Clauso Utero

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
You must, of a necessity, deal with the Greek language. That is the language that God inspired, whatever Jesus and others spoke in. The inspired text is in Greek. Deal with it.

So what? That doesn't make the linguistic context any less pertinent. Additionally, your assertion that iadelphos was used ONLY to signify "brother" is incorrect. Even though there exists a separate word for cousin, adelphos could still in casual conversation be used to refer to a cousin.

The "myth" that we even have a copy of Matthew in Aramaic hasn't even been proven.

I know nothing about any such myth. I'm well aware that the earliest copies of Matthew are in Greek. I'm not sure why you brought this up, as I've implied nothing of the sort.

What Matthew wrote in Greek, God inspired. What God inspired is accurate enough for us to go by. We cannot justify going back to another language that we are not even sure was used.

The common language of the day was Aramaic. The main lnguage of Judea was Aramaic. Greek was spoken in the Roman empire, true, and Jesus likely knew at least enough Greek to converse with Romans. Likewise, the Romans of the region also would have spoken some basic Aramaic (but probably not a lot of Hebrew). But the audience here was an Aramaic-speaking crowd.

 

[John Gilmore]

No, it is a superstition with no Biblical evidence.
DHK

No Biblical evidence? Rejecting or accepting "Clauso Utero" may be a pious opinion. But rejecting Christ's word, "This is my body", is heresy.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, it is a superstition with no Biblical evidence.
DHK

No Biblical evidence? Rejecting or accepting "Clauso Utero" may be a pious opinion. But rejecting Christ's word, "This is my body", is heresy. </font>[/QUOTE]Christ was standing before his disciples when he said that. He had a piece of bread in his hand. Choose which one to be correct. Was his body, the body that was standing before the disciples, or was his body the bread that was in his hand.??
DHK

 

[Debby in Philly]

Actually, the word is metaphor. Just like if I said "your teeth are pearls," or "the sun is a red rubber ball."

 

[Johnv]

Or, as I tell my kids, my wallet is a vast empty space of nothingness...

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:

So what? That doesn't make the linguistic context any less pertinent. Additionally, your assertion that iadelphos was used ONLY to signify "brother" is incorrect. Even though there exists a separate word for cousin, adelphos could still in casual conversation be used to refer to a cousin.

If it is incorrect then show me where it is incorrect. Give me chapter and verse. The Bible says that Mary went to see Elizabeth, her cousin. A different word was used. Why? Greek is the inspired language that God chose to use, thus the language that we must use. The other languages are irrelevant at this point.

The "myth" that we even have a copy of Matthew in Aramaic hasn't even been proven.

I know nothing about any such myth. I'm well aware that the earliest copies of Matthew are in Greek. I'm not sure why you brought this up, as I've implied nothing of the sort.

Then there is no need to refer to any other language but the Greek, as we only have manuscripts in the Greek. Everything else is pure speculation. We must go by what the Biblical record says, and the record is in Greek.

What Matthew wrote in Greek, God inspired. What God inspired is accurate enough for us to go by. We cannot justify going back to another language that we are not even sure was used.

The common language of the day was Aramaic. The main lnguage of Judea was Aramaic. Greek was spoken in the Roman empire, true, and Jesus likely knew at least enough Greek to converse with Romans. Likewise, the Romans of the region also would have spoken some basic Aramaic (but probably not a lot of Hebrew). But the audience here was an Aramaic-speaking crowd.

That is not true. The common language of the day was Greek. It was universal.

Acts 21:37-40 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? 38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? 39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:1-2 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

They were silent because he spoke in the Hebrew language. This was very unusual, and unexpected. Not many did it or could do it. They knew who Paul was. He was a Jew who converted to Christianity. He was well known, and the Jews persecuted him wherever he went. The ability to speak in the Hebrew language suddenly stunned them. The Roman guard probably had no idea what Paul was saying. Though Hebrew is very close to Aramaic, Aramaic was not the lingua franca of the day, it was Greek. Even the Hebrew slaves knew Greek. It was universal.
The guard mistook him for an Egyptian. He was surprised that Paul knew Greek. "Canst thou speak Greek?"

The crowd, being mixed, would be a Greek speaking crowd.
DHK

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by DHK:

Christ was standing before his disciples when he said that. He had a piece of bread in his hand. Choose which one to be correct. Was his body, the body that was standing before the disciples, or was his body the bread that was in his hand.??
DHK

I do not call Jesus a liar or deceiver. Or, place human reason above God's word. Or, in sinful pride, change His words, "this is my body", to agree with my theological notions.

