Mary of Nazareth As The Bible Defines Her

The Scripture verses presented here consisted of ALL the scripture verses that mention Mary of Nazareth.

It looks like the author forgot to mention Luke 1:43 where Elizabeth, the wife of a Jewish priest who, together with her were both righteous in the sight of God, obeying all the Lord's commands and decrees blamelessly, describes Mary as being "the mother of my Lord," that is, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the King of Glory, the Master of the Universe:

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”

Mary was the mother of Jesus, the 2nd person of the Trinity, the Word made flesh. That’s all I need to know. Thanks be to God.

Sorry for the delay; I'll need to wait until tomorrow or so, for a more fulsome reply. But one quick note:

The Body being sinned against in 1 Corinthians 11 is the Body of Christ - the CHURCH!

Nice try... but did you forget "the Blood of Christ"? Unless you can find a Scripture reference for the Church being called "the Blood", against which the Corinthians were sinning (among other problems, which I'll try to itemize tomorrow), you'll need to try again.

And of COURSE, the problem in 1 Cor 11 was the drunken revelry, gluttony and selfishness during the Holy Eucharist! But I don't see how that advances your case; don't you see how such behaviour would profane the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, even more than it would profane a sort of "vague, general presence" of Christ in His Church? If such profanation would be evil in either context, how do you settle your mind on WHICH context (Eucharist = True Body and Blood vs. Eucharist = mere symbol)?

Also: no comments on the quotes from the Early Church? I've yet to hear an explanation of why you prefer Luther's explanation to theirs...

1 Cor 11 is about discipline and order in the church. Their drunken behavior and lack of concern for others dishonored both Jesus and the Church.

Paul wasn’t saying the bread and wine became the flesh and blood of Jesus, because we are to do it “in remembrance” of Jesus. We are not partaking of the sacrifice of Jesus, for it is not an eternal ongoing sacrifice, as Hebrews points out quite emphatically - and you don’t “remember” something you are doing.

If a football player picks up a game ball he won years ago and remembers, he is NOT playing the game still. He is remembering, as Paul tells the Corinthians to do.

But in their disregard for others, they fail to discern that the church is the body of Christ, and the individuals are the members of one body. It is a recurring theme in 1 Corinthians.

“For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3and all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” - 1 Cor 10, ref Ex 17: “6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.”

Was that water the blood of Christ, or any part of Christ’s body? Of course not, but it was a unifying physical representation of God’s provision for them. They were united together in God’s presence, but the rock was not actually Jesus Christ himself.

Paul goes on in chapter 10 to remind them that the sacrifice of thanksgiving (eucharist) identifies them with and unites them in obedience to Jesus, just as pagans are united to what they worship:

“15I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” - 1 Cor 10

I doubt idol sacrifices are transubstantiated into the flesh of demons, or demon blood. But to partake is to identify with the demons, to join their cause and show submission to them. As Paul says, “That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.”

The offering is not transubstantiated, but it unites the partakers with their ‘god’.

Chapter 10 finishes with a call to unity:

” 31So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.”

Chapter 11 continues with concern for proper behavior in the church, covering (forgive the pun) women and then the Lord’s Supper.

Chapter 12 continues on with the unity of the body in spiritual gifts. Chapter after chapter describes our unity as one body, and how we identify ourselves as part of that body.

With the example of pagan sacrifices just about a paragraph earlier, Paul says, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

I fail to see how anyone reading this in context would conclude that Paul, for one verse, turns the spiritual uniting of man with God (the parting of the Red Sea, the rock at Horeb, partaking in a common sacrifice and using spiritual gifts to uplift all) into transubstantiation.

“But I don’t see how that advances your case; don’t you see how such behaviour would profane the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, even more than it would profane a sort of “vague, general presence” of Christ in His Church?”

Yet the examples that precede it are examples of a spiritual unifying of the Jews during the exodus, pagans in their sacrifices, and us in remembering the Lord’s death. I fail to see why all the others refer to spiritual connections, while this one sentence suddenly pops out of the text and discusses transubstantiation.

Context. When you have a question about scripture, start by reading the chapters before and after.

