More to the point, if god doesn’t need a cause then why demand one for the universe?
Cause the universe had a beginning, almost everyone accepts that now. And a beginning is an event, and events need causes. God, not having a beginning, doesn’t need a cause.
Funny, someone just recently mentioned the Norman Gunston version of “I’ve been everywhere, man” to me the other day (the version where each of the numerous town names is replaced by “Wollongong"). So I guess you’ve been everywhere, man!
Well, I’m around Sydney, but don’t get out much.
John Charles Storer - 29 August 2008 04:57 PM
It is clear we have different views here. As I have said repeatedly, this is probably more to do with differences in paradigms than differences in data. You don’t seem to agree, I can only guess that this is because you are not comfortable with any form of relative truth. As I have argued previously, absolute and testable truth is not available in science and certainly not available in historical enquiry. Stronger or weaker concurrence is all we can hope for.
By and large I agree that differing “paradigms” result in different interpretations. I am somewhat less pessimistic about the possibility of arriving at some reasonable degree of certainty about the author’s meaning. Furthermore, I believe there is truth: things really do happen and really did happen in the past, and other things did not happen. While we sometimes cannot attain certainty about events, that is different from saying they did not happen. Furthermore, just because we cannot attain comprehensive truth about the past, that is not to say that nothing truthful can be said of the past at all.
John Charles Storer - 29 August 2008 04:57 PM
Re Einstein and Newton. If you want to believe that black is white, I can’t disabuse you. I suggest you read my previous post more closely to see the difference between appealing to parsimony to choose between two theories sharing a common data set and between rejecting one theory and accepting another in the light of additional data. Alternatively you seem to be arguing by false analogy by conflating your view with einstein and mine with newton. It is not that you have more evidence, you just give different weights to different evidence compared to myself. You are the only person who can articulate why you use a particular weighting system.
My analogy stands: your claim that the only difference lies in the assignment of differing weights to the evidence is not substantiated by what you’ve previously written:
1. You are either ignoring some evidence or assigning it no weight whatsoever. Why? You have been unable to articulate any basis for doing so, you simply continue to ignore it. In the analogy your evaluation of the data is akin to those seeking to assess the competing theories of Einstein and Newton but doing so by ignoring crucial pieces of evidence.
2. You appear to be assigning weights on the basis of your paradigm or, at best, the application of an anachronistic paradigm sourced many decades after the time of Jesus. Unless you subscribe to a postmodern reader-response theory of meaning (and such an approach is logically inconsistent in its treatment of historical texts anyway), then assigning more weight to an interpretation based on an anachronistic paradigm is itself a faulty methodology.
John Charles Storer - 29 August 2008 04:57 PM
The conclusion about mana is so obvious as to be trivial. Regardless it does not discount the view, merely articulates a basis for giving relative weight.
Yes, and substantially less weight than your dependence upon it seems to require.
John Charles Storer - 29 August 2008 04:57 PM
This is a recursive argument. You state there is no eucharist because there is no departure point, I state that the existence of the eucharist demonstrates a departure point. The supper needs to be read in the light of, but not restricted by, the cultural context.
No, I state that there are considerations which actively counter the idea that John 6 is specifically eucharistic. Your primary context for the eucharistic reading of the text is external to the text, mine is internal based on the text’s own chronology and the historical context the text establishes for the events recounted in John 6 as well as dependent upon a comparison with the terminology used everywhere else the NT explicity refers to the Supper. You ignore (or assign no weight) to the chronological context established within John’s narrative, but don’t offer any explanation as to why (which is why I think you just ignore it because if you assigned it no weight you’d at least be able to explain why). You also ignore the different terminology, apparently on the basis that the English words seem pretty close to you.
John Charles Storer - 29 August 2008 04:57 PM
One of the gospels presents Jesus as the fulfillment the old testament, without researching, I can’t remember which one. I am not sure that the other gospel writers take the same view. There is a difference in contextualising christianity in Judaism and rewriting christianity as Judaism. I think that in the matter of the real presence, you are doing the latter.
Do you mean 2Cor 1:20? Luke 24:27, 44? Matt 5:17?
As for the charge that I’m “rewriting christianity as Judaism,” I think that is a reductionistic reading of my interpretation. The Supper supplants the Passover for Christians. Now I claim that it should be understood against the “paradigm” of the culture from which it derived because the text lacks elements which would counter the normal inferences made by the audience based on their “paradigm.” The Eucharistic reading you adhere to, on the other hand, rests upon a paradigm foreign to the historical context of the text and necessarily overlooks elements within the text.
This, of course, bears on your argument from “parsimony,” or what others subscribe to when they appeal to “the plain meaning of the text.” Assessments made through different “paradigms” will result in differing outcomes and different measurements of what they declare to be “parsimonious.” As I’ve argued previously, it is insufficient to identify our paradigm and seek thus to understand why we assign different weights to parts of the text. It is a necessary entailment of seeking to understand the implied author’s intention that we measure the text from his or her paradigm. You may be trying to do this, but I think there are good grounds for doubting the validity of the “paradigm” you adopt which derives (at best) from a context decades after the composition of the text and many decades after the events reported by the text.
