New Posts  All Forums:
 

No crib for a bed - Page 3

post #41 of 55
9/23/09 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd View Post
RSV or NRSV?
I am almost positive it is NRSV, but I will verify that when I get home tonight.
Sponsored Links
post #42 of 55
9/23/09 at 10:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adele_Mommy View Post
I will now admit to being totally confused. I was aware that Catholics and some other Christians believe the Eucharist literally becomes the body and blood of Christ - that it is physically transformed in some way undetectable by our current science. I am also familiar with the symbolism of Jesus as a (sacrificial) lamb.
Christ just isn't symbolized by the lamb that's the Passover sacrifice - he *is* the Paschal lamb. The unblemished lamb sacrificed on Passover was a type of Christ - but He is the perfect sacrifice - and the final one. After Christ sacrificed Himself for us, there is no longer any need for sacrifices, such as were done in the Jerusalem Temple.
post #43 of 55
9/23/09 at 11:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adele_Mommy View Post
I am almost positive it is NRSV, but I will verify that when I get home tonight.
I was wrong, my Bible is RSV. It is The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha Revised Standard Version Containing the Second Edition of the New Testament and an Expanded Edition of the Apocrypha.

Sorry about the error.
post #44 of 55
9/24/09 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adele_Mommy View Post
Given that perspective, I know it was not the Gospel authors' intent to use the manger to symbolize the Eucharist because the Eucharist did not exist in its modern form at the time the Gospels were being written.
Could you be more specific in what way you mean the form was different and what that indicates to you?

Quote:
For example, Matthew 1:23 states "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" This is a direct reference to Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" So Luke explicitly states that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin (see Lk 1:27 and 1:34) to demonstrate that Jesus fulfills this prophecy. What is interesting is that the word in Isaiah can also be translated as "girl" or "young woman", so the author of Isaiah may not even have intended to say the messiah would be born of a virgin anyway.
I have heard this argument before. However it seems unlikely to me that the intent was simply that Mary was an unmarried girl, even from a purely scriptural perspective. If she were in fact sexually active, it doesn't seem likely to me that she would have been surprised at having conceived, whereas she seems to have indicated in her conversation with the angel that she thought that was impossible.
post #45 of 55
9/24/09 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
Could you be more specific in what way you mean the form was different and what that indicates to you?
The Eucharist developed from The Last Supper and at first that is all it was. Very early Christians would have a communal meal in their homes to commemorate The Last Supper and remember Jesus. The Eucharist did not become the center of Mass until sometime around 150 CE. This indicates to me that the author of Luke could not possibly have intended to use the baby in the manger to symbolize The Eucharist because no reader of his Gospel that he could imagine would recognize the symbol. It would make no sense whatsoever to the audience of the time. The original "Lord's Supper" was basically a bunch of underground Christian rebels getting together for a meal, possibly a meeting, and maybe even a party. See 1 Cor 11:17-22 where Paul is appalled that everyone just goes ahead and eats and some people even get drunk. There is a theory that there is a connection between the Agave Feast or "Love Feast" and the Eucharist, and possibly the Eucharist was moved out of people's homes and into the church in part to make it more of a ritual and less of a social gathering. The idea was that when followers of Jesus held these meals Jesus was among them in spirit. They were not eating Jesus, there was clearly no transformation/transubstantiation because there was no real ritual, and the idea that these parties could be symbolized by putting a baby in a feed trough is simply inconceivable to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
I have heard this argument before. However it seems unlikely to me that the intent was simply that Mary was an unmarried girl, even from a purely scriptural perspective. If she were in fact sexually active, it doesn't seem likely to me that she would have been surprised at having conceived, whereas she seems to have indicated in her conversation with the angel that she thought that was impossible.
I think you must have misunderstood my point. I did not say the intent of the Gospels was to say the Mary was simply an unmarried girl. In fact, I said the opposite. Here is a direct quote from my prior post: "So Luke explicitly states that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin" My point was that the reason Luke does this is so that Jesus will be a fulfillment of the prophecy he was familiar with regarding a coming messiah. The author of Luke is interpreting his sacred texts and then putting symbolism and "facts" in the Gospel that he knows his audience will recognize and understand because they were also familiar with those earlier texts. Yes, it is totally likely that if a virgin got pregnant she would be rather surprised. That is undoubtedly why the author of Luke put that in there. However, most likely the author of Isaiah did not intend to prophecy a virgin giving birth because he would have known that would be, well, impossible. Luke's interpretation of the prophecy is (possibly) a misinterpretation.

