Growing up in the church—especially a Southern Baptist church—can delude a person into thinking they are biblically literate. I grew up in the church and became convinced that the countless Sunday School lessons had taught me almost everything I needed to know about the Bible. I could recount, as told through the medium of flannelgraph, all the stories of Samson, Noah, David, and the other Great Heroes of the Old Testament. I also knew the story of Jesus and could tell you all about St. Paul, at least up to the part about the shipwreck and snakebite. After that the action slowed down and I lost interest in the narrative. But I figured since most of the stuff in the back of the book was mostly letters it couldn’t be that important anyway.
It wasn’t until I reached adulthood that I realized my knowledge of the Book of Revelation was based more on The Omen (the original, nor the remake) and Hal Lindsey’s books than on the actual text. I was quite surprised to discover that the words “antichrist” and “rapture” are not found in that book and that it was spelled "Revelation" (singular) rather than "Revelations" (plural).
Such misperceptions, however, are not uncommon. Even those who are more biblically literate than I will ever be sometimes make such mistakes. My friend Tim Challies, for instance, provides a regrettable example of such an error. In a recent post, Tim defends a quote by Robert Murray M'Cheyne that claims the Roman Catholic Church is the “Beast of Revelation”:
M'Cheyne is by no means unique in suggesting that the beast is none other than the Roman Catholic Church. One could easily argue that this is nothing more than the consensus of historic Protestantism.
When I was a member of the First Church of Hellfire and Brimstone, I do recall hearing similar claims. (1) But to call this view the “consensus of historic Protestantism” is a rather bold assertion that must be backed up by a strong argument. Unfortunately, Tim does not provide the required justification:
I'd like to take a look at what some great Protestants of days past have had to say about the beast of Revelation. As you read, remember that we tend to misrepresent the meaning of the prefix "anti-" in the word "antichrist." We most often think of the prefix "anti-" as meaning "against," but in context of antichrist it actually means "in place of." So these men were not looking for someone or something that sought to fight explicitly against Christ (such as the Muslim faith) but something or someone that sought to set itself up in place of Christ.
Tim’s clarification that “anti” means “in place of” rather than “against” is helpful, though I personally believe that the prefix may be validly used in both senses. Unfortunately, he follows up this insight with a form of argument that is terribly muddled. Tim's primary premise could be outlined as:
The Beast of Revelation (a) is an Antichrist (b)
The papacy (c) is an antichrist (b)
The Beast of (a) Revelation is the papacy (c)
This would be an invalid form, akin to saying:
Joe (a) is a mammal (b)
A monkey (c) is a mammal (b)
Joe (a) is a monkey (c)
For Tim’s form to be logically valid he would have to say:
All antichrists are the Beast of Revelation. (P --> Q) The papacy is an antichrist. (P)
Therefore, the papacy is the Beast of Revelation. (Q)
Although this is a valid argument, the premise is unbiblical (and, I would claim, unsound). While it can be inferred that the Beast of Revelation belongs in the category of antichrists, the Bible is clear that not all antichrists are the Beast of Revelation (See: 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; and 2 John 1:7)
Tim goes on to quote Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Thomas Cranmer, Roger Williams, Cotton Mather, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, and the Westminster Confession of Faith claiming that either the Catholic Church or the papacy is the antichrist. What none of them claim--at least not in these quotes—is that the papacy is the Beast of Revelation. This invalidates his primary support since these two terms are neither synonymous nor interchangeable.
While it is possible that all of these great thinkers could have committed a logical fallacy by intending to say what Tim claims, I think it is more reasonable and generous to assume (and I hope that Tim would agree) that my friend is the one in error.
There is, however, another reason that I think this argument is faulty. I believe it is unwarranted to associate the Beast of Revelation with an institution, whether individual (i.e., the papacy) or collective (e.g., the Catholic Church). The key text is Revelation 19:20:
But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
Can an institution or collective be “thrown alive into the fiery lake?” To be honest, I don’t know enough about apocalyptic imagery to know if institutions can be treated as if they were individuals. My guess, based on the perspicuity of scripture, is that it cannot. (2) Still, I’d be open to hearing hermeneutical arguments to the contrary.
Near his concluding remarks, Tim admits that,
…I am not arguing that I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the beast of Revelation, but am saying that one could make such an argument and make it forcefully. And of course, through the history of the church, many have made that argument.