Why do you focus on this one aspect but (presumably) accept say the trinity which is quite at odds with Judaism? (Despite Danii’s special pleading above).
As I said above, your disjunction here is ill considered. While there are aspects of Trinitarian theology which would not have been obvious to Jewish readers, there is sufficient scope within the OT understanding of God to accomodate a carefully articulated notion of a trinitarian God (see, for example, such things as the Angel of the Lord in the OT). Furthermore, the NT understanding of God remains thoroughly rooted in OT thought: there are not three gods, the God of the OT remains the God of the NT, etc.
Now that is not to say that the full-blown doctrine of the Trinity as later expressed by the church could easily be reconciled with the OT notions of God, but at some point the more elaborate doctrinal formulations, alike those of the eucharist, become heavily dependent upon concepts derived from Greek philosophy. Consequently, I think the whole “eternally begotten” and its associated baggage is somewhat difficult to derive from the NT alone. And I have rather more difficulties with the entire gamut of RC theology surrounding Mary!
So I do not focus exclusively on the Lord’s Supper, but it has been the topic of this thread, and it represents a sufficient investment of time and space to make expansion into other areas a foolish exercise.
John Charles Storer - 29 August 2008 04:57 PM
If you thought the idea of mana was the entire basis for my rejection of your recourse to a metaphorical reading, then I have done a very poor job of articulating my position. I see it as reasonably remote, and only of relevance when addressing Zwingli’s critique of the eucharist as nonsense.
My argument is this. A plain reading is favoured over a metaphorical reading for reasons of parsimony. That is only adopt a metaphorical reading if it leads to problems. Now I can see that a plain reading leads to the real presence in the eucharist so you adopt a metaphorical reading to avoid that (for you) theological problem. I don’t have that problem so I don’t have to appeal to metaphor. Furthermore, invocation of the real presence in the eucharist does not create problems elsewhere for me. Such a reading is compatible with the synoptics and with Paul, with further support being found in the early church fathers.
There’s obviously much to say here, and much that I’ve already said (note again the comments above on parsimony and “plain reading” which is usually an exercise in concealment). Nonetheless:
1. I do not adopt a metaphorical reading purely out of theological difficulties with your alternative. Rather, I have linguistic, literary, historical, and cultural difficulties with your interpretation which precede any theological judgment I may make about your reading.
2. You are being somewhat inconsistent in your claims about your position. If we look again at your original comments, we find that you affirm that a metaphorical reading of the text is actually logical (i.e. it is in some way a “plain reading"):
John Charles Storer - 01 August 2008 05:36 PM
Well, like everybody, I measure the words against other things. Eg if someone said they were burning up and I looked at them and there were no flames, and given the usage of that form of words as an idiom, I would conclude metaphor. You might also consider the actions of people associated with the person.
In the case of “my flesh” for example, from a scientific point of view we guess it must be metaphor…
But that didn’t suit your position, so you attempt to rescue your interpretation with the following caveat:
John Charles Storer - 01 August 2008 05:36 PM
… but we are talking religion and based on a belief that one person Jesus performs miracles etc. So in a world view including miracles it may not be that unreasonable.
It was in this context that you later introduced the idea of “mana” to bolster your argument. But you don’t need to deny miracles to see the problems inherent in your caveat, and without that to fall back on, your claim that the “literal” reading is more parsimonious than the metaphorical appears increasingly spurious. So, as I’ve said before:
(a) The nature of the miraculous event here is categorically different to any other miracle recorded in the NT. The bread still looks like bread, the wine still looks like wine. So a simple appeal to “religious language” fails to solve the problem: it goes further and requires that the language becomes completely meaningless because there is simply nothing against which the statements can be measured or understood.
(b) No-one in the crowd responds to Jesus in a literal manner: no-one tries to take a bite out of him!
John Charles Storer - 29 August 2008 04:57 PM
Your last argument is an argument against yourself. You deny metaphysics in the real presence but accord an active intervention by god in history.
Nonsense. This point is logically invalid. If I deny a “supernatural” explanation for one thing, I must deny it for everything? Hopefully you can see the flaws in your own argument here.
Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out, the “active intervention” in the miracles of Jesus (to take one example) results in events which are categorically different from what you want to have happen in the Lord’s Supper.
John Charles Storer - 29 August 2008 04:57 PM
I personally have no tension between God the creator and materialist explanations for the existence of life. An alternative view suggests to me a reluctance on your part to accept an allegorical view of genesis although strongly supported by empirical scientific knowledge and in marked contrast to your apparent ease in accepting metaphor in the bible in respect of a central mystery of christianity, being the real presence in the eucharist.
