, and concernin, God's economy (Mt 4:4; 2 Tim 3:16; Rm 16:25-26; 1:2; 15:4; 1 Cor 15:3; Eph 2:20; 1 P 1:10-12; 2 P 1:20-21; etc). Kinda like a written Constitution

28 That really doesn't refute the fact that Jesus spoke to his disciples orally, and that they, in turn, finally wrote his words down,
that mebbe cuz i 'gree

and that those written words have been transmitted to us who live in a completely different culture and time
if you're sayin time alone significantly alters either the basic human condition or God; or that human beings r unknowable across time, culture, and space;
i dis'gree

the concepts that Jesus taught are Truth and they are timeless.
i gree

But we have to wade our way through the human transmission of that Truth.
not too hard

Luke 13:18-21. Tell me what these two parables mean.
thank u 4 askin. They're negative. Resemble Mt 13:31-33. The man's Christ (cf 13:3, 27, 30). The field's the world. Birds in the previous parable (Mt 13:19, 4) r evil. Not good. The mustard herb's for food. Which's good. God food. Which's in keepin with the whole thot o' Matthew and the whole Bible. And God sowed Himself into humankind by becoming a human being.
But the mustard malforms. Becums a tree. Contrary to the natural law in Gen of "everythin accordin to its kind." This's bad. No food. Motel for Satan (13:19, 32).
Change contrary to Life. This change started to transpire in the beginnin of the 300s AD when Constantine the Roman Emperor mixed God's pure holy church w/ the world, by beginnin to make it the world, state, official religion. This wuzn't a small thing. This began 2 make that church no longer the church but rather a certain mutation, Christendom, Christianity, we can call it. Instead of an annual, sojourning, herb. It became a perennial tree, rooted in the world, an institution. Even a kind of carnal kingdom. This parable's even commonly interpreted jus the opposite, by Christians in general, and in Christianity.

The woman leaven's along the same line. In the Bible, leaven's never positive. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, says the Lord. Eat the Passover unleavened, says the same Lord. Purge out the old leaven, writes Paul. Leaven's never a positive agent or sign. Rather, in cookin, it's somethin to make somethin easier. Alien.
Concurrently, sorry to say, Christianity also, i believe, mostly interprets this parable positively too. As if leaven were a good thing. As if adopting heathen worships or motifs to "aid" in gettin pagans to "Christianize" was God's idea. Yet this was actually taught, for example (a big example's) by Gregory 1, and his advice to missionaries to England.
This woman resembles Jezebel in the OT and N. She's not the Head. Christ is. But in Rv 2 the church in Thyatira tolerates a self-proclaimed Prophetess. She teaches that her teachin's the equivalent of God's. Kinda like "Tradition" versus Christ. And "Tradition" vs Scripture. This also resembles the Prostitute's cup in Rv 17. There are truths and postive, holy things and members there. Gold, precious stones, three measures of meal (signifying the 3-1 GodMan into Christ's humanity). But there's the mixture w/ leaven, and cup o' abominations, as the same Lord puts it in Rv 17.
That the woman w/ leaven follows the mutatin mustard signifies that Papal Roman Catholicism followed Constantine's Satanic church-politics mixture in church history, history

the letters were not written as scripture. They were written as letters. They were later ascribed scriptural status
Peter gave Paul's letters, which numerically are the most o' the NT, status as Scripture at least by around 67 AD (2 P 3:15-16). But otherwise i think your statement goes to the heart o' my point: intrinsically and inherently, the NT writings were Scripture; regardless how anybody, or if nobody, received or statusized 'em; the instant they were written. Becuz Scripture, as God's breathin, iz in the act of writing and inspiration. Not firstly in the acts of reading later

those letters were not widely available until 1) people became widely literate, and 2) they were reprinted and distributed to the masses.
To the contrary: many people WERE literate, and literate way b4 the NT was written. Not only in Israel, Persia, and the near-east, but also in Rome and Greece and Phoenecia's colonies (Carthage, etc).
2) Paul's letters, the Gospels, etc, WERE copied and distributed, to probly the best extent they could be given the situation, as Paul himself, and John, indicate in the very letters they wrote. Such as Colossians and Revelation. These people were not idiots or barbarians.
Thanx so much Soj