My greater point in including the example in the first place was that the symbolism used by the author of Luke was designed to represent things from earlier writings, knowledge of Jesus' life, and practices at the time Luke was writing. The Eucharist as a ritual of Mass did not get put into place until 70-80 years after Luke was writing, so it cannot have been the author's intent to use the manger to symbolize it. As I said before though, like Luke, people today are free to interpret or misinterpret sacred texts written earlier. Just like the author of Luke almost certainly thought the prophecy in Isaiah meant an actual virgin had to give birth and it is possible that this was a misconception, readers of the Bible today can think the manger represents The Eucharist, but I believe this to be a misinterpretation.
post #46 of 55
9/24/09 at 3:41pm
Quote:
However, most likely the author of Isaiah did not intend to prophecy a virgin giving birth because he would have known that would be, well, impossible.
I bet it was more of a case of Isaiah knowing the same God I know and would have known that God was the God who makes impossible circumstances possible. Thinking back to Abraham and the fact that Sarah concieved in her old age which was also impossible, along with all the other impossible circumstances scripture records along those same lines. The fact of the immaculate conception being EXTRA special bc Mary was to be carrying the Savior of the world and her being a virgin made the circumstances extra special also. So I disagree with ya there. Isaiah knew he was talking about a virgin birth and that it was impossible but he said it anyway... bc I also know God told him to say it... ie Scripture has been inspired by God, which I know you already stated that you explicitly do not believe to be true, which I respect as your personal opinion but I disagree. I believe, know, have come to confidently understand that the bible has been inspired by God, all of it. Its not something that can really be argued with scientific methods and I understand we'd have to respectfully agree to disagree, but yeah, I believe they all knew what they were writing, there are no misinterpretations there.
post #47 of 55
9/24/09 at 7:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adele_Mommy View Post
The Eucharist developed from The Last Supper and at first that is all it was. Very early Christians would have a communal meal in their homes to commemorate The Last Supper and remember Jesus. The Eucharist did not become the center of Mass until sometime around 150 CE. This indicates to me that the author of Luke could not possibly have intended to use the baby in the manger to symbolize The Eucharist because no reader of his Gospel that he could imagine would recognize the symbol. It would make no sense whatsoever to the audience of the time. The original "Lord's Supper" was basically a bunch of underground Christian rebels getting together for a meal, possibly a meeting, and maybe even a party. See 1 Cor 11:17-22 where Paul is appalled that everyone just goes ahead and eats and some people even get drunk. There is a theory that there is a connection between the Agave Feast or "Love Feast" and the Eucharist, and possibly the Eucharist was moved out of people's homes and into the church in part to make it more of a ritual and less of a social gathering. The idea was that when followers of Jesus held these meals Jesus was among them in spirit. They were not eating Jesus, there was clearly no transformation/transubstantiation because there was no real ritual, and the idea that these parties could be symbolized by putting a baby in a feed trough is simply inconceivable to me.




I think you must have misunderstood my point. I did not say the intent of the Gospels was to say the Mary was simply an unmarried girl. In fact, I said the opposite. Here is a direct quote from my prior post: "So Luke explicitly states that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin" My point was that the reason Luke does this is so that Jesus will be a fulfillment of the prophecy he was familiar with regarding a coming messiah. The author of Luke is interpreting his sacred texts and then putting symbolism and "facts" in the Gospel that he knows his audience will recognize and understand because they were also familiar with those earlier texts. Yes, it is totally likely that if a virgin got pregnant she would be rather surprised. That is undoubtedly why the author of Luke put that in there. However, most likely the author of Isaiah did not intend to prophecy a virgin giving birth because he would have known that would be, well, impossible. Luke's interpretation of the prophecy is (possibly) a misinterpretation.

My greater point in including the example in the first place was that the symbolism used by the author of Luke was designed to represent things from earlier writings, knowledge of Jesus' life, and practices at the time Luke was writing. The Eucharist as a ritual of Mass did not get put into place until 70-80 years after Luke was writing, so it cannot have been the author's intent to use the manger to symbolize it. As I said before though, like Luke, people today are free to interpret or misinterpret sacred texts written earlier. Just like the author of Luke almost certainly thought the prophecy in Isaiah meant an actual virgin had to give birth and it is possible that this was a misconception, readers of the Bible today can think the manger represents The Eucharist, but I believe this to be a misinterpretation.
Ah-ha, I see what you are getting at. However, I don't see why you conclude that because the form of the Eucharist was different than what exists now that the substance of the belief about it was essentially different. (I am not saying there has been no development of doctrine - transubstantiation which you mentioned would be one such development which came much later, and only to some parts of the Church.) But all of the early texts seem to me to indicate that the idea of what would now be called the Real Presence was a very early one which predates Scripture.