You really need to go and read more of the material I’ve written about Genesis, so wide of the mark is your assessment of my position here. I employ the same methodology in reading Genesis 1-3 as I do reading the accounts of the Lord’s Supper: we need to understand the implied author’s “paradigm” in order to understand his words.
John Charles Storer - 29 August 2008 04:57 PM
I don’t see how your last sentence is a logical outcome of anything.
There is a stream of scholarship which understands “resurrection” in the NT to refer to a spiritual, not physical, phenomenon (the same stream denies any notion that the miracles were ultimately supernatural). This, ISTM, fits with your theological position on all other matters: materialism is sufficient explanation for the universe; the transformation of the Supper is metaphysical, not physical.
There is a difference between something having a beginning and having a cause. If you can accept God without a cause, why can’t you accept the universe without a cause? You assume events need causes but that is only because your experience of the universe you live in leads you to believe that events need causes. Quantum physics assumes that events just happen and the degree to which they just happen can be described probabilistically. I understand that hidden variable models have failed. I am scratching a bit now but I think the key finding was the Bell test or hypothesis or something like that. As far as I know, there is no causality in quantum physics.
I would generally agree with you on truth, but keeping in mind, and as I have stated before, there are different types of truth statements. You may recollect I used as an example the german invasion of Poland in 1939.
I am not ignoring your jewish culture evidence. I am just giving it little weight. I take a coherence view based on the gospel writings and evidence of Christian practices in the early church. This leads me to believe that early christians (including Paul and the writer of John) believed in the real presence in the eucharist. You say this is not coherent with Judaic belief. I accept that lack of coherence as I believe Christianity was a form of radical Judaism, confronting a number of areas of orthodoxy. Martin, please rest assured I understand your position, however I am not swayed by it. It seems thin to me and requires a strong emotional attachment to a particular paradigm (like Calvanism) to pursuade. In other words, those who want to believe are the easiest to convince.
Your dogmatic assertion that your reading of John is better than mine is only that. I have read it and reread it and for the life of me, I can’t see much that supports you. In the absence of testability, there is oonly plausibility, and plausible doesn’t mean probable.
If you are not rewriting christianity as Judaism then perhaps you are adopting some sort of progress model of history. All you are really doing is stating the essential difference between us. It is probably more a form of relativism than anything or perhaps perspectivism. Again I fail to see how you can try and give moral strength to your position by saying that you are reading it in an internal context but at the same time appealing to historical context. Surely you can’t have both positions? You seem to be saying that it is bad for me to go outside the text but good for you to do it.
I think you are drawing a long bow if you say that the trinity is in accordance with a Jewish view. You can make a case of course, but there is a difference between something being plausible and being likely.
What I actually said was that metaphor depends on context, what is a metaphor in one context may be literal in another. If I said “go for your life” it would mean different things if you had asked me for a glass of water or if a building was collapsing.
The point is not that you must deny a supernatural explanation for everything, but rather that if you accept it in one place then at least you should countenance it in another place. Your point about taking a bbite of Jesus is interesting. One (coherence) view is that John 6 prefaces the eucharist and the audience didn’t really get it. The meaning only becomes apparent in the light of the last supper.
I read your post on genesis directed to me elsewhere. I do not find it persuasive.
I am not going anywhere with the resurrection thing. My view is that from any rational perspective, christianity is a highly unlikely set of beliefs. The supernatural resurrection seems to me to be an attempt to resolve such conflicts. I am prepared to accept cognitive dissonance on this matter and stick with my christian beliefs.
I think we should wrap this Martin unless you want the last word. I say that for those who want to believe, any evidence, no matter how thin, is given weight. I don’t know that it would make tuppence worth of difference to me whether the real presence in the eucharist was right or not, all I say is that on my reading of the evidence, it seems to be a belief held from the earliest days of christianity. I can see why the Calvinist tradition rejects this belief for a range of ideological reasons, and I believe that these are the reasons for your rejection, with other arguments put forward being at best a post hoc justification.
You have a contrary view, based on an assessment that the eucharist was only meant to be symbolic, but was corrupted by a later greek tradition.
I am not ignoring your jewish culture evidence. I am just giving it little weight.
On what basis? There are major streams of NT scholarship now which argue extensively that the fundamental mistake of some past generations of NT scholars was their failure to account for the Jewish background to the NT. They have not arrived at their position simply out of a desire to be different, they have presented strong arguments demonstrating at many points where the Jewish background plays an important part in understanding what is going on in the NT.
Beyond this, you yourself have acknowledged the role one’s “paradigm” plays in the derivation of meaning from a text, but you think that the “paradigm” of the author and original audience of the text was of “little weight”! You give more weight to a paradigm not current for many decades after the composition of the text and futher still from the historical context of the events it reports.
It is thus difficult to accord your weighing of the evidence much credance.
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 07:51 PM
I take a coherence view based on the gospel writings and evidence of Christian practices in the early church. This leads me to believe that early christians (including Paul and the writer of John) believed in the real presence in the eucharist.
