Hi All

[Spockrates]

I think the answer to your question about "communion" depends on a whole lot of metaphysics, it depends on the individual.

By "name" in that culture, it means "power" not some magic word like "abracadabra".  Of course simple men probably at times have gone into battle as Christian soldiers, shouting "Iesou Pantokrator" ... which is the Greek phrase for the theology and ideology of Emperor Constantine.

My personal view, that what was understood by the early faithful, was that the power of forgiveness and friendliness ... aka the coherence of will in a positive way between two people (not eros or even philos but agape), represented the metaphysical presence of G-d's Salvation aka Yehoshua.  People then, including Jewish people, believed in archangels (personified ideals), because the presence of a transcendental and infinite Being is incomprehensible.

This is my view based on my understanding of Kabbalah.  Theologically, gnostic theologians presupposed a whole hierarchy of partial divinity that extended from G-d at the center to the ordinary believer at the periphery.  Kabbalah is in this family of theology.  This still exists as a belief system in later centuries, as Shekhinah ... the Presence of G-d, of which faithful Jews are the human manifestation.  But Shekhinah is feminine, while Yehoshua is masculine (the idea and the lieutenant of Moses).  In latter-day Hasidic belief, this intermediary represents the hieros gamos between G-d and G-d's wife in Heaven, but also between the Hasid and his wife during Shabbat (Friday night) who mirror on Earth, what is Above.  Making the intermediary masculine, neutralized the sexual content ... and the wife of G-d was demoted to Earth as the Virgin Mary ... though partially elevated again in Marian devotion.

I only partially understood what you said, but the gist seems to me to be that it is the metaphysical presence of G-d when two people are together that makes them Christians. Yet I have my doubts. Let's say the two are kind to each other, meeting one another's needs. Christ is metaphysically in the same location with them. This gathering of the three is what makes two of them Christians.

But then they depart--one going to his home alone and the other going to her home alone. They are no longer two gathered together but now each one alone. Have they now ceased to be Christians?

Edit: But if that of which you speak is potential togetherness rather than actual togetherness, then would you say the desire to be together--not the actual being together--is what makes two people Christians? Perhaps this is what Paul meant:

For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.

(1 Corinthians 5:3)

[Spockrates]

Or perhaps I'm delving too deeply into the question of what a Christian really is?  I'm asking such questions because you seem to be a deep thinker about spiritual matters and thought you might want such a conversation. It's OK if you don't.

:)

[Baruch]

Well the NT recommends that they gather periodically to encourage and support each other, and since the Babylonian captivity, and the invention of the synagogue, they have done just that.  In the case of Jewish Christians, this would have been in the context of the Shabbat ... and Paul seems to have followed that (his sermon at Alexandria Troas, where the boy falls out of the window) ... the conclusion of Shabbat is called Havdalah ... and that occasion/meal is the final meal of three on the Shabbat.  So a full Shabbat would have included three pot luck meals .... probably on normal days people were lucky to get two meals.  There may have also been special post-Shabbat service at dawn on Sunday ... by Jewish Christians, though not by other Jews.  Easter Sunday is the grand yearly version of that practice.  For other folks reading, I am talking about my own reconstruction of early cultural practice, I am not claiming this as my own practice or belief.  The prophet Muhammad emphasized the need for Friday noon services in the mosque, because people are forgetful.  That if we were fully conscious of G-d's presence, then we wouldn't lose the power that provides the individual.  In this case the emphasis is on the personal relationship with G-d, more than the mystical power that occurs during congregating, though this is by degree, a difference between Christians and Muslims.  In mystical terms, the power of G-d is everywhere, and it is only on a human plane that there is any diminishment, provided that one is thinking of the other, the common good, the agape ... rather than egotism.

And yes, per my reconstruction, Paul is clearly saying that as he is in Christ, then he is present when Christ is present with believers.  This is a macrocosmos/microcosmos view of metaphysics.  BTW ... in Kabbalah, G-d has ten hypostases ... not the three of orthodox Christian theology.

[Spockrates]

Well the NT recommends that they gather periodically to encourage and support each other, and since the Babylonian captivity, and the invention of the synagogue, they have done just that.  In the case of Jewish Christians, this would have been in the context of the Shabbat ... and Paul seems to have followed that (his sermon at Alexandria Troas, where the boy falls out of the window) ... the conclusion of Shabbat is called Havdalah ... and that occasion/meal is the final meal of three on the Shabbat.  So a full Shabbat would have included three pot luck meals .... probably on normal days people were lucky to get two meals.  There may have also been special post-Shabbat service at dawn on Sunday ... by Jewish Christians, though not by other Jews.  Easter Sunday is the grand yearly version of that practice.  For other folks reading, I am talking about my own reconstruction of early cultural practice, I am not claiming this as my own practice or belief.  The prophet Muhammad emphasized the need for Friday noon services in the mosque, because people are forgetful.  That if we were fully conscious of G-d's presence, then we wouldn't lose the power that provides the individual.  In this case the emphasis is on the personal relationship with G-d, more than the mystical power that occurs during congregating, though this is by degree, a difference between Christians and Muslims.  In mystical terms, the power of G-d is everywhere, and it is only on a human plane that there is any diminishment, provided that one is thinking of the other, the common good, the agape ... rather than egotism.