I find the idea about the prophesy even less convincing, even ignoring the possibility that he was actually given some kind of special revelation. A virgin giving birth seems like just the sort of thing one might describe for a miraculous or important event. After all, he likely also believed that God had intervened to make a woman pregnant long after her fertile years were over.
post #48 of 55
9/25/09 at 9:55pm
Thread Starter 
The idea of the manger symbolizing Jesus as food does have the feel of something that was added later. It is a lovely symbol, though, and of course a subsequent gospel writer would put the words "I am the bread of life" into Jesus' mouth. This reminds me of catechism class growing up (Lutheran- do other denominations have a catechism?? I don't know!)- two of my classmates were fascinated with the question of what happens during holy communion, and I honestly could not have cared less. That one still fails to grab me. It's interesting how certain aspects of a faith tradition will have deep meaning to some and hold no interest to others. That's why it's awesome to discuss these things with other people!
post #49 of 55
9/26/09 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrsmom View Post
The idea of the manger symbolizing Jesus as food does have the feel of something that was added later. It is a lovely symbol, though, and of course a subsequent gospel writer would put the words "I am the bread of life" into Jesus' mouth. This reminds me of catechism class growing up (Lutheran- do other denominations have a catechism?? I don't know!)- two of my classmates were fascinated with the question of what happens during holy communion, and I honestly could not have cared less. That one still fails to grab me. It's interesting how certain aspects of a faith tradition will have deep meaning to some and hold no interest to others. That's why it's awesome to discuss these things with other people!
See bolded above - that's where we're going to have to agree to disagree. The Orthodox and Catholics don't believe "words were put into Jesus' mouth" but that Christ actually spoke those words.

Both traditions (Orthodox and Catholic) also agree (and this dates from a very early time) that the OT prophecies about Christ and such were meant to not only refer to something contemporary to when they were written, but to foreshadow Christ - not that the foreshadowing was something folks came up with much latter.

As for what happens during the consecration of the bread and wine (Orthodox use *only* leavened bread, BTW, Catholics unleavened), the Orthodox simply say it's becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. The explanations come on the Catholic side - the incidents and accidents of transubstantiation come form medieval scholasticism and so forth, as far as I can tell from my reading. The Orthodox call it a "mystery" and leave it at that. Also, the "when" are the "Words of Institution" in Catholicism ("This is My Body...This is My Blood), while in Orthodoxy, the whole Anaphora (Eucharistic prayer) ending with the Epiclesis (calling down of the Holy Spirit) is the "when."
post #50 of 55
9/27/09 at 9:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd View Post
See bolded above - that's where we're going to have to agree to disagree. The Orthodox and Catholics don't believe "words were put into Jesus' mouth" but that Christ actually spoke those words.
No problem! Naturally not everyone is going to agree on these things! I was making the point that the idea of Jesus as "food" appears other places. Whether he said those words himself, or his disciples were so amazed with the God they encountered in Jesus and "put those words into his mouth" isn't important to my point. I personally need that reminder all the time to eat spiritual food!
post #51 of 55
9/28/09 at 4:01am
thanks for posting this thread.
post #52 of 55
10/23/09 at 10:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lollybrat View Post
There is another religious significance for Catholics and other Christians who believe in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist. The image of the infant Jesus in the manger ("feed box") preshadows the teaching that His flesh is real food for the faithful. It is a beautiful image.
I was going to say the same thing! That was the interpretation I was always taught. Our Lord is the Bread of Life, and the manger gave food to the lowliest creatures, and Our Lord came to save everyone, even the lowly.
post #53 of 55
10/23/09 at 10:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd View Post
Christ just isn't symbolized by the lamb that's the Passover sacrifice - he *is* the Paschal lamb. The unblemished lamb sacrificed on Passover was a type of Christ - but He is the perfect sacrifice - and the final one. After Christ sacrificed Himself for us, there is no longer any need for sacrifices, such as were done in the Jerusalem Temple.
He was also the High Priest, as only the High Priest could sacrifice the Pascal Lamb.
Remember, also, the Christ was the fulfillment of the covenant- the Word made flesh (prefigured in the Arc of the Covenant by the 10 Commandments), High Priest (prefigured in the Arc of the Covenant by the Rod of Aaron), and the Bread of Life (prefigured in the Arc of the Covenant by the manna which kept the Israelites alive in the desert)

Personally, I find all the symbolism in the Gospels fascinating, especially the symbolism that reflects the Old Testament and the Nativity Narrations.
post #54 of 55
10/23/09 at 11:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove View Post
Personally, I find all the symbolism in the Gospels fascinating, especially the symbolism that reflects the Old Testament and the Nativity Narrations.
Me too!
post #55 of 55
11/18/09 at 3:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd View Post
See, both Catholics and Orthodox (not speaking for any Protestant groups here) believe that the bread and wine offered at the Eucharist *are* the Body and Blood of Christ. So, yes, we do eat His flesh.

See John 6:30-60.

The interpretation surrounding the manger is not one I've come across in reading the Church Fathers, but it's not offensive. Makes a kind of sense.
I'm Catholic and have often heard this interpretation of the "manger."