The Naked Gospel (new book)

[steve7150]

One might suppose that the Eucharist is simultaneously a memorial of an event that is past, and a materialization of that event's present-ness.




Certainly, if you live outside time.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
What? Paradox in Christian thought? Well, I never...

If one has a leader who is both God and man, and followers who are both blameless and sinning, why not a sacrifice that is both past and present?

steve7150 wrote:
You have a fertile mind my friend. But there can be things a lot worse then blamelessness in sin, right? Sort of to good to be true except if it comes from God.

I have little problem with paradox per se. One of my favorite books - by a Christian author - is Paradoxes of Faith by Henri de Lubac. A selection here:

There are paradoxes of mere expression: one exaggerates in order to emphasize. And there are real paradoxes. These suppose an antimony: one truth upsets us, another truth balances it. The second truth does not restrict the first, but only places it in proper perspective. It will not lead us to say "So it was only that." For paradoxical truth is not limited to one plane. That is why, most of the time, neither Christ nor Saint Paul explained a paradox. They feared a foolish interpretation less than one which would debase the truth and deprive it of its "heroism".

Paradoxes are paradoxical: they make sport of the usual and reasonable rule of not being allowed to be against as well as for. Yet, unlike dialectics, they do not involve the clever turning of for into against. Neither are they a conditioning of the one by the other. They are the simultaneity of the one and the other. They are even something more - lacking which, moreover, they would be only vulgar contradiction. ... They are the for fed by the against, the against going so far as to identify itself with the for; each of them moving into the other, without letting itself be abolished by it and continuing to oppose the other, but so as to give it vigor. ...

The Gospel is full of paradoxes, by which the mind is at first troubled.

The challenge is to correctly discern paradox from contradiction.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
One might suppose that the Eucharist is simultaneously a memorial of an event that is past, and a materialization of that event's present-ness.

steve7150 wrote:
Certainly, if you live outside time.

I myself prefer not to view G-d as outside of time. But certainly there are Christians who do hold such a view.

That being said - let us imagine that a museum curator is presenting an original copy of the Bill of Rights. And let us imagine that this curator's presentation involves two important facets: on one hand, she talks about the writing of this document 200+ years ago; on another hand, she discusses the present legal empowerments available from the Bill of Rights. When the audience views the document, then, their experience can involve both a memorial of one occasion years ago, and a taking-to-heart of the document's present power. In this scenario, there is one Bill of Rights that is experienced in terms of both its past context and its present-ness.

Likewise, the Eucharist could be thought of as simultaneously being a memorial and a present-ation.

[steve7150]

When the audience views the document, then, their experience can involve both a memorial of one occasion years ago, and a taking-to-heart of the document's present power. In this scenario, there is one Bill of Rights that is experienced in terms of both its past context and its present-ness.

Likewise, the Eucharist could be thought of as simultaneously being a memorial and a present-ation





Yes in the hearts and minds of the participant but is it true in the realm of reality? Since Jesus uttered the words in John 6 re "eat my flesh and drink my body" about a year before his death he must have meant it symbolically IMHO.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
When the audience views the document, then, their experience can involve both a memorial of one occasion years ago, and a taking-to-heart of the document's present power. In this scenario, there is one Bill of Rights that is experienced in terms of both its past context and its present-ness.

Likewise, the Eucharist could be thought of as simultaneously being a memorial and a present-ation.

steve7150 wrote:
Yes in the hearts and minds of the participant but is it true in the realm of reality? Since Jesus uttered the words in John 6 re "eat my flesh and drink my body" about a year before his death he must have meant it symbolically IMHO.

Your verse reads: "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink from him the blood, you do not have life in you." (The first two verbs that are underlined are in the Greek aorist tense, meaning that they occur at an unspecified time; often the aorist is translated into the past tense for English, but not always. The third underlined verb, however, is present tense.)

If we are to give close attention to this statement, then the basic problem is the same for the Zwinglian as for the believer in transubstantiation. If the Eucharist is merely a memorial, then how is one to understand Jesus speaking of it here (putatively) before the event which it is supposed to memorialize? Is one to imagine that Jesus had his disciples memorializing his death at this point, so long before it actually took place? But if it were to be construed that Jesus is referring to a future memorialization, then one could quite as easily construe that he is referring to a future re-presentation.

(Of course, John may not be trustworthy when it comes to its portrayal of history. The discourse in John 6 may never have transpired prior to the death of Jesus; it may be a later construction, from a time when Eucharistic celebration actually was present tense.)

[steve7150]

If we are to give close attention to this statement, then the basic problem is the same for the Zwinglian as for the believer in transubstantiation. If the Eucharist is merely a memorial, then how is one to understand Jesus speaking of it here (putatively) before the event which it is supposed to memorialize? Is one to imagine that Jesus had his disciples memorializing his death at this point, so long before it actually took place? But if it were to be construed that Jesus is referring to a future memorialization, then one could quite as easily construe that he is referring to a future re-presentation.

(Of course, John may not be trustworthy when it comes to its portrayal of history. The discourse in John 6 may never have transpired prior to the death of Jesus; it may be a later construction, from a time when Eucharistic celebration actually was present tense.)




I think we should consider how Jesus listeners understood him and most fell away being offended therefore that would suggest he meant it in the present tense since he made no attempt to clarify any misunderstanding.
Re John's gospel , i take it as gospel and realize you do not therefore we will view it from different perspectives, amigo.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve7150 wrote:
I think we should consider how Jesus listeners understood him and most fell away being offended therefore that would suggest he meant it in the present tense since he made no attempt to clarify any misunderstanding.
Re John's gospel , i take it as gospel and realize you do not therefore we will view it from different perspectives, amigo.

So you think that Jesus actually had his disciples celebrating the Eucharist that long before his death?

[steve7150]

So you think that Jesus actually had his disciples celebrating the Eucharist that long before his death?




I think he wanted his disciples to be spiritually consecrated to him and if not, he was not interested in chasing them down.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
So you think that Jesus actually had his disciples celebrating the Eucharist that long before his death?

steve7150 wrote:
I think he wanted his disciples to be spiritually consecrated to him and if not, he was not interested in chasing them down.

(a) How about a "yes" or a "no," Mr. Begala?

(b) Cf. Luke 15:3-10?