“Also: no comments on the quotes from the Early Church? I’ve yet to hear an explanation of why you prefer Luther’s explanation to theirs...”

As Cardinal Newman pointed out, the early church fathers were all over on ‘real presence’, and do NOT support transubstantiation. I see no reason to repeat what I already cited.

Verse 4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink. The idea here is essentially the same as in the previous verse, that they had been highly favoured of God, and enjoyed tokens of the Divine care and guardianship. That was manifested in the miraculous supply of water in the desert, thus showing that they were under the Divine protection, and were objects of the Divine favour. There can be no doubt that by “spiritual drink” here the apostle refers to the water that was made to gush from the rock that was smitten by Moses, Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:11. Why this is called “spiritual” has been a subject on which there has been much difference of opinion. It cannot be because there was anything peculiar in the nature of the water, for it was evidently real water, fitted to allay their thirst. There is no evidence, as many have supposed, that there was a reference in this to the drink used in the Lord’s Supper. But it must mean that it was bestowed in a miraculous and supernatural manner; and the word “spiritual” must be used in the sense of supernatural, or that which is immediately given by God. Spiritual blessings thus stand opposed to natural and temporal blessings, and the former denote those which are immediately given by God as an evidence of the Divine favour. That the Jews used the word “spiritual” in this manner is evident from the writings of the Rabbins. Thus they called the manna “spiritual food,” (Yade Mose in Shemor Rabba, fol. 109, 3 ;) and their sacrifices they called “spiritual bread,” (Tzeror Hammor, fol. 93,2.)—Gill. The drink therefore, here referred to, was that bestowed in a supernatural manner, and as a proof of the Divine favour.

For they drank of that spiritual Rock. Of the waters which flowed from that rock. The Rock here is called “spiritual,” not from anything peculiar in the nature of the rock, but because it was the source to them of supernatural mercies, and became thus the emblem and demonstration of the Divine favour, and of spiritual mercies, conferred upon them by God.

http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=010

Another commentary:

Those, therefore, who treated the symbols of his body and blood with profaneness and contempt were united in spirit with those who put him to death. They evinced the same feelings towards the Lord Jesus that his murderers did. They treated him with scorn, profaneness, and derision; and showed that with the same spirit they would have joined in the act of murdering the Son of God. They would evince their hostility to the Saviour himself as far as they could do, by showing contempt for the memorials of his body and blood. The apostle does by no means, however, as I understand him, mean to say that any of the Corinthians had been thus guilty of his body and blood. He does not charge on them this murderous-intention. But he states what is the fair and obvious construction which is to be put on a wanton disrespect for the Lord’s Supper. And the design is to guard them, and all others, against this sin. There can be no doubt that those who celebrate his death in mockery and derision are held guilty of his body and blood. They show that they have the spirit of his murderers; they evince it in the most awful way possible; and they who would thus join in a profane celebration of the Lord’s Supper would have joined in the cry, “Crucify him, crucify him.” For it is a most fearful and solemn act to trifle with sacred things; and especially to hold up to derision and scorn, the bitter sorrows by which the Son of God accomplished the redemption of the world.

http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=011

This interpretation is consistent with the idea, expressed several times before, that we identify and become one with others by our acts - and we can identify with the Lord’s body, or with his slayers. If we do the latter, is there any reason to doubt that God will judge us?

I’m still hoping to get a break from the craziness of today, to get a fuller reply to you... but for now, let me summarize my thoughts on these points:

1) You appeal repeatedly to a “plain sense of Scripture”, but you don’t seem to realize how subjective a standard that can be, and how question-begging it is. If one faithful, well-informed Christian says (after much prayer and study) that “the plain sense of Scripture is [x]” and another faithful, well-informed Christian says (after much prayer and study) that “the plain sense of Scripture is [not x]”, that creates a bit of a problem which cannot be settled by mere appeals to emotion, to personal preference, or the like (and certainly not by puerile, spiritualized playground taunts of “hard-heartedness” on the part of those who disagree with you).