You have not argued how Paul’s words support your view. You have made claims about John 6, but have failed to address the problems I’ve identified with your claims, instead appealing to vague notions of your “coherence view.” But without addressing the problems, it seems more incoherent than coherent.
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 07:51 PM
You say this is not coherent with Judaic belief. I accept that lack of coherence as I believe Christianity was a form of radical Judaism, confronting a number of areas of orthodoxy. Martin, please rest assured I understand your position, however I am not swayed by it. It seems thin to me and requires a strong emotional attachment to a particular paradigm (like Calvanism) to pursuade. In other words, those who want to believe are the easiest to convince.
Calvinism has little to do with an appeal to the historical, social, and cultural context of the text. Your avoidance of problems with your position, on the other hand, reveals what appears to be an irrational attachment to a doctrine in the face of significant problems which you are unable or unwilling to address.
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 07:51 PM
Your dogmatic assertion that your reading of John is better than mine is only that. I have read it and reread it and for the life of me, I can’t see much that supports you. In the absence of testability, there is oonly plausibility, and plausible doesn’t mean probable.
See above for reasons why my claims have more substantial basis than mere “dogmatic claim.”
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 07:51 PM
Again I fail to see how you can try and give moral strength to your position by saying that you are reading it in an internal context but at the same time appealing to historical context. Surely you can’t have both positions? You seem to be saying that it is bad for me to go outside the text but good for you to do it.
Not at all. I’m saying it is bad for you to go outside the text to a foreign context and then impose that on the text. Furthermore, appealing to external evidence is not incompatible with the text being internally coherent, in fact the two should stand together. My point is that your reading of the text has problems both with internal coherence (it destroys the internal chronology of the narrative) and external coherence (you must appeal to an anachronistic historical setting to bolster your reading, and the paradigm from which your historical support derives shows strong signs of significant changes from the paradigm of the implied author and audience of the NT documents; it overlooks significant linguistic differences between John and the accounts of the Supper in the gospels and Paul’s writings; and it fails to recognise that the gospels and Paul explicitly state that the Supper is about remembering and prefers to override this with an anachronistic metaphysical reading).
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 07:51 PM
The point is not that you must deny a supernatural explanation for everything, but rather that if you accept it in one place then at least you should countenance it in another place.
And I do countenance it, but the NT accounts of supernatural events presents a degree of consistency with which your understanding of the Supper is difficult to reconcile. Your approach is uncontrolled at this point.
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 07:51 PM
I think we should wrap this Martin unless you want the last word. I say that for those who want to believe, any evidence, no matter how thin, is given weight.
Yes, I’m increasingly coming to the view that you have little substantive evidence to back up your reading aside from appeals to later interpretation.
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 07:51 PM
I can see why the Calvinist tradition rejects this belief for a range of ideological reasons, and I believe that these are the reasons for your rejection, with other arguments put forward being at best a post hoc justification.
You may believe what you will about the underpinnings of my views if it makes you feel more comfortably dismissing them. From where I sit it seems that you simply assume that anyone not agreeing with your conclusion has been hopelessly corrupted by some form of tacit calvinist thought (a point you have not and cannot demonstrate and which flies in the face of all the evidence). Needless to say I’m not convinced by your appeals to vague generalities and later interpretation as key to a correct understanding of the texts dealing with the Lord’s Supper. Rather, it seems your presuppositions about the meaning of the text are so deeply entrenched as to impede your ability to weigh the evidence in any meaningful fashion.
Let me pose a question to you, what would comprise proof to you?
I have taken the opportunity to do a quick browse through a number of recent (last 10-20 years) commentaries of John. I didn’t record details so what follows is unreferenced.
Two scholarly authors made statements along the lines (regarding John 6) - It seems probable that the author is referring to the eucharist.
Two authors with a calvinist affiliation added a gloss (in the real and figurative sense of the word) along the lines of - Jesus then talks metaphorically about himself as the spiritual bread of life. It is noted that no substantiation was given for this position, it was rather asserted as evident and not requiring any justification.
One author argued strongly for the origin of John coming from an Aramaic speaker.
One author argued strongly for the origin of John coming from a Greek speaker.
Another argued strongly that John represented the Hellenisation of Jesus, a view presumably shared by yourself.
Another quoted an older view that John has been corrupted in copying and that 6:52 ff was added by a later copyist. That is one way of getting rid of a difficult passage!
Clearly there are a range of divergent views reached by well informed scholars. While clearly positioning yourself in one part of the debate, you at least make some effort to substantiate an appeal to metaphor, in contrast to the scholars I read with a similar position. I respect your integrity in this matter.
Can I ask you another question? If you assumed the passage was not Jesus speaking metaphorically (not asking you to agree, just to consider the position) what would then be your conclusion?
