JVAC said:
As a student of language, I have noted that languages are very different. Not only in wording and word order, but in the meanings of words, and how they are placed, and why they are placed.
Okay.
JVAC said:
In English we have certain writting conventions we take fourteen years of schooling to learn. Then we go on to advanced learning where we learn even more. The same is true in other languages. We cannot assume that the way we do things in English is the same way they do things in that language. That is like going to Japan and walking in to a house with shoes on, whereas here it would be fine, but there it is an insult. Customs and traditions function the same as writing styles and idioms, we cannot assume that our English way of writting and reading holds fast to another culture, especially one as ancient and far off as 70 AD (again I say CE is stupid) in the city of Antioch or the like.
You are how old? Waaayyyy too smart for your age.
JVAC said:
This is why we have pastors and such, so they can research the culture and context of the texts and explain them better to us. We are able to grasp simple concepts, but when it comes to Real PResence and Trinitarian theology we are at a loss. It's not that God doesn't want you to understand it is just that to understand you need to give God's word much more time and thought.
Okay.
JVAC said:
Reading the English Bible is great! However, when we come to think of that is how it was written with that intended message we are leading ourselves astray. We must always keep researching context, tradition and culture to truly understand the message of the Evangelists and Paul, Peter, James and Jude (John is considered an Evangelist).
James, I really don't know how exactly to respond to your argument above. Clearly I am not a student of language, while you are quite knowledgeable on the subject. But, you are arguing based upon the use of the Greek word which translated into the word "is" in our English Bible. Fine, I can't even begin to debate with you on that issue. So, I'm not even going to try to continue in that direction.
I do appreciate the information you are sharing with me. However, I'm going to approach the discussion form another direction. While you are focusing on the fact Christ said, "This
is my body/blood," I'm focusing on
what Christ is saying the bread is. He says, " . . . this is my
body" and "this is my
blood." He doesn't say, "This is
me," nor does He mention His "spirit." Now, giving your above argument validity, that the Greek word, which is now translated into "is," excludes metaphorical or symbollic meaning,
if Christ had said, "This is
me," then your argument would be more convincing. But, by limiting the identification of the "bread and wine" to
only His "Body and Blood," without mention of His spirit or soul, indicates
to me (at least) that He is not saying that the "bread and wine" become Him--The Real Presence.
Where does the theology that His spirit is also present come from? What is the basis for that?
