the_classicist

Joined

• started 62 topics
• posted 2,005 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by the_classicist

• 
  71

  What's Your Status? Christian, Pagan, "I Don't Know", "I Don't Care"??

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  just curious......

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Christian, but not a very good one.
• 
  63

  Early Christian Worship

  by the_classicist in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i think ~150 a.d. is early enough for debunking any wt position: .

  "and this food is called among us eukaristia [the eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as christ has enjoined.

  for not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as jesus christ our saviour, having been made flesh by the word of god, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that jesus who was made flesh.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Considering Paul's claim to have received his eucharist ideas by 'revelation' it again seems a desperate grasp to postulate he got it from his predecessors just so as to favor an entirely Jewish origin.

  It again seems to be a desperate grasp to claim that St. Paul invented his Eucharistic theology from a vision. Obviously, this teaching of St. Paul wasn't new for he says thus: "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you" (1 Cor. 11:23). Paul claims the Eucharistic doctrine not from revelation in terms of a vision or voice, but through reception. Indeed if St. Paul had had an explicit vision or supernatural source of revelation, 1) one would expect (though, this is far from conditional) that there would be an apocryphal work telling us about the vision or at least some sort of early Christian legend such as those about St. Clement of Rome and 2) that the other Apostles in St. Paul's region, such as St. John or St. Peter, would have a problem with St. Paul's revisionist history; and if not the other Apostles themselves, at least the disciples of the Apostles, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, who as the disciple of St. John and wrote relatively extensively on the Christological nature of the Eucharist at the beginning of the second century.

  From "Primitive" and "Pauline" Concepts of the Eucharist, by Gerard S. Sloyan (Catholic Biblical Quarterly 23.1):

  One accepts as proved the arguments of Allo, Jeremias (p. 129; cf. n. 15, infra) and Cullman ("The Tradition," in The Early Church [London: SCM Press, 1956] 63f) that parelabon (apo tou kyriou) 'o kai paredoka 'ymin of 1 Cor. 11,23 is simply the rabbinic formula qibbel min and masar le translated, the kai requiring that the tradition shall have been received just as it was passed on, namely through human mediation.

  Within the context of the Epistle, it is clear that he is correcting abuses at Corinth and reminding them of things taught, not simply introducing new ideas. Of course, there is the possibility that he was elucidating previously taught doctrine.

  It seems to me that a great deal of stretching goes on through efforts to claim exclusively Jewish origins for every aspect of primitive Christianity, especially when there existed nonJewish practice that bears much closer resemblance and intercultural contact is well documented

  It is not that every aspect of primitive Christianity has to have Jewish origins, it is the belief that the doctrines of Christianity came from Christ and then from the Apostles, not through borrowing or personal invention.
• 
  5

  Common mistakes of JWs & born again Christians

  by jaffacake in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i would welcome views please, especially from those who don't rule out the relevance of scriptures.

  i used to think christians & jws had almost nothing in common, and that can be true in terms of how they treat people.

  but i do believe some in both groups have made the same kind of mistakes with the bible.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  The mistake of the JWs and all Protestants is to use the bible alone. The Bible must be interpreted within Apostolic Tradition, which is not only a Catholic doctrine, but also an Orthodox one.
• 
  8

  THE STEREOTYPICAL APOSTATE ACCORDING TO JW'S.

  by GetBusyLiving in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  how about we let loose and spit up frothing at the mouth fury like the imaginary apostate's the j-dubs think we are?

  "get the hell out of my universe you god fearing animal's!!!

  there is no jehovah!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  I've found apostates, in JW literature, to be described as drug users, alcholics, and promiscuous (sp?).
• 
  9

  Windows Vista Beta 1 now available for download !

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  formerly known as windows "longhorn".

  http://www.windowsvista.com/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  And how can us normals get our hands on it... legally?
• 
  63

  Early Christian Worship

  by the_classicist in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i think ~150 a.d. is early enough for debunking any wt position: .

  "and this food is called among us eukaristia [the eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as christ has enjoined.

  for not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as jesus christ our saviour, having been made flesh by the word of god, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that jesus who was made flesh.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  I wonder if one isn't retroactively imposing an orthodox view on something that wasn't though in this particular case?