For the reasons outlined above, I don’t believe the argument can be made logically, much less forcefully. But I don’t want to chastise Tim too harshly, especially since he admits that (like me) he has “never invested a lot of time or effort in examining the evidence” for eschatological positions. I hope that he will reconsider his post, and keep in mind the sage words he quotes from Stephen Nichols: "Overcoming what one brings to the text is, as many contemporary writings on hermeneutics conclude, not so easy, if even possible. Nonetheless, a reading of the text that is governed by what we bring to the text as opposed to what we find in the text is likely to lead to a misreading of the text."
Notes:
(1) My own view is that since there can be “many antichrists” it is possible that some individual Popes could rightfully be described as an “antichrist.” But as much as I disagree with the office of the papacy, I’m not sure the institution conveys that status on every Pope.
(2) Since I’m guessing, I would also add that my suspected candidate for the “Beast of Revelation” is Nero.
Joe, it's interesting that "Caesar Nero," when spelled in Hebrew, is also the numeric 666. That's not arbitrary either. Hebrew, like Latin, uses its alphabet as its numbering system. There's no need to make A = 1, B = 2, etc.
You mentioned that the words "rapture" and "antichrist" are not used in Revelation, yet they are big key words for the rapture crowd, which, by the way, includes 99% of my relatives. Yet the same crowd ignores (or tortures) the text that IS there, such as the very first verse of Revelation, which refers to its contents as "things that must soon take place." How incredible that by "soon" John meant events some two thousand years (and counting) later!
umm... joe?, ducks are not mammals.
Other wise as usual the post is cool.
Read history, Joe, and learn what the Beast of Rome does to Christians who don't conform to its darkness and bondage and false doctrine when it has the power to wield fire and sword. It's like Islam: when it currently has no power it speaks in the language of peace and love. Once it feels it has an upper hand the bloody fangs and claws show themselves.
Joe, have you read "The Last Disciple?" I've seen the book, browsed the cover description, but not yet bought it. Based on what you said about Nero, sounds like you'd agree with the book's premise.
While I don't spend a lot of time zeroing in on the details of Revelation (...anymore...), I do find it interesting how the text could have had a then-present as well as a future application, as did many of David's Psalms and some of the major OT prophets.
I think Revelation has application to all places where the church is persecuted and cries out to God for deliverance. Modern relevance would be places like N. K. with the symbols not hard to decipher.
"when it currently has no power it speaks in the language of peace and love. Once it feels it has an upper hand the bloody fangs and claws show themselves."
Unfortunately that seems all too true about most of our human institutions. I believe Lord Acton had something to say along those lines.
According to Challies' definition of anti-Christ, could not the Holy Spirit be an anti-Christ?
I know it's complicated because of 3 in 1, but
John 16:7
"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."
Joe,
I think you want
The Beast of (a) Revelation is the papacy (b)
to say
The Beast of (a) Revelation is the papacy (c)
Hi Joe...great topic. I'm wondering though if you forgot to insert a quote after "Near his concluding remarks, Tim admits that," in the second to last paragraph?
If we're voting, I vote for Nero as the Beast of Revelation, too.
//Joe Says:
There is, however, another reason that I think this argument is faulty. I believe it is unwarranted to associate the Beast of Revelation with an institution, whether individual (i.e., the papacy) or collective (e.g., the Catholic Church). The key text is Revelation 19:20:
But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
Can an institution or collective be “thrown alive into the fiery lake?” To be honest, I don’t know enough about apocalyptic imagery to know if institutions can be treated as if they were individuals.
//the end
Oh dear, Joe. I don't know where to start. Maybe you should go back to reading Hal Lindsay if you're going to treat the Bible like pulp-fiction and make arguments based on what beings/concepts can or cannot be thrown into a lake of fire. Oh, and maybe you've figured out how many angels can fit on a pin. If you have, let us know, ok?
a very interesting post. The Book of Revelation began to make sense to me when I read Scott Hahn's book, The Lamb's Supper (basically a re-statment of Church teaching as found in the Early Fathers and the Catechism.) It has quickened the heart of many a Catholic I know because we intuitively recognize the truth, the beauty, the internal consistency with the rest of Scripture, in this liturgical understanding of the text. The Mass as "heaven on earth" comes alive. It seems that those raised in non-liturgical demoninations, unbound by any final authority on interpretation, will just keep throwing darts at the board on this one.
Anne, Anne, Anne... I don't know how ecumenical and polite Joe's site is, so I'll err on the side of caution...and just say: God bless...
