Sunday, October 28, 2007
On Chris Tilling's site I am "Pope Benedikt XVI". My favorite two on this list are Jim West as Paris Hilton and Stephen Carlson as Britney Spears. Those are spot-on.
On Jim West's site I am Pope Pius XII (a very Holy man indeed!).
Apparently an ultimate correction was needed, so on Michael Barber's site I am John Henry Newman.
No offense to Mr./Ms. Spears and Mr./Ms. Hilton, but I think I really won out on all three.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
I wanted to share this, out of the chapter "Source and Redaction in Mark 11":
"The first of these hands, a redactor of Mk I, R, was responsible for verses 20-24, and it was his version of Mark that Matthew used. Verses 25 and 26 are, however, late glosses. In addition, Hirsch posits a second redaction of Mark that occured before R's version adding verses 20-24 to Mk I. This version, Mk II, omitted the first visit to the Temple and the fig-tree story (verses 11-14) and brought together for the first time therby the Entry and Cleansing pericopes." (pg. 43)
He then goes on to give a chart describing the textual history. I find the argument really intriguing, but there's just something about all this redacting and authoring that doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps he's right, but do we punt to a "redactor" if we can't figure out why certain verses "sound a disharmonious note" too quickly? (ibid.)
Saturday, October 20, 2007
John 6 is interpreted in the context of the Lord’s Supper, even though Christ was not at this time giving them instructions for the Lord’s Supper. Furthermore, the Catholic interpretation is identical to the initial and incorrect interpretation of the disciples.
Apparently the “plain reading” of John 6 befuddled nearly every one of the Fathers. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ambrose of Milan, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, John Chrysostom, and too many more to list all believed in the literal presence. Also, it's interesting that John puts this teaching in the midst of the Passover, one year prior to Jesus' own crucifixion (John 6:4), which hurts Luther's argument rehashed here that there's no way St. John is speaking about the Eucharist. However, we should take a look at the text ourselves.
John 6:26-63 will be where I’m quoting from. Jesus repeatedly says “I am the bread of life” “I am the bread come down from Heaven” “I am the living bread”, etc. Then, the Jews protest, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (v. 52). Does Jesus say, “No no, it’s metaphorical.”? No, instead, He continues in His idea and states: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” As if it weren’t enough, He again states: “My flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.” Pardon me if my hermeneutical gymnastics get in the way here, but I’ll just go ahead and take Jesus’ words at face value. Jesus does not just say that one must eat His flesh, He says that one must gnaw or gnash His flesh (ο τρωγων - the one gnawing/gnashing/eating). Interesting choice of words. In fact, the more people protest, the stronger His language gets!
Jesus' words in John 6:63 should not be seen as a contraction of His previous statements. Jesus did not go through the repeated attempts at explaining that His body was the real bread which comes down from Heaven to contradict Himself. "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing." Misunderstood, this is shocking. Did Jesus just go through a very lengthy teaching only to turn it on its head to say that flesh profits nothing? No, of course not. For one, as Christians, there better be a hope that Jesus' flesh profits something or else our hope on Calvary is lost (unless you're a modern Docetist). Jesus is discussing belief here. The Spirit is what provides knowledge of the truth (and Truth) (1 Cor. 2:12). Human flesh profits nothing, it does not provide the Divine wisdom and faith needed for this statement (Matthew 16:17). This is made obvious by vs. 64 - "But there are some of you who don't believe." Don't believe what, a metaphor? What's hard about not believing that Jesus is just talking metaphorically?
I quote the second part of his argument here:
We must also remember the accounts of the last supper in the Gospels, which are separate and distinct from this account in John 6. He tells them that the bread was his body, given for them. And then He tells them that the cup was the new covenant in His blood. There is also the command to “do this in remembrance of Me.” It is here that Catholic christology diverges severely from Scripture. The Catholic mass is not a remembrance of Christ, it is an actual re-sacrificing of Christ.
I'll try to be brief. "Do this in remembrance of me" is not "you know, keep me in your mind." The Eucharist was instituted on the backdrop of the Passover. When the Hebrews would celebrate the Passover years after the Exodus, the fathers would say to their families, "This is what the Lord has done for me. He has led me out of Egypt..." etc. Curious. The idea is that the Semitic idea of "remembrance" was not simply a psychological event, but was a reliving or a continual living of that event. Being Jews, the 12 would've understood what Christ here meant.
Also, the Mass is not a re-sacrifice of Christ. The CCC paragraph 1366 states, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it represents the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." Represent = makes present. The Mass is the making present of the reality of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross to the faithful today.
Matthew then quotes from Ephesians 1:22-23 and states:
The body of Christ is comprised of the people who believe in Him, not a piece of bread.
Scripture also calls the body "living stones". Are we "The Thing" from Fantastic four? No...I wish. It's bad form to take a metahpor and make it exclusive of all other meanings.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
created with QuizFarm.com
|You scored as Catholic|
You are a Catholic. You believe that the bread and wine are transformed by the priest and become the Body and Blood of Christ. Though the accidents, or appearance, of bread and wine remain, the substance has been changed. The Eucharist remains the Body and Blood of Christ after the celebration, and is reserved in the Tabernacle; Eucharistic devotions are proper. As the whole Christ is present under either species, you partake fully of the Eucharist even if you receive only one.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
There's a myriad of other reasons why I think this is Christological, but I was wondering if anyone thinks the same.
Also, this is my 100th post. You would think I would have written something better.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
You think Aramaic and Coptic are really very useful languages
You can argue for hours about how books just don’t end with a post-positive γαρ
Your mailman had to retire early due to a bad back after years of hauling your books up to the door
(For the younger guys) – You actually get disappointed when your friends want to discuss the cute girls in the bar rather than discuss that new book you just read on Pauline Christology
You know that Pride actually comes before destruction, Haughtiness before a fall
You thought Gomer was a beautiful suggestion for your newborn daughter
You thought Maher-shalal-hash-baz would’ve been a cool name for your newborn son
You didn’t know people blogged about other things
You keep trying to visit γοογλε and can’t figure out why it won’t work
Q, L, and M are not just letters of the alphabet
You know who these guys are without their last names: Rudolph, Huldrych, D.F., Bruce, Walter
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'
I can't help but think that Luke included this quote as an encouragment for the Church to be aware of the Old Testament. It also seems that, to Luke, Jesus is in the OT (Lk. 24:27). This gives creedance to the Church Fathers' interpretation of the Old Testament with Christological lenses (for modern Christological Exegesis of the OT, I'd say look at Graeme Goldsworthy).
I'm also trying to figure out if there's some kind of a "dig" involved here. Did Jesus say this as a sort of prophetic "slam" to the Pharisees, saying that since they don't believe in Moses and the Prophets, they wouldn't believe in a walking talking supposedly dead guy? Jesus also doesn't say it himself, but has Abraham saying this (a double slam?). Did Luke include it for the reason I stated above, or did he include it also as a way to shock people?