tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post3070930800099534883..comments2014-02-23T20:46:24.598-08:00Comments on personal discipleship: Justin Martyr and a Developing Catholic Eucharistjeff millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-91206551481354740782011-05-19T09:58:53.948-07:002011-05-19T09:58:53.948-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-118670791880625542011-05-19T09:54:29.672-07:002011-05-19T09:54:29.672-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-48661335796393903262011-05-19T09:46:17.878-07:002011-05-19T09:46:17.878-07:00Nicholas, I said "I can demonstrate theologic...Nicholas, I said "I can demonstrate theological development" not "I did so in the post on Justin Martyr." You already agree that there is theological development concerning the Bread and the Cup which the vast majority of Christians count as Holy Tradition. Right?<br />Let's continue this discussion at the on the next available blog post if you like.jeff millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-84540203396907833642011-05-19T08:58:23.953-07:002011-05-19T08:58:23.953-07:00In the Mark 7 passage that I quoted earlier Jesus ...In the Mark 7 passage that I quoted earlier Jesus expected his hearers to make a distinction between the "word of God" and "the tradition which you have handed down". His hearers could have responded, "But we got the Word of God from the same people that we got the tradition from."<br />But I don't think it would have done them any good. There is a distinction. It must be recognized. Not recognizing it affects the acceptability of our worship.jeff millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-68808740912043407242011-05-19T08:38:57.510-07:002011-05-19T08:38:57.510-07:00The answer that I already gave to your John Questi...The answer that I already gave to your John Question was:<br />"John's Gospel can baptize anything God wants it to in order to communicate the Gospel...no problem. So Hellenic words are fine [it is written in Greek] and even Hellenic concepts IF they are actually present."<br /><br />The Gospel of John has the actual words of Jesus, which I must remain in. The Gospel of John does not divert loyalty to Jesus. To the best of my ability to understand, The Gospel of John is prophetic scripture.jeff millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-10875355072521564342011-05-18T19:38:39.734-07:002011-05-18T19:38:39.734-07:00The reason I have been so insistent on the Gospel ...The reason I have been so insistent on the Gospel of John's Hellenization status is because the Gospel of John proves that there is an acceptable way to use Greek concepts, to rephrase teaching and to use new... well I suppose you'd call it "nomenclature". <br /><br />You have acknowledged that the Gospel of John uses Hellenistic concepts and language not found in the other Gospels. Now it's time to demonstrate why it's a problem to do so outside the NT.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-72886077983347902452011-05-18T19:35:43.614-07:002011-05-18T19:35:43.614-07:00I have read your demonstration, my friend, and you...I have read your demonstration, my friend, and you do not make any sort of case.<br /><br />There are definitely different images used to describe the Eucharist in later writings. Ignatius calls it "the medicine of immortality". Didache calls it "the Vine made known." But you cannot demonstrate that these images are opposed to those in the Scriptures unless one first argues what the Scriptures portray. <br /><br />I have seen what you argue the Scriptures portray, and all I see is one more protestant collection of Ad-Hocs. <br /><br />For one, you have NOT demonstrated that the Eucharist did not immediately precede the rest of the fellowship meal in Justin Martyr's account, and yet you claim that he changed a Eucharist "in the context of a fellowship meal to a mere symbolic or liturgical meal as a cultic rite." Justin's account of the Eucharistic rite stops with "those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion." You cannot prove that his church didn't have a fellowship meal. You cannot prove that the Eucharist is not a memorial sacrifice. You cannot prove that the New Testament contains no liturgy.<br /><br />And yet the opposite may be argued for those who have ears to hear!Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-37810975327718486572011-05-18T16:55:01.294-07:002011-05-18T16:55:01.294-07:00I'll be happy to address your John question. M...I'll be happy to address your John question. My original post is not on the Gospel of John. My original post is chiefly about three subtle but observable differences in how the bread and the cup are dealt with in prophetic scripture and how they are dealt with in Justin Martyr.<br /><br />I can also demonstrate "theological" development on the bread and the cup between prophetic scripture and other writings.<br /><br />The first step is getting you to acknowledge that differences in nomenclature are unquestionably present.jeff millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-18112309641101110762011-05-18T15:38:13.506-07:002011-05-18T15:38:13.506-07:00If you do not address my Gospel of John question, ...If you do not address my Gospel of John question, Jeff, I see no point in continuing our conversation. I have addressed your points, and you have failed to address dozens of mine. If this continues, then there is no real conversation going on.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-31814068571010394742011-05-18T15:36:34.028-07:002011-05-18T15:36:34.028-07:001. Yes, in the same sense that we use electric lig...1. Yes, in the same sense that we use electric lights indoors instead of candles, but not in the sense you suggest.