It continues to concern me that you conflate conjecture with fact. As an example, it is only possible to conjecture what the paradigm of the author may have been. After all, he (or they) is long dead and not available for interrogation. At best you could say say that your reading of Jewish culture provides a possible paradigm for a generic Jew and it could be that the author shared that paradigm. It is an error to assume culture is monolithic. After all, ours is certainly not, why should people in the past be different?
I look to understanding the culture and views of early christians in informing my reading of the text, you look to the culture and views of Jews of an unspecified time to inform your reading of the text. On htis matter, are you talking concurrent and if so what are your sources? I have laid my sources before you and ask you to do the same. I am not happy with your vague appeal to authority. Also note that anyone can find an authority, the question is how far out is the person selected and what is the mainstream?
The word coherence comes from my belief that we arrive at a concurrence or coherent view with respect to a (constructed) historical narrative arising from available data. I say that the words of Paul 1 Corinthians 11:29 for example are suggestive of a belief in the real presence in the eucharist. I imagine you will argue that his use of the word body is metaphorical again, and that is a plausible reading, but as I have said before, plausible does not mean likely although many people confuse the two things. My reading is also plausible in the light of a belief in the real presence in the eucharist amongst early christians.
It seems that Calvinists must be particularly heroic. Even though any historical examination of the development of ideas traces the rejection of the real presence back to Zwingli, and at that time protestants had strong reasons for rejecting sacramentalism (based rather in politics than in theology), it is good to know that they didn’t (and modern calvinists don’t) let their conclusions be swayed by adherence to a particular ideology.
Can’t you see the flaw in your argument about appealing to a foreign text? I say the texts are more likely to be aligned because they are all from the cultural context of early christianity. You say they are foreign because they are not Jewish. But we are talking about Christians, not Jews.
All I can say is you read the bits of Paul that suit you and gloss over the bits that don’t suit. Verse 27 seems explicit to me that Paul sees the bread and wine as one and the same as the body and blood of christ. In verse 29 he talks about recognising the body.
I don’t think that I have little substantive evidence to offer. Rather I would be interested in finding out what would comprise evidence for you. Your position is unassailable. Any view that does not accord with yours is glossed over, shouted down, parodied or disparaged. How about you give me some evidence? Your presentation has been singularly lacking in that area. If you are relying on a literature review, how about presenting the full range of positions and numbers of scholars in each position so that we can see where people lie generally. Furthermore any such study needs an elucidation of affiliations and relationships and the like to examine whether we are relying on a self referential group.
As to the final paragraph, it appears we have a similar view of each other. As one way of looking at adherence to a particular paradigm, are there any of the 39 articles you disagree with? If the answer is no, then it may well be that you are an apologist for an ideology. From my point of view I disagree with a number of areas of Catholic belief but accept others based on my own assessment. On this basis I cannot be represented as an apologist for Catholicism. On the matter of the real presence I align with Catholic orthodoxy.
Just one more thing, what are your beliefs on baptism? Using your approach, John could also be read as metaphorical on the matter of baptism. Do you favour that reading or do you have a sacramental view of baptism?
I have taken the opportunity to do a quick browse through a number of recent (last 10-20 years) commentaries of John. I didn’t record details so what follows is unreferenced.
You demand others provide peer-reviewed data and yet you cannot provide proper references? That somewhat undermines the value of the data you present since we can neither verify it nor determine whether you’ve appealed to reputable scholarship at all.
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
Two scholarly authors made statements along the lines (regarding John 6) - It seems probable that the author is referring to the eucharist.
Obviously they must be “scholarly” if they agree with you!
Of course, without references we can’t check this claim nor check whether you’ve read them correctly. A number of commentators I’ve checked do see a link between John 6 and the Lord’s Supper, but in the reverse sense as I’ve already indicated previously. And I have no problem with their understanding.
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
Two authors with a calvinist affiliation added a gloss (in the real and figurative sense of the word) along the lines of - Jesus then talks metaphorically about himself as the spiritual bread of life. It is noted that no substantiation was given for this position, it was rather asserted as evident and not requiring any justification.
Of course they must have a “calvinist affiliation” since we’ve already determined that you simply presuppose that anyone disagreeing with you is irredeemably tainted by calvinism. So your assessment of these “authors” (they’re obviously not “scholars” because they don’t uphold your view of the text) could possibly be a little biased.
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
Another argued strongly that John represented the Hellenisation of Jesus, a view presumably shared by yourself.
Not at all. I think that John’s gospel has strong Jewish antecedents.
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
Another quoted an older view that John has been corrupted in copying and that 6:52 ff was added by a later copyist. That is one way of getting rid of a difficult passage!
Clearly there are a range of divergent views reached by well informed scholars. While clearly positioning yourself in one part of the debate, you at least make some effort to substantiate an appeal to metaphor, in contrast to the scholars I read with a similar position. I respect your integrity in this matter.
Thank you (I think). Yes, commentators on the text disagree about its meaning. So does that imply that meaning is irretrievable?
