Mary of Nazareth As The Bible Defines Her

Monday, This study seeks to present from God's Holy Word what the Bible teaches about Mary of Nazareth, the young Jewish virgin that bore the Messiah, the Savior of the World. In this study we will seek to look at EVERY Bible verse found in the Holy Scriptures that pertains to Mary of Nazareth. Be sure to check out all the links for this study, for they will provide a deeper perspective into the person of Mary.

Introduction . In beginning this study, the clarifying statement should be made that the Bible, God’s infallible (reliable) and immaculate (perfect) Word, is the FINAL AUTHORITY when it comes to ALL matters pertaining to the truth of Christianity, which includes Mary (2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16).

The Lord Jesus Christ gave countless warnings to BEWARE false teachers and false teachings. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man DECEIVE YOU (Gospel of Saint Matthew 24:4).

Saint Paul also warned us to BEWARE of false teachings and fables. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

Many dear, sincere people trust for their eternal destiny in observing "Christian traditions," performing "good works" and having a "denominational upbringing" instead of BELIEVING and TRUSTING the Word of Almighty God (2 Tim. 3:14-4:5). The Lord Jesus issued serious warnings about practicing the vain traditions of men instead of holding to the sound eternal absolutes and spiritual laws found in Almighty God's Holy Word (St. Matt. 7:21-23).

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition (St. Mark 7:7-9).

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (St. Matthew 15:6b-9).

We also read in God's Word about the positive example of the Bereans. They (The Bereans)received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed" (Acts 17:11b-12a). Again, God's Word is the ABSOLUTE FINAL authority when it comes to any subject or teaching found in Christianity. The Bible states in regard to God's Word: For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89). . Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever (Psalm 119:160). Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (St. Matthew 24:35).

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thess. 2:13).

He that is of God heareth God's words (St. John 8:47). May it be your sincere desire not to allow your own feelings to cloud your reason regarding this very delicate subject relating to Mary of Nazareth. By having faith in Almighty God (Heb. 11:6), i.e., by believing on God and His Word, may the Holy Spirit guide you into all truth (St. John 16:12-13). Whatever your thoughts, traditions or teachings about Mary (or Miriam in the Hebrew) of Nazareth, they MUST be defined by and align themselves with the Holy Scriptures. Again, the objective of this study is to present what God's Holy Word, the Bible, teaches about Mary of Nazareth.

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate (to look with pity on her vile condition) of his handmaiden (slave): for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation (St. Luke 1:45-49).

Mary offered a burnt offering and a sin offering for an atonement after her purification (Leviticus 12:1-8). And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons (St. Luke 2:22-24). . These passages reveal that Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior!

Nowhere in the New Testament is there found the occasion where the Lord Jesus called His "human" mother Mary, "Mother." We only find that He called her "Woman" (St. John 2:1-4; 19:25-27). There are distinctions given by the Gospel writers (2 Peter 1:20-21) that reveal Mary as the mother of Jesus’ human nature, but again the term "mother" was never used by Jesus when addressing Mary. We have absolutely NO record of that. Mary was a created being and the Lord Jesus was the Eternal Creator (St. John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:1-3). This practice was not belittling to motherhood in general or derogatory to Mary herself in any way, shape or form. The Lord Jesus was helping Mary to understand that the Son of her womb was actually the Son of the Highest sent from Heaven above (St. John 1:1-14; Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2). Mary had only given birth to PROVIDE a human body to house the Eternal Person of the Son of God for His great mission here on planet earth (St. John 1:14; Heb. 2:14-15; 10:5, 12:1-3). n, Image Example: (Click links below for a visual image) . The Lord Jesus (The Son of Almighty God) - Click for link . Adam's fallen race which included Mary (Romans 5:12-19). - Clink for link , Jesus was (and is) the Perfect Son of God (St. John 1:1-3), God in the flesh (St. John 1:14) and the Savior of the World - including all humanity and even Mary (St. Luke 1:45-49). This title of "woman" was a constant reminder to and for Mary (Miriam) that Jesus was absolutely different and holy (perfect and set apart). Jesus was not like any of her other children or any other of Adam's IMPERFECT fallen race (St. Luke 1:31-32; Rom. 5:12-19). He was the PERFECT Son of Almighty God dwelling in a PERFECT human body (St. John 8:46; 1 Peter 3:18). The heavenly assignment given to Mary by Almighty God would not be an easy one, as the Holy Scriptures tell us. , And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart (St. Luke 2:18-19).

And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed (St. Luke 2:34-35).

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? And they understood not the saying which he spoke unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart (St. Luke 2:48-51).

And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother (Mark 3:35).

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home(St. John 19:25-27). . (This last passage is pertinent to understanding why Jesus used the term "woman" when addressing Mary, i.e., to communicate that his relationship with his earthly mother would not be permanent, only temporary.)

