Hi Tim
“Actually, I don’t need to look at this issue more thoroughly to know that not all types of contraceptives are abortifacients. Are you seriously arguing that condoms and diaphragms are abortifacients? I already knew that IUDs and the pill are suspected to act as an arbortifacient in some cases, although there is significant debate about the prevalence of this mode of operation over their primary method of preventing fertilisation”
Diaphragms can act as an abortifacient. Tim, if we know that a contraceptive device has the possibility to cause an abortion, known or unknown, we are obliged as Christians to avoid such measures. What significant debate are you talking about. I wonder if these debates are funded by the pharmaceutical companies who would lose millions and millions of dollars if the word got out.
“Now I am confused - are you saying people using NFP never have sex? Or do they stop using NFP when they have sex, then start using it again when they are not having sex, in a repeating cycle?”
Sorry Tim. I didn’t word that well. Of course you are having sex. You are just not using artificial means to control conception.
NFP is not contraceptive because you are not using contraception. Simple as that. Although, I would agree with Robert, that you could adopt a contraceptive mentality, although that would not be the same as literally using contraception.
Tim there is a difference in attitude. A couple who use contraception put an obstacle in the way of what God created. A couple who use NFP can choose not to have sexual relations during that period that they would deem to be fertile. In doing so, they do not interfere with God’s design. They accept that in using natural means, they may still fall pregnant. This gives God the ultimate decision. Contraception prevents God’s will.
“So NFP is just another name for abstinence? “
That would be a simplistic view of it. Essentially it is more about leaving your reproduction up to God.
Aaron Wolfe, an Evangelical Minister in America, is another protestant minister witnessing to Christians about the evils of contraception. He argues scripturally and historically. He points out that the sin of Onan was always interpreted the way the Catholic Church has done so. I think he has book on this issue.
Diaphragms can act as an abortifacient. Tim, if we know that a contraceptive device has the possibility to cause an abortion, known or unknown, we are obliged as Christians to avoid such measures.
Piano-wire can act as part of a garrotte. If we know that elements of musical instruments have the potential when manipulated to cause a murder, are we then obliged as Christians to avoid playing them?
With that said, I’m not particularly keen on contraception (nor public discussion of icky business, for that matter.)
Well, I have to say I’m still completely unconvinced that there is any inevitable difference in attitude between using non-abortifacient barrier methods (such as condoms) and NFP. Someone could use condoms fully accepting the roughly 5% chance that they will fail and gladly welcome the child that may eventuate as a result, or could rely on NFP and bitterly regret the unwelcome, unexpected conception that may result from its failure. Which is the more anti-life attitude?
The attitude is simply not established by or dependent on the technique used. If we think it is, we are veering dangerously close to the sort of legalism that Jesus consistently roasted the Pharisees over - the attitude of “how much can I do what I want before I get in trouble with God?”, which is completely at odds in such a self-righteous way with the attitude of wanting to please God first and foremost. Jesus clearly shows us that it is attitude that he is really concerned about, such that for your stance on this matter, adopting a contraceptive mentality would be just as bad as using contraception - see Jesus’ teaching in the sermon on the mount (Matt 5:27-28), where he declares that looking lustfully at a woman is just as bad as actually committing the act of adultery!
Perhaps you could clarify what your view of “God’s design” for sex is, such that seeking to avoid conception by one way is OK, but by another way is not? Obviously, by holding such a view you acknowledge that not wanting to conceive every time you are fertile (by using the behavioural barrier of NFP) is not against God’s design for sex per se, so what does God’s design for sex actually entail?
I would be very interested to know what source you have for claiming that diaphragms can act as an abortifacient - this is an entirely new assertion to me.
To say “NFP is not contraceptive because you are not using contraception” is, quite frankly, nonsense. Contraceptive is an adjective (as you have used it here) meaning “tending or serving to prevent conception” - fact. NFP tends or serves to prevent conception - fact, as you have agreed. NFP is therefore contraceptive - fact. Try saying “NFP is not tending or serving to prevent conception because you are not using contraception” and see how nonsensical your statement becomes.