And yes, per my reconstruction, Paul is clearly saying that as he is in Christ, then he is present when Christ is present with believers.  This is a macrocosmos/microcosmos view of metaphysics.  BTW ... in Kabbalah, G-d has ten hypostases ... not the three of orthodox Christian theology.

Then are you saying the man and woman of my example who spend the night alone are still actually together?  Or are they not actually together, but merely symbolically together?  Take Paul, for instance. Though he was writing his letter far from Corinth, he said he was with the Corinthians in spirit. Did he mean he was actually with them--as his soul existing in two places at the same moment in time--or only metaphorically with them?

It's a question that might be asked if many a New Testament passage: Is it speaking literally or figuratively?

Edit: Or are you saying that since G-d was with both the Corinthians and Paul at the same time, Paul was also literally with the Corinthians at that time? (This alternative I find illogical and hard to believe and so think he must have meant he was symbolically with them.)

[Baruch]

Your notion of what and who you are ... is conventional.  If you think of a beloved, then you are with them.  And if your beloved thinks of you as well, and your love is pure (agape, not philos or eros) ... then as per Epistle of John 1 ... you are together.  You don't have to be physically in the same room or same bed ;-)  This is a strong inducement for monogamy/monoandry.

If you understand words, not just know them ... then you will see that they are tools, which allow us to manipulate reality symbolically.  Since all words are symbolic, then the literal, properly understood is metaphorical.  And metaphor, as words on a page or spoken out loud, are in that way literal.  The problem is with the human mind, not with reality.  We use our word tools ignorantly, and thus create problems for ourselves, like using a saw incompetently on a piece of wood.  The problem with using logic in terms of words (rather than numbers and geometrical figures) is that we produce word salad or philosophical cole slaw.  For example, high/low aren't opposites, they are complements.

[Spockrates]

Your notion of what and who you are ... is conventional.  If you think of a beloved, then you are with them.  And if your beloved thinks of you as well, and your love is pure (agape, not philos or eros) ... then as per Epistle of John 1 ... you are together.  You don't have to be physically in the same room or same bed ;-)  This is a strong inducement for monogamy/monoandry.

If you understand words, not just know them ... then you will see that they are tools, which allow us to manipulate reality symbolically.  Since all words are symbolic, then the literal, properly understood is metaphorical.  And metaphor, as words on a page or spoken out loud, are in that way literal.  The problem is with the human mind, not with reality.  We use our word tools ignorantly, and thus create problems for ourselves, like using a saw incompetently on a piece of wood.  The problem with using logic in terms of words (rather than numbers and geometrical figures) is that we produce word salad or philosophical cole slaw.  For example, high/low aren't opposites, they are complements.

Yes, I think I understand, but I'm not sure you answered my question fully. That Paul was with the Corinthians even though he wrote his letter from the other side of the Mediterranean Sea is true. But this is not what I asked of you. Sorry for being unclear, and please let me ask again: In precisely what way was Paul present in Corinth?

(And don't worry about confusing me. I think I will enjoy the salad you serve, no matter how you might toss it!)

[Spockrates]

I can think of at least one way. Let me give an example. Tonight I, my wife, my son and his girlfriend were in the same room. I said, "I'm hungry for a pizza!  Whose with me?"

Now someone who took my words too litterally might say, "What a ridiculous question!  They are all with you, since they're all in the same room."

But I did not mean to use the word with in such a literal sense. I was not asking who was physically present with me. I was asking who was in agreement with me about what we would eat for dinner.

You see?

[aitm]

I think that the babble must be taken absolutely literal in every since of the word and in every way. If god is indeed the greatest thing since Dijon then indeed he/she/it would surely be able to get that point across in a very easy and forward way, after all, the babble was written when 98% of the populace couldn't eve n read let alone count. So for me, there is no "grant", either you accept the babble at face value, horn swaggling bullshit and all, or be a cherry picking hypocrite.