Though reason cannot understand,
Yet faith this truth embraces;
Thy body, Lord, is everywhere
At once in many places.
How this can be I leave to Thee,
Thy word alone sufficeth me,
I trust its truth unfailing.
Lord Jesus Christ, Thou hast Prepared; Samuel Kinner, 1638

[ May 13, 2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:

Originally posted by DHK:
[qb]

Christ was standing before his disciples when he said that. He had a piece of bread in his hand. Choose which one to be correct. Was his body, the body that was standing before the disciples, or was his body the bread that was in his hand.??
DHK

I do not call Jesus a liar or deceiver. Or, place human reason above God's word. Or, in sinful pride, change His words, "this is my body", to agree with my theological notions.

I don't imply that you lie. Human rationalization can make the Bible say anyting it wants to. That is how the Cathlics came to believe in transubstantiation. When Christ said "this is my body," while holding forth a piece of bread, the disciples knew full well that he was speaking symbolically. He was a man standing in front of them. For us to look with hindsight and to say that He was God and could do anything is irrelevant. What did the disciples at that time think? Did they, at that time, think that he meant that that actual bread meant his physical body. I think not. Did they think that He was speaking of anything miraculous. There is nothing in the text to inidcate as much. Show from the text that the bread should be taken as Christ's actual physical body. It can't be done, unless you believe in superstition and magic or the occult.
DHK

 

[John Gilmore]

I believe the Bible when it says, "this is my body", that unworthy guests are "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord", and that unworthy guests eat and drink damnation unto themselves "not discerning the Lord's body".

This is all scriptural and should not be confused with unscriptural notions of transubstantiation of the bread and wine.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
If it is incorrect then show me where it is incorrect. Give me chapter and verse.

Again, you put words in my mouth. I said that your assertion that adelphos in Greek only means brother is incorrect. The Bible doesn't define all of the Greek language. I agree with you that it is likely that the NT is only using adelphos to refer to "brother". However, that does not change the fact that adelphos can be used in a brother sense than "brother".

Then there is no need to refer to any other language but the Greek, as we only have manuscripts in the Greek. Everything else is pure speculation.

That sounds like the same arguement KJVO's make. Of course we can refer to other languages. There are places where the Greek references the Hebrew OT, and the Greek reads slightly different than the Hebrew. Should we then ignore the Hebrew because it was written in Greek? Of course not. We know what the languages of the day in the region were. They were Aramaic and Hebrew for the people of Judea, and that's not speculation. There's nothing remotely inappropriate on unbiblical to examine what would have been said in Aramaic.

That is not true. The common language of the day was Greek. It was universal.

It was universal by the gentiles of the Greco-Roman empire. And, yes, many in Judea knew at least some Greek. However, Aramaic was the main language of Judea. It was the language spoken prior to the Roman occupation of Judea. It did not magically disappear.

They were silent because he spoke in the Hebrew language. This was very unusual, and unexpected. Not many did it or could do it.

On the contrary. All Jews knew how to read the OT in Hebrew and understand it. The reason this was unusual is because Hebrew was spoken mostly during Jewish ritual, or when reading aloud the OT, or as part of formal custom. It was not spoken as a matter of casual conversation.

The crowd, being mixed, would be a Greek speaking crowd.

In Paul's case, he was speaking to a heavily non-Jewish audience, so yes, he likely spoke Greek. The Jews of Judea, however, while they knew at least some basic Greek, typically spoke Aramaic. If one was speaking in public in Judea, you were generally speaking Aramaic. Jesus was speaking mostly Aramaic. Where the NT records OT verses, he was likely speaking Hebrew there. If he was speaking individually to a gentile, he would have spoken either Greek or Aramaic, depending on whether the gentile knew Aramaic or not, and depending on the preference of the two in conversers.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:

Again, you put words in my mouth. I said that your assertion that adelphos in Greek only means brother is incorrect. The Bible doesn't define all of the Greek language. I agree with you that it is likely that the NT is only using adelphos to refer to "brother". However, that does not change the fact that adelphos can be used in a brother sense than "brother".

But we are not dealing with Homer, Shakespeare, Chaucer, or any other work. We are dealing with the Bible, and how words are used and defined in the Bible. Thus other definitions become irrelevant.
If you want to make a case for it, what does the expression "eye of a needle" mean? It is only recently that stainless steel needles were invented as we know them, so obviously the expression does not refer to that. But following your logic we should include the stainless steel definition in our repertioire anyway even if it is outside the Bible, because it is not wrong to consult outside sources. That is the kind of extreme you are going to with the definition of adelphos, or brother. Sure it has other meanings. They just aren't in the Bible. So why bother with them?

Then there is no need to refer to any other language but the Greek, as we only have manuscripts in the Greek. Everything else is pure speculation.

