Just trying to apply Jewish customs, not western standards, in order to understand the text.
That was my point. Ah me. We seem to be talking past each other here. First Century Jewish culture cannot be read off in a few easy rules. Westerners like us are tempted to say, well, why doesn't the extended family do it? That's the rule, right? But Jesus was the birthright son, the de facto leader of the family in the absence of Joseph, and his judgment would prevail over the prima fascia rule. Furthermore, as I stated last post, there is a distinct possibility that John met the criteria of being family anyway, assuming him to be son of Salome the sister of Mary, and Salome being wife of Zebedee., which in turn would make Jesus and John first cousins.
This illustrates BTW the difference between trying to map a later evolved tradition alongside whatever faint hints one thinks they are finding in Scripture, versus insisting on hard evidence that the Scriptures teach a specific doctrine before regarding it as binding. The hermeneutic of the conservative Protestant is always going to look reductionist to those with a tradition to defend. But it is critical to not lay burdens upon men through the traditions of men that have no real basis in God's word. We know Jesus was vehemently opposed to that:
Mat 11:28-30 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (29) Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. (30) For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
And see how He cleared out His Father's temple to overturn the burdens imposed by a priesthood that was true in earthly pedigree but false in heart. If there is anything that lies deepest in the heart of the Protestant hermeneutic, it is to make the way clear for lost sinners to come to Jesus, in that same spirit of clearing the temple of those who would, without warrant, make themselves the door to redemption, instead of Jesus.
This is why I will not, by God's grace, ever "progress" to seeing such things as Mary rising to Heaven without dying. There is no warrant for such a belief in Scripture. Furthermore, even as an inference, it is unsustainable. Elijah and Enoch, who were sinful men like the rest of us, did not have to die, for reasons known only to God. Jesus, who was sinless, both died, and rose, as was taken to Heaven in the clouds. So what basis for Mary then not to die? Even if she was sinless (which cannot be true of any human but Jesus), she might well have been subjected to death, as Jesus was. So nothing in the NT narrative gives us any reason to think she was anything but mortal like us, and will share in the resurrection like us, when that day comes. To take a later developed story like this, and make it obligatory of Christian belief, is to impose burdens not imposed by Jesus. It obstructs rather than helps the way of the sinner looking for Christ. It is Jesus who is the author and finisher of our faith. Not Mary. Not you nor me nor any saint of God or would-be saint among men. Only Jesus. The best any of the rest of us can hope to be is "God's little helpers." That's it. And I'm happy with that. It is an honor, and one which I would not becloud with fanciful tales of johnny-come-latelies.
As for the Lord's Supper, I am a strict memorialist. Zwinglian, if you prefer that sort of label. And yet I believe the Lord Jesus is really and truly present whenever believers gather to remember His sacrifice on our behalf:
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
So I would reject as idolatry any attempt to represent Christ as
physically present through philosophic trickery such as transubstantiation, in such things as the bloodless wafer sitting at the center of the monstrance, which so resembles the solar image I could never subscribe to such without fully believing I was compromising to sun worship and denying the faith. It is the blood of Jesus that was spilled to set me free from my many awful sins. My remembrance of Him could never be done right without the cup of the New Covenant in His blood, "for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." It is His blood that made the difference, and without it, I would still be lost, and have no cause for celebration of my newfound life in Him.
What about John 6 and the other usual proof texts? I'm sure you can guess I see those as intentional metaphors provided by Christ as a means to draw us closer to Him through regular remembrance of His unstoppable love for us, both in word and deed. His presence at the meal is spiritual, but no less real for being spiritual rather than physical. God is spirit, and there is nothing unreal about Him. Others on this thread have tried to say that the Eucharist is exclusively about Christ, not one's fellow believers. That is a false dichotomy. It is about Christ,
and us being knit together in Christ in love, a spiritual body, which we are to discern, lest we partake unworthily, which risk we remove, if we treat
each other with love and respect, as the body of Christ.
I know I have said some things here which may offend. That is not my intent, and I hope you do not take it that way. I have appreciated the irenic nature of our conversation, and hope that it may continue.
Peace,
SR
There is no warrant for such a belief in Scripture. Furthermore, even as an inference, it is unsustainable. Elijah and Enoch, who were sinful men like the rest of us, did not have to die, for reasons known only to God. Thus there is a warrant in Scripture for believing God assumes some into heaven without a normal death. Not only that, but the third I alluded to, Moses, who died at 120 with a grave unknown to man, miraculously appeared in human form with Elijah at Jesus' side suggesting something else; curious that; and we have the two witnesses still to account for; will they be Moses and Elijah again ? It would fit. It would be scripturally possible for God to have assumed Mary into heaven. It is not recorded in the scriptures, along with many other things, so I would not expect anyone devoted to Sola Scriptura to believe it.
As for the Lord's Supper, I am a strict memorialist. Zwinglian, if you prefer that sort of label. And yet I believe the Lord Jesus is really and truly present whenever believers gather to remember His sacrifice on our behalf: Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
I am pleased to hear you hold that verse to signify a real presence rather than a church.