[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[Agent327]

I think Methodists will be surprised to learn they are 'indistinguishable' from the church of England, whose supreme head is a monarch. Secondly, it seems a bit too detached to claim that theological disputes have, in general, no political component. There are various reasons for this, but an important one would be that theological disputes tended to revolve around authority - or, conversely, about the rejection of certain authority. This is, obviously, not because the proponents of one or other theological point were less than pleasant people, but because people tend to look for support for their point of view in what quarter they can. That is, of course, something else than claiming that theological disputes were often political disputes in disguise, which is the other extreme.

 

[El_Machinae]

When I read Daniel's prophecy of the growing tree, and Jesus's temptation on the high mountain, I feel like a 'flat Earth' is being invoked. But when I look forward at early church fathers, they seem to discuss a round Earth (Augustine discusses the Antipodes, fer ex).

What was the mainstream thought in Jewish society in that day? Were they influenced enough by the Greek maths to believe in a round Earth? Or were they insular enough to have their own ideas?

 

[Wrymouth3]

At the time, were the tenets of Servetus' Anti-Trinitarian Movement seen as any different than the tenets of the Arian or Macedonian heretics by Calvin and his followers, or were they largely seen as the same?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I've never heard that it's a UK-US difference. It certainly sounds much more normal to me to say "Two Corinthians". "Second Corinthians" has a somehow old-fashioned sound to it. In many ways US English is quite old-fashioned, and I'm sure this is particularly the case with religious things, so perhaps "Second Corinthians" is more common in the US.

In my experience as an American, I've never heard someone say "Two Corinthians." That has a whiff of Engrish about it to my ear.

 

[Birdjaguar]

In the US we say Second Corinthians.

Spoiler :

Two Corinthians walked into a bar. Once inside the first one said, "See that big guy over there? That's Achilles, a real ladies man."
The second one replied, "I heard he was just a heel."

 

[Arakhor]

That probably explains why I say "Second Corinthians" and "KJV", rather than the more commonly-used British alternatives.

 

[Flying Pig]

When I read Daniel's prophecy of the growing tree, and Jesus's temptation on the high mountain, I feel like a 'flat Earth' is being invoked. But when I look forward at early church fathers, they seem to discuss a round Earth (Augustine discusses the Antipodes, fer ex).

What was the mainstream thought in Jewish society in that day? Were they influenced enough by the Greek maths to believe in a round Earth? Or were they insular enough to have their own ideas?

I'm not sure how many Greeks would have been 'influenced by Greek maths' enough to think of the world as round. How many British or American people do you think know anything about the various arguments for the shape of the universe? Thinking of a flat earth does, after all, work fairly well, most of the time.

 

[Agent327]

Well, if you're not very observant, maybe. (Like not looking out windows in air planes or watching ships appear or disappear at the horizon and such.) But I doubt many people today think as the world as flat. So I guess science is good for something, even though it takes a millennium or two sometimes.

Anyway, I seem to recall Plotinus mention that early Christians were accused of cannibalism. Seeing as the miracle of transsubstantiation does exactly that (on a weekly basis the faithful eat the literal body of Christ), what happened to that criticism? Why did it cease, since it still holds water today?

 

[caketastydelish]

In Jesus's eyes, is it a sin to listen Linkin Park while lifting weights, being a manly man?

 

[Agent327]

Women can't lift weights, you reckon?

 

[_random_]

Well, if you're not very observant, maybe. (Like not looking out windows in air planes or watching ships appear or disappear at the horizon and such.) But I doubt many people today think as the world as flat. So I guess science is good for something, even though it takes a millennium or two sometimes.

Anyway, I seem to recall Plotinus mention that early Christians were accused of cannibalism. Seeing as the miracle of transsubstantiation does exactly that (on a weekly basis the faithful eat the literal body of Christ), what happened to that criticism? Why did it cease, since it still holds water today?

Andrew McGowan examines accusations of Christian cannibalism here and critiques the idea that they originated with misunderstanding of the Eucharistic Rite. But if you do take that route, it's pretty clear why the accusation would fade away as Christian worship became less secretive. If you're a Christian, the Eucharist doesn't count as cannibalism because it's the consumption of living flesh, not dead flesh. If you're not a Christian, it doesn't count because it's actually just ordinary bread and wine, and reports of infants baked into the loaf were clearly exaggerated.

 

[timtofly]

When I read Daniel's prophecy of the growing tree, and Jesus's temptation on the high mountain, I feel like a 'flat Earth' is being invoked. But when I look forward at early church fathers, they seem to discuss a round Earth (Augustine discusses the Antipodes, fer ex).

What was the mainstream thought in Jewish society in that day? Were they influenced enough by the Greek maths to believe in a round Earth? Or were they insular enough to have their own ideas?

From the Jewish Encyclopedia there is not much. The earth was described as a disk that was elevated on pillars on the ocean. While also being suspended in space. There were four points to their compass. They viewed themselves as being in the center of this disk and all the other nations surrounded them. This did not change for the Jews until Copernicus and Kepler.