  That could very well be. I must say, though, that I do not think that it is very probable for St. Paul to invent the words of institution and someone else inserted it into the Gospels (and as peacefulpete's link noted, they must've done a really crappy job considering they didn't change the Gospel of John to fit their theology).
• 
  26

  Orders from Sith

  by kls in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the all mighty sith/ robbie has informed me that i must include him in my 7000 post or he will spank my butt .

  so i do this post under duress for fear of haveing a sore hinny.

  not yet stupid 2 more

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  congrats. O, 7000 post monkey, um... poster!
• 
  26

  Orders from Sith

  by kls in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the all mighty sith/ robbie has informed me that i must include him in my 7000 post or he will spank my butt .

  so i do this post under duress for fear of haveing a sore hinny.

  not yet stupid 2 more

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Post 2 more then, eh.
• 
  63

  Early Christian Worship

  by the_classicist in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i think ~150 a.d. is early enough for debunking any wt position: .

  "and this food is called among us eukaristia [the eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as christ has enjoined.

  for not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as jesus christ our saviour, having been made flesh by the word of god, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that jesus who was made flesh.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  First Mr. Morse is a dentist who believes in supernatural psychic mubo jumbo but anyway his comment reflects the standard Christian casual denial.

  I'm not here to defend this Dr. Morse fellow, but if you actually read the entire paper you would find that A) it's not a Christian work and B) it's researched well. I judge a work on it's own merits, not an ad hominem attack.

  There is no jewish precedent for a savior's body being ingested

  (off on a tangent: I'm wondering if the concept of ingesting a saviour is from Roman Mithraism or Iranian Mithraism, and whether or not it is a result of Cumont's scholarship). I would disagree that Judaism has no precedent for a saviour's body being ingested. As I stated above, the Eucharist is prefigured by the Passover. The slaughter of the lamb and it's eating had salvific connotations with the Jews, indeed, all types of sacrifices were salvific in nature as they forgave sins or averted disaster (in the case of the Exodus 12 narrative).

  I also noticed there was some take with regards to 1 Corinthians. Here's an excerpt from an article I found (The Eucharist and the Mystery Religions by John McConnell; Catholic Biblical Quarterly 10.1):

  Paul's object in this part of the Epistle (cc. 11-14) is to restore the liturgical traditions common to all the churches founded by him. It is not therefore likely that he invented such traditions in the early days of his apostolate...

  It is hardly probable that Paul desired to lay any stress on the fact that he himself had received the same Eucharistic doctrine that he taught. And when we compare the paralabon apo tou kyriou ho kai paredoka of our text with the extremely close parallel text of the same Epistle, the paredoka... ho kai parelabon in 15:1.3, which certainly makes Paul a link in that chain of apostolic tradition regarding the Resurrection, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that he is using the same words in the same way with regard to the institution of the Eucharist.

  that the symbols there aren't linked with the body and blood of the christ.

  I'll cover two things at once. Yes the Didache is a Jewish-Christian work. The lack of the words of institution could be a result of the fact that the Jewish Christians found such a cannabalistic ritualism to be unpallatible. Catholic scholars tend to hold that the prayers in the Didache are thanksgiving after consecration and after communion. There would seem to be *some* evidence for this as the first prayer over the bread is "with respect to the fragment of bread," suggesting that it had already been broken into pieces. Now during the words of institution, Jesus is said to take bread into his hands, bread it, then he said the words of institution for the bread.

  Given the simplicity of the words of institution, and their prominent place in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians (and given the wide circulation of said epistle), it is possible that words could have been left out, yet used. Indeed, the instructions in the Didache for the Eucharist seem quite incomplete in the sense that it is not a whole rite for the Eucharist, but just prayers of thanksgiving and some practical observations.
• 
  53

  POLL!!!!!! I need your opinion!!!!!

  by JV in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ok, here's my question du jour, is it ok to let your kids practice their instrument outside so the whole god damn neighrbourhood can hear them???

  ?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Sure, as long as it's within the time limits set by the city (here its 7am-7pm).