At any rate, I think we have done the issue of contraception to death, as I doubt you are likely to accept my view, and I certainly cannot accept yours on the arguments you have put forward so far. As it was only introduced as a tangent to my earlier question about whether there would have been any problem with Mary and Joseph having sex together after they were married, how about we return to that - and the other issues I raised back in post #584 on 13th August? I repeat the first question (again) verbatim, just to refresh all our memories:
If Mary was married to Joseph, it would be normal and right (given amongst other things Paul’s commands in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 about not depriving your spouse of their sexual rights) for her to have a fully sexual relationship with her husband, wouldn’t it? So you are only arguing against the certainty of the NT explicitly stating Jesus had biological siblings, rather than raising an objection per se against Mary having sex with Joseph to possibly produce children? I have to say I find that your argument against the certainty of Jesus having biological siblings (from verses that suggest this was so on a plain reading) seems at odds with your willingness to suggest as certainties ideas that can only be implied from a verse (e.g. as you read Matt 12:32 as supporting “forgiving some sins in the world to come”). This is made more puzzling for me as the use of “adelphoi” is almost always translated as “brother” regardless of whether it means biological, relational or spiritual brotherhood – it is rarely translated as (or means) cousin or kinsmen as you suggest, as there are other words which suffice much better for that purpose, such as “suggenes” for Elizabeth in Luke 1:36.
Perhaps, with your permission, I could send your response to Pacwa’s talk to Catholic Answers Radio and have him reply to your comments, particularly in light of your ‘suspicion’ of his omitting certain things.
So long as the discussion does not thereby move to other locations. Responding here is occupying too much of my time as it is at present.
Donna Green - 21 August 2008 10:26 PM
If I could point you to some Lectures by Nicholas Patrick Wiseman (1859) on proving the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. He deals with many of the issues addressed on the forum. He also deals with the Hebrew/Greek and also speaks of the Aramaic. He addresses the word ‘represents’ and the Aramaic possibilities - 41 in total. It is quite lengthy, but worth a read. The link is below if you are interested.
Thanks for the link (and thanks for fixing it). I took a quick look, but it quickly became apparent that the argument is largely irrelevant in this context. Wiseman is arguing against a claim made by one Dr Adam Clarke who had said “In the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, or denote; though both the Greek and Latin abound with them. Hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say it is, for it signifies.” (Quoted from p. 261 of the book you referred to. I don’t think anyone here’s made such a claim, and it has no real bearing on all when it comes to the use of metaphorical language. So, as I say, it is largely irrelevant. Of course it still needs to be acknowledged that Wiseman’s Syriac version of Jesus’ words remains speculative since we only have a Greek text (and I note that Pacwa wanted to insist, also without any evidence, that Jesus would have used the Aramaic copula verb and that Wiseman’s back-translation does not include it).
Donna Green - 21 August 2008 10:26 PM
Just a couple of comments of my own:
You claim that if the word “is” is used for emphasis in “this is my body”, it would still not constitute grounds for excluding the metaphorical reading. Why not? What would constitute a literal interpretation for you.
Why not? Because there are examples where the copula verb is present in metaphors (e.g. Ps 9:9; 18:18). But, of course, my whole point was that it is impossible to determine whether Jesus explicitly used the copula verb in his original utterance based on the Greek since in instances where we can compare the Hebrew with a Greek translation, the verb is frequently used in the Greek translation when it is absent in the Hebrew.
What would constitute a literal interpretation? If the bread changed from bread to a piece of Jesus’ body, if the wine changed to blood. Any other event involving similar changes in the NT, the change was visible and tactile. How else are we to identify metaphor? We know that “I am the door” is metaphorical because Jesus didn’t hang on hinges.
Donna Green - 21 August 2008 10:26 PM
The arguments you have put forward are not compelling to me. The metaphorical understanding requires a great deal of linguistic gymnastics to avoid the literal sense.
Well, I think it is common sense whereas the transubstantiation reading requires all sorts of metaphysical gymnastics!
Donna Green - 21 August 2008 10:26 PM
What do you think Paul meant by “guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ” if we receive unworthily. If we are only partaking in bread and wine, how could we be guilty of the body and blood of Christ?
There’s a fine explanation of this in a talk by Don Carson. You can get it here.
Donna Green - 21 August 2008 10:26 PM
I have not responded back to you regarding sola scriptura. It would seem from your reply that you are reliant on sources outside of scripture. This has always been my point. Essentially, whether we recognise it or not, we are reliant on an authority other than ourselves. Most protestants would say that authority is the Holy Spirit, but you know that argument is weak. The Mormans claim the same, so do the JWs.
I don’t think most Protestants would agree with your assertion. Properly understood Sola Scriptura is not a claim that Scripture can be understood in isolation, it is a claim for the pre-eminence of its authority. So if tradition contradicts Scripture, tradition loses (in the Protestant understanding, usually it seems to be the reverse in RC understanding).