Since I keep getting an "internal server error" when I try to leave a trackback here, consider this a trackback to my own opinion: What's the point? Here's the obligatory tease:
Having read the post under attack, I didn't get the sense that Tim was distancing himself from the teaching that the RCC is the Beast, antichrist, whore of Babylon, or whatever. Rightly or wrongly, the rule of the cyberchurch seems to be that of lawyers: "he who is silent is presumed to agree." We are all held accountable (online) as much for what we don't say as we are for what we do say. I'm not saying that's right, but only that it is.
Personally, I could care less who has believed what historically: the value of a knowledge of church history and historical theology is to avoid the mistakes of the past and to realize that your "new idea" is not new at all and has probably been deemed heretical by a council long ago.
BTW, if we were to give weight to the preponderance of church teachings in the past, then by rights we should all be members of the RCC: they have always greatly outnumbered us and can claim far more "authoritative" writers and theologians from their past than we Protestants could ever hope to adduce.
But, as I say in my own post, I think the whole thing is a waste of time. You would have to read my post to understand why, but suffice it to say that there's virtually no benefit to the argument at all.
>BTW, if we were to give weight to the preponderance of church teachings in the past, then by rights we should all be members of the RCC: they have always greatly outnumbered us
What does God care about numbers? Remember what he did with David when David thought it was numbers that mattered when God's people took to the field of battle.
God's remnant never has 'numbers' on the world, but it doesn't need numbers against the world.
When you first establish that the Apostle Peter was never in Rome, then you can begin to understand that Peter was not the founder of the Catholic Church. So who was the "Peter" that founded the Catholic Church? Simon Magus. Davidson's Hebrew Lexicon show that the consonantal word p-t-r (Peter) means "to interpret". Simon Magus interpreted early Christianity and adultrated it.
There is plenty of Biblical evidence that Simon Magus was in Rome at the founding of the CC, and none that the Apostle Peter was ever there, ever! Simon Magus was influenced by the miracles that Philip performed and decided to take his Mystery Babylon religion, and adopt some nominally Christian attributes.
Dumpster Juice - That's the most ridiculous statement I've read all day (and I've read some whoppers today!). No credible historian, Protestant or Catholic, would endorse such a view. It's pure nonsense.
the book of Revelatiion is what it says it is, "the revelation of Jesus Christ." It encompasses all of time but the first chapter are about what happened back when John wrote it. The letters to the churches were the letters to those churches. As with the prophets there's a whole bunch of symbolic metaphorical language. no one takes it literally even the dispensationalist that say they do.
When I first became a believer I poured over the New Testament over and over again. All my new friends were dispensationalists and all the teaching I received was dispensational. I could not for the life of me see how we could be reading the same Bible.
This is a rather instructive thread - particularly the comments section. Even with the great strides in Protestant and Catholic relations this century (especially in the pro-life movement), it would appear that old hatreds and prejudices die hard - even for Christians.
Christaan:
You wrote,
If you read my comment again - not to mention my post - I think you'll realize that that is exactly what I am saying: if numbers matter then we should all be Catholics. What did you think I was saying?
Tope-
I am willing to accept your assertion that my comment is "pure nonsense", if you can provide me with the Biblical evidence that the Apostle Peter was EVER in Rome.
Otherwise your comment is "pure nonsense" because you did not refute mine with EVIDENCE. You offered a conclusion and a presumption without any substance.
Yes, let's ignore the overwhelming anount of historical evidence re: Peter's residency in Rome:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp
But whatever, here is a Bible verse on point (not that you will accept it):
"'The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark' (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that 'It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.'"
For more information on this issue, please read the complete entry at this link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp
It really is amazing, you know. The world is going to Hell in a handbasket, and the fundies want to continue spewing historically-discredited talking points about the "Whore of Babylon." It really is quite sad.
Dumpster Juice - given that the weight of history and Church tradition is on my side, I think the burden of proof lies with you. Can you offer any shred of evidence that Simon Magus founded the Catholic Church? Come on now.
I don't particularly believe that "the Antichrist" is a particular Pope or the Papacy itself (although I also don't discount that possibility). But since you're taking Tim Challies to task, you need to know that your own post is riddled with problems.
First of all, the whole aside involving Tim's definition of "Antichrist" is irrelevant. As you state, "the prefix may be validly used in both senses." Tim only makes that digression in order to secure a hearing for the possibility that the Antichrist may come from within the professing Christian Church.