2) Your appeals to Scripture completely beg the question of the CONTENTS of Scripture. You, as a Protestant, presumably follow the Protestant 66-book canon of Scripture, yes? Why? How do you know that the Letter of James is inspired Scripture (Luther didn’t think it was), and that the Second Book of Maccabees isn’t? “Scripture alone” is helpless to determine the contents of Scripture; surely you can see that?

3) You presume to criticize Catholic teaching, but every attempt you’ve made has proven to be a straw man; you simply don’t have a clear grasp of what you’re trying to refute. E.g. your portrayal of Sacred Tradition as (essentially) a “blank check” which the Vatican can use to “invent” whatever it likes is simply an ad hominem canard, with no proof behind it at all. (To illustrate: since you presume to set yourself up as your own “final authority” for interpreting Scripture, how would that prevent you from interpreting any part of the Bible to mean whatever pleases you—e.g. your denial of the Eucharist, despite overwhelming Biblical proof, the moral unanimity of the Early Church, and 2000 years of Church teaching against your opinion?)

As an example: for me, when Jesus says of the Eucharist, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”, and the Bible repeats it—clearly, unambiguously, and without qualifiers—(cf. Matthew 26:26ff, Mark 14:22ff, Luke 22:19ff, 1 Corinthians 11:24ff, etc.), I take the “plain sense of Scripture” to mean that the Eucharist (i.e. what used to be bread and wine) is exactly what He says it says: His Body. You don’t, and you proceed to tie yourself into a pretzel trying to explain away what any child could easily see. Jesus took the bread, blessed and broke it, and said, “This is My Body” of the bread of that last Passover Seder; and He said “the Bread that I will give is My Flesh, for the life of the world” (cf John 6:51); and that true teaching is passed on, and on, for 2000 unbroken years, to us who do not find it “too hard of a saying” and refuse to believe (cf. John 6). If Jesus had meant merely to “come to Him and believe”, then He would hardly have allowed most of His disciples to leave Him on the basis of a simple misunderstanding, nor would He have failed to explain the “true meaning” to the Twelve, as in other cases of misunderstood “parables”.

So... you appeal to your own fallible interpretation of a book for whose contents you cannot account (i.e. how did the books of the Bible get chosen, and by whom, and on what authority?), you restrict yourself to that book alone (even when that book does not require such, and you flatly contradict yourself by following that “sola Scriptura” requirement), and you reject the very Church, founded upon St. Peter, Whom Jesus established specifically for the purpose of protecting and carrying on His Revelation (both written and oral), Who has existed in unbroken succession since the time of Christ. Given the above, I hope you’ll understand why I won’t simply take your word for what this-or-that bit of Scripture means.

The Church claims to be infallible in its transmission of the Faith (and has an unbroken continuity of teachings whose core content, while clarified for different ages, has NEVER changed in essence, nor has it ever contradicted itself within); while you claim to be fallible. Can you see why I’d trust the Church, rather than (no offense intended) your own views, or the views of anyone else who presumes to set themselves up as their own “private magisterium”?

1 - I don’t worry much about where scripture is disputed in interpretation. I think it is silly to say that Mary remained a virgin, but if someone wants to ignore the obvious meaning of brother and sister for cousin...well, it denies no central doctrine of Christianity, so I guess it is between God and them.

I assume some of my interpretations are wrong, but I’ll let God handle my correction. I suspect many of our disputes will seem silly when we see God.

2 - Canon. Luther did NOT reject James as scripture, but the reality is that every man will have to determine what they accept as scripture. I cannot prevent the Mormons from adding books. I can only tell them I do not agree and won’t accept those books as having any authority.

The Old Testament was accepted at the time of Jesus, and early Christians accepted the gospels, the writings of Paul, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John as scripture almost as soon as the ink was dry. I would be hard pressed to know what critical doctrine can only be found in the remaining NT books.

The Apocrypha has long been in dispute. Up until the Council of Trent, many considered it good enough for reading, but not good enough for determining doctrine. Jerome didn’t think much of it, either. Until the Council of Trent, it was acceptable for Catholics to question it, and some argue that the Council of Trent left open the possibility of two levels of ‘scripture’ (although scripture says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

3 “E.g. your portrayal of Sacred Tradition as (essentially) a “blank check” which the Vatican can use to “invent” whatever it likes is simply an ad hominem canard, with no proof behind it at all.”