<br /><br />2. Yes, because the heretic Marcion wrote against using the "cup" part of the "bread and the cup." Marcion, however, was not patristic-orthodox.<br /><br />3. There are no theological differences between the Eucharist in the New Testament and the Eucharist in the Patristic writings. You have completely failed to demonstrate theological innovation or theological genesis in Justin Martyr, Ignatius or the Didache- that is, you have not demonstrated that they innovated their ideas and were the sources of them. You have built an understanding of the NT Eucharist that is based off of Protestant ad-hoc and begged questions, and have not demonstrated any theological difference between the NT Eucharist and later Eucharistic theology. As for "ritualistic" differences, they are of the "electricity/candle" nature, external precautions to prevent issues like those mentioned by St. Paul, and the result of the banning of Christians from Jewish places of worship and the Fall of Jerusalem.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-6269825021788694592011-05-18T10:15:52.916-07:002011-05-18T10:15:52.916-07:00So, Yes to #1. What about #'s 2 and 3?So, Yes to #1. What about #'s 2 and 3?jeff millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-27791665681811280512011-05-18T00:22:16.192-07:002011-05-18T00:22:16.192-07:00Please answer the following question regarding you...Please answer the following question regarding your position:<br /><br />Why is Hellenization allowed in the Gospel of John, but condemned as pagan mystery cult hybridization in all non-Scripture documents?<br /><br />It seems that you either have to admit Hellenization of the type you condemn is part of the Scriptures, <br /><br />or argue that God magically preserved the Hellenized Gospel of John from all error, "Just cause it's 'Prophetic Scripture". And where did you get that tradition? From your man-made Protestant heritage.<br /><br />"You examine the Scriptures carefully because you suppose that in them you have eternal life. Yet they testify about me."Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-51216484312714435812011-05-18T00:14:55.140-07:002011-05-18T00:14:55.140-07:00To your first reply: The Eucharistic liturgy did b...To your first reply: The Eucharistic liturgy did become more elaborate, but the Eucharistic theology remains the same. Just because Ignatius calls the Eucharist the "bread of immortality" does not mean that he invented the idea, for example. <br /><br />Come on, Jeff. You and I both know where this is going. Your original post is a patchwork of conjecture attempting to paint a picture of the "church described in the *Prophetic Scriptures*" that is in direct opposition to hierarchy, liturgy, and the importance of matter. In short, you want to project your enlightenment-era ideals and biases onto the authors of the Scriptures. You know that the early church drew upon Jewish liturgy when it performed Eucharistic liturgies, so you had to demonize that.<br /><br />I have some good news for you, Jeff. In the Book of Revelation, St. John the Apostle is performing a liturgy. St. Paul believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Titus appointed sacramental Bishops. Jesus Christ gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose sins.<br /><br />It's all true. All that stuff you called ugly materialistic pagan patristic hellenistic nonsense-- it's true. Now, won't you come and join me, and worship our Lord Jesus Christ in Spirit and in Truth?Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-65351448901828396272011-05-17T22:56:59.923-07:002011-05-17T22:56:59.923-07:00Claims 1, 2, and 3 are not at all dependent upon S...Claims 1, 2, and 3 are not at all dependent upon Schaff, Gibbon, or the 19th century...and beyond that maybe I should keep in mind that loyalty to Jesus is not about determining what will or won't convince a generation. On that I think we agree.jeff millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-59470065586066368942011-05-17T22:21:33.558-07:002011-05-17T22:21:33.558-07:00Nicholas, wait a minute, you think that there is n...Nicholas, wait a minute, you think that there is no development in patristic orthodoxy on the bread and the cup...really? So everything that is said in the later patristics is said in the earlier patristics and everything said in the earlier patristics is said in prophetic scripture?jeff millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-31629794750172169952011-05-17T18:06:01.622-07:002011-05-17T18:06:01.622-07:00Yes, I understand what your claims are, Jeff. Clai...Yes, I understand what your claims are, Jeff. Claims 1 and 3 will not convince a generation that has begun to throw the Schaff commentary, Edward Gibbon and their 19th century revisionist ilk straight into the garbage bin. <br /><br />A generation that will either live by Evidence and Logic, by Faith, or by a combination of the two. But a generation that will not live by GARBAGE evidence.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-74836118984849477272011-05-17T17:13:58.810-07:002011-05-17T17:13:58.810-07:001)My claim is that the tradition around the bread ...1)My claim is that the tradition around the bread and the cup developed and became more complex overtime. Yes/No?<br /><br />2)My claim is that it makes sense to acknowledge differences between how the bread and cup are dealt with in prophetic scripture and how they are dealt with in other writings. Yes/No?<br /><br />3)My claim was that three differences may be observed between how the bread and cup are dealt with in prophetic scripture and how they are dealt with in what we are calling the writing of Justin Martyr. Yes/No?jeff millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-45797556731167775922011-05-17T12:08:31.551-07:002011-05-17T12:08:31.551-07:00You did not make fluid loyalty statements in your ...You did not make fluid loyalty statements in your OP; you did not make humble statements that were only focused on Jeff and Jesus.