Technically Palestine is still considered the Middle East. The Greeks, Assyrians Persians, Babylonians, Arabians, Medians, Egyptians, and Romans did surround them like a circle. The sky as being a fixed dome would complete the aspect of being in the center of a disk.

Is the earth being a round globe even important when it comes to everyday life? We have knowledge of the implications of that reality, but did that even matter to any one, except those figuring out how the universe operates? Even if one was 30,000 feet in the air, it would look like a disk. A person in the space station would get the point after watching the earth rotate beneath them, but it would seem that one would have to be on the moon, before it actually looked like a globe.

Even if they knew that the earth was round, putting that notion on a flat surface would loose the interpretation. There may be a 3D rendition of the sun and planets on a flat surface, but being cut in half would not mean that they realized the earth was a disk or globe. The reason for doing so never came to the forefront until it needed to be proven that the planets revolved around the sun instead of this "flat disk" humans lived on. Being on a disk would indicate they new of "roundness", it was just not that important to them. Having been no where else in the universe, it would seem to be natural to think that one is in the center of whatever is "around" them. Turning one's body to get the full view, creates a circle.

Well, if you're not very observant, maybe. (Like not looking out windows in air planes or watching ships appear or disappear at the horizon and such.) But I doubt many people today think as the world as flat. So I guess science is good for something, even though it takes a millennium or two sometimes.

Anyway, I seem to recall Plotinus mention that early Christians were accused of cannibalism. Seeing as the miracle of transsubstantiation does exactly that (on a weekly basis the faithful eat the literal body of Christ), what happened to that criticism? Why did it cease, since it still holds water today?

It should be pointed out that Cannibalism as a "sacred" practice would be an internal contradiction to the point that Cannibalism itself is taboo. Historically it has been pointed out that Cannibalism was only a taboo, because the accusers saw themselves as being morally superior. It was a power trip to point out another person's ability to overcome their own aversion to the practice. Some think the early explorers made false accusations, to excuse the subjugation of the natives. Most humans have an innate sense of aversion to eating their own flesh, or another being like them. The only other taboo, is the sanctity of the dead. Some even thought that eating the dead would give them the attributes of that person.

As being ethical, I guess that if there is a law against the practice, one should abide by that law, even if it is not practical. Most cannibalism on a whole is because of famine or necessity. There have been a handful of accounts where humans have no aversion to the practice, and it may be linked to mental illness. Generally though, it seems to be a personal issue, that makes it wrong to do.

The Eucharist tends to fall on the side of a sacred rite, and if one can be convinced that it is actually the body and blood of Christ, then it should be easier to convince them as a rite it is not wrong. Calling something dead or alive does not change the point. Who in their right mind would eat the flesh of a person who is dead, much less alive?

If you want to claim that Jesus himself claims that He performed a cannibalistic action when he demanded his disciples to actually eat of his flesh, then perhaps the editor of the text was trying to make a point. I have always wondered how Jesus could have experienced every single experience a human ever experienced. If that was literal, then there you go. Jesus experienced what it was to be a cannibal.

Otherwise Paul cleared things up, when he said The Lord's Supper was just done as a remembrance, and should never be a cannibalistic experience. That it is even mentioned and taught as a church doctrine, means that it was debated on at least once if not many times during church history. The 3 Passages in the Gospels state that Jesus said, "My blood", and "My body".

Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:29 states: "because all who eat the bread and drink the cup without recognizing the body eat and drink judgment against themselves." This may have been interpreted as it "became" the body each time the church came together. The issue though, that Paul had was that they were just coming together and eating and in a gluttonous way. It was not in remembrance of the Death of Christ, but the action had lost significance. Some Protestants even limit the "Remembrance" to a few times a year, so it does not lead to just a habitual practice without any meaning.

The Catholic view it more as a weekly act of repentance and renewal of the spiritual life. Every week or more often it is allowing the work of Christ's death to repeat the same action of redemption each time it is eaten.

 

[Agent327]

You seem to be missing the point of transsubstantiation, according to which not only did Jesus eat his own flesh and drank his own blood, but this is repeated literally during every single eucharist.

My point is not that cannibalism is wrong, by the way. That would be another issue.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia there is not much. The earth was described as a disk that was elevated on pillars on the ocean. While also being suspended in space. There were four points to their compass. They viewed themselves as being in the center of this disk and all the other nations surrounded them. This did not change for the Jews until Copernicus and Kepler.

So 'the Jews' were unaware of the fact that an Alexandrian already estimated the circumference of the globe around 200 BC? Or that Columbus sailed West to get to India? (Predates Copernicus by a bit.)

Andrew McGowan examines accusations of Christian cannibalism here and critiques the idea that they originated with misunderstanding of the Eucharistic Rite. But if you do take that route, it's pretty clear why the accusation would fade away as Christian worship became less secretive. If you're a Christian, the Eucharist doesn't count as cannibalism because it's the consumption of living flesh, not dead flesh.