I don’t think most Protestants would agree with your assertion. Properly understood Sola Scriptura is not a claim that Scripture can be understood in isolation, it is a claim for the pre-eminence of its authority. So if tradition contradicts Scripture, tradition loses (in the Protestant understanding, usually it seems to be the reverse in RC understanding).
I hope you don’t mind if I jump in at this point.
Roman Catholic certainly doesn’t teach that Tradition is supreme over Scripture. But I’m sure you already knew that, Martin, and were simply looking for a bit of quid pro quo when it came to strawperson representations.
Even by taking the “classical” understanding of Sola Scriptura, you don’t get around the problems of the Protestant position. If you interpret Scripture through the lens, or aid of tradition, you’re simply replacing one tradition, with another, namely the teachings of Calvin, Luther, selective quotations from the Church Fathers et al. If you maintain that Calvin and Luther are not infallible and/or authoritative and come to a different interpretation than them with respect to particular Bible passages, then you’re not placing the Bible as supreme authority, but rather you’re simply placing your interpretation of the Bible over that of the Reformers. Which is, more or less what the Reformed approach to Scripture is, namely an alternate tradition to Rome with the individual holding the right of veto if they don’t like the understanding of Scripture handed down to them. The claim then, that Scripture is the pre-eminent authority in the Protestant schema is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Martin
You said:
“Wiseman is arguing against a claim made by one Dr Adam Clarke who had said “In the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, or denote; though both the Greek and Latin abound with them. Hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say it is, for it signifies.” (Quoted from p. 261 of the book you referred to. I don’t think anyone here’s made such a claim, and it has no real bearing on all when it comes to the use of metaphorical language. So, as I say, it is largely irrelevant. Of course it still needs to be acknowledged that Wiseman’s Syriac version of Jesus’ words remains speculative since we only have a Greek text (and I note that Pacwa wanted to insist, also without any evidence, that Jesus would have used the Aramaic copula verb and that Wiseman’s back-translation does not include it).”
In fact, Martin, the article is relevant to the discussion. Considering it is a series of 8 lectures, more is discussed than what you claim. I made the assertion that if Jesus meant the bread and wine to be symbols of his body and blood he could have used several words to convey that message. Wiseman gave evidence for this. It seems any source that does not side with your findings is either speculative, spurious or suspicious. I could just as easily say the same for your claims. You say it has no real bearing when it comes to the use of metaphorical language. Isn’t that the point we have been arguing about. Wiseman demonstrates that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically, showing how many times Jesus could have said ‘represents’ or something similar when instituting the Eucharist. It is a valid point. You keep pressing the point about the different words used at the Last Supper and John 6 and use this as a case for a metaphorical presentation of the Eucharist, however, you ignore the fact that Jesus’ own words do not indicate a metaphorical meaning. I say they do not indicate a metaphorical meaning due to the fact that Jesus did not use any word that means ‘represents’. You change the rules of debate Martin. You use the difference between soma and sarx as an example of where Jesus could have been more explicit if He meant the literal sense, yet it has been demonstrated to you (even though you deny it) that the same applies for my case that I put forward. If Jesus meant a metaphorical sense, then why didn’t he use the appropriate language, considering that many left Him on this teaching. When Jesus changed his language in John 6 it was to emphasise the eating of His ‘flesh’. Surely this could have been an opportunity to say ‘represents’. Same argument you use, as indicated above. You think the metaphorical sense is commonsense. Was it commonsense for Jesus to hang from a cross for 6 hours? We are dealing with faith matters here, not what is common. Perhaps I have no commonsense, but Jesus’ words make sense to me.
You claim Pacwa has no evidence that Jesus would have used the Aramaic copula verb – that’s your speculation that Pacwa has no evidence. We will see what he has to say about that.
What would constitute a literal interpretation? You said:
“If the bread changed from bread to a piece of Jesus’ body, if the wine changed to blood. Any other event involving similar changes in the NT, the change was visible and tactile. How else are we to identify metaphor? We know that “I am the door” is metaphorical because Jesus didn’t hang on hinges.”
Sounds like Thomas. So what about baptism? Does baptism effect anything? I would presume that because you have to see to believe that you would say that baptism does nothing. Going on your statement above, baptism must also be in the same category as the Eucharist. Just a metaphor for new life in Christ. Nothing changes. They are just words and actions that effect nothing. Jesus said that His words are Spirit and life. He means that we need the eyes of faith to believe. Spirit never denotes metaphor, so these words do not marry with your position on the use of metaphor in this text.