The Virgin-Born Birth of The Savior of the World . And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy (Lucifer's) seed and her (Eve's, later Mary's) seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Genesis 3:13-15).

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (St. Matthew 1:20-23).

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31-35). . But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (Gal 4:4). . Almighty God (the Father) BYPASSED the seed of fallen man by the POWER and OVERSHADOWING of the Holy Spirit (St. Luke 1:35). This Divine action PREVENTED the fallen traits and corruption of Adam's FALLEN race (Gen. 5:3; Romans 3:23; 5:12-19) from CONTAMINATING the PERFECT housing (body of flesh) for the Person of the Son of God to tangibly dwell here on planet earth (Micah 5:2; St. Luke 1:35; St. John 1:14; Heb. 10:5; 1 Peter 1:19). . Image Example: (Click links below for a visual image) .. The Lord Jesus (The Son of Almighty God). - Click for link . Adam's fallen race which included Mary (Romans 5:12-19). - Click for link ' The Non-Perpetual Virginity of Mary after the Lord Jesus' Birth . Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together (i.e., had intimate physical relations), she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not (refers to sexual intimacy of the God-ordained marital union) till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS (St. Matthew 1:18-25).

And she brought forth her firstborn (implies the first with more following after) son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn (St. Luke 2:7).

I am become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother's children (Psalm 69:8). . And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Matthew 13:53-55). . “When the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him” (St. Mark 6:1-3).

After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days (St. John 2:12). . His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come (St. John 7:3-8).

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:13-14).

There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother (St. Mark 3:31-35).

And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid (St. Mark 15:47).

And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him (St. Mark 16:1).

Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children. When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:56-58).

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19).

Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied (St. Jude 1:1-2).

The Book of James and the Book of Jude were written by the half-brothers of Jesus, i.e., Mary’s children fathered by Joseph. Also, James the half-brother of Jesus was one of the early leaders of the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13-21).

Mary's Life after the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ . During the crucifixion of Christ on the cross, John is given guardianship of Mary and her family by her firstborn son, Jesus.

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home (St. John 19:26-27).

"Mary and her family were present with the disciples at Pentecost and were also included with the Church at Jerusalem." / And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (Acts 1:13, 14)

NOTE: All words in bold print in the following section refer directly to the disciples (including Mary).

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord (including Mary) in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:1-4). . And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved (Acts 2:42-47).

"Mary died in Christ and shall be changed at Christ's coming for the Church at the Rapture" - Link

NOTE: All words in bold print in the following section refer to "church age" believers (including Mary).

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:51-57).

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons (children) of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons (children) of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure (1 John 3:1-3).

And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever (Revelation 22:1-5).

The Scripture verses presented here consisted of ALL the scripture verses that mention Mary of Nazareth. The many traditions of Mary - her intercessory prayers, her immaculate birth and sinless life (or state of perfection), her perpetual virginity, her ascension into Heaven, her immaculate heart, etc. are NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in the Holy Scriptures. Relatively speaking, very little is mentioned about Mary in the New Testament. These false doctrines, teachings, fables and traditions passed down through the centuries have originated and been enlarged upon by the traditions of men and the Catholic Church. These fables were not given by Almighty God. In fact, these teachings contradict the Holy Scriptures and its divine authority. They are at the very heart of Satanic lies and deception.

To again clarify, this study was not done to belittle anyone's personal beliefs, but only to expose the heretical falsehoods pertaining to the church traditions and teachings of Mary of Nazareth. It is our deepest desire to encourage people to BELIEVE the Holy Scriptures and to REJECT any teachings and traditions of men which contradict the Holy Scriptures. May it be your sincere desire to acknowledge Mary as she is; a wonderful and faithful servant of Almighty God (Luke 1:28). As the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, may Jesus Christ ONLY be exalted and lifted up in our hearts and lives.

St. Peter stated in 2 Peter 1: 20-21: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And St. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:12-17: Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Bible, God’s infallible and immaculate Word, is the ABSOLUTE and FINAL AUTHORITY for all matters relating to spiritual truth (doctrine) about God, Jesus, sin, salvation, Mary, etc. May it be your sincere desire to be governed by the Holy Scriptures and NOT the traditions of men (St. Matt. 15; St. Mark 7). The true (Biblical) Mary would surely want you to!. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

“The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings; she judges them more than she is judged by them. Harnack has said that the Church is accustomed to conceal her evolution and to efface as well as she can the differences between her present and her former thought by condemning as heretical the most faithful witnesses of what was formerly orthodoxy. Not understanding what tradition is, the ever-living thought of the Church, he believes that she abjured her past when she merely distinguished between what was traditional truth in the past and what was only human alloy mixed with that truth, the personal opinion of an author substituting itself for the general thought of the Christian community.”

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Tradition_and_Living_Magisterium

Sounds to me like a “Living Constitution”, that changes meaning as required to fit the judges opinions...