Second, if you're going to restrict the term "Antichrist" only to specific references within scripture using that term, then a quick Bible search will reveal that there are only four uses of that term in Scripture, all Johannine references. John refers both to the belief that a specific "Antichrist" will come, and then enlarges it to refer to anyone who denies that Jesus came from God and came in the flesh. It is quite clear from the quotations from important Protestant leaders (which are relevant) that this restrictive a use of the term "antichrist" was not what those leaders had in mind. Most refer specifically to the Antichrist, not an antichrist or the "spirit of" antichrist, as does John. Others refer to specific passages, such as Calvin, who refers to 2 Thess. 2, where the term "antichrist" is not found, but rather "man of lawlessness." Knox refers to the "very antichrist...of whom Paul speaks," although Paul never used the term. Wesley's notes on Rev. 13:1 frankly state, "The beast is the Romish Papacy."
I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that Paul's "man of lawlessness" has not historically been identified with the Beast of Revelation and called by John's term "the Antichrist." Otherwise, I think you in fact are charging "that all of these great thinkers [...] have committed a logical fallacy by intending to say what Tim claims." Tim does not in fact try to argue that the Papacy is the Antichrist; only that pivotal figures in the Protestant movement have thought so. You have quibbled with his terms, but haven't disproved his argument.
I seriously recommend that you read Tim's post today. He clarifies what he was trying to do by yesterday's Post.
Blessings!
I'm getting really confused. I thought it had been definitively proved that Barney the Dinosaur was the Antichrist. Did I miss something?
I've also learned that when a Jehovah's Witness or other evangelist knocks on my door, it's good to tell them: "I'll be back soon, and I mean soon in the same way Jesus did in Revelation."
http://www.historicist.com/articles2/peter.htm
First, as an Evangelical Minister, let me thank you for addressing this subject. Every generation of Christians has believed that they would be the last. As a result, every generation has thought that those the struggled against either were the anti-Christ or would soon give rise to Him. Good theologians have thought that Mohammad, the Pope and Communism were the Anti-Christ - and at least linked them to the beast.
And here’s a challenge to those who want to quote Luther, Knox, Calvin and Wesley: Every one of these men taught that the Church would suffer through the tribulation. Why are the authoritative when it comes to the Pope – but not authoritative when it comes to the tribulation?
Then there are the popular writers. Sadly for many popular writers, the fall of Communism required major overhauls of their prophetic calendars and presented the danger that people might actually read one of their old books……..of course many have lived personal lives that would get them drummed out of a typical fundamentalist church – let alone removed from ministry.
I personally find much to admire in SOME Catholics. As a member of a conservative Methodist Denomination I remember that Wesley was always quick to point out that many Catholics would be saved as a result of their faith in Christ. I also know that Wesley is greatly admired by many Catholics. Do I have issues - theological differences with the Catholic Church? Yes - absolutely. But if I found myself living in a community with two churches - one a liberal Protestant Church that denies the 5 fundamentals and the other a conservative Catholic Church that affirms them - look for me at the Catholic Church.
In regards to Peter having been in Rome - virtually all serious scholars believe that Peter wrote from Rome (Babylon in 2 Pet 5:13). However this does not prove he served as Bishop or that the Bishop of Rome served as Pope with the kind of authority the Pope has today.
That's how I see it.....
I'm not sure how you define "serious scholar," Vince, but I would suggest that the vast majority of scholars who approach the matter objectively do not accept the view that 2 Peter was actually written by Peter.
Actually, ex-preacher, Vince has the citation wrong. It's 1 Peter 5:13, not 2 Peter. There is no Chapter 5 in 2 Peter!
Ex-preach:
Thanks for the heads up on 2 Peter... Based on your scholarly assertion that Peter didn't write it, I've ripped the book out of my bible and burned it. Whew, that was close... I almost accepted Second Pete as part of the canon of scripture or something!
Barney?
The great 20th century scholar Dr. J. Fawell thinks it's Tinky Winky.
And the great 20th century scholar Dr. J. Dobson thinks it's Spongebob Squarepants.
As long as we get to vote, it shouldn't matter who gets elected as the Beast of Revelation. If you want to campaign for Ceasar Nero, fine by me. Can you tell me, was he a Democrat, Republican, Independent? I usually vote a straight ticket since it saves me time reading through all the campaign brochures.
Of course if Tim Challies can prove that the Beast of Revelation can be a collective institution, I'm voting for the country of Canada.
>If you read my comment again - not to mention my post - I think you'll realize that that is exactly what I am saying: if numbers matter then we should all be Catholics. What did you think I was saying?
Mike, I realized that after I posted it. Apologies...
As to institutions being treated as individuals... Certainly there are some cases in Hebrew prophecy where nations are metaphorically handled as individuals. A recent example I came across was Assyria being sent to Sheol in Ezekiel 31.
Joe:
A few comments, and here I speak as an Evangelical who had most of his sub-university schooling in Catholic institutions. [And yes, one was a Jesuit school . . . for all you conspiracy fanatics out there . . .]