You said:
“… I think it is common sense whereas the transubstantiation reading requires all sorts of metaphysical gymnastics! “
No Martin, transubstantiation requires nothing but Jesus’ words. The metaphorical position requires metaphysical gymnastics. The early Church is a witness to what the apostles taught. The early Church believed in the real presence. I know you don’t hold any credence to this position because of earlier examples of apostasy and so, therefore, it’s not a valid argument. However, all apostasy was never allowed to flower inside the Church! Every time an heretical teaching came to light, the Church dealt with it. The Eucharist was never brought into question in the early Church. The metaphorical position is a novel idea that is relatively young in the history of the Church.
What do you think Paul meant by “guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ” if we receive unworthily. If we are only partaking in bread and wine, how could we be guilty of the body and blood of Christ?
“There’s a fine explanation of this in a talk by Don Carson. You can get it here. “
I had a listen to Don Carson. No sure if I would agree that it was a ‘fine’ talk. His dramatics were impressive however. Martin, he did not say anything that was a new revelation to me. In fact, I think it was the poorest attempt I have heard from a protestant to dismiss the literal interpretation. Paul speaks about coming to the ‘altar’. An altar is a place of sacrifice. Protestants don’t believe communion to be a sacrifice. I noticed Carson omitted an explanation of the word ‘altar’ - “suspiciously” perhaps. Even though he mentions the word altar, he seems oblivious to the fact that an altar = sacrifice!
I’ll forward your posts and see if Pacwa can answer your criticisms.
Donna
the key TIm on NFP is that t is renderd sinful if the couple use it for trivial and selfish reasons ... (snip) ... The underscoring attitude is the key...it must only be used for serious reasons.
In fact, Martin, the article is relevant to the discussion. Considering it is a series of 8 lectures, more is discussed than what you claim. I made the assertion that if Jesus meant the bread and wine to be symbols of his body and blood he could have used several words to convey that message. Wiseman gave evidence for this. It seems any source that does not side with your findings is either speculative, spurious or suspicious. I could just as easily say the same for your claims. You say it has no real bearing when it comes to the use of metaphorical language. Isn’t that the point we have been arguing about. Wiseman demonstrates that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically, showing how many times Jesus could have said ‘represents’ or something similar when instituting the Eucharist. It is a valid point.
No, as I’ve said repeatedly: metaphor does not work that way. If Jesus had said “this bread represents my body,” that would not be a metaphor. As I’ve said repeatedly, the wording Jesus did use, without “represents” or any such word, is exactly the form a metaphorical statement would take. As I’ve said repeatedly, the claim that there may have been numerous ways to say “represents” in Aramaic only goes to indicate that Jesus didn’t say “this represents my body.” So what? From the beginning I’ve said Jesus was using metaphorical language. He does so in several subsequent “I am” sayings in John’s gospel, none of which includes “represents” in any form. But they are metaphorical.
Nowhere does Wiseman demonstrate that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically. If you think he does, I’m happy to discuss it. Please provide page references.
Your continual reference to the “represents” language simply gives me the impression that you don’t understand what metaphor is.
Donna Green - 25 August 2008 08:02 PM
You keep pressing the point about the different words used at the Last Supper and John 6 and use this as a case for a metaphorical presentation of the Eucharist, however, you ignore the fact that Jesus’ own words do not indicate a metaphorical meaning. I say they do not indicate a metaphorical meaning due to the fact that Jesus did not use any word that means ‘represents’.
That sound you hear is my head banging against the computer monitor. Repeat 10 times: If Jesus had said “represents” then that would not be metaphorical speech!
“I am the light of the world” (John 8:12) = metaphor. Do you see the word “represents”?
“I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7) = metaphor. Do you see the word “represents”?
“I am the true vine” (John 15:1) = metaphor. Do you see the word “represents”?
Donna Green - 25 August 2008 08:02 PM
You change the rules of debate Martin. You use the difference between soma and sarx as an example of where Jesus could have been more explicit if He meant the literal sense, yet it has been demonstrated to you (even though you deny it) that the same applies for my case that I put forward.
Where has any such thing been demonstrated?