“As regards truths such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, there have been uncertainties and controversies over the very substance of the subjects involved. The revealed truth was indeed in the deposit of truth in the Church, but it was not formulated in explicit terms nor even in clearly equivalent terms; it was enveloped in a more general truth (that e.g. of the all-holiness of Mary), the formula of which might be understood in a more or less absolute sense (exemption from all actual sin, exemption even from original sin). On the other hand, this truth (the exemption of Mary from original sin) may seem in at least apparent conflict with other certain truths (universality of original sin, redemption of all by Christ). It will be readily understood that in some circumstances, when the question is put explicitly for the first time, the faithful have hesitated. It is even natural that the theologians should show more hesitation than the other faithful. More aware of the apparent opposition between the new opinion and the ancient truth, they may legitimately resist, while awaiting fuller light, what may seem to them unreflecting haste or unenlightened piety. Thus did St. Anselm, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure in the case of the Immaculate Conception. But the living idea of Mary in the mind of the Church implied absolute exemption from all sin without exception, even from original sin; the faithful whom theological preoccupations did not prevent from beholding this idea in its purity, with that intuition of the heart often more prompt and more enlightened than reasoning and reflected thought, shrank from all restriction and could not suffer, according to the expression of St. Augustine, that there should be question of any sin whatsoever in connexion with Mary. Little by little the feeling of the faithful won the day. Not, as has been said, because the theologians, powerless to struggle against a blind sentiment, had themselves to follow the movement, but because their perceptions, quickened by the faithful and by their own instinct of faith, grew more considerate of the sentiment of the faithful and eventually examined the new opinion more closely in order to make sure that, far from contradicting any dogma, it harmonized wonderfully with other revealed truths and corresponded as a whole to the analogy of faith and rational fitness. Finally scrutinizing with fresh care the deposit of revelation, they there discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed, as far as they were concerned in the more general formula, and, not satisfied to hold it as true, they declared it revealed.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

“Was Paul willing to have someone circumcised so they could better spread the Gospel? Yes. / You say that very glibly, given your own reading of Galatians! Read Galatians 5, again...”

I’ve read Galatians, and only a fool would claim that there is no distinction between those who circumcise themselves to gain approval of God, and those who circumcise themselves to gain access to potential converts.

“Unless your bias against Catholicism leads you to do it?”

Odd. I’ve had Calvinists claim I’m a secret Catholic pretending to be a Baptist. There are many Catholics on this forum who can attest that I’m not anti-Catholic, but Baptist.

Where I bump heads with Catholics is on the central difference between the two - can the traditions discovered or uncovered by the doctors of the church conflict with the plain meaning of scripture?

On the topic of this thread, I don’t greatly care if someone wants to claim Mary remained a virgin. It is against a plain reading of scripture & requires a lot of contortions, but it conflicts with no essential doctrine. I do wonder, however, at those who twist themselves like pretzels to avoid the thought that Mary had other children, when scripture plainly says she did.

Though Mary is certainly the most blessed woman who ever lived, it's clear from church and secular history that the doctrines that began to bubble up around Mary several hundred years after her death were unknown to the early church.

Jesus' Family Tree

In the Maronite Catholic Church, we are in the Season of Announcements and Glorious Birth of the Lord. Over the past several weeks, the Sunday Gospel focused our attention on how God prepared His people for the birth of Christ. It began with the Announcement to Zechariah, followed by the Announcement to Mary, the Visitation of Mary to her cousin Elizabeth, the Announcement to Joseph, that takes us to Genealogy Sunday.

The early christians were very well aware of Jesus' family tree. It is also worth noting that first century christians spoke and wrote in Aramaic. In fact, the Maronite Catholic Church still retains that ancient language in portions of its liturgy. There is no word for 'cousin' in Aramaic. The term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

[Article on Sacred Tradition from the Catholic Encyclopedia, snipped for space]

Sounds to me like a “Living Constitution”, that changes meaning as required to fit the judges opinions...

"Sounds to you?" That's pretty vague, friend, on which to base a claim of "The Catholic Church creates new dogmas!" Can you prove your case? As it stands now, this sounds uncomfortably like mere mud-slinging.

First: your original claim about Sacred Tradition being "open to new teachings" is simply not true, as a glance at the Catechism of the Catholic Church will show: the Sacred Deposit of Faith is closed, and has been closed since the end of the Apostolic Age (i.e. the death of the last Apostle, St. John). Second, your idea that "the Church can make up what it pleases" is a mere canard; the Church never claimed such power, and She explicitly denies having such power. If you dig in, and insist on calling the Church a liar on that point, then I hope you won't mind if I ask you to prove your case.

[Article on Tradition and the Living Magisterium from the C.E., specifically mentioning the discernment of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, snipped for space]

(*sigh*) I don't suppose you saw fit to read the whole article, rather than merely lifting the quote? It addressed a great many of your points, here...