[SGOS]

I think that the babble must be taken absolutely literal in every since of the word and in every way. If god is indeed the greatest thing since Dijon then indeed he/she/it would surely be able to get that point across in a very easy and forward way, after all, the babble was written when 98% of the populace couldn't eve n read let alone count. So for me, there is no "grant", either you accept the babble at face value, horn swaggling bullshit and all, or be a cherry picking hypocrite.

It's hard to excuse a religion that depends on a continually growing basket of metaphorical apologetics and thoughts that must be interpreted to mean something other than what is written in it's divine guidebook.  Mysterious poetic sounding writing that requires a group of theologians to interpret sort of works in book clubs, philosophy, and literature classes.  It may be brain teasingly fun.   But this is a book that explains the divine plan of an all powerful creator, who expects his minions to understand it, live by it, or suffer eternal fire.  And it's written in a code of disguised meanings.  I can't think of a worse way to describe a formula for life, death, and eternal salvation.  Make it so that it can be interpreted any way by anyone to suit their needs.  It may be the worst attempt at writing a self help book, ever.

[Baruch]

Actually there is no need for polemics or apologetics.  Real Men (tm) don't need any of that shit ;-)  Let your yea be yea or your ney be ney.  Particularly if you are horsing around ... Mr Ed.

Yes, Spockrates ... your pizza example is perfect.  I am not saying that Paul had a transporter or video screen that allowed him to be "with" the Corinthians in some other way.  But then to many people, the idea of being with someone, except in the same room, is unintelligible.  They don't see things mind first, but body first.  Of course, in another language, we wouldn't have such ambiguities about "with" ... though we would with other words that are perfectly clear in English.  In exegesis there are at least 4 levels of interpretation ... the elementary school level is the literal ... and most people are content with their milk, cookies and noon-time nap.  The levels are Denotational, Connotational, Situational and Metaphorical.  Of course some people just can't do metaphor and its counterpart ... analogical thinking.  They must color inside the lines, or they will develop cooties ;-)

[Spockrates]

...

[Spockrates]

I think that the babble must be taken absolutely literal in every since of the word and in every way. If god is indeed the greatest thing since Dijon then indeed he/she/it would surely be able to get that point across in a very easy and forward way, after all, the babble was written when 98% of the populace couldn't eve n read let alone count. So for me, there is no "grant", either you accept the babble at face value, horn swaggling bullshit and all, or be a cherry picking hypocrite.

Yes, that would certainly be easier!  But then, that would mean no one in the pages of such babble ever used a figure of speech. These words of Jesus' disciples indicate the opposite, I think:

Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”
(John 16:29-30)

Also there are several obvious uses of figurative language by Jesus, calling himself the light of the world, the vine, the gate. So for example, I don't know of any Christians who insist Jesus was some kind of intelligent plant life.

:D

Edit: But then, Jesus said he was the bread of life, and many Catholics take his words literally, while many Protestants don't. The trick for someone not aligned with any particular denomination like myself is to figure out what is figurative and what is not.

But do you think the presence of such ambiguity is evidence against the existence of God?

[Spockrates]

It's hard to excuse a religion that depends on a continually growing basket of metaphorical apologetics and thoughts that must be interpreted to mean something other than what is written in it's divine guidebook.  Mysterious poetic sounding writing that requires a group of theologians to interpret sort of works in book clubs, philosophy, and literature classes.  It may be brain teasingly fun.   But this is a book that explains the divine plan of an all powerful creator, who expects his minions to understand it, live by it, or suffer eternal fire.  And it's written in a code of disguised meanings.  I can't think of a worse way to describe a formula for life, death, and eternal salvation.  Make it so that it can be interpreted any way by anyone to suit their needs.  It may be the worst attempt at writing a self help book, ever.

Extremely well put. It is what I wonder and why I have not found a church "home".

[Baruch]

Jesus as "logos" was his own authority.  Teachers of the law were not like that ... like lawyers, they relied on quoting an authoritative rabbi when not quoting the legal aspect of scripture.  Of course rabbinic Judaism was and remains exactly of that character (the Orthodox Jews).  But back then and even now, most Jews are not orthodox.  But Jesus isn't unique, anytime one speaks for oneself, in an inspired way, one is not speaking like a lawyer.

[aitm]

Yes, that would certainly be easier!  But then, that would mean no one in the pages of such babble ever used a figure of speech. These words of Jesus' disciples indicate the opposite, I think:

I would suspect that when the babble specifically says that it is a parable or a figure of speech then most idiots would understand that indeed it is a parable or a figure of speech.

However, jebus nonsense aside, when the OT claims that the sky is water and that the entire earth was covered in water for 40 some days then it means exactly that, and not some bullshit that it was only meant as some type of you know, not real but kinda whimsical, and a little allegorical with a smidge of wink wink and nudge nudge…..