The Bible (Page 9)

Well, we're born with original sin, hense the need for infant baptism.

But no, we aren't culpable for a sin unless we understand what it is we're doing.  Sinning requires a grave act, full knowledge of the act, and free will in performing the act.  A child under the age of reason hasn't developed enough cognitively to meet this standard.

The age of reason has traditionally been held to be around the seventh year or so.  That seems about right. That seems to be about the time in a child's development when they start to understand moral equations.

wabash - 2009-05-29 3:12 PM
such scrutiny.    ive said that some of the bible is poetic.  some in parables.  some history.  and it is to be read literally.  not subjectively.

Ah, but poetry is almost never literal. 

wurkit_gurl - 2009-05-29 2:15 PM

wabash - 2009-05-29 3:12 PM
such scrutiny.    ive said that some of the bible is poetic.  some in parables.  some history.  and it is to be read literally.  not subjectively.

Ah, but poetry is almost never literal. 

Stop it.  I mean it.

Anybody want a peanut.

Lutherans and Catholics agree about WHAT happens in the Eucharist, that Jesus is truly present (and substantially if we are to use the Aristotelian metaphysical categories) in the bread and the wine.  Lutherans simply do not want to limit the explanation to one non-scriptural explanation.  We don't feel the need to talk about HOW Jesus becomes present.  Had Aquinas and Luther been able to talk, there would have been no disagreement, I believe.  Transubstantiation, particularly the substance language changed over the course of a couple of centuries, so by the time of Luther, it was looking different from Aquinas' time.   It is enough for us to trust Jesus is not lying when he says, "This is my body... This is my blood."  But there is certainly some transformation that occurs over the course of the Eucharistic prayer so that Jesus is truly present FOR US, that is present to forgive sins, build and nourish faith, bring about salvation as we take these elements.

Yes, that's right. Mary needed a Savior.

It turns out that apparently, our Savior also needed Mary.

Consider what akustix said in an earlier post about eternal life being about living in a new physical reality. (and I'm not speaking for Brian here about his take on Mary. It's just that what he posted struck me deeply and has been with me through the day)

If the Eschaton is that we are to live a bodily existence in an eternal union with God, then perhaps Mary offers us some very deep insight into the nature of that union.

After all, Mary's flesh literally united with the Holy Spirit, and from that union Jesus was conceived.

That my dear brother in Christ is a very big deal.

Just mediate on that and consider it in the context of being yourself a human, the highest of God's creatures.  Through Mariology, the study of how we come to know God through Mary, I've gained a deeper understanding of my own humanity and how it is connected to God.

Mary is a creature, to be sure. But what creature is more important in Salvation history than Mary? None that I can think of.

As a side note, for those who mistakinly equate the Catholic Church with misogyny, please consider this. Of all of God's creatures, none is considered more important than Mary, a woman.  Just consider that perhaps the development of women's rights, which historically sprung up within Western Christian culture, may have had it's roots in this fact.

spanks much, Preach

I keep hoping that some theologian with a PhD in physics will turn up soon and write about the Eucharist from the perspective of string theory.

Mary was discarded in the aftermath of the Reformation, even though Luther never did... while we might have some issues with Mary still, there is a movement to reclaim Mary's proper place in the Church... she is the prototype for all Christians.  her assent to God's will "let it be with me as you will..." should be ours as well... as to her sinless nature I cannot hold... but I can pray almost the entire Hail Mary since it is scriptural... the last line is the deal breaker for me... I cannot ask her to pray for me (that is to intercede on behalf of me for my salvation, as if she has some extra power to effect it).  If we were to alter the last line "pray WITH us sinners now and at the hour of our death," I could because the saints do indeed pray with us.  We are a koinonia without bounds in time and space after all. 

While it might have some apologetic value for moderns (as substance langugage did for Aquinas), we must still object if it were elevated to doctrine... if transubstantiation had never been elevated to doctrinal status and left on par with Augustine's discussions of the eucharist, then fine.  As soon as it is codified in canon law... object. But as pious description... fine.

wabash -

such scrutiny.    ive said that some of the bible is poetic.  some in parables.  some history.  and it is to be read literally.  not subjectively.

OK, that's clearer for me. I undersand you better now. Thanks.

The Council of Trent?