 

[sojourner]

reason i disagree's cuz literature = written down, "it's written," Mt 4:4; Lk 24:27, 32, 44-45; Rv 1:11; 22:18-19. Both the prophets' prophesying and the apostles' teaching. In a book. Both the OT 'n the N. Both then and now

The prophets weren't written for hundreds and hundreds of years. Their words were passed by word-of-mouth for centuries before being written down. What do you suppose God's people did for a Bible before the Bible was written down? They had Tradition. Neither were parables usually written. They were told. Therein lies the difference. We don't learn in parable, because we don't need to. We have the written word.

To contrary, as believer in Jesus, Jesus' parables, metaphors, and other words in the NT are very much a part of my culture, which is the church, His Body. Even broadly-speaking they're much a part of western knowledge and culture.

Your culture is 20-21st century America (I assume). The culture of Christ and the early believers was 1st century Israel. That makes a huge difference as to how we use language and how we understand it.

i doubt i'd've had Jesus' parables in their original form unless they were preserved in writing. Likewise w/ Moses' words

You'd be very, very suprised at how accurate these parables remained in a culture that was largely oral in nature.

my study shows Matthew was proly written round 40.

Q was written prior to 40 c.e. Q is one of the source documents for Matthew. Mark was written probably post-70 c.e. Mark is also one of the source documents for Matthew. It is widely accepted that Matthew was probably written in the 80's c.e., at least a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem. We don't know that Matthew was the author.

What nonwritten lore? If u feel it haz any value, mebbe u could specify some sumtime 2 me

Non-written, as in scriptural. (Scripture is part of the Tradition, but not the whole of the Tradition.)

I meant that the teaching of "false presence" and/or magic that says that bread and wine at His table are "more than symbols"
serves to distract from, or replace, Christ's true presence. Which is the resurrected Christ Himself. Become a life-giving Spirit. And Christ who will return one day for His wife. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup you declare the Lord's death until He comes," 1 Cor 11:26; Mt 26:29; Lk 21:18; Mt 28:20; Jn 20:22

There is no magic involved in the Eucharist. What makes you say that there is? We don't teach that Christ's presence in the bread and wine is "false." We say that Christ's presence is real -- you say that Christ's presence in the bread and wine is false.

We say that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the resurrected, spiritual presence of Christ. I'm not at all sure what you think we believe, but it's certainly not as you portray it here.

Symbols represent Christ's presence. Christ's presence's not a symbol.
Symbols aid memory, but Christ's presence's more than a memory.

If symbols represent Christ's presence, then Christ must truly be present. Symbols do aid in memory. Christ's presence is more than a memory. That's why the meal is more than symbolic -- it's sacramental.

God's not physically sexual; nor was Christ married physically or a fornicator; nor does Christ physical flesh and blood eaten and drunk physically. Rather God starts at the center of man, the human spirit, then spreads outward, to soul and body,
1 Thes 5:23; Rm 8:16, 10, 5, 11, 29-30, 18-23

What does sex and fornication have to do with the Eucharist??? I said that we can only become wholly identifed with others through physical means. That doesn't mean that we have to have dirty sex with everybody we meet. Sheesh! A handshake or hug will do. Since we are physical, and since God became one of us, God makes God's self most available to us through physical means -- through the bread and wine of the Eucharist, or the water of baptism.

if u mean "declare the Lord's death until He comes" (1 Cor 11:26), then that seems an odd way o' saying it, to me.
If u mean pay for your own sins by pretendin to become part of His sacrifice, then u may be confusing the matter o "receiving" w/ that of "doing"

What I mean is becoming united with Christ in his sacrifice.

That's a picture o' His death. In any case, i'm guessin you're not "in bondage" to baptism. Doing the physical act everyday? Mebbe you're in bondage to "holy water." But then that's not baptism. Errantly: much of traditional Christianity's blind traditions have even sought to remove baptism from believers' conscious individual experience! By purportin to do it to newborns and infants!