That is not what I said. I did provide quotes from Mark Shea & the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that it ‘reveals truths previously hidden’, and that the process is one of evolution.

Of course, if you suggest Sacred Tradition is fixed, then I’m sure you can provide an authoritative listing of true sacred tradition. But the problem is that everyone KNOWS that transubstantiation wasn’t passed down from Peter to his successors in whispers, waiting for someone to reveal it at a later date. And if it didn’t come down from the Apostles, then how could John say to abide in the teaching already given?

4 “If Jesus had meant merely to “come to Him and believe”, then He would hardly have allowed most of His disciples to leave Him on the basis of a simple misunderstanding...”

Already answered. Jesus said the people following him were NOT believers all, but that many were unbelievers following because of the feeding of the 5000.

“Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.

25When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you.”

They then make it clear they have no interest in following God. When they bring up manna in the wilderness, Jesus responds,””Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world...I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.”

As it says in verse 64, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe...”

However, the plain meaning of scripture can be discussed. You say it refers to the Eucharist, although no one present knew anything about the Lord’s Supper. I say it was a response to the Jews bringing up manna, with Jesus telling them HE was the sign of God, and they needed to believe.

I’ll let anyone else reading this thread decide which is more likely. Neither of us is likely to convince the other, so we need to leave that correction, to either or both of us, to God. We will both give account of our actions to God.

5 - “So... you appeal to your own fallible interpretation of a book for whose contents you cannot account (i.e. how did the books of the Bible get chosen, and by whom, and on what authority?)”

Actually, see this thread I posted a while back:

How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2320483/posts

It gives you the Protestant and Orthodox answers to those questions.

6 - “Can you see why I’d trust the Church, rather than (no offense intended) your own views, or the views of anyone else who presumes to set themselves up as their own “private magisterium”?”

Peter wasn’t the Vicar of Christ. The Holy Spirit is. You can appeal to a church that killed Wycliffe & Tyndale for spreading the scriptures to the common man, and that has changed its doctrine, to include the primacy of the Pope, transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc. I’ll appeal to the Holy Spirit and scripture, which is where the Apostles seemed content to leave authority.

Apologies for the length of this, but: deep topics sometimes require depths of text.

I don’t worry much about where scripture is disputed in interpretation.

(!) I'm not quite sure what to say, in reply to that. You do realize that this approach would neutralize the vast majority of the Bible, don't you? Some of the more... er... "ambitious" (read: heretical) proponents of the historical-critical method of analyzing Scripture, for example, are convinced that the only saying which can be verified (beyond reasonable doubt--whatever that means, to them!) as truly spoken by Jesus was "Amen"! And that doesn't even touch interpretation! Rudolf Bultmann, for example, was convinced that one could read and believe the Gospels without believing in a literal, bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead; he proposed that the stories of the resurrection really referred to the "Easter Faith" of the Apostles, which could (somehow) still endure even if Jesus' Body were to be found in the tomb. No... if you disregard the "contested bits" of Scripture, you jettison the whole thing, I'm afraid! Seriously: what IS the core content of your faith, and how do you arrive at certainly about it?

I assume some of my interpretations are wrong, but I’ll let God handle my correction. I suspect many of our disputes will seem silly when we see God.

Some might. It doesn't follow that ALL of them will be (some might be make-or-break issues of eternal salvation or damnation!), or that we shouldn't wrestle with them... unless you think the Gospel is completely irrelevant, and there's no such thing as damnation? (You'd be a very singular sort of Baptist, if you do believe that!)

2 - Canon. Luther did NOT reject James as scripture,

He rejected it as INSPIRED Scripture (i.e. worthy of being in the Biblical canon, written by an Apostle), and he claimed that it flatly contradicted St. Paul (William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible Series, The Letters of James and Peter, Revised Edition, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY, 1976, p. 7). He also tried to remove Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation (mainly for doctrinal reasons... as in Revelation 20:12-13, where it insists that the dead will be judged according to their *works*, etc.). Apparently, he didn't see the canon of Scripture to be as "self-evident" as you apparently see it to be. So again: how do you arrive at your conclusion (i.e. the 66-book canon = true and complete Bible)?

but the reality is that every man will have to determine what they accept as scripture. I cannot prevent the Mormons from adding books. I can only tell them I do not agree and won’t accept those books as having any authority.

