The Holy eucharist

[writer]

36 Here's an interesting timeline. The exodus from Egypt would have taken place ca. 1200 b.c.e.
Au contraire: it took place close to 1500 BC

The earliest that Genesis could have been written is 950 b.c.e.
To the contrary: Genesis was written around 1490 BC

If the Hebrews wandered in the desert for forty years, that would place Moses' death at approximately 1160 b.c.e.
Moses' death's around 1450 BC

There is a discrepancy of 210 years between the death of Moses and the earliest date of Genesis.
To the contrary: Moses died near 40 years after writing Genesis

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, David, Solomon's dad, died, and Solomon succeeded him as king, around 1015 BC

they weren't originally written down. They were originally told -- oral -- not print.
Right. What Jesus said is written down. Thank Him. It's called "Scripture"

Don't you mean that "what Jesus spoke was written down?"
What's written throughout the Gospels, He spoke

we're not sure about the accuracy of transmission.
"you" appear unsure. I'm not unsure. I'm sure. I've met Whom I've believed

there is a huge difference in the way oral cultures process information from the way print cultures process information.
Aside frum that being absurd, Jesus Christ, as did others then, both read and spoke.
He often spoke what He read (eg Mt 4:4).
As did His apostles.
His apostles and coworkers also wrote what they spoke (eg Ac 2; 13).
Contemporaneously, the churches read and spoke what the apostles wrote (eg Col 4:16).
It's uncomplicated

37 publish
others have. Society duzn't operate merely by oral transmission

38 Legends
Unlike the Scipture, the apostles' writing: that's an apt description of much of Tradition

 

[sojourner]

I hope you didn't pay a lot of tuition for your studies...

Society duzn't operate merely by oral transmission

Societies where the literacy rate is very low do operate mostly by oral transmission.

38 Legends
Unlike the Scipture, the apostles' writing: that's an apt description of much of Tradition

And...the problem with legend would be???...
Honestly, I disagree. it's not legend. A legend is a heroic story. Tradition is just that...Tradition. Two different things. Tradition contains legend. It also contains myth. And writing, and culture, and Truth.

Fact is, most Christians view the Eucharist differently than you choose to. That doesn't make them wrong...nor does it particularly make you wrong. The mistakes are made when personal understanding is superimposed upon the understanding of the Body. The Eucharist is what it is, and no amount of human understanding can change that.

Your quick and thinly-veiled dismissal of those who disagree with you is nothing but hubris. As far as I'm concerned, hubris is bad Table manners.

 

[writer]

42 Societies where the literacy rate is very low do operate mostly by oral transmission.
that comment, replying to his "publish" comment, referred to our society. Which may be what u're talking about

[Tradition's] not legend. Tradition contains legend.

Fact is, most Christians view the Eucharist differently than you choose to.
If so, fact is they're mistaken

The Eucharist is what it is, and no amount of human understanding can change that.
also it ain't what it ain't

Your quick and thinly-veiled dismissal of those who disagree with you...
Quick?
Then perhaps you're condemning yourself. Becuz if i've been quick, you've been equally az quick in these posts

...is nothing but hubris.
I hope you didn't pay a lot of tuition for your studies...
bzzzzzzzt!: Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Your culture is 20-21st century America (I assume).
There's an old axiom you should be aware of:
"Know thy opponent."
i do.
Thanks

33 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.
if u really believe yourself, perhaps you'd care to try'n substantiate it. Especially since u say it's huge. Then it mite b rather easy 4 u to try'n provide 1 example

You'd be very, very suprised at how accurate these parables remained in a culture that was largely oral in nature.
Care to share how you'd do your comparison?

Q was written prior to 40 c.e.
"Q" duzn't exist. Except in the minds of some 20th century speculators. It's a hypothetical construct

Q is one of the source documents for Matthew.
Where iz it? Other than in your imagination

Mark was written probably post-70 c.e.
i don't think so given that there's no indication it was and Mark was a coworker with Paul and Barnabas

Mark is also one of the source documents for Matthew.
To the contrary: Matthew preceded Mark

