Orthodox_Freethinker

Please forgive me if I am mistaken, but wasn't this 'spiritual food' called manna?

Yes, which is how the Church has always interpreted it.

Not recessarily. If the bread remains bread and yet is the flesh of Christ then the flesh of Christ co-exists with the matter of the bread.

Vorkosigan

Is this thread for real?

Mal -- there are several ways to look at the Hellenistic influence on early Christianity. This is a huge topic, and I suggest you whittle it down to one aspect -- pick one of social mores, sayings, philosphy, narrative conventions and features, organizational structures, religious practice....otherwise, you'll never get anywhere.

Michael

guy_683930

That would be physical food. The rock that they were drinking of was not literally Christ. If it literally was, the notion of the "the word became flesh" would be as literal as "the word became rock", etc. Jesus would not be coterminous with the Logos, and that would lead to a difference between Jesus and Christ, which the church rejected. If the rock literally was not Christ, then the whole structure is a metaphor, so it is referring to metaphorical eating.

Because the church interpreted that way, starting with who?

But what about the flesh of Christ? It no longer is quantified in any way. The matter of the flesh of Christ? If that were the case, have tests could be done to determine that something was physically different about the bread. Have those tests ever been done (by NON-believing scientists)? If that is the case, what is found to have changed? If it is not the same thing as what flesh would be like, the definition of "flesh" has to change in "the word became flesh", and "flesh" would take on a more general meaning. If no change has been observed in tests, then it is without justification to say that the matter of the bread has been changed, or the world is in some respects, illusory, which church authorities have always tried to go against. And if it didn't go under any change, but yet because of the nature of the logos you insist there is a change, wouldn't the bread be "the word became bread"?

guy_683930

No, if that were the case, that Mary gave birth to "God incarnate", then she'd be 'Mother of "God incarnate"'. If God has not always been in a body they would not be the same thing.

Steven Avery

May I suggest the book by Mattison "The Making of a Tradition".

Here is a shorter article by Mattison - http://www.abc-coggc.org/_old_web/CO.../JRAD1-4-2.htm
The Development of Trinitarianism In the Patristic Period - Mark M. Mattison

While I disagree with his low Messiahology, (my view there would be very much the early dating of John and the high 1st century Christology as discussed by Richard Bauckham), I believe that Mattison is spot-on about the philosophical developments from, especially from the 3rd to 5th century.

As I recall, some similar material is in
"Fictional Foundations of Trinitarian Thought" by Keith G. Morehead

If you find other books of similar genre or perspective,
I would be very interested in your sharing same.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

judge

Oh..so if I disgaree I am not being logical?

I suppose that ends all arguments then.

Really it just shows a different understanding of Christology. One based on greek words and concepts and one based on Aramaic words and concepts.