Ah. But you'll stop short of saying that they're objectively wrong, and that your view is objectively right? And if someone else drops Romans from the Bible, for example, you won't quibble about such a triviality? What in the Bible ARE you prepared to defend as being objectively true and divinely inspired? (And I must say: you're the first Baptist I've ever met who--and I've met many (my brother is one, in fact)--was so lackadaisical about the canon of Scripture!)

The Old Testament was accepted at the time of Jesus,

That's a bit of an oversimplification. There were two distinct canons of the Old Testament: the Palestinian Canon (39 books), and the Septuagint (46 books)--both of which were accepted as valid, in general. It wasn't until after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the subsequent fierce move to consolidate/salvage Jewish identity versus the rest of the Gentile world, that the Septuagint (especially with its 1 Maccabees, which praises the Romans) was rejected by many of the non-Christian Jews of the time.

and early Christians accepted the gospels, the writings of Paul, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John as scripture almost as soon as the ink was dry.

This is also a dreadful oversimplification, since there were scores of books which were also in "competition" for inclusion--some of which were likewise accepted quickly, and with enthusiasm, by many people (e.g. Gospel of Thomas, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, the Acts of Paul, Paul's 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians, etc.). It'd be rather careless (and glib) to say that "the Gospels and the writings of Paul" were accepted, when it was uncertain which Gospels, and which of "Paul's writings", were authentic!

I would be hard pressed to know what critical doctrine can only be found in the remaining NT books.

That's rather reductionist and casual of you, I must say! Perhaps you might start a FR thread and ask, "What's so great about the Book of Revelation, anyway?", and watch the reaction? :) But surely you see that you already have a preconceived notion of "critical doctrines", yes? From where did you get them, if not from the Bible? And if from the Bible, how do you know the Bible is complete, or that some of the books you find to be "critical" are truly inspired Scripture? Because the early Church says so? They accepted the Eucharist, as well, but you somehow find the will to reject THAT. I admit to being baffled by your approach, here. For example: you apparently hold to the ideas that Romans is inspired Scripture; but you won't tell me WHY you think so. Care to make another attempt?

The Apocrypha has long been in dispute. Up until the Council of Trent, many considered it good enough for reading, but not good enough for determining doctrine. Jerome didn’t think much of it, either. Until the Council of Trent, it was acceptable for Catholics to question it, and some argue that the Council of Trent left open the possibility of two levels of ‘scripture’ (although scripture says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

(*sigh*) See, here's where I'm trying hard to believe that you're not being deliberately disingenuous: on one hand, you say, "Some believe that ___" (though the "___" is not supported by Catholic teaching, at all), and on the other hand, you say, "But I think that contradicts Scripture on ___", and leave the implication that the Church has somehow crashed Herself into a reef! Would it help if I said that your parenthetical "some argue ___" is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and provably so, cf. the documents of the Council of Trent?

[Paladin]
3 “E.g. your portrayal of Sacred Tradition as (essentially) a “blank check” which the Vatican can use to “invent” whatever it likes is simply an ad hominem canard, with no proof behind it at all.”

[Mr. Rogers]
That is not what I said.

Don't you remember saying, "Sounds to me like a “Living Constitution”, that changes meaning as required to fit the judges opinions..."...? I'm not sure how else to interpret a statement like that.

I did provide quotes from Mark Shea & the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that it ‘reveals truths previously hidden’, and that the process is one of evolution.

I never denied that. I denied your further assertion that Sacred Tradition was as malleable as its "judges" wished it to be. The Church explicitly denies that charge (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 86).

[Paladin]
“If Jesus had meant merely to “come to Him and believe”, then He would hardly have allowed most of His disciples to leave Him on the basis of a simple misunderstanding...”