I'm not quite sure what you think that proves (since you didn't expound); what, exactly, is your issue with the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, or its definition? Do you offer this as a so-called "new dogma", "invented" by the Church? It's as "new" as the quadratic formula, friend; it was always true, but it wasn't forulated until later times. Think of the Dogma of the Trinity, for example (and you DO accept that, yes?); it's nowhere in Scripture, and it was hotly contested by the MAJORITY of Christians (i.e. Arian heretics), and it wasn't solemnly defined until 325 A.D. Would you call the Dogma of the Trinity "an invention", as well? If not, why not?

I’ve read Galatians, and only a fool would claim that there is no distinction between those who circumcise themselves to gain approval of God, and those who circumcise themselves to gain access to potential converts.

(*wry look*) Luckily for me, I suppose, I didn't claim any such thing. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as well, and assume that you didn't intend to call me a fool.) I was challenging your statement (which seems to be your raw opinion) that "St. Peter avoided eating with the Gentiles while around the Judaizers, because he rejected the New Covenant and still embraced the Mosaic Law", while St. Paul's "multilation of St. Timothy's flesh" was a mere trifle for expediency's sake, without any serious theological ramifications. You seem to assume that St. Paul's action (which was far more significant than isolated dining events, and far more irrevocable!) was "okay", while St. Peter's action was somehow an abandonment of the Faith. Care to explain WHY you treat them so differently?

Odd. I’ve had Calvinists claim I’m a secret Catholic pretending to be a Baptist. There are many Catholics on this forum who can attest that I’m not anti-Catholic, but Baptist.

Very interesting, I'm sure. I think you'll admit, though, that you don't accept Catholicism as being true? That, coupled with the fact that you happened to use some rather hackneyed examples from the anti-Catholic playbook (against Catholic doctrine, etc.), led me to believe that you believe Catholicism to be wrong, and that you sometimes made public efforts to show Catholicism to be wrong. Did I misunderstand you?

Where I bump heads with Catholics is on the central difference between the two - can the traditions discovered or uncovered by the doctors of the church conflict with the plain meaning of scripture?

I can imagine why you'd "bump" with Catholics (and others) on that point: because the idea of the "plain sense of Scripture" is rife with subjectivity. I, for example, see the Holy Eucharist in the "plain sense" of John 6, 1 Corinthians 11:23-32, and elsewhere; I see the clear distinction between mortal and non-mortal (i.e. venial) sin in the "plain sense" of 1 John 5:16-17; I see that we are all the Blessed Virgin Mary's children, in the "plain sense" of Revelation 12:17; I see the Biblical approval of prayers for the dead in the "plain sense" of 2 Macabbees 12; and the list goes on. Please tell me that you at least recognize numerous differences of opinion over what the "plain sense of Scripture" is?

On the topic of this thread, I don’t greatly care if someone wants to claim Mary remained a virgin. It is against a plain reading of scripture & requires a lot of contortions, but it conflicts with no essential doctrine. I do wonder, however, at those who twist themselves like pretzels to avoid the thought that Mary had other children, when scripture plainly says she did.

Well... Scripture also "plainly" says that Abraham and Lot were "brethren", for instance. It also says that we are justified by works, and not by Faith alone (James 2:24). It also says that Scripture can be hard to understand, and that it can be distorted, even unto our own destruction (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16), which means that "plain sense of Scripture" really wouldn't have any meaning, in those cases. Do you see my point?

If you have a beef with Catholicism, you'll need to be specific in what you think is false, and we can pick it apart (if you like). But I assert that you're starting with a great many unwarranted assumptions... which you may never have challenged, before.

“Don’t you realize that you’ve dodged the main point altogether? “

Haven’t. No one needs to believe in “The Trinity” to be saved. If they deny the Trinity, they are wrong, but the revelation of God isn’t exactly exhaustive in this area. In time, a person who studies the scriptures will conclude the Trinity, but no one needs to know it for salvation, and a person can be a Christian for years - or until death - without formulating the Trinity.

“1) Do you, for example, need to understand the necessity of Baptism, in order to be saved? St. Peter says that it is Baptism that saves us (1 Peter 3:21), and Jesus Himself says that we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven without it (John 3:5), so I think I’m safe in calling it important. For instance: would it make a difference if you (personally) are baptized, or not?”

Lets look at John 3 again:

“1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Jesus is talking about the second birth - a man is born, but he must be born again to enter the Kingdom. He must be “born of water and the Spirit”. Why? “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

The water breaks, and the baby is born. But unless one is born again, of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. It takes TWO births - water and spirit.

As John the Baptist put it:

“32And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.””

The baptism of Jesus is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

As Paul wrote:

“2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

That doesn’t mean baptism with water is nothing. I am, after all, a BAPTIST. I believe in following the example we find in Acts, where a believer is baptized with water as soon as water is ready.