My point in the variation in language was not to ascertain whether Jesus was speaking literally or metaphorically. Rather, it was to highlight one of the problems with the presumption that John 6 is all about the Lord’s Supper. The word Jesus uses in John 6 differs from that he uses in all explicit accounts of the Supper.
Donna Green - 25 August 2008 08:02 PM
If Jesus meant a metaphorical sense, then why didn’t he use the appropriate language, considering that many left Him on this teaching.
He did use the appropriate metaphorical language. So many people left him? Why can’t they do that if he’s using metaphorical language?
Donna Green - 25 August 2008 08:02 PM
When Jesus changed his language in John 6 it was to emphasise the eating of His ‘flesh’.
What change was this? Was this the change you proposed from εσθιω to τρωγω? But I’ve shown you that the distinction you tried to imply here was linguistically nonsensical. The latter term is simply used for the present tense form of the former.
Donna Green - 25 August 2008 08:02 PM
Surely this could have been an opportunity to say ‘represents’. Same argument you use, as indicated above. You think the metaphorical sense is commonsense. Was it commonsense for Jesus to hang from a cross for 6 hours?
Do you see how nonsensical this argument is? Do you think an onlooker to the crucifixion would have imagined for an instant that it was metaphorical? Of course not: there was Jesus nailed to a cross. But what about an onlooker at the Supper? There was Jesus handing out bread and wine. It was quite obviously not pieces of body or blood he was distributing. The natural inference would be to undersand Jesus’ words as metaphorical, investing the eating of the Passover meal with renewed memorial significance (as Jesus says: “do this in rememberance of me").
Donna Green - 25 August 2008 08:02 PM
We are dealing with faith matters here, not what is common. Perhaps I have no commonsense, but Jesus’ words make sense to me.
This is essentially the same argument John Charles Storer has been trying to use on another thread: it’s faith so it doesn’t need to follow normal rules. The problem is, it doesn’t even follow the “rules” used of any other faith matter in the NT! If you read that thread you may see the points involved in this debate. The other side of the same coin is that the argument you present does allow you to prove anything you want.
So what about baptism? ... They are just words and actions that effect nothing.
Here again is the same problem: you devalue words and actions just as you devalue remembering. In doing so you devalue much of what God had his people do throughout the OT. But perhaps the fact that you think so little of them is more a reflection of just how much our culture differs from that of Jesus and his predecessors.
Donna Green - 25 August 2008 08:02 PM
You said:
“… I think it is common sense whereas the transubstantiation reading requires all sorts of metaphysical gymnastics! “
No Martin, transubstantiation requires nothing but Jesus’ words. The metaphorical position requires metaphysical gymnastics.
I disagree: the metaphorical understanding requires nothing in addition to Jesus’ words because the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. Transubstantiation requires that, even though the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, the bread doesn’t really remain bread, i.e. it requires some metaphysical legerdemain in order to counter the apparent non-transformation of the bread and wine! No such sleight-of-hand is required when it comes to the water Jesus changed to wine at the wedding, does it? No, it appeared in all measurable respects to be wine!
Donna Green - 25 August 2008 08:02 PM
I had a listen to Don Carson. No sure if I would agree that it was a ‘fine’ talk. His dramatics were impressive however. Martin, he did not say anything that was a new revelation to me. In fact, I think it was the poorest attempt I have heard from a protestant to dismiss the literal interpretation.
Well, Donna, that was neither the aim of the talk nor my reason for pointing you to it. Rather, it was only in response to your question about the meaning of “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” Now I’ve done you the courtesy of listening to talks and reading links and responding to them in detail. Your response is to simply make ad-hominem put-downs. Perhaps you could actually provide a more adequate response to his claims in the talk if you disagree.
Donna Green - 25 August 2008 08:02 PM
Paul speaks about coming to the ‘altar’. An altar is a place of sacrifice. Protestants don’t believe communion to be a sacrifice. I noticed Carson omitted an explanation of the word ‘altar’ - “suspiciously” perhaps. Even though he mentions the word altar, he seems oblivious to the fact that an altar = sacrifice!
Where does Paul speak about coming to the “altar”? Not in 1Cor 11. Perhaps you’re referring to 1Cor 10? But he doesn’t do it there, either (the altar is mentioned in reference to the nation of Israel, but Christians eat around the “table of the Lord"). Did Paul omit the word too, suspiciously perhaps?
It’s probably unwise to join a thread after 600 posts, but I’m going to do so anyway.
ISTM both Donna and Martin may be missing the point, albeit in different ways.