[Mr Rogers]
Already answered. Jesus said the people following him were NOT believers all, but that many were unbelievers following because of the feeding of the 5000.

First: He said that "there are SOME among you who do not believe"; He didn't say ALL. Second, you're assuming (without warrant) that the "disbelief" somehow had not involved disbelief in what He had just SAID! (You'll note that no one expressed significant incredulity before He started speaking specifically about eating His Body and drinking His Blood? Did you think that was mere coincidence?)

As it says in verse 64, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe...”

Yes... but: did not believe WHAT? That's our key disagreement, I think.

However, the plain meaning of scripture can be discussed. You say it refers to the Eucharist, although no one present knew anything about the Lord’s Supper.

Aside from Jesus, of course.

I say it was a response to the Jews bringing up manna, with Jesus telling them HE was the sign of God, and they needed to believe.

Then why not SAY that? Did you miss the reactions of horror and disgust from the crowd when they first started to argue? "How can this man give us His FLESH to eat?!?" It's patently obvious that this is the focal point of the crowd's resistance: the apparent reference to cannibalism; and a quick explanation about the so-called "metaphorical meaning" would have resolved that particular gripe, straight away. And again: believe WHAT?

<>I’ll let anyone else reading this thread decide which is more likely.

You're welcome to do so... but I'll note that you'd have to ignore a great deal of John 6, and twist the meaning of much of the rest, to avoid the fact that the John 6 crowd was upset about Jesus' "hard saying" about "giving His Flesh to eat". Do you seriously not see this?

Neither of us is likely to convince the other, so we need to leave that correction, to either or both of us, to God. We will both give account of our actions to God.

Well... if that means "I'm no longer interested in debating the topic", then: fair enough. But I don't think we've hit the bottom of the issue, yet. There IS such a thing as objective truth, and (if we hope to believe anything at all) we can access it in a trustworthy manner. God wouldn't have set us adrift in a sea of agnosticism and relativism (i.e. "every man for himself"); He must have left us a sure way to know the path to salvation (and more specifically than a glib, "Yes, it's Jesus!" We know that; now, we need to know what that MEANS, and how to appropriate that knowledge to the benefit of our souls, and the souls of others).

[Paladin]
“So... you appeal to your own fallible interpretation of a book for whose contents you cannot account (i.e. how did the books of the Bible get chosen, and by whom, and on what authority?)”

[Mr Rogers]
Actually, see this thread I posted a while back: How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)

I read a bit of it (and skimmed the rest); and it leaves the very same questions begged or unanswered. It does not presume to say with certainty which Biblical books are "real" Biblical books (i.e. divinely inspired); it merely appealed to tradition and popularity (two fallacies), and any further appeals to "sola Scriptura" would be circular, self-contradictory and useless. Unless you're willing to play the agnostic, you'll have to answer the fundamental question: "How do I know that the Bible is really the Bible, and that the correct Books were included?" I assert that you (perhaps unknowingly) inherited it from the Catholic Church, Who was led (through various councils and papal pronouncements) to settle the Canon of Scripture, and make the declaration with whatever solemnity the times might have needed.

Peter wasn’t the Vicar of Christ.

Christ, the Bible, and the early Church all soundly disagree with you. St. Peter was given the office of "prime minister" of the Kingdom of Christ (which was the fulfillment of the Kingdom of David); Look at Isaiah 22:22ff, and compare the wording to Matthew 16:18-20, and you may see what I mean: the "Keys to the Kingdom" aren't just words.

The Holy Spirit is.

(??) How on earth do you get that? The Holy Spirit is God, Himself--the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity! He's no more Christ's vicar (i.e. a subordinate who has been deputized to act with the ruler's authority) than Christ is the vicar of the Holy Spirit!

