Transubstantiation means that the wafer is transformed in essence, so that while the appearance/physical properties remain unchanged the underlying True Form of the wafer is now the Body of Christ.
It’s Aristotelian, from the idea that things can’t be two things at once.
Which seems to be 13th century modernism forced in by that liberal “Doctor Communis” Thomas Aquinas.
That is pretty different to the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) one, where God placed Jesus in Mary, basically using her as an incubator. Or was it an angel that did it?
I guess it all comes down to interpretation. When it says “the Spirit descended upon her” or whatever, Mormons interpret it as literally God. They’re really big on talking about Christ as the firstborn son, or the literal son of God in the biological sense.
There’s a certain theme in Jesus’s approach to these issues, “When following the Law, don’t bother trying to apply arcahaic legal precedent, and esoteric commentary to life’s dilemmas. Instead, remember a few simple rules, and devise an ethical solution that honors God.” And to a certain extent, the christian texts misrepresent the sadducaic and pharisaic traditions in order to make the alternative (essene?) look more sensible.
So while it can be read as “politic”, it’s also a challenge to received ideas.
I’m not at all well-informed on this stuff, and I suspect that a few of the local Jewish folks will soon educate me [1], but…
There’s a story I heard about Pharisees that stuck with me.
Around the time of Jesus et al, Pharisees were freelance religious scholars in Israel. They weren’t Cohenim, so they couldn’t be priests, but they could still write and speak about matters of faith and ethics. They seem to be a rough Israeli equivalent to your Greek philosophers.
There were two particularly prominent Pharisees. One of them (Shammai? Very rough memory, that name may be completely wrong) argued for a strict, legalistic reading of theology. The other one, Hillel, advocated a more fluid and less literal interpretation.
According to the story I vaguely remember, one day Hillel was standing by the road and doing his soapbox-philosopher thing.
Then, a random smartarse wandered up and challenged him: “Hey, Hillel, you reckon you know everything about the law. So, if you’re so smart, try this: stand on one leg, and explain the law to me while you’re doing that.”
In response, Hillel lifted one leg, thought for a bit, then said:
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”
Sounds like my sort of theologian. 
.
[1] And please do. I enjoy learning this stuff; apologies if my misrememberings are in any way irritating.
Definitely not an expert here-- though I did inherit a lot of “quest for the historical jesus” texts from my Dad, who took that stuff a lot more seriously than I did,
Anyway, in the Five Gospels book
the scholars voted that
the Most Important Commandment was gray --"Jesus did not say this but the ideas contained in it are close to his own."
the bit about the coin identifing who it belonged to was black – “Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective of a later or different tradition”
but
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar, and to God what is God’s" was red – “Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it.”
There’s also pink–Jesus probably said something like this.
Very… heretical…
And in the commentary, the writers observe the the greatest commandment bit was a nod to Hillel.
As I said, though. I don’t take it that seriously, so the theories of 1993 may well have been superseded by new research which I have chosen not to read.
I don’t want to disagree with this post. But it does kind of imply that Jesus was cool because he was just like us (lucky him). But Canon Jesus is great on his own terms. If you read about him directly you might even find that he’s right in ways that we’re not.
Not sure i understand. So he wasn’t a regular person because he was right? Need some clarification here. I mean Einstein & Newton were both visionaries in physics, and have been right about a large portion of the things they proposed. This doesn’t make them holy beings or Übermensch.
Hi Grey_Devil.
Well I would probably disagree with you about Jesus being a holy being (and about what that means).
But I think all I’m trying to suggest is that those who have been deemed “great” by history – such as Jesus and Einstein and Newton – might deserve (prima facie) to be considered carefully on their own terms. If all we want to know about Jesus is that he’s more like us than he is like, say, Jerry Falwell – well that just seems trivial, ignorant and solipsistic. I’m not saying that that’s what Cory thinks, but the post tends to convey that impression.
If it was trivial, would we need great philosophers like Ray Stevens to tell us:
Would Jesus be political if He came back to earth?
Have His second home in Palm Springs, yeah, a try to hide His worth?
Take money, from those poor folks, when He comes back again,
And admit He’s talked to all them preachers who say they been a talkin’ to Him?
Just ask ya’ self, would He wear a pinky ring,
Would He drive a brand new car?
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star?
If He came back tomorrow, well there’s somethin’ I’d like to know:
Could ya tell me, would Jesus wear a Rolex, on his television show?
I don’t think it’s facetious to point out that the Jesus that Leroy Jenkins and Joel Osteen are talking about are not the same Jesus that Pope Francis or Stephen Veazey are talking about. I mean… yes, it’s the same historical figure, but I’ll happily cite Derrida and mention that the context of the symbol is VERY important when considering the meaning of the symbol.
I agree on multiple levels. The point isn’t wrong. It’s only trivial if we stop there. It’s just that there are more illuminating contexts in which to consider Jesus.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
