Exegesis Of Platos Apology - amazonia.fiocruz.br

Exegesis Of Platos Apology Video

Final: Exegesis Of Platos Apology

Join Our Newsletter

Though they appear to our senses to still be bread and wine, they are actually transformed in substance. They are, in fact, no longer bread or wine, but have instead turned into the actual body and blood of Jesus, according to official Roman Catholic dogma. Among the earliest and most compelling citations to which they will point is from the second-century Christian philosopher, Justin Martyr. Quite reasonably, this is the section to which Roman Catholics turn to build their case. They key in the on the Platod which reads:. This is perhaps the best argument Roman Catholics have for their position. A surface-level reading of this Exegesis Of Platos Apology complicated passage really can sound a lot like transubstantiation, especially to a modern reader who is likely to see the words through the lens of later Roman Catholic concepts and post-Reformation debates.

Thus, it is very easy for even an honest Platis sincere modern reader to mistakenly read transubstantiation into this passage. Thus, the best versions of this argument do not pit tradition against Scripture per se, but rather claim that a very early reading of Scripture Hip hop early believers Exegesis Of Platos Apology accept transubstantiation. If it were true, this would at least seem to lend some level of credence to the Roman Catholic interpretation of those biblical texts.

In the end, the question would still need to be settled on careful exegesis of the Scriptures themselves, but very early readers coming to the conclusion of transubstantiation would Exegesis Of Platos Apology least give the modern interpreter pause before too quickly ruling the interpretation out, were it true that early Christian writers offered such an interpretation. As we will see, however, it is not actually true. While it is understandable why so many Catholics find this argument so appealing, the fact is that it still does not support their position. An important starting point is related to the idea of eating human flesh.

He also explains:. For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less Exegesis Of Platos Apology he denounce himself when the consequence would be death? Justin is quite adamant that Christians do not eat human flesh. He was not alone in such comments. His second-century Christian peers also made note of how particularly vile they saw the https://amazonia.fiocruz.br/scdp/essay/pathetic-fallacy-examples/getting-healthy-on-america-is-extremely-low.php of eating human flesh.

OTHER STORIES

So Justin, and the broader Christian world of which he was a part, regularly and forcefully denounced the eating of actual human flesh and even used it as an argument against pagan religions whose myths included such things. It must also be noted that these condemnations are specifically about the barbarity of eating human flesh itself, not merely about the violence it would require to obtain such flesh.

They also include condemnations of even divinely sanctioned consumption of human flesh, implying that a god who would permit or participate in such is evil. These statements are unqualified, clear, direct, and absolute without the slightest hint of nuance or wiggle room. Justin and other Christians of his day found the very idea of eating literal Exegesis Of Platos Apology flesh to be morally appalling and barbaric to the worst degree, and myths of other religions that speak of gods or men involved in the literal eating of human flesh were proof of both the falsehood and the evil nature of such faiths. What Justin says about the supper must be read within this intellectual and moral framework. He further speaks of:.

Navigation menu

He later elaborates further:. To Justin, the elements are not the sacrificial flesh and blood of Jesus presented on the altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of those present, like Roman Catholics teach. The meal is an outward expression of an inner spiritual act of thanksgiving and prayer. Rather than medieval or modern Roman Catholic lenses, these are the lenses through which Justin saw Exegesis Of Platos Apology supper.

With this intellectual and moral framework in mind, we can approach the context of the original quote.]