You can appeal to a church that killed Wycliffe & Tyndale for spreading the scriptures to the common man,

Ahem. I don't suppose you might research some of this, friend? Wycliffe died of a stroke, on December 28, 1384; neither the Catholic Church nor anyone else killed him. Even Tyndale was not killed by the Catholic Church, and his death was not due to a mere "spreading the Scriptures to the common man" (which would have been fine, had he distributed one of the AUTHORIZED English (or other) translations; he was ultimately executed by the Holy Roman Empire (not the Church) after having made enemies of everyone from the Emperor to King Henry VIII (which was particularly ironic, given that Tyndale is often lionized in modern Anglican circles as "the Father of the English Bible"... which is blithering nonsense; not only were there several approved English translations already in existence, but the founder of Anglicanism ordered Tyndale's "bible" burned throughout all of England. It was a theological and translative train-wreck, and it would have misled untold numbers of people in matters critical to salvation. (If you'll forgive my saying so: both Catholics and Protestants alike were, in past eras, far less blase about teaching the true faith and avoiding (what they saw as) error than you've described yourself to be.) For you, or anyone else, to say that the Church condemned "spreading the Scriptures to the common man", is silly at best, and libellous at worst.

But at any rate: is this discussion to degenerate into the violent things done in the past? Are you willing to defend the records of all of the "Reformers" of your tradition (Luther called for the death of the Jews; Calvin burned dissidents at the stake, etc.)? The violence done by both sides says nothing, WHATSOEVER, about the truth or falsity of their doctrines.

and that has changed its doctrine,

Sorry, no. Clarified, yes; re-presented to a new audience? Yes. Invented brand-new doctrines out of nowhere? A silly canard, and utter bunkum.

to include the primacy of the Pope,

Only a completely biased reading of Church history could come up with a wild statement like this. Did you not notice that only Simon was given a new name as he accepted a new ministry (i.e. prime minister--the "al bayt") and the Keys of the Kingdom; and like Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22ff, he would "be a father" (Latin: "Papa", from where we get "Pope") to God's people; what he opened, no one would shut, and what he shut, no one would open? Aside from that, and aside from the fact that St. Peter was always listed first among the Apostles (sometimes even to the point of neglecting the others' names entirely), was entrusted with the flock of Christ (cf. John 21:15-17), was the spokesman for the Apostles and the early Church (Acts 2, etc.), etc., you'd find it quite difficult to argue that St. Peter did not hold primacy among the Apostles. Beyond this, the Church's history (yes, I know your disdain for it) is clear on the successors of St. Peter, down to the present day (Pope Benedict XVI is the 264th successor of St. Peter, in unbroken succession), held primacy in the Church. You cannot coherently argue that this teaching was "recent" or "invented" after Apostolic times.

transubstantiation,

See my previous comments; if you find it (along with the staggering Biblical and historical support for it) "too hard a saying", I don't know what else would convince you.

Purgatory,

See 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, for starters, which was written over 100 years before Christ was born. Call it wrong, call it silly, call it repulsive; but you're in no position to call it a "recent invention".

Indulgences,

Do me a favour, please: describe, in your own words, the Catholic Church's teaching on indulgences, and let's see if your understanding is accurate (as opposed to mere parrot-talk of anti-Catholic sources). I'm not at all convinced that you have the foggiest idea WHAT indulgences are, much less why they might or might not exist... especially because there is NOTHING in the doctrine on indulgences that is in any way against anything in the Holy Faith; in fact, the teaching is as beautiful as it is consoling.

I’ll appeal to the Holy Spirit and scripture,

...except when you don't (i.e. when the meaning of Scripture is disputed)? I'd also be curious how you're sure that you're appealing to true Scripture and the true Holy Spirit (as opposed to spurious writings, and as opposed to your own imagination, or worse)... especially since the Catholic Church claims to appeal to the very same things. You haven't advanced your case here, one jot.

which is where the Apostles seemed content to leave authority.

If you mean that the Apostles "are content to leave authority with the Holy Spirit", then--in one sense--you're right, of course: no faithful and well-informed Christian will deny God's ultimate authority. But if you mean that the Apostles (and the Church) did NOT have God's Own authority delegated to them (to forgive men's sins: John 20:23; to heal and exorcise: Matthew 10:1, etc.; to judge: Matthew 18:15-17; and the authority to bind and loose everything having to do with the Kingdom: Matthew 18:18-19; etc.)), you're quite mistaken.