“36And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” - Acts 8

“30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” - Acts 16

Now lets look at what Peter wrote:

“...when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”

Notice he says baptism corresponds to the experience of Noah. Water didn’t save Noah from death. It threatened him with death were it not for the Ark. However, water did save him from the evil of the world, taking him away from the sinful society and destroying it in his life.

In corresponding manner, as Peter puts it, baptism saves us from the evil of this world, separating us from it. It isn’t “a removal of dirt from the body”, but “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.

If a man believes in Jesus, even without baptism or a full understanding of the Trinity, then like the thief on the cross, he IS saved. But if we take the example of scripture seriously, when someone converts, we should baptize them right away - not after taking classes, and not waiting for a church service or minister, but right away.

“See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”

You write: “2) Do you, for example, need to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Our Saviour, Jesus Christ, in order to have life within you? (cf. John 6:53) Or doesn’t the “exact definition” matter? (I would think that it would, frankly; if Protestants are wrong about Jesus meaning “acceptance of His Word”, and not a true consumption of the Holy Eucharist, it would seem to make a difference, yes?)”

Yes we do. What did John write?

“35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

So we see that Jesus isn’t referring to the Eucharistic wafer, but coming and believing. “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

It is an error to take “51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” as referring to Eucharist. If it did, we could simply give beggars on the street the wafer & wine, and they would have eternal life. Indeed, since everyone who eats the wafer dies physically, it is wrong to take this as a physical fact, rather than understanding what Jesus meant when he said “I am the bread of life.”

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

As CS Lewis once put it, the scriptures can be understood by a child, but they are not written primarily for children. It takes a hard heart to read John 6 and conclude that Jesus was talking about the Eucharist wafer and wine.

[Paladin] Don’t you realize that you’ve dodged the main point altogether? [Mr Rogers] Haven’t. No one needs to believe in “The Trinity” to be saved.

Perhaps you don't remember your original point? You'd said (in essence), "Please don't tell me that the Catholic Church doesn't create new doctrines; [...] no one formally taught Transubstantiation in 500 A.D.!" I replied, "And no one formally taught the Trinity until at least 325 A.D., and you admit that; so the supposed lateness of the word "transubstantiation" proves nothing". You then went off the tracks and started talking about its necessity for salvation (or lack thereof), which is a completely separate point from the "inventing doctrines" idea.

Now that the topic has been refreshed: could you address the original question (i.e. either offer new evidence that the Church "invents new doctrines", or else retract your statement)?

If they deny the Trinity, they are wrong, but the revelation of God isn’t exactly exhaustive in this area.

It isn't "exactly exhaustive" in numerous areas... including the need for repentance (which I assume you, as a Baptist, think is normative for salvation, yes?); but again, that was light-years from the original point.

In time, a person who studies the scriptures will conclude the Trinity,

(*wry look*) Mm-hmm. Try telling that to the Jews, the Muslims, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Unitarian Pentecostals, and others, all of which have members who've studied the Christian Scriptures. The vast majority of Christendom (i.e. Arianism) rejected the Trinity for generations, as well. You (and I) see it as "self-evident" because it's so familiar to us; but it's not called a "mystery" for nothing; it's hardly intuitive, and hardly self-evident.

[Re: John 3]

Jesus is talking about the second birth - a man is born, but he must be born again to enter the Kingdom. He must be “born of water and the Spirit”. Why? “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The water breaks, and the baby is born. But unless one is born again, of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. It takes TWO births - water and spirit.

:) Sorry for the smile, but... you're the second person to put forth that theory to me, and I really had to struggle to believe that the first fellow was *serious*.

Look... I'll give you full marks for cleverness, but: you're essentially saying that Jesus was being utterly redundant, as a sort of rhetorical flourish. It'd be logically equivalent to saying, "to be saved, you need to exist, and then you need to come to Faith"; no one would argue against it, of course, but it'd be rather pointless to say; it's a tautology. It's like saying, "In order to be an even number, something has to be a number, and then it has to be divisible by two without a remainder." It's true, but the first part isn't worth saying. "Born of water" makes much more sense if you follow what the Apostles and the Early Church *did* with that information: they BAPTIZED. You try to compartmentalize the two (e.g. "born of water" means "coming to Faith", and water Baptism was "just an extra ceremony attached for sentimental/ritualistic reasons"), but that makes a hash out of the "plain sense of Scripture". Jesus commanded us to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Isn't it at least remotely possible, given the "plain sense" of Matthew 28:18-20, that Baptism is a necessary component of *HOW* Jesus expects people to become disciples?

Why set one against the other?

