by jimwalton » Wed May 27, 2020 5:53 pm
> Nope. Nothing “has to be interpreted” here. The text says what it says.
Every communication has to be interpreted. It's the nature of communication. Communication theory postulates the locution, the illocution, and the perlocution.
If you just want to take the simplest, most superficial look at what Jesus said, his disciples asked him to teach them to pray, and he did. He taught them how. He was not, therefore, giving them a recitation, but teaching them how to pray.
> Notice how he rejects here the underlying grammar, but earlier he flees to underlying grammar when nit-picking "“καθὼς καὶ.”
I have not rejected the underlying grammar. If you want to delve into it, we can.
in Matthew 6.9, the phrase is Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς. Strictly translating, it read, "Therefore so you pray." The present imperative of "pray" is the mood of volition, expressing intention. "Therefore so (Οὕτως: in this manner) you should will to pray." It's an injunction of how one should pray, not what one should pray.
Luke's iteration is slightly different but giving the same thrust. The disciples ask, "Teach us to pray" (δίδαξον ἡμᾶς προσεύχεσθαι), a simple aorist denoting action as simply occurring, without reference to any progress or repetition.
And then he says, "just as also; in the same manner as" (καθὼς καὶ)
"John taught his disciples" (Ἰωάνης ἐδίδαξεν τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ). Here "taught" is another simple aorist indicative, simply presenting the action as having been attained.
So what underlying grammar have I neglected, and what of my explication would you like to discuss?
> that it's inconvenient for you,
Actually, there's nothing inconvenient here for me. I'm perfectly comfortable with what Jesus says and what He meant by it.
> I love the extreme interpretational skepticism in one area coupled with your extreme interpretational credulity above.
What's up with the mood, huh? Dial down the deprecating rhetoric and let's just talk, OK?
> We have another prayer, the Eucharist
Who's "we," and what is the source of this Eucharistic prayer? Is it in the Bible? Give me a verse, and we can discuss it.
> The Didache itself prescribes the Lord's Prayer be said three times a day:
OK, thank you for this reference. It's stuff like this I was asking for.
> Jonathan Draper
Draper extrapolates that the Didache is referencing an earlier tradition, which is possible. There's no way to confirm this Scripturally, as we have writings extending from Paul (mid-50s) to Revelation (mid-90s) with nary a reference to any Christian group praying the Lord's Prayer in ritualistic or repetitive or any other manner.
Obviously fasting was part of early Christian tradition (Acts 13.2; 14.23), but there's no NT teaching about fasting on particular days. Where the practice of praying the Lord's prayer 3 times a day began, I couldn't tell you, but it's not in the Bible. This practice was obviously added later.
More to the point is how utter anti-sacramental Jesus and Paul set up the Church to be. No priesthood (we're all priests), no temple (we're all the temple), no law (we live by grace), and the only rituals given to us are the ordinances of Eucharist and baptism, and our only head is Christ. The original Christianity was religionless. The point was not the have particular officers with sacramental power (the NT gives no such offices or such power), but a group of people together who embody Jesus on Earth, with elders for guidance and Jesus alone as having sacramental authority (the only one who can confer salvific grace).
> Nope. Nothing “has to be interpreted” here. The text says what it says.
Every communication has to be interpreted. It's the nature of communication. Communication theory postulates the locution, the illocution, and the perlocution.
If you just want to take the simplest, most superficial look at what Jesus said, his disciples asked him to teach them to pray, and he did. He taught them [i]how.[/i] He was not, therefore, giving them a recitation, but teaching them [i]how[/i] to pray.
> Notice how he rejects here the underlying grammar, but earlier he flees to underlying grammar when nit-picking "“καθὼς καὶ.”
I have not rejected the underlying grammar. If you want to delve into it, we can.
in Matthew 6.9, the phrase is Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς. Strictly translating, it read, "Therefore so you pray." The present imperative of "pray" is the mood of volition, expressing intention. "Therefore so (Οὕτως: in this manner) you should will to pray." It's an injunction of [i]how[/i] one should pray, not [i]what[/i] one should pray.
Luke's iteration is slightly different but giving the same thrust. The disciples ask, "Teach us to pray" (δίδαξον ἡμᾶς προσεύχεσθαι), a simple aorist denoting action as simply occurring, without reference to any progress or repetition.
And then he says, "just as also; in the same manner as" (καθὼς καὶ)
"John taught his disciples" (Ἰωάνης ἐδίδαξεν τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ). Here "taught" is another simple aorist indicative, simply presenting the action as having been attained.
So what underlying grammar have I neglected, and what of my explication would you like to discuss?
> that it's inconvenient for you,
Actually, there's nothing inconvenient here for me. I'm perfectly comfortable with what Jesus says and what He meant by it.
> I love the extreme interpretational skepticism in one area coupled with your extreme interpretational credulity above.
What's up with the mood, huh? Dial down the deprecating rhetoric and let's just talk, OK?
> We have another prayer, the Eucharist
Who's "we," and what is the source of this Eucharistic prayer? Is it in the Bible? Give me a verse, and we can discuss it.
> The Didache itself prescribes the Lord's Prayer be said three times a day:
OK, thank you for this reference. It's stuff like this I was asking for.
> Jonathan Draper
Draper extrapolates that the Didache is referencing an earlier tradition, which is possible. There's no way to confirm this Scripturally, as we have writings extending from Paul (mid-50s) to Revelation (mid-90s) with nary a reference to any Christian group praying the Lord's Prayer in ritualistic or repetitive or any other manner.
Obviously fasting was part of early Christian tradition (Acts 13.2; 14.23), but there's no NT teaching about fasting on particular days. Where the practice of praying the Lord's prayer 3 times a day began, I couldn't tell you, but it's not in the Bible. This practice was obviously added later.
More to the point is how utter anti-sacramental Jesus and Paul set up the Church to be. No priesthood (we're all priests), no temple (we're all the temple), no law (we live by grace), and the only rituals given to us are the ordinances of Eucharist and baptism, and our only head is Christ. The original Christianity was religion[i]less[/i]. The point was not the have particular officers with sacramental power (the NT gives no such offices or such power), but a group of people together who embody Jesus on Earth, with elders for guidance and Jesus alone as having sacramental authority (the only one who can confer salvific grace).