1] Antichrist
Here, we should take our cue from the Elder John, in 1 Jn 4:
That is, false/counterfeit messianism is rooted in a spirit that was already active by the close of C1. BTW, I have literally had a false religious leader make the declaration in v 3 to me in the presence of witnesses. I promptly went to this passage and warned those who were onlooking.
From time to time, too, when certain churches became powerful they have been tempted to abuse that power and have come uncomfortably close to the summaries in the Bible of what the Antichrist or beast would be like. A sad fact, and one that we need to learn from.
Thankfully, it is also true that Christians acting in light of the Bible and those influenced by them have made a material contribution to the rise of liberty in the modern world.
2] 2 Peter
The New Bible Dictionary observes of this Epistle:
Plainly, there is a debate [and there has long been a debate], but there is good reason to accept the authenticity of the epistle. Of course as well, THIS is the epistle that most strongly denounces making up mysths and false teachers in the NT. Indeed, here is an excerpt from how I cited it on the DVC:
He also ringingly endorses Paul [Cf Ac 15!] and rounds off by warning:
Not exactly the likely subject matter of an "honest" writer under an assumed name. Nor the likely focus of a dishonest, Gnostic fraud. But, VERY consistent with a rushed-off last letter by one about to be put to death by Nero. [One only hopes that Silas escaped harm!]
No great surprise, then, that many who wish to assign much of the NT to non-eyewitmness sources and thence demote them to the staytus of C2 Gnostic frauds, are very quick to dismiss 2 pet. I simply note in addition, that too often the sort of scholarly opinion cited above is rooted in selective hyperskepticism rather than any truly solid case.
3] Eschatology
There are many schools of thought, and in fact that is to be expected, as God is not exactly gpoing to give out the detailed blueprint on the future -- that would change its path!
What we have to do is focus on unity on essentials, allow room on secondary points, and in all things live by charity.
++++++++
Grace to all
Gordon
Glenn,
I would never advise someone to tear pages out of a book. It can ruin the binding.
As far as burning the pages, I don't see the point in that. Even though 2 Peter was not written by the apostle Peter, it still can be interesting and even useful reading. Burning books or pages out of a book smacks of the type of paranoia of different opinions practiced by the Nazis and some religious extremists. The written word won't hurt you, but it can make you uncomfortable and even affect your thinking. Besides, if you're going to dispose of paper, I would suggest recycling.
I'm flattered that you are so willing to easily accept what I say. But I would strongly advise that you not unquestioningly accept the word of any single person. Even the people you love and trust may be wrong on some things. I would suggest that you research the matter carefully yourself, being sure to expose yourself to differing opinions and keeping in mind the bias of various experts. As much as possible, look to the evidence itself and use common sense.
Cheers
Gordon,
//What we have to do is focus on unity on essentials, allow room on secondary points, and in all things live by charity.//
Even though I suspect you're Canadian (Sorry, don't know any non-Canadian's named Gordon, well except maybe Jeff Gordon, and that doesn't count because it's a sir name), I like the way you think. Therefore I've reconsidered voting for Canada and will instead vote for the zip code assigned to Michael Moore.
I have always wondered why debate about the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother even occurs. I mean either she is or she isn't. Oh I know at the root of it, it may cause some to change their view on the character of God. However, my own personal belief on this matter doesn't change truth, nor does scripture indicate that it's required for salvation. Truth in essentials and Grace everywhere else!
Joe,
You might be on the wrong track here. We catholics aren't the beast. I thought we are the "whore of Bablyon".
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_04.asp
Posts like this are why I still read you after converting to the catholic church just over a year ago. I like that you value the logic of your positions over passion of theological differences.
Dan:
Nope, I'se be a JEWMAKIE. [Jamaican, and Montserrat belonger.] The Gordon is there because of family tradition on naming sons: it was my Grandmother's family name. There is a reported connexion to a national hero.
The debate oin the Blessed Mother is long and sometimes tredious. The standard protestant comment is of course the townspeople's remark on Jesus' brothers and sisters. The former include James and Jude.
I also note Ex's usual insistence on his partyline re 2 Peter. I have given enough that others can see that the case is not as cut and dry as he asserts.
Grace to all
Gordon
PS; I should add that the first remark is an allusion to my family's long residence in Barbados, during which I attended school and met my Montserratian wife 20 years ago: I am using bajan dialect to describe my Jamaican nationality . . .
Dan,
I agree that on the list of things Catholics and Protestants disagree about, Mary's perpetual virginity is pretty far down on the list. We have much bigger fish to fry.