I have no intention of answering all this over Christmas, but a couple of quick points:

“Only a completely biased reading of Church history could come up with a wild statement like this. Did you not notice that only Simon was given a new name as he accepted a new ministry (i.e. prime minister—the “al bayt”) and the Keys of the Kingdom; and like Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22ff, he would “be a father” (Latin: “Papa”, from where we get “Pope”) to God’s people; what he opened, no one would shut, and what he shut, no one would open?”

You get all that from: “17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”?????????????

Apart from the keys of heaven, the other promises were made to others as well - and there is nothing new about interpreting the keys as what Peter did at Pentecost and Cornelius’s house - opening heaven to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles. See Matt 18:”18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” and John 20: “19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came...And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

It is safe to say, at an absolute minimum, that if Jesus MEANT all you say, he could have prevented a lot of confusion by simply saying it. But what Jesus said was “ “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Maybe you think that sounds like he was setting Peter up as his Vicar, but no one else seems to have caught it.

“He rejected it as INSPIRED Scripture (i.e. worthy of being in the Biblical canon, written by an Apostle), and he claimed that it flatly contradicted St. Paul (William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible Series, The Letters of James and Peter, Revised Edition, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY, 1976, p. 7)”

Simply not true. See here for a good review:

http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm

“Then why not SAY that? Did you miss the reactions of horror and disgust from the crowd when they first started to argue? “How can this man give us His FLESH to eat?!?” It’s patently obvious that this is the focal point of the crowd’s resistance...I’ll note that you’d have to ignore a great deal of John 6, and twist the meaning of much of the rest, to avoid the fact that the John 6 crowd was upset about Jesus’ “hard saying” about “giving His Flesh to eat”. Do you seriously not see this?”

What I see is that Jesus didn’t TRY to keep them, because he KNEW they didn’t believe. What I see is that bread was brought up, not in reference to the Lord’s Supper (that NO ONE THERE had ever heard of) but in response to the Jew’s question: “26Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life...30So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

It isn’t open to discussion or debate about why Jesus brought up bread. It is in the text itself.

Nor is there any dispute about the objection of the Jews - and it WASN’T cannibalism, unless you think Peter approved of cannibals. There objection is recorded here:

“41So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

They KNEW he wasn’t being literal about his flesh, but they ALSO knew he was claiming to have come from heaven. And Peter understood it too: “we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Please don’t pretend the Jews were upset over cannibalism. If THAT had been the objection, Peter would have objected as well! The objected is recorded in the text. They objected to Jesus being the Holy One of God, while Peter and others believed.

There was never a hint of the Eucharist in John 6. It wasn’t why Jesus used the metaphor, and the Jews were not objecting to cannibalism. There isn’t anything to argue with you about. It is in the text.

“I don’t worry much about where scripture is disputed in interpretation. / (!) I’m not quite sure what to say, in reply to that. You do realize that this approach would neutralize the vast majority of the Bible, don’t you?”

If I had NO concern, I wouldn’t debate you, would I? My point is that many of the things we can argue about (did Mary remain a virgin?) are pretty stupid, really. In Romans 14, Paul makes my point - the same Paul who rebuked Peter over the content of the gospel.

Tell you what: let’s take a breather over Christmas (I’m getting ready to go to Mass in about 5 minutes, anyway, so time is of the essence), and I’ll see what I can do on the 26th or 27th...

...and if it doesn’t sound completely incongruous with what we’ve said so far: merry Christmas to you and yours!

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. I may disagree with Catholic doctrine, but I’ve yet to find a verse that reads, “Repent, and become a Baptist!”

Hey, again!

Tell you what: the past week (on this end) has been an exhausting mix of tight schedules, intense trauma in friends’ lives, and several funerals... so what do you say we can this one a “draw”, and save our brain cells for future use (and get some needed rest in the meantime)?

At any rate: it was an honour to spar with you! :)

“At any rate: it was an honour to spar with you! :)”

Good. I think I’m behind on points...

Best wishes, and thanks for an intelligent exchange of beliefs.

Good. I think I’m behind on points...

Enh. Not sure about that...! :)

Best wishes, and thanks for an intelligent exchange of beliefs.

Likewise!