Posted on 08/05/2013 10:31:02 AM PDT by Gamecock
How do we discern a literal, grammatical, syntactical, historical, cultural hermeneutic using the Bible alone --much less follow it?
Must we all become intellectual, first century Jews to be Christian? To what do we appeal, what from the Bible will tell us, when there is no explicit text, which of the several senses of ειμι and ιστημι apply to a particular saying?
If Jesus says,
τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου... Τουτο εστιν το αιμα μου της διαθηκης...
what in Scripture will tell us what sense of εστιν applies?
Or should we say, "He said those words, so I believe him, even though they appear to be just bread and wine."
Where do I go in the Bible to find out the original enumeration?
MD, you are up too late! And I wish you and your father a time of blessed fellowship.
As for your comments, I will be happy to engage them after I’ve thought about them for a while, and at a time of convenience to you, considering the circumstances.
Peace,
SR
Thnx.
My participation will be irregular for the next several days anyway.
No, it is not I who pins his entire theology of the Eucharist on the meaning of “is.” That would be you. Indeed, it is I who critique your unwarranted reliance on a single generic verb of being. It is irresponsible translation.
Consider it this way. If I say “I am SR,’ and you say “He is SR,” are there two different verbs of being? Or one verb in two conjugate forms? May I suggest they are just one verb, “to be,” in two forms. May I further submit that the rules of English require those different forms to convey the additional information concerning person, tense, and number.
These are very basic prerequisites to any theological study. Generic verbs like “to be” must have their range of possible meanings narrowed down by the full context in which you find them. Without such a limiting rule, language truly does become Clintonesque; no ordinary reader could ever be sure of what the speaker or writer was saying, because at any moment, a speaker could claim a “magic meaning” that completely subverts the ordinary, contextual reading of the text. It would render the written word utterly useless.
In short, what I’m saying is this. If you’re going to jump into the linguistic pool, you have to play by the ordinary rules of language. Eimi and estin are two different conjugations of exactly the same verb, “to be,” and you’ll need a great deal more information from the context to derive something as complex and obtuse as transubstantiation, contextual information, BTW, which I think you cannot produce from this or any other Biblical text.
Please feel free to show me a single case where "estin" is used to mean represents, is symbolic of, or a metaphor for.
Second; Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative, means that it is in the active present tense. Eimi is the passive.
Third in context; " touto estin to swma mou" literally translates to "The body which/that is me" He is not saying "this is my car.", as a possession clearly in context He is saying it is literally Him.
No, it is not I who pins his entire theology of the Eucharist on the meaning of “is.” That would be you. Indeed, it is I who critique your unwarranted reliance on a single generic verb of being. It is irresponsible translation.
I am not relying on a singular generic anything. I am relying on the literal meaning of the words in context.
If you can find a single time that "estin" is used in the sense you think/ believe it does, you get back to me.
“...no one else in this evil world loves us so we must love each other and HIM.
Your statement is powerful. The Good Lord admonishes us to take care of each other. I don’t recall him distinguishing between sects. We’re all his people.
Sorry, now you’re just making stuff up (though I am willing to believe your motives are pure). Eimi is indicative, not passive:
http://www.tms.edu/FacultyDocuments/09%20Greek%20Irregular%20Verbs%20-%20EIMI.pdf
For a slightly more advanced discussion, please see here:
For the casual reader, the above link merely states that eimi is a copulative verb; it establishes a link between subject and predicate. It states a condition of being, not an action. Therefore it cannot be either active or passive.
The essential point for the present discussion is that eimi and estin really are exactly the same verb, only in forms conjugated to express number, tense, and person. That is all.
However, if you are disposed to share it, I would be curious to know where you got the notion it was passive. Just for my own edification.
As for your request for an example, try Matthew 13:38:
“The field (’agros’) is (’estin’) the world (’kosmos’); the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;”
This is a particularly good case, because it is impossible to take the subject of the analogy as literal; it is a parable, by definition establishing a figurative or symbolic relationship between the analogue and the underlying reality it describes.