Beyond that: are you unaware of the fact that the early Church was unanimous in disagreeing with you on that point? The Apostles and the Early Church Fathers were all of one mind as to the meaning of the John 3:5 (and similar verses') phrase: water baptism. Nowhere does the Bible limit salvation or "coming into discipleship" to "praying the believer's prayer", or some other variant on "believing on Jesus and being saved". Of *course* that's normative; but that doesn't mean that Baptism is somehow "optional". The latter idea is raw opinion, and the Biblical text doesn't support it at all, above and beyond other (more plausible and historically-supported) options.

So... Jesus said that "being born again of water and the Spirit" was necessary (John 3:5), and Jesus commanded us to Baptize (Matthew 28:18-20), and St. Peter says that Baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21), and the early Church universally accepted this to mean that the graces of Baptism (normatively bestowed in water Baptism) are absolutely necessary for salvation. Compare that to Mr. Rogers, who disagrees, and interprets it differently. Care to explain why I (or anyone else) should take your interpretation as "the right one"?

The baptism of Jesus is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Of course; with Baptism, the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in one's soul.

As Paul wrote: “Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

Er... how on earth do you think this applies to the topic at hand? Unless you can point to baptism as a "requirement for salvation" in the Old Law?

That doesn’t mean baptism with water is nothing. I am, after all, a BAPTIST. I believe in following the example we find in Acts, where a believer is baptized with water as soon as water is ready.

But you don't think it's necessary for salvation? The Early Christians did. Heavens, don't you believe the Nicene Creed? "We believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

“36And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” - Acts 8

Case in point: doesn't this show the urgency and necessity of Baptism? Why didn't St. Philip say, "Yes, yes, Baptism would be nice, but your believer's prayer is all that's necessary for salvation"? Nothing in Acts 8 suggests anything other than the *requirement* of Baptism; the eunuch obviously thought it was fundamental, yes? And St. Philip didn't contradict him or express surprise, did he? You seem to be "going beyond what is written", in order to arrive at your ideas, here.

“30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” - Acts 16

Right. Repentance and belief are necessary (for those who have actual, personal sin), and Baptism (which saves us, cf. 1 Peter 3:21) is also necessary.

“...when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.” Notice he says baptism corresponds to the experience of Noah. Water didn’t save Noah from death. It threatened him with death were it not for the Ark.

Going "THROUGH" water saved him and his family from earthly death; just as going THROUGH the waters of Baptism (think "immersion") saves us from eternal death. Noah's rescue through the flood was a "biblical type" of Baptism; just as the bronze serpent (which "saved" people who looked at it) is a biblical "type" of Christ; just as the Ark of the Covenant is a biblical "type" of the Blessed Virgin Mary; and so on. I'm not sure how that could be made more clear.

However, water did save him from the evil of the world, taking him away from the sinful society and destroying it in his life.

At the risk of belabouring a point: you *do* notice that you're going far beyond the "plain sense" of the text, in order to arrive at your hypothesis? It takes a rather long stretch to arrive at your interpretation (which the text does not confirm).

In corresponding manner, as Peter puts it, baptism saves us from the evil of this world, separating us from it.

Think this through: HOW does it save us from the evil of this world? By what mechanism? And what evil do you mean? Bad example? Jesus warned us that scandals will inevitably come (Luke 17:1); and that the Church will contain both wheat and tares (Matth 13:24-30), both good fish and bad (Matthew 13:47-50). Suffering? He warned that we should not hope to escape suffering and persecution in this world (John 16:33, etc.). Your idea of "saving us from the evil of the world" seems to be a distinction without a difference.

It isn’t “a removal of dirt from the body”, but “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.

Of course; surely you're aware that the Catholic Church doesn't baptize in an effort to cleanse dirt from the body? If a man believes in Jesus, even without baptism or a full understanding of the Trinity, then like the thief on the cross, he IS saved.

Water Baptism is normative, but there are times when it's not possible (e.g. death, unavailability, etc.). In those cases, such people can be granted (by God) the effects of the Sacrament of Baptism, even if the actual Sacrament is not possible. Consider: what's your "take" on the mentally disabled (or infants who die before reaching the age of reason) who cannot make an act of Faith in Jesus? Are they damned? If "believing on Jesus" is necessary, and they don't make such an act, then they cannot be saved (by your schema), yes? Surely you must admit that God, while normatively working through His Sacraments, is not limited to them... just as God normatively works through the laws of physics/nature, while He isn't limited to them (such as in the case of a physical miracle).

But if we take the example of scripture seriously, when someone converts, we should baptize them right away - not after taking classes, and not waiting for a church service or minister, but right away.

All right. What happens to them if you do not? Is there any ill effect? Any threat to salvation?

You write: “2) Do you, for example, need to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Our Saviour, Jesus Christ, in order to have life within you? (cf. John 6:53) Or doesn’t the “exact definition” matter? (I would think that it would, frankly; if Protestants are wrong about Jesus meaning “acceptance of His Word”, and not a true consumption of the Holy Eucharist, it would seem to make a difference, yes?)”