It is widely accepted that Matthew was probably written in the 80's c.e.,
likewise: it's widely accepted that it wasn't.
i believe the order Mt Mk Lk Jn originally, roughly chronological (eg: Papias, Origen). (Tho i'd say Lk preceded Mk, in the same decade: 60s.)
Scofield, in his note Bible states a traditional date to be AD 37. Which may be; and I'm looking for his exact sources in that regard.
From the 300s a brother named Eusebius wrote that another brother, Clement from Alexandria, said the Gospels with genealogies (Mt, Lk) were written first. i agree.
Eusebius wrote also that Matthew 1st labored among the Jews in Israel, then left a Gospel when he went to tell others elsewhere about the Lord Jesus.
Clement (300s) wrote that Matthew spent 15 years in that speaking work. If the 15 years refers only to his beginning work in Israel, that puts him leaving there around AD 45. Earlier if the 15 years includes all his work. Probably 40s sometime if the 15 refers to only his work away.
(I have the cites in the original works for all these statement except for Clement's, which I have on authority, but am still looking for directly in Clement.)
Eusebius writes of Papias (100) who wrote about Matthew writing a Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic which everyone who had access interpreted, or translated, as they were able. Jerome (300s) mentions this too.
1000s received the Lord and became born again right after the Lord's ascension (Ac 2+), and He began His church. As part of the shepherding and ministry, i find it logical that Matthew, one of the educated apostles, would have written such a divinely-breathed account very soon too, especially one directed to Jews as Matthew is, showing who and what Jesus is, and says.
This is where some of our history-reading becomes more tangled. Matthew appears to be an original Greek work, not a translation. And we've no copy of a Matthew originally in Hebrew/Aramaic. The Aramaic New Testament appears to be translation from the Greek.
Matthew was an educated man, working for the government in taxes, and I've no problem understandin him to have been educated in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic (like Paul, and His maybe unformally educated Lord).
Meaning He was evidently well able to have written Hebrew and Greek originals of His Gospel (with however much correspondence between them) although only Greek survives to us.
Irenaeus (later 100s) wrote that Matthew wrote his Gospel when Paul and Peter were in Rome, which would be the 60s.
I disagree with Iren's timing because of a) Clement's 'n Euseb's accounts---esp concerning the 15 years; b) there's no reason to have waited so long; and c) Luke appears to have been written mainly in Israel, around 62, when Luke, with Paul, journeyed there, then left together before Paul had yet visited Rome

We don't know that Matthew was the author.
i do.
Based both on history (c above) and given that in keeping w/ humility he omitted his name as the host of the reception in Mt 9:10 and by specially pointing out himself as tax collector in 10:3

 

[writer]

Jesus Lord, Jesus Lord, how we long to touch Thee
More and more, more and more, that You may grow within us.

 

[sojourner]

Fact is, most Christians view the Eucharist differently than you choose to.
If so, fact is they're mistaken

How do you know?

The Eucharist is what it is, and no amount of human understanding can change that.
also it ain't what it ain't

Fortunately for the Church, the early fathers attempted to understand the Eucharist for what it is, according to Tradition and scripture...not what it is not.

"Know thy opponent."
i do.

I was referring to your post challenging Angellous' Biblical scholarship. There are quite possibly no people on this forum with more Biblical scholarship.

Mark was written probably post-70 c.e.
i don't think so given that there's no indication it was and Mark was a coworker with Paul and Barnabas

Mark is also one of the source documents for Matthew.
To the contrary: Matthew preceded Mark

It is widely accepted that Matthew was probably written in the 80's c.e.,
likewise: it's widely accepted that it wasn't.
i believe the order Mt Mk Lk Jn originally, roughly chronological (eg: Papias, Origen). (Tho i'd say Lk preceded Mk, in the same decade: 60s.)
Scofield, in his note Bible states a traditional date to be AD 37. Which may be; and I'm looking for his exact sources in that regard.
From the 300s a brother named Eusebius wrote that another brother, Clement from Alexandria, said the Gospels with genealogies (Mt, Lk) were written first. i agree.
Eusebius wrote also that Matthew 1st labored among the Jews in Israel, then left a Gospel when he went to tell others elsewhere about the Lord Jesus.
Clement (300s) wrote that Matthew spent 15 years in that speaking work. If the 15 years refers only to his beginning work in Israel, that puts him leaving there around AD 45. Earlier if the 15 years includes all his work. Probably 40s sometime if the 15 refers to only his work away.
(I have the cites in the original works for all these statement except for Clement's, which I have on authority, but am still looking for directly in Clement.)
Eusebius writes of Papias (100) who wrote about Matthew writing a Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic which everyone who had access interpreted, or translated, as they were able. Jerome (300s) mentions this too.
1000s received the Lord and became born again right after the Lord's ascension (Ac 2+), and He began His church. As part of the shepherding and ministry, i find it logical that Matthew, one of the educated apostles, would have written such a divinely-breathed account very soon too, especially one directed to Jews as Matthew is, showing who and what Jesus is, and says.
This is where some of our history-reading becomes more tangled. Matthew appears to be an original Greek work, not a translation. And we've no copy of a Matthew originally in Hebrew/Aramaic. The Aramaic New Testament appears to be translation from the Greek.
Matthew was an educated man, working for the government in taxes, and I've no problem understandin him to have been educated in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic (like Paul, and His maybe unformally educated Lord).
Meaning He was evidently well able to have written Hebrew and Greek originals of His Gospel (with however much correspondence between them) although only Greek survives to us.
Irenaeus (later 100s) wrote that Matthew wrote his Gospel when Paul and Peter were in Rome, which would be the 60s.
I disagree with Iren's timing because of a) Clement's 'n Euseb's accounts---esp concerning the 15 years; b) there's no reason to have waited so long; and c) Luke appears to have been written mainly in Israel, around 62, when Luke, with Paul, journeyed there, then left together before Paul had yet visited Rome

