The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[pegleg]

So you are agreeing that the Tradition is not static but changes and develops. Thus, you are agreeing that Tradition does not equal the oral tradition of the 1st century. Have I got it right so far?

You almost got it. The development of doctrine is based on the full deposit of faith, written and oral, as received from Christ and the Apostles which is from the 1st Century.

Acts. (If you keep throwin underhanded, I'm gonna keep hammerin em) And I'm having a Miss Cleo moment...

A point for Bass, you got me on that one. How about I phrase the question this way, “When did your Church hold its first post Apostolic Council?”

[OLD REGGIE]

And probably a lot fewer abortions too.

True to an extent. The birth rate in Italy is pretty low. How so?

(Still illegal in Ireland.)

We'eel, changes are acoming.

[the808bass]

Ignatius' statement stands in either case.

First, I don't think the Protestant rejection comes from our desire for no intermediaries in our relationship with God. You are right to point out that we do believe this. However, I think our rejection of the doctrine of Transubstantiation is that it is culturally bound to a time and a way of thought with which we are not familiar. It is tied implicitly to Aristotelian thought. And as our theologically distinct movement began somewhat later and in a different culture, it makes no sense to us.

Of course, that means we make our own mistakes with respect to our culture and our time, but that is the ever-present peril of translating the sacred and transcendental into human vocabulary.

Secondly, if Ignatius was addressing that to those who did not want the authority of the bishop (a point he makes repeatedly and could have just as easily inserted there, too), I believe it would have much more strength. Indeed, it would be irrefutable (except to point out that it's not in every version of the letter).

[the808bass]

It does not admit change.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't admit a lot of stuff. :)

[SoothingDave]

First, in the other quotation of Ignatius which I gave, he does use some verbage that might promote a more symbolic view of the Eucharist.

Pretend I'm from Missouri. :-)

Secondly, he is mentioning the literal body and the blood in response to people who deny that Christ really existed in the form of flesh and blood. So, his defense of doctrine (IMVHO) against Docetism is somewhat stretched into some sort of transubstantiation by people reading it now.

So he is just going overboard in driving home the "Jesus really was Incarnated" point and it overflows into Eucharistic expression? Why would he point out, to make the case for Jesus being really really real flesh, a symbolic expression of Jesus' body in the Eucharist? It doesn't make sense.

Thirdly, are we supposed to take the longer or the shorter version of the epistle as authentic?

I don't know.

SD

[RobbyS]

You sound more like a gnostic than a Christian.

[SoothingDave]

The birth rate in Italy is pretty low. How so?

I've been to Italy. After the antipasti, the primo platter (heaps of pasta), the second platter (meat), the dolci (gelatto), the coffee, the grappa who has time for sex?

SD

[Pelayo]

"...BECAUS THEY DO NOT CONFESS THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF ARE SAVIOR..."

They (the docetists) didn't just not believe that Christ was Man, they (beeing a Gnostic heresy) believed matter to be evil, so Christ could not use his flesh to save us, we can only be saved by a separation of spirit and matter.

[the808bass]

Thirdly, are we supposed to take the longer or the shorter version of the epistle as authentic?

I don't know.

It does make all the difference. The "longer" version has no such statement of a literal body or blood. It is completely absent. A bit shocking and I'm not sure of a good explanation for this. One would tend to think that the shorter version was the "authentic" version (using hist-crit scholarship methods, which can be suspect). However, why would the longer version, if it was not authentic, not provide the explicit support that the original did? It is a curious little case.

Pretend I'm from Missouri. :-)

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood;

The footnote on this quote says that the bit "and one cup to the unity" is literally "and one cup into the unity" which could be reasonably translated as "and one cup to show the unity." I am admitting up front that this is a reasonable translation and is not from God's lips :)

[The Bard]

Here's one: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I wouldn't use that one. It's spurious. There are others, however.
20 posted on 10/15/01 9:03 AM Mountain by allend

I don't usually agree with you, Allen.