Consumption of living, uncooked flesh isn't cannibalism? If it isn't, surely it's even worse than cannibalism.

I forgot about the drinking of blood bit. We should add vampirism as well.

 

[timtofly]

You seem to be missing the point of transsubstantiation, according to which not only did Jesus eat his own flesh and drank his own blood, but this is repeated literally during every single eucharist.

My point is not that cannibalism is wrong, by the way. That would be another issue.



So 'the Jews' were unaware of the fact that an Alexandrian already estimated the circumference of the globe around 200 BC? Or that Columbus sailed West to get to India? (Predates Copernicus by a bit.)



Consumption of living, uncooked flesh isn't cannibalism? If it isn't, surely it's even worse than cannibalism.

I forgot about the drinking of blood bit. We should add vampirism as well.

I am not missing the point. Personally I do not know what happened during the Last Supper.

The Jews could have been aware of all the facts about current science. They just did not put that knowledge into their own set of practice and teachings. They did after Copernicus and Kepler, when it mattered more. The Jews were not illiterate. Even the ones before the Babylonian captivity who were forced to leave Palestine, traveled throughout the known world and retained their heritage and practice. They had been taught all their lives for generations they were a people group, set apart from other people groups. That did not change, even without having a homeland. They blending in, unlike the church, which was more vocal, and actually forced themselves into the governing power.

 

[_random_]

Consumption of living, uncooked flesh isn't cannibalism? If it isn't, surely it's even worse than cannibalism.

I forgot about the drinking of blood bit. We should add vampirism as well.

It's a technical distinction, and one that doesn't really matter in most cases. I really can't think of many non-sacramental instances in which one might consume immortal flesh. But the point remains that the Eucharist is qualitatively distinct from run-of-the-mill cannibalism in both Christian and secular understandings.

 

[Agent327]

Are you arguing that because it is a ritual it isn't cannibalism? Because according to the ritual the faithful do eat their Lord on a regular basis. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that among the tribes practicing cannibalism that was a ritual as well? So we should not call it cannibalism because Christianity?

I'm not quite sure what 'immortal flesh' means, by the way. Is that flesh that does not rot with age? That would be most practical if properly marketed. I'm not sure about the drinking of blood though. It might attract a cultist following.

I am not missing the point. Personally I do not know what happened during the Last Supper.

Which wasn't the point, again. I also don't know what transpired during the Last Supper.

The Jews could have been aware of all the facts about current science. They just did not put that knowledge into their own set of practice and teachings. They did after Copernicus and Kepler, when it mattered more. The Jews were not illiterate. Even the ones before the Babylonian captivity who were forced to leave Palestine, traveled throughout the known world and retained their heritage and practice. They had been taught all their lives for generations they were a people group, set apart from other people groups. That did not change, even without having a homeland. They blending in, unlike the church, which was more vocal, and actually forced themselves into the governing power.

You seem to know a lot about 'the Jews'.

 

[_random_]

Are you arguing that because it is a ritual it isn't cannibalism? Because according to the ritual the faithful do eat their Lord on a regular basis. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that among the tribes practicing cannibalism that was a ritual as well? So we should not call it cannibalism because Christianity?

I'm arguing that either it's not cannibalism because it's actually just bread and wine or it's not cannibalism (or perhaps it's a truly exceptional kind of cannibalism, if you want to splice your definitions like that) because the consumed party is alive and unharmed by the ritual.

 

[timtofly]

In Jesus's eyes, is it a sin to listen Linkin Park while lifting weights, being a manly man?

Jesus said, "Those who are without sin, cast the first stone". Since there was no one around willing to claim they were sinless, He told the accused. "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more". Who is there among humans even willing to point out what sin is, if they are sinners themselves? Is the point about sin, a condemnation, or that humans should not be sinners? Jesus was the only human who even had the power to condemn, otherwise they would not have asked Jesus his opinion on the matter.

Is it easier to condemn, or stop being a sinner? Even if it is a sin, Jesus would not condemn you. If Jesus stated that it was a sin, would you be able to stop? While your question raises more questions than answers, the point seems to be "who is sinless", not "what is sin".

 

[caketastydelish]

Jesus said, "Those who are without sin, cast the first stone". Since there was no one around willing to claim they were sinless, He told the accused. "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more". Who is there among humans even willing to point out what sin is, if they are sinners themselves? Is the point about sin, a condemnation, or that humans should not be sinners? Jesus was the only human who even had the power to condemn, otherwise they would not have asked Jesus his opinion on the matter.

Is it easier to condemn, or stop being a sinner? Even if it is a sin, Jesus would not condemn you. If Jesus stated that it was a sin, would you be able to stop? While your question raises more questions than answers, the point seems to be "who is sinless", not "what is sin".

What about Nine Inch Nails?

 

[timtofly]

What about Nine Inch Nails?

Same answer.