|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 22:22:25 GMT
Jay,
I agree we have to have a proper understanding of the contexts of a Scripture in order to understand the Scripture, but it is possible that two different Scriptures with two different contexts can speak about the same doctrine, just from different angles. For example, both Paul and James speak about justification, but they use two different backgrounds to address the issue. One was dealing with Judaizers as the context, another was dealing with antinomianism as the context, but they spoke of the same doctrine. Thus, your argument is refuted by Scripture itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 22:33:19 GMT
Samson,
You say:
I think you could use some classes in logic. This does not necessarily follow from what I said when I said that you must have the Spirit in order to understand what Jesus said about the Eucharist because it is possible for a person to have the Spirit and yet for the Spirit not to reveal something to that person at that time, for reasons best left to God to determine. In other words, no one who lacks the spirit can believe the doctrine of the Eucharist, but not everyone who has the Spirit is ready to embrace that doctrine.
As to non-Catholics "understanding" Catholicism, sure, anyone can "understand" what Catholics are saying intellectually but they may not "understand" them in the sense of believing in them. The former doesn't require the Spirit, the latter does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 0:06:07 GMT
Your comment that "two different Scriptures with two different contexts can speak about the same doctrine, just from different angles" does not refute the necessity of understanding the contexts. It is by understanding the context of Paul and James that we avoid a contradiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 14:23:31 GMT
Jay, you said:
Did you not read where I said:
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 16:33:31 GMT
Here is what you wrote:
"I agree we have to have a proper understanding of the contexts of a Scripture in order to understand the Scripture, but it is possible that two different Scriptures with two different contexts can speak about the same doctrine, just from different angles. For example, both Paul and James speak about justification, but they use two different backgrounds to address the issue. One was dealing with Judaizers as the context, another was dealing with antinomianism as the context, but they spoke of the same doctrine. Thus, your argument is refuted by Scripture itself."
This does not refute my argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 16:41:46 GMT
Jay,
You say
In fact, it does. You say that because John 6 and the Last Supper have two different contexts, they can't be referring to the same doctrine. I proved where two different Scriptures in your canon have two different contexts but refer to the same doctrine. Thus, your argument has been refuted and it also turns against you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 20:02:39 GMT
You have not demonstrated that John 6 are referring to the same thing as the supper. The contexts for the supper and John 6 are different and the details are different. For example, Jesus does not say at the supper by eating the bread in front of them leads to eternal life. In John 6 Jesus does not pickup a piece of bread and tell the people that He is this piece of bread that you must eat to have eternal life. In the supper accounts Jesus teaches His death is for sin, while in John 6 there is no mention of sin or of His death.
To refute my argument you would have to show that Jesus did say at the last supper that by eating the bread in front of them they will have eternal life.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael lofton on Jan 14, 2015 20:22:21 GMT
Jay,
You say
I have. I showed that in John 6 He used a word that literally meant to "chew" or "gnaw", something that makes sense in light of the Last Supper, but doesn't make sense if you interpret it simply metaphorically. Also, it doesn't take a genius to see that if he is talking about eating flesh and drinking blood and the bread of life in John 6 and then he says this is my body this is my blood at the Last Supper where there was bread and wine, then He is speaking about the same doctrine.
You say
This is not how logic works. In order to refute what you said, I had to demonstrate that two different contexts can still be speaking about the same thing, which I did. In order to PROVE my point, I have to demostrate that John 6 and the Last Supper speak about the same doctrine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 20:51:04 GMT
Jesus is speaking metaphorically in both places. To "eat" and "drink" in John 6:53 is metaphorical language and not literal. If it was literal, it would be cannibalism. Just as the Jews were sustained in the desert by manna so now they are to spiritually to depend on Christ for salvation by faith. Notice there is nothing in John 6 about the Passover.
In John 6 Jesus is speaking of the necessity of believing in Him for eternal life. They are to depend on Him as their sustenance as the Jews depended on the manna to sustain them for life.
In the supper accounts Jesus uses the figures of the Passover in the bread and wine to demonstrate that what He was going to do would lead them out of the bondage of sin by His death and resurrection. The was meant as reminder of what He did just as the Passover meal reminded the Jews of the exodus out of the bondage of Egypt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 20:58:19 GMT
Jay,
You say
This does not follow, since it is possible he is speaking about literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood under the appearances of bread and wine, which is not cannibalism.
You say
With this, I agree.
You say
When Jesus says, "do this in memory of me", the word for "memory" there means an actual making present of and participation in a past event, which is much more than simply being reminded of a past event.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 21:11:23 GMT
There is no mention in John 6 of the supper or literal bread.
Here what the Greek word "remembrance" in Luke 22:19 means: "to remind. Remembrance. A commemoration (Heb. 10:3). A memorial (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24, 25), as applied to the Lord’s Supper. “In remembrance of me” means that the participant should remember Christ and the expiatory sacrifice of His death.
Zodhiates, Spiros: The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament. electronic ed. Chattanooga, TN : AMG Publishers, 2000,
What Greek lexicon of the NT do you have that says ""do this in memory of me", the word for "memory there means an actual making present of and participation in a past event, which is much more than simply being reminded of a past event"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 21:43:46 GMT
You ask
See J. Behm, “Anamnesis,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (10
vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1979) 1.348-49.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 22:33:44 GMT
So you don't have anything that refutes the Greek definition I gave?
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 22:36:27 GMT
Jay,
I cited J. Behm, “Anamnesis,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (10
vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1979) 1.348-49 as proof of my claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 22:44:23 GMT
You just cited a source that I can't see what he wrote and in what context. It changes nothing about what remembrance means.
|
|