However my NIV cautions me on the verse:

1 John 5:8 the [Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Personally, I would say stick with the King James.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

5:7 confirms the teaching of a trinity. NIV and evey other Bible I have looked at don't teach this, focusing more on 5:8 where is talks about the three being in agreement... some take this as a teaching that there are three individuals rather than a trinity.

Don't get me wrong, I think that God can work though any Bible for someone looking fom him, but I personally think that the King James is the best

[JohnnyM]

how so?? Also, what do gnostic's believe?? I seriously don't have a clue.

JM

[the808bass]

I may be making a mistake here (I know that will shock you). On CCEL's web page of the Church Fathers, they have the shorter version of each Chapter, followed by the longer version.

The first paragraph reads thusly:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

The second paragraph (which I took to be the longer version following the format of the previous chapters) reads thusly:

They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection. They are the offspring of that spirit who is the author of all evil, who led Adam, by means of his wife, to transgress the commandment, who slew Abel by the hands of Cain, who fought against Job, who was the accuser of Joshua the son of Josedech, who sought to "sift the faith" of the apostles, who stirred up the multitude of the Jews against the Lord, who also now "worketh in the children of disobedience; from whom the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver us, who prayed that the faith of the apostles might not fail, not because He was not able of Himself to preserve it, but because He rejoiced in the pre-eminence of the Father. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public to talk with them; but to give heed to the law, and the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the word of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.

Is that all from the same version? If so, is there no difference between the versions only in this chapter? That would be even more curious (though I'm not at all sure of the ramifications).

[SoothingDave]

It does make all the difference. The "longer" version has no such statement of a literal body or blood. It is completely absent. A bit shocking and I'm not sure of a good explanation for this. One would tend to think that the shorter version was the "authentic" version (using hist-crit scholarship methods, which can be suspect). However, why would the longer version, if it was not authentic, not provide the explicit support that the original did? It is a curious little case.

I am not a scholar of ancient manuscripts, but it does indeed seem a curious case. I don't know that we can deduce anything from the existence of two documents. Maybe one got edited down for space reasons, or excerpting. Maybe one of the versions was tampered with for ideological reasons. I can't say and to presume a shorter version is correct is, well, presumptuous.

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood;

The footnote on this quote says that the bit "and one cup to the unity" is literally "and one cup into the unity" which could be reasonably translated as "and one cup to show the unity." I am admitting up front that this is a reasonable translation and is not from God's lips :)

I don't see a problem with this. Even a transubstantiation-believing Catholic understands that there is immense symbolism involved in the Eucharist, especially in the One Bread, One Cup variety.

Catholics don't eschew the symbolisim of Eucharist held by many, we just believe that and more.

SD

[the808bass]

You sound more like a gnostic than a Christian.

While you might want to find out what a gnostic is (it will help your reading of the New Testament), ignore statements such as these. :)

[OLD REGGIE]

It is a shame that folks have to pay twice to get their children educated without being indoctrinated (in secular humanism). Both the parents and society as a whole have an interest in having educated children. True experts in various fields should design certain acceptance criteria for schools to meet and the state should then allow any parents x amount of money to send their children to whatever school (including the local public) that they desire. Money more than x needed for a particular school should come from the parents or other charitable sources.

We are in total agreement. What about all schools charging a tuition and a voucher system equal to the least expensive tuition?

We need to expose the public schools and make them compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Good luck. Very powerful union.

[OLD REGGIE]

I've been to Italy. After the antipasti, the primo platter (heaps of pasta), the second platter (meat), the dolci (gelatto), the coffee, the grappa who has time for sex?

I've been to Italy too. Believe me, that's not the answer. There must be another reason.

Did the waiter get pissed when you were too full to go on to the entree?

[RobbyS]

You seem to believe that gnosticism is a phenomenon long dead rather than a religious attitude that is alive and well in such different groups as the Southern Baptists, the Mormons, and even in some Marianists. It is what passes for Christianity among many of our Countrymen.