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
Can I ask you another question? If you assumed the passage was not Jesus speaking metaphorically (not asking you to agree, just to consider the position) what would then be your conclusion?
If I assumed Jesus were not speaking metaphorically, then I’d have to assume he was speaking in some other way. So I guess you’re asking me to assume he’s speaking literally. But I don’t “assume” either way, I try and base my understanding of the language on consideration of factors which control the way language works and the way language was used and would have been understood. It is ultimately a part of the process of translation. Before a modern reader can understand the text of the NT it has to be translated from its original language into our language. When you read the text, you’re presumably reading a translation. That translation assumes that there is a meaning that can be transferred from the source language into the target language, and good translation includes translation of idioms, colloquialisms, and other forms of speech which encoded meaning in the source language. That includes metaphor.
So I’m not sure what the point of your question is. It is like asking “what would you conclude if you assumed that Jack and the Beanstalk was not a fairy-tale?”
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
It continues to concern me that you conflate conjecture with fact. As an example, it is only possible to conjecture what the paradigm of the author may have been. After all, he (or they) is long dead and not available for interrogation. At best you could say say that your reading of Jewish culture provides a possible paradigm for a generic Jew and it could be that the author shared that paradigm. It is an error to assume culture is monolithic. After all, ours is certainly not, why should people in the past be different?
While it is not possible to prove in excruciating detail all aspects of the author’s paradigm, that does not mean we can say nothing about it. Based on the information at hand we can propose reasonable notions regarding the author’s paradigm, and we can also exclude others. So, for example, it is reasonable to suggest that imposing a later paradigm on the text is inappropriate. Furthermore, some aspects of the implied author’s (and implied audience’s) paradigm will not have a great deal of significance in the production of meaning from this particular text, so there is no need to attain a comprehensive understanding of their worldview, just isolate aspects which do impact their reading of the text.
Furthermore, I’m not claiming that Jewish culture was monolithic. OTOH there are good grounds for arguing that ancient society was perhaps a little less diverse than ours, so drawing an analogy to modern society is not appropriate. But we also have some idea of just how diverse early 1st century Judaism was and the nature of that diversity. Furthermore, our awareness of the diversity in 1st century Judaism actually has enhanced our understanding of the NT in its Jewish context (see, for example, G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation [Fortress, 2003], particularly chapter 7).
Furthermore, we go with what we know about the text: it claims to be set in a Jewish context, it claims that all the main characters are Jewish, it makes explicit reference to Jewish events, beliefs, views, etc. It makes repeated references and appeals to the Jewish Scripture.
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
I look to understanding the culture and views of early christians in informing my reading of the text, you look to the culture and views of Jews of an unspecified time to inform your reading of the text.
No, I’ve never said it was “of an unspecified time”! I refer to early first-century Palestinian Judaism.
OTOH, when you say “early christians” you primarily mean second-century Hellenistic christians.
On htis matter, are you talking concurrent and if so what are your sources? I have laid my sources before you and ask you to do the same. I am not happy with your vague appeal to authority. Also note that anyone can find an authority, the question is how far out is the person selected and what is the mainstream?
Is that in the same way as you provided sources in your review of recent Johannine scholarship above? I’m afraid I can’t get much more vague than that.
The primary sources include the NT documents (and in the case of discussing the meaning of the Supper this doesn’t simply reduce to begging the question by focussing only on the texts dealing with the Supper, but requires an analysis of the remainder of the NT), the DSS, the works of Josephus, among others. I’ve already pointed to a number of scholarly discussions of the significance of the Jewish background which inevitably discuss source material (including the primary sources I’ve cited) and its significance and understanding.
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
The word coherence comes from my belief that we arrive at a concurrence or coherent view with respect to a (constructed) historical narrative arising from available data. I say that the words of Paul 1 Corinthians 11:29 for example are suggestive of a belief in the real presence in the eucharist. I imagine you will argue that his use of the word body is metaphorical again, and that is a plausible reading, but as I have said before, plausible does not mean likely although many people confuse the two things. My reading is also plausible in the light of a belief in the real presence in the eucharist amongst early christians.
Which, as we’ve noted, is itself problematical when the “early christians” you refer to are actually second-century Hellenistic Christians to whom you appeal for an understanding of first-century Jewish Christians.
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
Can’t you see the flaw in your argument about appealing to a foreign text? I say the texts are more likely to be aligned because they are all from the cultural context of early christianity. You say they are foreign because they are not Jewish. But we are talking about Christians, not Jews.
No, in the gospels we’re talking about Jews. We’re talking about Jews who were expecting and waiting for the Messiah, God’s appointed Jewish king. Did the first Jewish christians think they were starting a new religion? No, of course not. For a time they continued to meet in synagogues. They continued to read the Jewish Scriptures. They struggled with understanding the place of their Jewish heritage within the framework of Jesus’ Messiahship. Many of them quite possibly conversed in Aramaic some of the time. Indeed, Paul lists his Jewish credentials, among them the fact that he was a Pharisee! As W. D. Davies notes, “Christianity in the New Testament is not a new, distinct religion over against Judaism but a new interpretation of Judaism in the light of Christ” (Christian Engagements with Judaism [Trinity Press International, 1999] p. 11). Davies’ book has considerable discussion of these issues, including the Jewish background to John’s gospel.