It's not an issue that should divide us, but as a matter of curiosity, I can tell you some ways it might impact my faith as a Catholic.
The reason this is relevant is because of what happens at the cross. Jesus says to John, here is your mother. If Mary had other children to care for her, why would this only be an earthly needs...look after my Mom request? There are many meanings to her perpetual virginity. One is that instead of being biological mother to children (other than Jesus) she is the spiritual mother to all of us, Jesus gave her to us at the cross.
It's not as if giving her virginity up in relations with Joseph would have been in any way dirty or bad, but it points to something higher.. the spiritual motherhood. The same for celibate nuns, priests, and brothers. We are the Bride of Christ. Not getting married doesn't say anything bad about marriage and sex, but a celibate is saying "I'm giving up the good in order to be a pointer to something even better in the next world." It points us toward the heavenly union with our Bridegroom Christ that we all long for.
And yet, marriage does the same thing. They are complimentary vocations, both pointing to a heavenly reality.
For a Catholic parent, celebrating the virginity of Mary is another aid in teaching your kids the value of virginity (whether that be until you're married or lifelong). Virginity is riduculed in the culture. But perpetual virginity and celibacy is a witness to the world that we say that SEX is not the be-all end-all of existence. It's a great thing, but not as great as eternity with God. To clarify, you can certainly get married and still have eternity with God. But being celibate sends puts the question in observers' minds... "what could be so great that you'd be willing to give up sex?" The answer: God.
On the surface, some Scripture passages mentioned above make it seem very obvious that Mary had other biological children.
I grew up R.C., then became an Evangelical protestant for 7 years. Those verses about Jesus' brothers made me think "man, the Catholic Church sure doesn't value Scripture very highly when there is such an obvious contradiction to their theology".
Then, when God showed me He wanted me to return to the R.C.C., I came across some very good exegetical original language stuff about why brothers really could mean cousins. (A study of the places James' is mentioned in the Bible and who his mother is also offers some clues.) I also came across an alternative explanation from some early Church Fathers who maintained that Joseph had children from a previous marriage and was a widower. Those brothers of Jesus, then, would be step-brothers.
This makes sense then why Luther and the other reformers maintained the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity.
All this is to say that I was humbled "oh, I guess the Catholic Church doesn't just ignore inconvenient passages of Scripture and maybe 2000 years has given the Church an edge over me in Bible interpretation."
Elwood:
You have raised several interesting points. The point is, though, that the most natural reading of the passage is that the citizens of Nazareth were discussing the children of Joseph and Mary.
the point here is CONTEXT, not technical translation of possible meanings of words. the principle is that if the natural sense makes sense relative tothe known facts and the enral use of language seek no subtler interpretation.
But, that is very much a case of second things should be kept as second things. First things first!
GEM
16/06/2006 14:08:35Tramadol
Gordon,
Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure what "enral" means but I'd like to challenge the rest of your statement:
"if the natural sense makes sense relative to the known facts and the enral use of language seek no subtler interpretation."
The problem is that the natural sense in the English translation may not even be the same as the natural sense in a Spanish translation. So it's always relavent to look at the Greek & Aramaic languages (and Hebrew for OT).
The challenge is always when to take literally and when to seek a subtler interpretation. In the latter part of John 6, I could argue that Catholics do just that (the former). In context of not just chapter 6 but the entire Gospel of John, and the context of the entire Bible when you consider Passover and the Last Supper, Catholics accept the natural meaning of "My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" and seek no subtler meaning.
Secondly, I'll challenge that it wasn't "the children of Joseph and Mary" but Jesus' relatives that were the subject. "Only in his hometown, *among his relatives* and in his own house...". We also know that Jewish households consisted many times of extended families, not like here in America where it is just Ma, Pa, and the kids.
This is really a good example of the different results of Sola Scriptura (with the H.S. guiding the individual) vs. the Catholic approach of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium guided by the Holy Spirit.
A Sola Scriptura adherent would say "what's to be gained, why examine something that's not obvious in Scripture? If God wanted us to know it, He'd have put it in Scripture".
A Catholic would say "we've known this all along by Tradition informing our understanding of Scripture. Why discard something now that the early Church believed just because it's not explicit in Scripture?"
Elwood
First apology on typo for GENERAL.
Second, please re-read: what are trhe villagers trying to say -- that they know this man and his family including siblings. THAT is the sense of relatives that is material.
More than that I will not get into a long engagement on a side point.