Yes we do. What did John write? “35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” So we see that Jesus isn’t referring to the Eucharistic wafer, but coming and believing.

Perhaps you could explain to me how the two ("coming and believing") and receiving the Holy Eucharist (which can only BE received worthily if one "comes and believes" first; see 1 Corinthians 11:27-30) are somehow mutually exclusive? The Catholic Church does not hand out the Blessed Sacrament to anyone, willy-nilly; prior faith (and Baptism) are absolutely required.

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Yes. So... how does that contradict the Eucharist, and its necessary reception (again, within possible limits; God does not demand the impossible of us, such as in the case of someone who was innocently ignorant of the Eucharist)? See above.

It is an error to take “51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” as referring to Eucharist.

You've stated this as your opinion, already; now, you'll need to prove it, in order to make any headway in this matter.

If it did, we could simply give beggars on the street the wafer & wine, and they would have eternal life.

Nonsense. See above; there's a difference between what's NECESSARY and what's SUFFICIENT. Faith is NECESSARY for salvation, but it is not SUFFICIENT (cf. James 2:24, etc.). Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation, but it is not sufficient. The Holy Eucharist is NECESSARY for salvation, but it is not SUFFICIENT. All of the above can be rendered fruitless by personal sin, subsequent betrayal of the Faith, etc. Knowingly and willfully giving the Holy Eucharist to those who didn't already believe (and who weren't already Baptized) would be a sacrilege, and a grave sin.

Indeed, since everyone who eats the wafer dies physically, it is wrong to take this as a physical fact, rather than understanding what Jesus meant when he said “I am the bread of life.”

Come, now! You know, full well, that the Church refers to "eternal life", "never dying", etc., as spiritual (i.e. heavenly) life, yes?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Keep going:

"53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them." (John 6:53-56)

You might also consult St. Paul on the meaning:

"23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

"27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 11:23-30)

So... to what, exactly, is St. Paul referring, when he speaks of "eating the bread" and "drinking the cup", where eating and drinking the contents unworthily entails sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord?

You might also check the writings of the Apostles:

"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'". (The Didache, Ch. 9:5)

...and the early Church Fathers:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle; from "Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.)

As CS Lewis once put it, the scriptures can be understood by a child, but they are not written primarily for children.

Yes. Care to explain what you're implying, here? I'd rather not guess...

It takes a hard heart to read John 6 and conclude that Jesus was talking about the Eucharist wafer and wine.

With all due respect, friend: this is one of the most arrogant (and illogical) things I've heard you say. Can you not see that an accusation of "hardness of heart" (unless you meant it as an insult, which I assume isn't the case) could be used against anyone, for anything? Would you be convinced if I said the opposite? "It takes a hard heart to read John 6 and conclude that Jesus was not talking about the Eucharist!" Your case isn't made any stronger by this sort of screed.

(N.B. The Precious Blood is no longer "wine"; the wine ceased to exist when it was changed into the Blood of Christ. Thus, Catholics do not refer to the Precious Blood as "wine".")

New doctrine. I used transubstantiation as an example. The doctrine evolved until a new word was needed to describe it, and to define it as essential belief - enough that people were killed for refusing to accept it.

As I pointed out from the Catholic Encyclopedia, ‘sacred tradition’ evolves until it declares what was previously hidden...to put it in very favorable terms. Referring to the Immaculate Conception as an example, it says, “The revealed truth was indeed in the deposit of truth in the Church, but it was not formulated in explicit terms nor even in clearly equivalent terms; it was enveloped in a more general truth (that e.g. of the all-holiness of Mary), the formula of which might be understood in a more or less absolute sense (exemption from all actual sin, exemption even from original sin). On the other hand, this truth (the exemption of Mary from original sin) may seem in at least apparent conflict with other certain truths (universality of original sin, redemption of all by Christ)...Finally scrutinizing with fresh care the deposit of revelation, they there discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed, as far as they were concerned in the more general formula, and, not satisfied to hold it as true, they declared it revealed.”

Yep. Although the Apostle Paul said he taught the whole counsel of God, and John said not to run ahead but to abide in their teaching, the Catholic Church “discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed”.

Please be frank about it. Admit that it is finding things not taught as truth before.

Mark Shea describes it thus: “Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.”

He argues that Paul taught a seed, and from it the Catholic Church has revealed a grown bush. But Paul and John said they taught the whole counsel of God, not fragments. To abide in it, not to grow it.

Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, etc were not revealed by the Apostles.