OTOH, you’re appealing to Hellenistic Christians whose “paradigm” was strongly influenced by their Hellenistic background, a paradigm which introduces significant changes to the understanding of the world which would clearly have impacted (and did impact) on their reading of the Bible.
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
All I can say is you read the bits of Paul that suit you and gloss over the bits that don’t suit. Verse 27 seems explicit to me that Paul sees the bread and wine as one and the same as the body and blood of christ. In verse 29 he talks about recognising the body.
Actually, I think you should read 1Cor 11 more literally than you. Verse 27 reads:
For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
What, literally, is “the body and blood of the Lord”? What are we supposed to be “remembering” (as Jesus commanded and Paul recorded in verse 25)? The death of Jesus! So when Paul says sharing in the Supper in an unworthy manner makes one guilty of the “body and blood” of the Lord, he really means the body and blood of the Lord on the cross, not the bread and wine which are employed “in rememberance” (v. 25).
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
I don’t think that I have little substantive evidence to offer. Rather I would be interested in finding out what would comprise evidence for you. Your position is unassailable. Any view that does not accord with yours is glossed over, shouted down, parodied or disparaged. How about you give me some evidence? Your presentation has been singularly lacking in that area.
That’s a fine tactic, John. Pot, kettle, black and all that. If you work your way through my posts you’ll see that I’ve presented the following points and more besides:
1. Based on your definition, the language appears metaphorical;
2. The means by which you counter this is dubious because you have had to impose foreign beliefs about religious language which result in an inconsistent reading of other events and give you carte blanche to interpret any religious language as meaning whatever you want it to.
3. Furthermore, there are a number of problems with reading it literally which I’ve enumerated.
4. Your response is simply to say that you accord the points little weight. Your main justification for this is to say that your reading of “early christians” (i.e. second century Hellenistic christians together with your tendentious reading of Paul and the gospels which really just begging the question) upholds your view.
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
If you are relying on a literature review, how about presenting the full range of positions and numbers of scholars in each position so that we can see where people lie generally. Furthermore any such study needs an elucidation of affiliations and relationships and the like to examine whether we are relying on a self referential group.
I’ve previously pointed to scholars who uphold the importance of understanding the Jewish background to the NT. But this is not the place to provide a bibliography, not to make appeals to authority of this sort. I am pointing to the text in order to discuss it. You claim to disagree with some aspects of RC doctrine, so I don’t understand why you’re uncomfortable assessing the text aside from appeals to authority.
As to the final paragraph, it appears we have a similar view of each other. As one way of looking at adherence to a particular paradigm, are there any of the 39 articles you disagree with? If the answer is no, then it may well be that you are an apologist for an ideology. From my point of view I disagree with a number of areas of Catholic belief but accept others based on my own assessment. On this basis I cannot be represented as an apologist for Catholicism. On the matter of the real presence I align with Catholic orthodoxy.
And what would it take to change your mind about the nature of the Lord’s Supper? From where I sit it looks a lot as though there is nothing that would make you question your beliefs, because you assign little weight to anything that doesn’t fit with your preconceptions about the Supper.
Since you asked about the 39 Articles, I’ve looked them up. Where shall I start?
Article I says God is “without body, parts, or passions.” Well, I take exception to “without passions” for a start because that doesn’t correspond to what the Bible tells us about God.
Article III, I know there are rationalisations for this, but I disagree with the assertion that Christ descended into Hell.
I could probably go on, but perhaps that’s sufficient to invalidate your assumption that I’m beholden to some tacit credal system which unduly influences my understanding of the Bible. I’m sure you’ll continue to assume that I am possessed by such a demon, in spite of the fact that I’ve never made appeal to such a system of belief and instead pointed to arguments based directly from the text of Scripture and from the historical context of Scripture.
Let’s face it, even if I do agree with some identity from within church history, that is no basis for writing off my views (to do so is to commit the genetic fallacy).
John Charles Storer - 05 September 2008 08:47 PM
Just one more thing, what are your beliefs on baptism? Using your approach, John could also be read as metaphorical on the matter of baptism. Do you favour that reading or do you have a sacramental view of baptism?
No, I believe that in baptism people literally do get wet.
I found this link, which i am sure, Catholic supporters will say is a poor link etc. But maybe a learned Catholic squire would like to disprove the list?
Here are some of the questions for example, (the list is more extensive)
1: If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the “Holy See” have known?
2: If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple?
3: If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
4: If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
5: Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”, does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
6: Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
7: If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
8: Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
9: Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
10: Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?