Grace
Gordon
Elwood
A second thought or two:
The RC transubstantiation reading of the Communion is precisely a case in point of a subtlety where one is simply not needed: Jesus spoke metaphorically. ( All that meieval phil stuff about essences and accidents is revealing on the underlying problem.)
The claim "the early church believed" is of course in a context that fails to distingusih between what was apostolic: the NT and what was post apostolic and demonstrably of inferior quality and marked by major disagreements on a great many key points. The Sola Scriptura -- sacra scriptura sui interpres -- sensus naturalis -- grammatico-comntextual-historical apprach reckons with these factors.
Okay, nuff said for now.
Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
On the idea that the Beast of Revelation 13 is Nero: The historical evidence is overwhelming that Revelation was written around A.D. 95. Since Revelation 4-22 is about "things which must be hereafter" (4:1), the Beast could not be Nero, who died around A.D. 70 or so.
Jim Hagan: I grinned when I read your post about how you can't see how dispensationalists are reading the same Bible as you. I'm not sure if I'm a dispensationalist, but I'm definitely premillenial and futurist. Anyway, I've had similar thoughts, only about non-futurists like you, rather than dispensationalists. :)
Revelation does have symbolism, but that doesn't mean you can spiritualize it (applying it to "all of time"). You still have to be consistent and logical. Besides, past prophetic fulfillments (about the first coming) have been very literal. Jesus was born in literal Bethlehem, rode into literal Zion (Jerusalem) on a literal donkey, etc., etc.
Hi MJ
You are right that AD 95 or so is a favoured date for Rev. The apparent reference to nero is to the Nero redivivus legend circulating at the time -- an idea that Nero would return/had returned.
Recall Nero was the first major persecutor of the church from the Imperial throne, so to speak. Domitian was the second. The parallels would have been all too vivid.
You are right on the issue that biblical prophecies are often amazingly literally fulfilled in the end, and also that there are pattern/partial fulfillments at other times. [My favourite explanation for that is that human nature is sadly all to predictable and the devil is not particularly innovative -- ir iuis it that he knbows that what worked way back still works well enough now . . .]
All the best
Gordon
Gordon,
I sometimes wonder if the Protestant Bible version of the Gospel of John chapter 6 ends at verse 50. If it did, then your position would be the natural sense. When Jesus says "I am the bread of life" and the Jews later grumble about Him because He said "I am the bread that came down from heaven" (v.41), I could see how that exchange could be taken as metaphor. But it doesn't stop there!
How can "my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink" (v.55) be a metaphor? Especially since some of His followers had already said "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (v.52). Don't you see? The very question you have was the question on the mouths of the Jews. And Jesus didn't correct them saying He was only speaking metaphorically. No, He reinforces it more forcefully:
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
He reiterates a literal interpretation at least 3 or 4 times.
I challenge you to read the 2nd half of chapter 6 again and ask yourself: Since God "sets the rules", theoretically He could have set up Communion as a real presense of Christ, just as the Catholics maintain (even if we're wrong about everything else, maybe we just got lucky on this one). Since Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox and others also have some form of the same belief, maybe it's possible Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically. If so, what standard am I holding Jesus' words to in this passage? What would He have had to say to convince me He was speaking literally? I contend that if His words above aren't enough, then there is nothing He could have said to meet that standard.
As far as apostolic, Paul also teaches this in 1st Corinthians. I challenge you to find any quotation within Christianity from NT until the Enlightenment of a Christian who didn't teach the real presense of Christ. It is very easy to find agreement in the Church on this. Even Luther 1500 years later still believed in consubstantiation.
Gordon,
I sometimes wonder if the Protestant Bible version of the Gospel of John chapter 6 ends at verse 50. If it did, then your position would be the natural sense. When Jesus says "I am the bread of life" and the Jews later grumble about Him because He said "I am the bread that came down from heaven" (v.41), I could see how that exchange could be taken as metaphor. But it doesn't stop there!
How can "my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink" (v.55) be a metaphor? Especially since some of His followers had already said "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (v.52). Don't you see? The very question you have was the question on the mouths of the Jews. And Jesus didn't correct them saying He was only speaking metaphorically. No, He reinforces it more forcefully:
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
He reiterates a literal interpretation at least 3 or 4 times.
I challenge you to read the 2nd half of chapter 6 again and ask yourself: Since God "sets the rules", theoretically He could have set up Communion as a real presense of Christ, just as the Catholics maintain (even if we're wrong about everything else, maybe we just got lucky on this one). Since Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox and others also have some form of the same belief, maybe it's possible Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically. If so, what standard am I holding Jesus' words to in this passage? What would He have had to say to convince me He was speaking literally? I contend that if His words above aren't enough, then there is nothing He could have said to meet that standard.
