aa5874

Your statement is only valid if the product is genuine. It is widely known that inferior products are sold using the brand names of superior products to 'rip off' the consumer.Your analogy has highlighted the inherent problem of 'Pauline' scriptures, his character 'Jesus the Christ' may not be genuine, and this means, the believers may have been 'ripped off'.

spin

Thing is, I don't think it was Paul. I see that it started off as that Jewish meal, so I would agree with Macoby, but I think not Paul, but a later redactor of the text, changed the meal.

If you read "lord" in v20 as Yahweh then there is no problem whatsoever. Do you get any idea of a god's body in the passage outside vv23-27?? He's too busy slagging them for abusing the proceeding. They're hoeing in and taking more than they should to sate hunger rather than religious zeal and people are missing out, so they should think about their bodies before coming for the feast. That's the theme before and after the insertion.


spin

yalla

spin
Right.
Gotcha.
I did follow it in your previous post but then Macoby waylaid me again.
That word 'lord', meaning either god or JC, is frequently confusing/ambiguous isn't it?
Very suspicious.

spin

I once formulated a theory that Paul used the term with a single referent, but that interpolation must have confused the issue. There were only three place, I remember, where lord = Jesus (lord, not as a title or description, but as a unique reference), one of which was here in 1 Cor 11:23-27, another is 1 Cor 2:8

I doubt that very much. The Marcan writer is part of a community that has the eucharist. It could have come from anywhere, even Jesus!? That's as good as we can get on the issue, I think.


spin

yalla

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html
Pliny to Trajan
"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food."

So does this suggest that c110 CE the Eucharist was still not a major part of all Christian rituals.
That we are still in the 'early Jewish sacred meal' stage or can this be taken to include the Eucharist?

JoeWallack

JW:
For someone like me who Starts with the assumption that the Impossible is Impossible, "Mark's" Impossible Jesus is Impossible and belief in "Mark's" Impossible Jesus is superstitious nonsense that no one should be reverent towards. For those though, who accept that the Impossible is Possible, consider just how well Paul provides the Missingary Link between Possible Jesus and Impossible Jesus:

1) Possible Jesus witnessed by Possible historical witnesses (Q).

2) Impossible Jesus Imagined by Paul. Paul confesses that the Source for Impossible Jesus is his Imagination.

3) Paul "witnesses" Ideas about Impossible Jesus. Paul provides no Impossible Narrative because it doesn't exist at the time. Impossible Ideas must Evolve first. As Paul knows the Historical Jesus' witness he is prevented from creating Impossible Narrative.

4) "Mark" takes Impossible Ideas from Paul and creates Impossible Narrative. As "Mark" does not know the Historical Jesus' witness he is not prevented from creating Impossible Narrative. "Mark" finally answers the question, "Which came first, the chicken crowing or the Esotre Egg?"

Specifically here we may have the Dinarstory remains of the Passover Narrative: (ASV)

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_5

1 5:7 "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, [even] Christ:"

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_11

1 11:23 "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;

11:24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.

11:25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me."


JW:
Note that Paul provides the Interpretation that Jesus was the Passover for Christians. Paul's Imagination also provides a symbolic last meal. Paul does not mention this last meal being a Passover meal or being with The Disciples (understand dear Reader?). "Mark" than takes Paul's Interpretations and makes them into a Narrative of a symbolic Passover meal with The Disciples. "Mark's" Fictional creation shows The Disciples with a complete lack of understanding regarding the Narrative they've been placed in. This is a Sign of a New creation. Subsequent Gospels gradually Evolve a better Disciple understanding of the significance.

Thus we see the Natural Genesis of an Impossible Jesucies here. "Witness" that was not Historical creates Impossible Ideas from Imagination which are later used to create Impossible Narrative.



Charles

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

No, my statement is valid even if the Nokia is a knock-off; the seller is still claiming that it originated with the Nokia company, and that is all my statement claimed. In this case, the claim is false, but the claim has been made nonetheless.

Ben.

spin

The text doesn't give any eucharist away, does it? Beyond that I couldn't say!


spin

robto

I think this could well involve the Eucharist: "ordinary and innocent food" implies that there was some question about what sort of food they ate. This in turn implies that the body/blood interpretation was already there, since this was the likely source of accusations of cannibalism, etc.

gstafleu

Well, Jesus was breaking bread so obviously something associated with dining was going on.
Possibly, although it is not stated so we can't be sure. But even if so, we don't know who these fellow suppers were.

Again, going by the text I would say we see here the first installment of the development of the Eucharist: the combination of the blood/wine rite (a new element, unless somebody has an earlier version of the bread/blood rite somewhere in the OT?) with some sort of communal meal, a meal which Paul may be implying in his Jesus quote. Luke then adds detail by putting it into the context of the earthly Jesus story.

If the bread/blood rite is indeed a new element, its introduction is the important bit here. Unless someone can demonstrate that the bread/wine ritual was extant in Jewish thought?

Gerard