Why did you quote the next line of my comment? It certainly would’ve given understanding to the above.
“Perhaps to the degree that such can be charged to every scholar and translator.”
And Roman scholars and translators stand agenda free and pure in motive? Please already!
All Christians? You know this and can speak for “all Christians”?
“Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language? The writers of the Gospel didn't write in English, they didn't speak English, they didn't read English and most importantly, they didn't live in a Western society, whether a 16th century one in rebellion against Rome or a 21st century American evangelical one.”
I didn't know.
“Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language?”
One, it is the English translations that posters are discussing and Two, that the degree of literalness in English that we have still allows us to say that taking the word “is” literally sans context would completely change the meaning and intent of the speaker.
Every language mixes the literal and symbolic and makes postie, literal statements not meant to understood as such or shall I believe the nation of Babylon gave birth to men or the nation of Israel got drunk and puked?
If you can speak for “all Christians” please tell me how many gouged out an eye or chopped off an offending hand?
(Maybe Origen just with missed with the cleaver?)
“You don't see how Western your thinking is, do you?”
I just knew it was all my fault!
Papal infallibility is indeed a “notion” conjured from thin air-headed reasoning in way that would humble David
Copperfield.
“Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.”
The broad and specious road has plenty of room on it.
“makes postie, literal statements” Read “POSITIVE”!
And Roman scholars and translators stand agenda free and pure in motive? Please already!"
As you know, I am not a Roman partisan nor am I a Roman Catholic. Whatever their bias may be, they agree with the rest of The Church on the Real Presence.
"All Christians? You know this and can speak for “all Christians”?"
As a matter of historical fact, all Christians believed in the Real Presence until Zwingli's pathetic, limited god couldn't be in two places at once. I know this as well as any other historical fact, cyc.
"One, it is the English translations that posters are discussing and Two, that the degree of literalness in English that we have still allows us to say that taking the word “is” literally sans context would completely change the meaning and intent of the speaker."
What astonishing Anglophone chauvinism! Because you base your faith on lousy, agenda driven English translations of Greek, the bible means what English speaking protestants say it means, even if that is in contradiction to what the original Greek says because English allows for variants that Greek doesn't?
"I just knew it was all my fault!"
Indeed, it is you Westerners, people who apparently think that using English gives them the right to twist the Scriptures, who, to further your rebellion against your Holy Mother Church, foisted false translations of the bible on otherwise unsuspecting people. The result, as I noted on another thread, is the bitter weed of heresy which has all but destroyed Western society.
"“Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.”"
Indeed, since most Christians are Roman Catholics...by a margin figured in the hundreds of millions.