As far as apostolic, Paul also teaches this in 1st Corinthians. I challenge you to find any quotation within Christianity from NT until the Enlightenment of a Christian who didn't teach the real presense of Christ. It is very easy to find agreement in the Church on this. Even Luther 1500 years later still believed in consubstantiation.
Gordon,
I sometimes wonder if the Protestant Bible version of the Gospel of John chapter 6 ends at verse 50. If it did, then your position would be the natural sense. When Jesus says "I am the bread of life" and the Jews later grumble about Him because He said "I am the bread that came down from heaven" (v.41), I could see how that exchange could be taken as metaphor. But it doesn't stop there!
How can "my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink" (v.55) be a metaphor? Especially since some of His followers had already said "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (v.52). Don't you see? The very question you have was the question on the mouths of the Jews. And Jesus didn't correct them saying He was only speaking metaphorically. No, He reinforces it more forcefully:
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
He reiterates a literal interpretation at least 3 or 4 times.
I challenge you to read the 2nd half of chapter 6 again and ask yourself: Since God "sets the rules", theoretically He could have set up Communion as a real presense of Christ, just as the Catholics maintain (even if we're wrong about everything else, maybe we just got lucky on this one). Since Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox and others also have some form of the same belief, maybe it's possible Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically. If so, what standard am I holding Jesus' words to in this passage? What would He have had to say to convince me He was speaking literally? I contend that if His words above aren't enough, then there is nothing He could have said to meet that standard.
As far as apostolic, Paul also teaches this in 1st Corinthians. I challenge you to find any quotation within Christianity from NT until the Enlightenment of a Christian who didn't teach the real presense of Christ. It is very easy to find agreement in the Church on this. Even Luther 1500 years later still believed in consubstantiation.
Apologies, don't know how that happened.... 3 posts. I checked and my previous one wasn't there, tried again and I had 3.
Elwood
I have no interest in pointless disputes over minor points.
I have pointed out that the claims over essentia and accidentia are plainly matters of the philosophy of the middle ages and various associated disputes. I will only point out that in a case of my knowledge one who became an atheist tested the host with the standard tests for starch, and of course came up with a starch result. [I pointed out to him the subtlety in the Catholic claims. I will not go into the follies over crumbs of the hoist and drops of the wine etc etc. That rhetoric and dispute will do no good in this blog or anywhere else to my knowledge. ]
My material point is that we can easily enough see that bread and wine are just that, and that this is in the context of the Passover supper. In that context, Jesus is institutiing a new symbolic meal, and there is good reason to so understand the language he used.
I refuse to flog adead horse any further. the material question is whether you are a penitent sinner under new management by our Lord and Saviour Jesus the risen Christ. After that I will not get into foolish disputes.
Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
Elwood
First, there seems to be a congestion problem at EO, especially in the mornings. If you try a post hold oiff for a couple of hours and see if it went through after all -- this AM a post of mine went through after it told me it had thrown a server error no 500.
But also, please note I have no interest in disputes over minor points. Too much is at stake in the Western vcivilisation's culture war for hearts minds and souls to waste ammo on minor issues.
I have pointed out that the claims over essentia and accidentia are plainly matters of the philosophy of the middle ages and various associated disputes. I will only point out that in a case of my knowledge one who became an atheist tested the host with the standard tests for starch, and of course came up with a starch result. [I pointed out to him the subtlety in the Catholic claims. I will not go into the follies over crumbs of the hoist and drops of the wine etc etc. That rhetoric and dispute will do no good in this blog or anywhere else to my knowledge. ]
My material point is that we can easily enough see that bread and wine are just that, and that this is in the context of the Passover supper. In that context, Jesus is institutiing a new symbolic meal, and there is good reason to so understand the language he used.
The material question is whether you, or I or many others are penitent sinners under new management by our Lord and Saviour Jesus the risen Christ.
Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
Absolutely, I agree. Hopefully our discussion hasn't elevated to a dispute. :-) I do enjoy looking at Scripture and evaluating some of these matters where there isn't agreement. I learn something almost every time when there is good civil discussion.
I'll close it out with this, I wonder if that atheist would want to perform any sort of scientific tests on Jesus' actual body if He appeared to him today. Maybe do some DNA i.d. experiments to see if there was any validity to Jesus' claim to be God.
"...penitent sinners under new management by our Lord and Saviour Jesus the risen Christ."
Amen - always important to be reminded of that.
God bless