<br /><br /> You made black-and-white historical claims and used extra-biblical 19th century Protestant and atheist sources to back up your claim; this shows that you clearly comprehend the need for evidence to back up historical claims. (FYI, if you use parenthetical citations in a document, it's helpful to the reader if you put the full citations in a reference list at the end of the document).Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-12067402152359133192011-05-17T11:57:58.269-07:002011-05-17T11:57:58.269-07:00I also believe that my loyalty needs to be immedia...I also believe that my loyalty needs to be immediately to Jesus without mediation.<br /><br />Jeff, you must see a difference between one who informs his or her interpretation based on that of those who have begotten him or her in Christ throughout the ages, <br />versus cobbling together an interpretive grid out of one's own personal interpretations and one's own personal selection of theologians.<br /><br />It sounds as though you are advocating personal "repristination" of doctrine according with one's growing understanding of the faith, fixing mistakes in one's understanding and adding missing pieces. I have no issue with this; I simply distrust the extra-biblical sources you use to "repristinate" your understanding of the doctrines of the Christian faith.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-50664122712748690892011-05-17T11:56:54.442-07:002011-05-17T11:56:54.442-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-26003524689426286412011-05-17T11:42:11.056-07:002011-05-17T11:42:11.056-07:00Don't you mean Nicholas' interpretation of...Don't you mean Nicholas' interpretation of Tradition's interpretation of Scripture?<br /><br />It's actually a matter of who we are loyally acknowledging. I think my loyalty needs to be immediately to Jesus. That is, without mediation.<br />It is not that my interpretation of Jesus' words is perfect...loyalty (faith) is about whose words are worth our effort at interpreting and submitting to...then,loyalty requires a willingness to repristinate my interpretation for the purpose of ongoing submission.jeff millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-36472100408203499362011-05-16T22:40:10.987-07:002011-05-16T22:40:10.987-07:00Later tradition does not claim to be the very word...Later tradition does not claim to be the very words of Jesus. But people living after the final book of the New Testament was written can be and have been inspired by the Holy Spirit in their writings as well. The Gospels are above all the other Scriptures and writings in authority because they are the Apostolic witness to Christ's teachings and sayings.<br /><br />As for "later tradition" I am not speaking about later tradition. I am speaking about preceding/contemporary tradition.<br /><br />Anyway, Jeff, my point here is not that tradition somehow overwrites the New Testament. Montanus tried that with his babbling oracles back in the early centuries of Christianity and was declared a heretic for it. My point is that the Spirit-bearing living tradition handed down to the Apostles by Christ allows us to correctly interpret the Scriptures. It's not a matter of Tradition vs. the Scriptures, it's a matter of Tradition's interpretation of the Scriptures vs. Jeff Miller's interpretation of the Scriptures 2000 years later.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-46711683425749603312011-05-16T22:34:32.370-07:002011-05-16T22:34:32.370-07:00God has gotten the words of Jesus, plus the words ...God has gotten the words of Jesus, plus the words of Jesus as extrapolated upon by the Apostle John and others in accordance with the name of Christ, <br /><br />to us, by His Holy Spirit, through men<br /><br />In the Gospel of John.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-80162075838445497832011-05-16T21:31:03.695-07:002011-05-16T21:31:03.695-07:00What about Jesus' own words? Has God gotten th...What about Jesus' own words? Has God gotten the very words of Jesus to you in the Gospel of John?<br />I mean later tradition does not claim to be the very words of Jesus, does it?jeff millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001733141768083682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8664472470337183200.post-52173161274759808822011-05-15T23:28:00.170-07:002011-05-15T23:28:00.170-07:001. Look at it from my perspective, Jeff. You think...1. Look at it from my perspective, Jeff. You think I'm placing "patristic orthodoxy" or "the Church" between myself and Christ. I'm not. I could view you as putting your personal interpretation of the Scriptures between yourself and Christ, but you would certainly disagree with me.<br /><br />2. You understand the Scriptures through the lens of your own personal self-generated hermeneutic, essentially making yourself your own Pope. I choose to interpret the Scriptures through the hermeneutic of the Fathers and Mothers of the Church. We both acknowledge that the Word of God has authority, we both acknowledge that what the Gospels say about Christ is true. The only difference is whose interpretation of those Scriptures we trust. BUT...<br /><br />I believed in Jesus Christ before I believed that the Scriptures were as trustworthy as I do now, and before I knew anything about the Church Fathers. I hope that answers your question/test.<br /><br />3. I don't see you responding to the actual points I make in my posts, like why the Gospel of John isn't an example of Hellenization. I would appreciate it if you would.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939345055574427000noreply@blogger.com