First, I agree with Martin that Jesus words at the Last Supper are metaphorical, but they are not a normal metaphor.
What I mean is this: normally metaphors take the form X = Y therefore Z, where Z is some action understood to flow naturally from Y. An example from the gospels would be I (X) am the gate (Y), therefore enter (Z).
However, the Last Supper is different. Here we have This (X) is my body (Y), therefore eat (Z). That is, the relationship between Y and Z is not natural but counter-intuitive, even scandalous especially given the cultural and theological context. ISTM this scandal reflects and expresses the scandal of the gospel and should not be lessened. However, perhaps because we find the gospel scandalous we are always tempted to lessen the paradox:
The ‘Catholic’ temptation is to lessen the Y/Z paradox by modifying Z. That is, the Lord’s Supper is no longer an occasion uniquely for eating and drinking, but also an occasion for other activities more ‘appropriate’ to a body such as veneration, making sacrifice etc
The ‘Protestant’ temptation is to lessen the Y/Z paradox by modifying Y. Here we engage in a form of ‘mental reservation’ whereby even as we eat we’re saying ‘it’s really just bread”.
To put it another way, the “Is” in “This is my body” is neither the “is” of transformation (contra RC) nor the “is” of mere representation (contra some Protestantism) but the “is” of scandalous and costly identification, and hence more than appropriate for expressing a gospel of scandalous and costly identification. Practically, this means there’s a lot be said for liturgies like the BCP which move immediately from the words of institution to the activity of eating and drinking and hence highlight the Y/Z paradox rather than attempting to relieve it.
To put it another way, the “Is” in “This is my body” is neither the “is” of transformation (contra RC) nor the “is” of mere representation (contra some Protestantism) but the “is” of scandalous and costly identification, and hence more than appropriate for expressing a gospel of scandalous and costly identification.
Thanks Mark, I find that helpful. The other problem with some Protestants insisting that it is merely a memorial is to deny the Spiritual presence of Jesus a la Matthew 18:20. Christ isn’t present in the memorial objects but in the congregation of believers through his Spirit. (nb: I’m not assuming for one moment that Martin has been advocating the Eucharist as a mere memorial.)
1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore, whoever eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
The key word is or......if you only eat one of the elements , you are still guilty of both the body and blood.
Ponder that..why doesn’t it say “ ..eats the bread and drinks the cup...”
Tim.....NFP is only allowed for serious reasons, as children are an inheritence from the Lord and always a blessing. Nowhere in any text of Scripture are chldren an economic burden to be avoided., and many children are looked upon as a prize. Barreness is always looked upon as either a curse or a misfortune to bear.
First, I agree with Martin that Jesus words at the Last Supper are metaphorical, but they are not a normal metaphor.
What I mean is this: normally metaphors take the form X = Y therefore Z, where Z is some action understood to flow naturally from Y. An example from the gospels would be I (X) am the gate (Y), therefore enter (Z).
Mark, this seems an odd definition of metaphor. Where do you get it from? The metaphor is essentially X = Y, although obviously metaphor operates at rather more sophisticated levels than this simple equation can fully encompass. I’m attracted to some of the ideas found in Benjamin Harshav, Explorations in Poetics (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007) chapter 2. In Jesus’ words then you have the intersection of two normally distinct reference frames producing the metaphor. The first “this” (the bread) which you “eat,” the second, Jesus body which should be remembered as “broken for you.”
Even aside from an application of Harshav’s methodology, there seem to me to be no grounds for claiming that the language used in reference to the Supper is not “normal” metaphor.
None of this denies that metaphorical speech or writing cannot be scandalous, clearly it can: it all depends on what is being compared.
Angus Johnson - 26 August 2008 11:04 AM
The other problem with some Protestants insisting that it is merely a memorial is to deny the Spiritual presence of Jesus a la Matthew 18:20. Christ isn’t present in the memorial objects but in the congregation of believers through his Spirit. (nb: I’m not assuming for one moment that Martin has been advocating the Eucharist as a mere memorial.)
I’m not convinced that Matt 18:20 should be understood as somehow providing an alternate form of “real presence” in the Supper: it is not a distinctive feature of the memorial, it is a characteristic of all Christian meetings. Rather, I think the problem is with the ascription of “mere” to remembering. I think this reflects a failure to grasp the power and significance of remembering, a tradition strongly espoused in the OT and which I think is continued in Jesus’ appropriation of the Passover meal as a memorial of his own death.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