I don't know much about the Council of Trent.  I don't know much about the Reformation, actually. (I did know that Luther held Mary in high esteem.)

What would you recommend as a good primer on the Reformation from a Lutheran point of view?

I'll pray for you.

Bripod - 2009-05-29 2:24 PM

wurkit_gurl - 2009-05-29 2:15 PM

wabash - 2009-05-29 3:12 PM
such scrutiny.    ive said that some of the bible is poetic.  some in parables.  some history.  and it is to be read literally.  not subjectively.

Ah, but poetry is almost never literal. 

Ah crap, what am I still doing reading these emails?! I think what Wabash is trying to say is that the parts that are literal - you take them literally. The parts that are poetic - you take them poetically. The parts that are hyperbole - you take them as hyperbole. The parts that are sarcastic - you take them sarcastically. Nobody honestly thought Jesus meant he was a huge chunk of wood when he said "I am the door of the sheep" in John 10:7. Nobody thinks that Jesus is a giant female chicken when he says "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." in Matthew 23:23/Luke 13:34. The general idea is that you don't take a literal passage and say that it's poetic - it literally is literal [Genesis 1, for example]. Same with a poetic passage - you don't take it as literal, you literally take it as poetic. That's why I think people misunderstand what "taking the Bible literally" actually means. We still make use of the literal styles inside of it [hyperbole, poetry, sarcasm], but we don't go off the deep end on things like the examples listed above. The Greek language is such an exact language - way more exact than English could ever hope to be - and understanding how sentence structures and repetition means something different from other structures, etc.

True, but wasn't the original language Aramaic that was then translated into Latin?  And from what I understand about Aramaic and even Hebrew today, is that it is/was terribly inexact?

ETA: Changed Roman to Latin.  DUH!

Bripod - 2009-05-29 3:08 PM

crowny2 - 2009-05-29 2:58 PM

Bripod - 2009-05-29 2:24 PM

wurkit_gurl - 2009-05-29 2:15 PM

wabash - 2009-05-29 3:12 PM
such scrutiny.    ive said that some of the bible is poetic.  some in parables.  some history.  and it is to be read literally.  not subjectively.

Ah, but poetry is almost never literal. 

Ah crap, what am I still doing reading these emails?! I think what Wabash is trying to say is that the parts that are literal - you take them literally. The parts that are poetic - you take them poetically. The parts that are hyperbole - you take them as hyperbole. The parts that are sarcastic - you take them sarcastically. Nobody honestly thought Jesus meant he was a huge chunk of wood when he said "I am the door of the sheep" in John 10:7. Nobody thinks that Jesus is a giant female chicken when he says "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." in Matthew 23:23/Luke 13:34. The general idea is that you don't take a literal passage and say that it's poetic - it literally is literal [Genesis 1, for example]. Same with a poetic passage - you don't take it as literal, you literally take it as poetic. That's why I think people misunderstand what "taking the Bible literally" actually means. We still make use of the literal styles inside of it [hyperbole, poetry, sarcasm], but we don't go off the deep end on things like the examples listed above. The Greek language is such an exact language - way more exact than English could ever hope to be - and understanding how sentence structures and repetition means something different from other structures, etc.

True, but wasn't the original language Aramaic that was then translated into Latin?  And from what I understand about Aramaic and even Hebrew today, is that it is/was terribly inexact?

ETA: Changed Roman to Latin.  DUH!

Some of it was Aramaic [Cephas was Peter's Aramaic name, after all], some Hebrew. The entire NT is Greek, since that was the language of the day. Greek is the most precise of all the languages of the Bible, but Hebrew is pretty precise as well. The people of those times were very good at getting things across without punctuation, capitalization, bold, italics, etc. We dunces of today have to rely on a sarc font in order that we don't get lambasted and taken too seriously! As far as it being translated into different languages, that has been going on basically ever since there was written language, but Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek are the originals as I understand them. At one point the Old Testament was translated into Greek - you might have heard the term "Septuagint" or seen the letters "LXX" which is just a reference to the Greek translation of the OT. The manuscript evidence comes from several different languages as the manuscripts themselves were written during different time periods and in different regions.

Thank you sir.  Learn something new every day. 

That is pretty cool stuff.

Why would the use of Cephas indicate such an early manuscript?  Is it that the Greek usage "Peter" just wouldn't have developed yet?