Are you saying that you don't think I'm baptized? Think again. What's with this "in bondage" talk? These things are important to me. If you don't want to "wear the clothing" -- if you, like the emperor, want to think of yourself as fully clothed, when you're really walking around naked, embarrassing yourself, go ahead. But don't disrespect the rest of us for saying and doing things are are important to our faith.

Same goes for your ugly statement "blind traditions." Please stop deriding what you clearly do not understand. By baptising infants, we seek to bring the baptismal event into the consciousness of the family, where the infant can grow in an understanding of faith. We don't "seek to remove baptism." Foul...5 minutes in the penalty box!

altho Roman Catholicism's not the church, never haz been, never will be

How sectarian of you.

reason i disagree's cuz Scripture's, by definition, the supreme written authority in, and concernin, God's economy

Which limits it to writing. There is also supreme unwritten authority. These are bound up in the Tradition -- of which scripture is part.

if you're sayin time alone significantly alters either the basic human condition or God; or that human beings r unknowable across time, culture, and space;
i dis'gree

I'm saying that time alters our perception, our knowing, our understanding, our mode of communicating, our culture, our interaction.

 

[sojourner]

Luke 13:18-21. Tell me what these two parables mean.
thank u 4 askin. They're negative. Resemble Mt 13:31-33. The man's Christ (cf 13:3, 27, 30). The field's the world. Birds in the previous parable (Mt 13:19, 4) r evil. Not good. The mustard herb's for food. Which's good. God food. Which's in keepin with the whole thot o' Matthew and the whole Bible. And God sowed Himself into humankind by becoming a human being.
But the mustard malforms. Becums a tree. Contrary to the natural law in Gen of "everythin accordin to its kind." This's bad. No food. Motel for Satan (13:19, 32).
Change contrary to Life. This change started to transpire in the beginnin of the 300s AD when Constantine the Roman Emperor mixed God's pure holy church w/ the world, by beginnin to make it the world, state, official religion. This wuzn't a small thing. This began 2 make that church no longer the church but rather a certain mutation, Christendom, Christianity, we can call it. Instead of an annual, sojourning, herb. It became a perennial tree, rooted in the world, an institution. Even a kind of carnal kingdom. This parable's even commonly interpreted jus the opposite, by Christians in general, and in Christianity.

The woman leaven's along the same line. In the Bible, leaven's never positive. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, says the Lord. Eat the Passover unleavened, says the same Lord. Purge out the old leaven, writes Paul. Leaven's never a positive agent or sign. Rather, in cookin, it's somethin to make somethin easier. Alien.
Concurrently, sorry to say, Christianity also, i believe, mostly interprets this parable positively too. As if leaven were a good thing. As if adopting heathen worships or motifs to "aid" in gettin pagans to "Christianize" was God's idea. Yet this was actually taught, for example (a big example's) by Gregory 1, and his advice to missionaries to England.
This woman resembles Jezebel in the OT and N. She's not the Head. Christ is. But in Rv 2 the church in Thyatira tolerates a self-proclaimed Prophetess. She teaches that her teachin's the equivalent of God's. Kinda like "Tradition" versus Christ. And "Tradition" vs Scripture. This also resembles the Prostitute's cup in Rv 17. There are truths and postive, holy things and members there. Gold, precious stones, three measures of meal (signifying the 3-1 GodMan into Christ's humanity). But there's the mixture w/ leaven, and cup o' abominations, as the same Lord puts it in Rv 17.
That the woman w/ leaven follows the mutatin mustard signifies that Papal Roman Catholicism followed Constantine's Satanic church-politics mixture in church history, history

Parables are not designed to speak to the head -- to provoke thought. They're designed to speak to the heart -- to make us feel.

In the parable of the mustard seed, it says that the kingdom "is like a mustard seed that a man took and tossed into his garden." The notes in The Complete Gospels says that Jewish law prohibited the growing of mustard seed in a garden. Mustard is a shrub, not a tree.

The kingdom is not within the "Law." The kingdom lies outside the "Law." When the seed is scattered "outside the Law" -- outside of Judaism, it becomes more than just a weed -- it becomes a beautiful tree in which even the birds can make their homes. The kingdom is more than the Judaic Law has made it out to be.