We don't know that Matthew was the author.
i do.
Based both on history (c above) and given that in keeping w/ humility he omitted his name as the host of the reception in Mt 9:10 and by specially pointing out himself as tax collector in 10:3

Regardless of your interpretation of scripture, or your form of criticism of the literature, the Eucharist is what it is to the Church. Since the Eucharist belongs to the Church (as well as scripture, I might add), the Church is free to develop an understanding of the Eucharist that is meaningful for them. If your own understanding is meaningful for you...great. But don't puport to tell the rest of us that we're wrong.

 

[writer]

How do you know?
reasons posted on this thread

Fortunately for the Church, the early fathers attempted to understand the Eucharist for what it is,
fortunately for the church, the apostles and Lord r more than clear about the Table

...not what it is not.
itz not false presence

I was referring to your post challenging Angellous' Biblical scholarship.
u mean the one asking him "Why?"
yeah, i gues that iz a real challenge

There are quite possibly no people on this forum with more Biblical scholarship.
based on much of what the gentleman's written: r u tryin to be funny?

Regardless of your interpretation of scripture, or your form of criticism of the literature, the Eucharist is what it is to the Church.
likewise, regardless of your interpretation of Scripture, or form or criticism of the literature, the Lord's Table and the church retain their apostolic and Scriptural meaning despite superstitious Tradition

Since the Eucharist belongs to the Church (as well as scripture, I might add), the Church is free to develop an understanding of the Eucharist that is meaningful for them.
your Church evidently. However the NT church is not free to do anything but what her Head says and duz (Jn 5:19; 6:57; 7:16; 8:16, 28, 49; 16:13; Eph 4:15; 5:22, 32).
Since she's His Body (5:23)

If your own understanding is meaningful for you...great. But don't puport to tell the rest of us that we're wrong.
i figured since this's debate,
and since you're doin so,
i could likewise

 

[sojourner]

reasons posted on this thread

How do you know?

fortunately for the church, the apostles and Lord r more than clear about the Table

Yes, they are! "This [bread] is my body...This [wine] is my blood." Can't get much clearer than that.

...not what it is not.
itz not false presence

No, it is not false presence...it is real presence.

I was referring to your post challenging Angellous' Biblical scholarship.
u mean the one asking him "Why?"
yeah, i gues that iz a real challenge

Ref. post #39. Yeah, I'd call that a challenge to A_E's knowledge base.

There are quite possibly no people on this forum with more Biblical scholarship.
based on much of what the gentleman's written: r u tryin to be funny?

Based upon his education and scholarship.

likewise, regardless of your interpretation of Scripture, or form or criticism of the literature, the Lord's Table and the church retain their apostolic and Scriptural meaning despite superstitious Tradition

What "superstitious" Tradition might that be? Are you now saying that the Church is superstitious?

Since the Eucharist belongs to the Church (as well as scripture, I might add), the Church is free to develop an understanding of the Eucharist that is meaningful for them.
your Church evidently. However the NT church is not free to do anything but what her Head says and duz (Jn 5:19; 6:57; 7:16; 8:16, 28, 49; 16:13; Eph 4:15; 5:22, 32).
Since she's His Body (5:23)

I suppose that's why Jesus (the Head) told his disciples, "This is my body, this is my blood?"