That sounds like the same arguement KJVO's make. Of course we can refer to other languages. There are places where the Greek references the Hebrew OT, and the Greek reads slightly different than the Hebrew. Should we then ignore the Hebrew because it was written in Greek? Of course not. We know what the languages of the day in the region were. They were Aramaic and Hebrew for the people of Judea, and that's not speculation. There's nothing remotely inappropriate on unbiblical to examine what would have been said in Aramaic.

Except it is not an argument based only on the KJV, it is based on the Greek. Why examine the Aramaic--Why not the Hindi, Punjabi, Italian, Persian, Arabic, etc. Sure, we can compare a multitude of translations, but that won't bring us any closer to the truth. The truth was inscripturated in Greek, the language that the Holy Spirit of God chose to use to write down the words that He wished to communicate to us. That is the language that we need to concern ourselves with.
Usually when John refers to a Hebrew expression he takes the time to translate it for us (in the gospel of John). Nevertheless, the entire manuscript is still in Greek. The same with Matthew.

That is not true. The common language of the day was Greek. It was universal.

It was universal by the gentiles of the Greco-Roman empire. And, yes, many in Judea knew at least some Greek. However, Aramaic was the main language of Judea. It was the language spoken prior to the Roman occupation of Judea. It did not magically disappear.

In 722 B.C. the ten northern tribes of Israel were taken captive by Assyria, and in 586 B.C., the two southern tribes known as Judah went into captivity by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus for the next 580 some years the Jewish nation was scattered. They had no Temple to worship in, and so arose the synagogues. It was during this time that the Septuagint was written (the Hebrew canon of the OT translated into Greek), because not all Jews could understand their own language anymore. They were quickly being "Hellenized," or immersed into the Greek culture, and their own was being lost. It was during this time that Alexander the Great conquered the known world, and it was his influence that gave the world the Greek language, Greek culture. By the time the Romans came, the Greek language was already firmly in place as the universal language of the world, even among the Israelites. You can see the conflict in Acts 6:

Acts 6:1 Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, a complaint arose from the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily service. (WEB)

The "Hebrews" referred to in this verse are the ones native to the Palestine area. The Grecian or Hellenized Jews were those that had been scattered and raised in the various other provinces of the empire. What language did they all have in common--Greek.
Thus prior to the Roman occupation of Judaea, it was the Greeks that ruled. Greek was dominant and universal.
DHK

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by DHK:
Christ was standing before his disciples when he said that. He had a piece of bread in his hand. Choose which one to be correct. Was his body, the body that was standing before the disciples, or was his body the bread that was in his hand.??
DHK

His body was standing before the disciples in a visible mode where He could be seen and occupied space. And His body was in His hand in an invisible mode where He could not be seen and did not occupy space but was in, with, and under the bread.

There is no example in scripture of Jesus turning His body into another object (e.g., bread). But there are many examples of Jesus passing through solid objects even people (e.g., Luke 4:29,30).

Whether Jesus passed through Mary in a visible mode where He occupied space or, in an invisible mode where He did not occupy space (Clauso Utero) is open to debate. "This is my body" is not debatable.

 

[Eric B]

You admit His physical body was there; so why is it necessary then to add this "invisible" body? That clearly is teaching two bodies. (The same with why we must pose this "invisible passing through Mary", espcially whe the Bible insists that He did "come on the flesh" (was born normally, in normal flesh, not some spiritual "substance", which is said to be the doctrine of antichrist!) It does seem to be an attempt to add a mystical dimension to a simple metaphor, and this is the type of "vain philosophy" Paul warns us about.

 

[John Gilmore]

The Lord is come in the flesh and His humanity is never separated from His divinity. He gives us His flesh, true God and true man, in the Holy Supper when He says, "take eat, this is my body."

The Lord has promised whenever two or more are gathered in His name He is in the midst. As the old Lutheran hymn teaches, He is invisibly present in many places at once according to His word.

Though reason cannot understand,
Yet faith this truth embraces;
Thy body, Lord, is everywhere
At once in many places.
How this can be I leave to Thee,
Thy word alone sufficeth me,
I trust its truth unfailing.

 

[Eric B]

And that is the emphasis in the bread and wine ceremony. His presence is not in the bread, but in the people gathered there together in His name. They are His spiritual "body", not the food they eat.
(this now reminds me about the confusion of the disiples about the "leaven of the Pharisees". They thought it was all about bread, but "leaven" was just a spiritual metaphor).
Some have even pointed out that "communion" was not always necessarily bread and wine, but that those were used because of the occasion. When Christians met (communion), they ate; eating usually consists of solids and liquids, and can be represented by "bread" and "wine", perhaps the most basic foods, as well as the elements of the Passover.