In the parable of the leaven, the woman took leaven and concealed it in the flour until it was all leavened.

Leaven was poison. Leaven was dirty. This parable signifies that God debased himself -- became dirty -- for us. God mixed in with the flour of humanity, until humanity became completely infused with God.

Both of these parables see the Kingdom as lying somewhere outside the bounds of Judaism, and somewhere within sinful humanity. These parables are speaking of the grace of God.

Wow. Two different interpretations from the same passage. Which is "correct?" It's not so easy to muck our way through human transmission of Truth, is it? It requires thought, prayer, meditation, reflection, contemplation, study, conversation. This is what the apostles, the bishops, the people of God have engaged in for centuries in order to make sense out of this meal that Christ instituted. and what they came up with was the Eucharist, as we have it today.

 

[writer]

33 The prophets weren't written for hundreds and hundreds of years. Their words were passed by word-of-mouth for centuries before being written down.
The reason that's a falsehood's cuz the prophet Moses wrote Genesis-Deuteronomy; Isaiah wrote Isaiah; Daniel wrote Daniel; Zechariah wrote Zechariah; etc

What do you suppose God's people did for a Bible before the Bible was written down?
not have a Bible (eg Abraham, Isaac, Jacob)?

They had Tradition.
U mean Abe, Isaac, Jacob may have had some stories related to God, even if not true or completely true? That sounds probable

Neither were parables usually written.
To the contrary: the NT which is written contains parables of Jesus, which r written.
Which's probly why it's called "Scripture" ("script" = writing)

They were told. Therein lies the difference.
To the contrary: there's zero difference between what Jesus spoke and what's recorded He spoke in the NT. Since He spoke what's written.
There's the same sameness between what His apostles spoke and what they wrote. In fact, Luke's writing (Acts) contains mostly what they spoke

We don't learn in parable,
i both can 'n do

because we don't need to.
i need all Jesus' parables i can get

We have the written word.
The NT and Jesus' parables don't exclude one another,
since the NT (Mt-Lk) contains parables o' Jesus.
Thanx

 

[sojourner]

The reason that's a falsehood's cuz the prophet Moses wrote Genesis-Deuteronomy; Isaiah wrote Isaiah; Daniel wrote Daniel; Zechariah wrote Zechariah; etc

:bzzzzzzzt!: Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you...

What do you suppose God's people did for a Bible before the Bible was written down?
not have a Bible (eg Abraham, Isaac, Jacob)?

They had Tradition.
U mean Abe, Isaac, Jacob may have had some stories related to God, even if not true or completely true? That sounds probable

Here's an interesting timeline. The exodus from Egypt would have taken place ca. 1200 b.c.e. The earliest that Genesis could have been written is 950 b.c.e. If the Hebrews wandered in the desert for forty years, that would place Moses' death at approximately 1160 b.c.e. There is a discrepancy of 210 years between the death of Moses and the earliest date of Genesis. In fact, Solomon was rising to power about the time of the earliest date of the writing of Genesis, in about 922 b.c.e.

To the contrary: the NT which is written contains parables of Jesus, which r written.
Which's probly why it's called "Scripture" ("script" = writing)

But they weren't originally written down. They were originally told -- oral -- not print.

there's zero difference between what Jesus spoke and what's recorded He spoke in the NT. Since He spoke what's written.

Don't you mean that "what Jesus spoke was written down?" First, we're not sure about the accuracy of transmission. Second, there is a huge difference in the way oral cultures process information from the way print cultures process information.

We don't learn in parable,
i both can 'n do

because we don't need to.
i need all Jesus' parables i can get

We have the written word.
The NT and Jesus' parables don't exclude one another,
since the NT (Mt-Lk) contains parables o' Jesus.

:sigh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

my study shows Matthew was proly written round 40.

Incredible! You should publish your work.

 

[sojourner]

Incredible! You should publish your work.

Urban Legends of the Bible, perhaps?

 

[writer]

Why incredible?
Hav u ever read either Matthew or history?

 

[sojourner]

Why incredible?
Hav u ever read either Matthew or history?

There's an old axiom you should be aware of:
"Know thy opponent."