To put a finer point on it, Jesus cannot here be teaching that one literal farmer’s field really is the entirety of the world. The farm field can only be a representation because it lacks all the literal the attributes of the kosmos as a whole. It is merely a tool used to teach the disciples about the spiritual dimension to Gospel evangelism. Jesus selected a part of the kosmos to represent the whole, and said part was chosen for it’s ability to teach, not because it had some Dr. Who Tardis-like capacity to fully contain the reality of the kosmos.
I'm caught up short by SR's saying "magic" and "Aristotelian" because I do think that WHAT a thing IS is only an easy question if you don't think about it. But once you ask "What is a thing?" and that whole family of questions, well, SOMEBODY is going to start doing metaphysics. It seems unavoidable to me.
So if/when IHS says
τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου... Τουτο εστιν το αιμα μου της διαθηκης...
How does one understand that simply?
One thing we bring to the conversation is that we think his word makes it so. So thinking that, we think a change happens as he speaks. But it still has the appearances, the sensible qualities of bread or wine. So what changed? Nothing 'material,' evidently.
And then when a convert says, "What do you mean, what did he mean?" how do you answer -- simply? SOMEBODY's going to bring something to the table whether he says a change happened or no change happened.
Verga: I don't see how ειμι could be passive - or deponent. Did you mean, maybe, intransitive?
My quote is from Mark, BTW.
Generally, other languages (Spanish, Italian, maybe Latin and Greek) have a funny thing going on with words that, at root, mean "stand" and words which pertain more simply to being. We say, "How ARE you?" but Spanish asks "Como estas?" where estas is a 'stand' (or "state" verb. And unless we have to, that's why I don't want to go running into that maze.
this conversation is over. You are simply wrong and lack the background to realize it.
Feel free to have the last word which I will glad to ignore.
I give up...Where was he???
***Where was God before He created the universe?***
Same place He is now.
Psalm 118:8
It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.
Micah 7:5
Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms;
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the Lord: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord.
Psalm 118:9
It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes.
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Romans 13:8
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Psalm 118:8-9
It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes.
Let us not forget that Jesus had to go thru a physical transformation before he could ascend to heaven...
Let us also not forget that when Jesus appeared apparently with holes in his body, no blood was running out...And, remember that Jesus could appear and disappear before their eyes...
Jesus' glorified body clearly was not the same body as everyone else had...
LOL! No, by all means, you may have the last word. My case is secure as far as it goes and I need add no more. The jury is all yours.
Peace,
SR
It does not follow, though, that His body was bloodless. It seems to me that making more blood --- blood that would not pour out of wounds --- would be part of the miracle of his brilliant new form of life. (Leviticus says "Life is in the blood.") So on the other hand, to be completely deprived, drained of blood --- koshered like meat --- would not be a glorious transformation. It would be a pitiful thing, a deprivation.
Yes, exactly!
Except for this pesky verse....
1 Corinthians 15:50-53 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
As for the words that we use to kinda, sorta try to vocalize what must be acknowledged, if we're honest, is too insufficient to ever come close to getting it "quite perfect", we can begin to understand the reasons why volumes of writings through the ages exist from men and women who dared to attempt to do so. Scripture tells us that, "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision." (Psalm 2:4) those who imagine they can throw off His laws for the universe and His dominion over all, but, also, as Paul wrote in I Corinthians 2:4-5, "My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God."
I think it is in this area, the "wisdom of men", that we can get tripped up and in many areas we should learn to be submissive and obedient rather than imagine we must figure out the nitty-gritty of everything God-wise. It is, perhaps, for these very reasons why there is a disconnect between what Catholics have come to believe about the Eucharist and what many non-Catholic Christians do. Rather than condemn and bicker over our differences, we should try to be respectful and agree to disagree for the sake of peace and brotherly love. There are plenty of truths in the Christian faith that CAN be understood and our acceptance of them determines whether or not we can even BE saved.
My contention, all along on these threads, that delve into the topic of the Eucharist, has been to express this belief that in some things we will not be capable of a full and total understanding and to accept this and not allow our differences to boil over into insults and hatefulness. For this reason I thank you for your tone and efforts to respectfully discuss different opinions and retain what we all should try to - humility and being constrained by the love of Christ.
You got spanked again; now you are going home...Don't go away mad...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.