In his essay “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”, Cardinal Newman wrote:

“In truth, scanty as the Ante-nicene notices may be of the Papal Supremacy, they are both more numerous and more definite than the adducible testimonies in favour of the Real Presence. The testimonies to the latter are confined to a few passages such as those just quoted. On the other hand, of a passage in St. Justin, Bishop Kaye remarks, “Le Nourry infers that Justin maintained the doctrine of Transubstantiation; it might in my opinion be more plausibly urged in favour of Consubstantiation, since Justin calls the consecrated elements Bread and Wine, though not common bread and wine [Note 22] ... We may therefore conclude that, when he calls them the Body and Blood of Christ, he speaks figuratively.” “Clement,” observes the same author, “says that the Scripture calls wine a mystic symbol of the holy blood ... Clement gives various interpretations of Christ’s expressions in John vi. respecting His flesh and blood; but in no instance does he interpret them literally ... His notion seems to have been that, by partaking of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, the soul of the believer is united to the Spirit, and that by this union the principle of immortality is imparted to the flesh.” [Note 23] “It has been suggested by some,” says Waterland, “that Tertullian understood John vi. merely of faith, or doctrine, or spiritual actions; and it is strenuously denied by others.” After quoting the passage, {25} he adds, “All that one can justly gather from this confused passage is that Tertullian interpreted the bread of life in John vi. of the Word, which he sometimes makes to be vocal, and sometimes substantial, blending the ideas in a very perplexed manner; so that he is no clear authority for construing John vi. of doctrines, &c. All that is certain is that he supposes the Word made flesh, the Word incarnate to be the heavenly bread spoken of in that chapter.” [Note 24] “Origen’s general observation relating to that chapter is, that it must not be literally, but figuratively understood.” [Note 25] Again, “It is plain enough that Eusebius followed Origen in this matter, and that both of them favoured the same mystical or allegorical construction; whether constantly and uniformly I need not say.” [Note 26] I will but add the incidental testimony afforded on a late occasion:—how far the Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist depends on the times before the Nicene Council, how far on the times after it, may be gathered from the circumstance that, when a memorable Sermon [Note 27] was published on the subject, out of about one hundred and forty passages from the Fathers appended in the notes, not in formal proof, but in general illustration, only fifteen were taken from Ante-nicene writers.”

Think for a moment about the very TITLE of his essay: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

That is what I’m saying - that Catholic doctrine develops. What wasn’t known, now is - according to Catholics. And while I think Newman wrote it prior to becoming a Catholic, consider Shea’s statement: “Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth...”

Those who say the Constitution is a living document don’t do so because they want to abide in it. They do so to escape it. Think about it.

Regarding baptism, you ask, “Why set one against the other?”

Because Jesus was answering Nicodemus. In context:

“Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’”

Born again. Do you doubt that the FIRST birth Jesus is referring to is physical birth? Born again requires the first birth to be physical birth, and Jesus is saying (to a Jew, remember, one of God’s Chosen People) that it isn’t enough to be born a Jew, but you must be born AGAIN.

To suggest Jesus was interjecting water baptism in the middle of a discussion on needing more that physical birth is silly. Water baptism has no role in the discussion.

You must be born again. Physical birth as a Jew won’t suffice, you must also be born again of the Spirit. Two births - physical, and spiritual.

THAT is why I say the water refers to childbirth. It fits in the context of needing two births.

You write: “Going “THROUGH” water saved him and his family from earthly death; just as going THROUGH the waters of Baptism (think “immersion”) saves us from eternal death.”

No. Noah wasn’t saved from death by water. The threat of death WAS the water - a flood, remember? During a flood, water doesn’t save you from death. It DOES force you to go elsewhere. It separated Noah from the evil world.

In like manner, water baptism doesn’t save us from death, but separates us from the world around us be declaring our repentance and decision to be born again as new creations. It saves us FROM THE WORLD.

As for the Eucharist, Newman makes mention of it above. If it is the wafer and wine that truly becomes the blood and flesh of Jesus, and all who partake are saved, then we could give it to street people and save them apart from their will. It takes a hard heart to believe that Jesus, answering a question of the Jews, was instituting the Eucharist (Thanksgiving) and saying it literally becomes his blood and flesh, and saves anyone who partakes.

So 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.’”

35Jesus said to them, “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. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Jesus is using the miracle of the manna to tell the Jews, in response to their argument, that God HAS sent a sign: Jesus, the Bread of Life. There isn’t a hint of transubstantiation in there...

You might also consult St. Paul on the meaning:

“23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

“27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-30)

So... to what, exactly, is St. Paul referring, when he speaks of “eating the bread” and “drinking the cup”, where eating and drinking the contents unworthily entails sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord?

IN CONTEXT, what you cite follows this:

“17But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.”

They are using the Eucharist as an excuse to show off and to get drunk!

And a few paragraphs later Paul writes, “12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

14For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.”

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

They should be doing it thus: “do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me” and “do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Instead of remember Jesus, and giving thanks (eucharist) for what He did, they profane it by getting drunk, showing off and despising their fellow congregants - the Body of Christ. It is a holy time, not a time for drunken behavior. It despises the sacrifice of Jesus, and it despises his body the Church.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.