11: If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
12: Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
13: How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
14: If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, “this is my blood” and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, “fruit of the vine”. If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as “fruit of the vine’ but rather “blood”. This proves that when Jesus said “take eat & drink” he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.
In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord’s Supper as “eat this bread and drink the cup” in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, “bread” after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the “change” was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf “bread” rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the “cup was the covenant”. So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood?
In 1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to “drink the cup” instead of “drink the blood”. The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as “synecdoche” (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place. To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.
The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.
1: If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the “Holy See” have known?
Response :The Catholic church has never rejected in any formal definition that the Books of James and Hebrews were not scriptural. granted befoire definition of the Canon various Church Fathers speculated as to the inspiration of certain books. Inded Martin luther wished to reject the book of James.
2: If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple?
Response:The Orthodox church or churches is a schismatic body, who have rejected the successor of Peter..they have no guarantee of doctrinal infallibility.
3: If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
Response :Heretical groups, but not the Catholic Church proferred their respective canons.
4: If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
Response: all these councils were later accepted and sanctioned by the Bishop of Rome.
5: Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”, does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
Response: Yes it does, because Rome’s seal of approval was needed. or the Council is void.
6: Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
Response : Carthage and Hippo were nver to come nder the spiritual rule of the Orthodox as the Muslim Arabs swept through North Africa in the seventh century and totally eradicated these bishops.
7: If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
Response: All that occured at Trent was a re-affirmation of the previous position...and the definitions of the fourth century included the deutero-canonical books.
8: Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
Response: You should accept the Church which has the only valid claim to having the confirmer of the brethren, the feeder of te lambs and sheep, and the key bearer of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven as its leader.
9: Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
Response :The Church teaches that all doctrines can be found implicitly in the written word of God...implicity in Scripture and explicitly in tradition we have infant baptism..another one would be the perpetual Virginity of The Blessed Virgin Mary.
10: Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?
Revelation :Gods revelation in written word and tradition never contradicts its self
11: If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
Response: the Catholic Church has only definitively pronounced on certain texts..and we are free to read the Bibl ,as long as our conclusions do not contradict the Church.
12: Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
Response: That is a question for Rabbinic Judaism..but they needed to thwart the Christians who used the Septuagint...and that is why the Council of Jamnia was called.
13: How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
Response: the Jews belived in the living authority of the Rabbis from the chair ( seat )of Moses..a.n authority our Lord respected.
14: If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in
Response..the orthodox cchurch is not protected by the charism of infallibility. ..that is why they are wrong on the procession of the Holy Ghost, accept divorce and re-marriage and contraception.There are no theological errors taught by Popes ex cathedra over the centuries..examine each case and you will find they all are spurious allegations. Popes in their private views can be wrong.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, “this is my blood” and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, “fruit of the vine”. If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as “fruit of the vine’ but rather “blood”.
Response:In Corinthians the word bread is used to describe the consectated elements. the same is not true of the wine. whch is referred to as the cup.you can not have a valid Mass without the correct elements. the accidents renmain, but the substance has changed.
In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord’s Supper as “eat this bread and drink the cup” in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, “bread” after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the “change” was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf “bread” rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
Response :I feel my response to the first question covers this. “The bread which we break is it not a communion in the body of Christ.”
In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the “cup was the covenant”. So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood?
Rsponse: The Blood.
In 1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to “drink the cup” instead of “drink the blood”. The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as “synecdoche” (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place. To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable.
Response : the questioner seems to know the mind of the Holy Spirit! the exact quote tells us if we drink the cup OR eat the bread unworthily we bring judgement on our selves and are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.
response.: his body and bloodwere present in pevenient form.God is outside time.
The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.
response:No way..all these writers teach that the bread and wime were not symbols but changed:The Church Fathers took the Bible at face value when reading these passages. In summarizing the teachings of the Fathers on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly writes: Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).This was the case right from the beginning, when we encounter the first references in the Fathers to Christ’s relationship to the Eucharist. Kelly says, Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . .
Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity (ibid., 197-8).
Hippolytus speaks of the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’
The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water.
Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally (ibid., 211-2).
Ignatius of Antioch :I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr:We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus:If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood? (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]).He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flo
Ken
You must have had an inkling that your source was a little suspect. The so-called ‘irrefutable’ claims by this ‘sect’ just highlight what utter nonsense people choose to believe about the Catholic Church. They are so desperate to prove they are wrong they will use any tactic. It is one thing to accuse a person of something, but not to show evidence for that claim is negligent. Look at point 1. The claim is that ‘Rome’ rejected certain books. Where is the evidence for this. In fact, all the points raised are just fabricated lies and provide no references to back anything they say. I had a look at the site and read the claims. Perhaps you could use more reputable protestant scholars to give weight to your position.
So far all you have provided is sensational and provocative claims against the Catholic Church. Perhaps you could provide a more thought out position which could be taken more seriously.
Anyway, I thought you were over debating Catholic/Protestant differences.
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.
report bugs
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi